Recent content by Faolyn

Well, he's certainly no grasshopper mouse. (warning: link is to a Nat Geo mini-doc and therefore contains wild animals doing wild animal things)

Sure. And I never said that they had to work in all campaigns. What I've been talking about is the incorrect idea that they are always bad and illogical because certain DMs have decided that they can't work in a few very specific circumstances--even though there are logical ways for them to...

I'm not resentful when the bard takes game time to recite poems and sagas that the player actually wrote. I'm not resentful when the cleric takes game time to have vision (or actual) quests. I'm not resentful when the fighter takes game time to explore his background (the player went for...

Exactly my point. They don't stop working. (And I'd say that 1st-level spells do get used a lot, because some DMs believe that if you have to have the PCs use all or almost all of their resources each adventuring day, and that would include those first-level slots.) Well, there's assumption...

You'd think that they'd say that, then. There's literally nothing either in the backgrounds or in the text leading up to them that says "these are only meant to be effective when you're just starting out." I think it's reasonable to assume that a typical PC would need to use them less and less...

Because you're not teleconferencing. You're in the area. You know people local to that area. Although this would cover using magic for long-distance communication, which would be teleconferencing. And yet it's not written that way, in large part because it would make half the background...

Whereas to me, the logical reading is "local to where you are." Otherwise it would read something like "local to your home area." In other words, if you're in Waterdeep, you're not going to be able to secure a meeting with the Lord of Neverwinter. Just like if you're in Waterdeep, you know...

See, I'm not saying you're wrong for your emotions. I'm saying you would very likely be happier if you tried to move away from the idea that a game must complete to be fun. Or, as others have suggested (here and on that other thread of yours), you need to switch to an episodic format rather...

Because clearly that never happens, or you wouldn't be kvetching about it so much, to the point where you needed to start a new thread to see how common your plight is. How on earth did I "keep insisting"? I mention combat once. See what I mean? You have this very specific idea about what a...

Between job schedules and attacking toddlers, my table rarely gets to play for more than 1.5 hours each week. So we savor the time we have. So yeah, we often spend entire sessions on pure roleplaying. We often go for sessions without combat. It's not unknown for us to not even roll a die more...

Stories have endings. An RPG doesn't have to.

I haven't found this to be the case at all. We do deep delves into lore all the time. It doesn't stop the game from ending. What ends the games IME are system fatigue, GM burnout, and player issues. Edit: And often, everyone just deciding they want to try something different.

I didn't say anything about competency or morality. You're bringing in completely unrelated aspects.

I did say in art and flavor text throughout multiple editions, you know.

OK, so the idea was, you have two humans: a Renaissance-era, foppish-looking aristocrat and a barbarian chief (son of barbarian chief, grandson of barbarian chief, etc.). Both would be considered nobility from a noble lineage in their own culture. The noble background feature says that a noble...