Search results

I don't think anyone argued that, and that certainly isn't the subject of the thread.

This seems like an irrelevant question: there were no dwarf wizards because that is the way it was, regardless of the reasoning. adding dwarf wizards required a change of design intent, and that is how we end up at the point of concern.

I don't feel like there is nearly as much watch community as there used to be, so i am inclined to wait and binge.

Ok. So?

It is actually an interesting question: are D&D halflings hobbies? If so, which versions?

I think you are coming at it from a specific point that undervalued how previous editions defined and informed things. You don't think how mechanics and settings interact matters because from your point of view, it kind of did not. But in reality it very much did. I think it continues to...

I admit I only scanned through the section today but I saw a whole lot of humans, and some dwarves and elves, and... not a lot else. Have you played AD&D?

I know everyone is different and to each their own, but the idea that one would write a module they are going to run for their group is wild to me.

I reject the premise that replicating information is inherently bad. If the information is there for two different purposes, then it makes sense to present it twice in 2 formats that best serve those individual purposes. This is doubly true now where page count is not a major issue for most...

It is actually weird that we have had so much advancement in the art of RPGs on almost every level, but we are still stuck with Hickman modules after 40 years. It's baffling, really.

No. If you are going to run a module, you need to at least read it. Otherwise you are fumbling from one moment to the next rying to figure out what the text wants you to do. That is nothing like running off the cuff, where you are there to respond to whatever the dice, the player choices, and...

Where do all the new 5.5 races come from? How do the new classes interact with the AD&D of it all? Dwarf wizards, what?!?

Well, there are two "Greyhawks in the DMG." One is the one that is written, that does not talk about any of the legacy elements. That one can certainly be run out of the books, but even so nothing about it says 5E. It just doesn't actively contradict the rules. The other one is the lgacy...

One of these days I should rewatch TMP. It has been a long time and I bet I don't find it as plodding as I had when I was younger.

I know we have a mutual friend. Are you in CT? I would be happy to run for you and D.

It seems like you simply disagree with the premise. Which is fine, but im not sure how productive a conversation we can have in that case. I can't convince you that mechanics are important to setting design, and you can't convince me they aren't.

You would be surprised by how much of RPG material was designed in a bar. More to the point: so what? How does that refute the idea that Spelljammer is a deeply 2E designed setting?

So just by way of example, one mechanical thing that is new in 5.5 that I think would impact the way we write D&D settings differently than how we have done it so far, is the change in how species and background interact mechanically. previously, we did a lot of pastiche Tolkiening -- this race...

::looks at spelljammer:: ::looks at Parmandur:: ::looks at spelljammer:: If there was a "if it is in D&D, it is in this setting" setting before Eberron, it was definitely Spelljammer.

But they aren't new. ETA: specifically, they aren't designed with 5E as a root; the root is MtG. They are being shoeshorned into 5E no less than other older settings.