Recent content by The Scythian

Thank you! This is something I hope to get to if I can compose the post I'd like to quickly enough for it to remain relevant. Yes. Not only was he familiar with The Hobbit, but he put wargs into Three Hearts and Three Lions as an homage.

AD&D gnomes are not like Anderson's woods dwarfs solely in terms of mechanics, though. Like woods dwarfs, AD&D gnomes have brown skin. Like woods dwarfs, AD&D gnomes are explicitly described as living in burrows. Woods dwarfs have an arrangement with the lesser animals of the forest, which is...

They definitely predate 1977. Gnomes appear as far back as 1971's Chainmail. They make it into OD&D in 1974, and the illustration of gnomes above the alignment table in Men & Magic depicts small men with beards and Phrygian caps. Even without the helpful caption "GNOMES", we would probably...

I'm not worried about the sales difference at all, and I'm not making an argument that Spelljammer sold poorly or well. All I'm saying is that there's a funnel effect. If someone's making a supplement for a supplement, then that's going to limit sales. You're not selling to 5e D&D players...

My original post was a little longer with more steps in the funnel, but I decided to simplify things. I haven't bought any WotC products since Tasha's, so I'm not familiar with the new Spelljammer release, but I remember reading that people were disappointed that it was missing stuff that they...

Three more dwarves: Mid-Renaissance, 17th-century Baroque, and early 20th-century Expressionist. I forgot to specify armor in the prompts for the first two, but it was a happy accident, because I think that the Baroque one turned out really well.

You might be right, but in this case specifically, I think it's more a matter of Spelljammer deck plans not being all that useful to the vast majority of D&D players. Only some D&D players are going to buy the Spelljammer supplement. Of those, only some are going to end up running or playing...

Three dwarves: 18th-century Neoclassical, 19th-century Romantic, and late 19th-century Realist.

Yes. Absolutely correct. That both parties receive consideration from the contract is almost certainly the reason that they sought to "deauthorize" the OGL, twisting a part of the contract intended to protect licensees in order to harm them, instead of revoking it.