Search results

In what way does any of what you're saying make not wanting that in your game a problem?

You can pretend something is natural and normal in a fantasy world and still see it as supernatural from the perspective of the game. If a person for example wanted to play a character devoid of supernatural elements (like a fighter or rogue per their descriptions), it helps to separate what is...

Natural from Aragorn's perspective, not from Aragorn's player's perspective, who presumably is a real person living on the real world. But one of your supporters on this issue has asked me not to bring my perspective on this into the thread, presumably because they don't agree with it, so I'll...

That's a great idea! Bonus points for making more use of downtime.

I am talking about published products, NOT what you do at the table. Anyone can do anything they want at the table. But what the books actually say matters to rather a lot of people. I'm getting rather frustrated with the lack of charity here. My posts don't deliberately tear you down. I...

I will drop it in the interest of avoiding needless acrimony, but it is in no way nonsense.

It doesn't, but our perspective by necessity does, unless there's a hidden world of which I'm unaware. Also, I don't appreciate the knock on my approach to fantasy.

Agreed. If the book doesn't have it, I certainly will.

Questions of magic and the supernatural should IMO be asked from the perspective of the players/audience, not the characters in the world. Our perspective as consumers and/or participants is what matters, and the only perspective we have is real life.

It all depends on your definition of magic and the supernatural. I like the idea of magic being specifically spells, and everything else that goes beyond the mundane/realistic going under the heading of supernatural.

I assumed that you could only have one active bridge or engineering deck at time, and the backup (if it existed) only came online in the event of destruction of the main deck, or in the specialized case of a ship separation.

Actually, what they did do didn't and doesn't stop anyone on the Guild from including or referencing the original Valachan if they want to. They would have to specifically disallow it to do that.

Well, I suppose anything is possible if someone on the internet can convince me I was wrong about something. Please enjoy your well-earned laurels. Your triumph is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. 🙂

Not including it would have been better. Better still would have been to do that and also include the new domain that you would then not call Valachan.

Did anyone tell you you can't run the game how you like? Where did anyone say that? I at least was talking about product releases, not games at the table. This statement is out of line, and frankly ridiculous.

Honestly, I'm pretty happy things went the way they did. Lot of great 2e content might not have existed otherwise.

I already backed off this issue. If you need a formal apology, you have it.

Right, but I am looking at the species as an archetype, suitable for many settings; that of the artificial life form, the "Data" if you will. That archetype does not need the forged for war story, and indeed is limited by it. And there is no official alternative to warforged for that...

Interested that it wasn't until Dragonlance was released that I started to really like settings.

I'm not dealing with this anymore. Have fun.