How the fuck can wikipedia be clickbait? They don’t benefit from the number of clicks.

I believe it was Running who stated “If I have seen further, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” Referring, of course, to the works of noted giant Thrynn Walk.

Is Jerry Seinfeld alive? According to google, yes.

I’m confused by the college of eloquence being in a system that is clearly not D&D, since an int of 2 would make you non-sentient and a con of 1 would be dead.

Sidenote: Jesus christ, I blocked one guy and 43 comments vanished.

In a single round of combat, a wizard can use a spell to rain fire and bring a max health fighter down to 1 hp.

In comparison, in a single round of combat, a fighter can swing their sword four times and bring a max health wizard down to 1 hp.

So they’re both as good as each other in a hypothetical 1v1 combat scenario which is unlikely to ever come up during an actual game. Bravo. Can we stop having this argument? It’s been 4 months since this exact meme was posted.

I don’t have trust issues, and I think that might actually be worse. Like, if that happened now, I’d only shirk at going in twice, but I’d still go in once.

It’s apparently a reference to fattening a pig before the slaughter. Basically, they trick you into feeding their crypto-pig before running off with all the pork.

When I was playing that game as a youngling, someone asked me to help get some wine from a cult temple. I did, which made the door slam shut and every cultist in the room attack me. I just barely made it out of there alive.

Then they told me to go get a second one. Yeah, they didn’t need wine, they wanted me to die to a trap so they could take my stuff without killing me.

I’m embarrassed to say I actually went to get that second wine.

This has very “I have tons of black friends” vibes.

Ironically for a post complaining about reading comprehension, but you misrepresented the original post you’re talking about. Even have the classic “quotation marks around a thing that was never said” in the title.

First, and perhaps most obvious, this wasn’t “everyone”. This was one person, and they didn’t get many upvotes. When I recommend a TTRPG, for example, I’m recommending Genesys (like someone else did).

Second, they weren’t saying to homebrew old editions of D&D. They were saying you don’t need to homebrew at all. At most, they said you could reflavour something in 4th edition. Their entire point was that you don’t need to homebrew when you can just find a system that already has what you would have homebrewed in.

Third, they were suggesting this as an alternative to homebrewing specific material into D&D 5e. Pathfinder can provide the experience of “5e with time travel” that you wanted without any modifications. BitD is so different from 5e that it can’t.

You are, however, correct that they did backtrack. I’ll put this down to poorly explaining their argument to start with, as they downplayed the “5e but better” games in their first comment while that was really their entire point.

Personally, I like homebrewing. It’s fun to tinker with the rules and materials. But there’s also an argument to not repeat work someone else has already done.

I guess it depends on how Konsi feels about garlic bread.

Whether you’re preparing magic for war or the bedroom, always have protection ready. And perhaps a few healing spells if you think it’s gonna get rough.

I’m on team “tell the players”, personally, because it lets the players customise their characters for the module. A group for Wilds Beyond the Witchlight are going to be different from Descent Into Avernus, for example.

(Of course, if a player decides to put Doom Guy in a fairy tale, that’s perfectly fine, but it should be their choice.)

Also, a person who knows about Tomb of Horrors will figure it out pretty quickly during gameplay anyway because of those set pieces you mentioned, so it doesn’t matter if you didn’t tell them what it was. Heck, they might even have bowed out so they don’t ruin things with their meta-knowledge, if only they knew what they were going to be playing.

It’s not the action that’s the problem, but the motive. It’s fine not to tell your players, but it’s a problem not to tell your players because you think they’ll cheat if they know. One is inaction, the other is paranoia. If the GM doesn’t trust the players, the game will be shit.