Sorry to give bad advice.

As a sorta-creator, I benefit from critical feedback. Even if what I make is ultimately for me. I don't have to agree with/act on what someone says about it. But if someone doesn't like something I make, I'd like to know WHY.

I try not to assume antagonism, in any case.

Heck, don't listen to me. I don't want to be the reason you get yelled at! 😉

I hope any feedback you offer doesn't create problems/drama. But folks can't make informed decisions if they're not informed. So it might be worth that risk.

Hey y'all, I don't know the particulars and personalities at issue here. But I recommend sending emails/messages to those podcasts so they'll know why you're not listening anymore.

Be diplomatic -- no need to start unnecessary drama. But be honest and precise. They should know your thoughts.

I just listened to this video. You make a good case for using level titles, though I've never had any interest in doing so before.

The bit about different Chainmail units using titles, and that same principle applying to monster types, was an a-ha moment for me. 💡

Pick your alignment: Autobot, Decepticon, or independent.

Classes are reskinned as functions.
* Fighter, dwarf = gunner
* Cleric = medic
* Ranger, rogue = scout
* Elf, magic-user = engineer.

...etc.

Spells are reskinned as tech powers/modules.

Alt forms have different stats.

I'm unsure how to feel about their departures.

On the one hand, interviews and quotes from Crawford and Perkins on their way out come across as them trying to distance themselves from D&D 5.5 and WOTC.

But would they be leaving if 5.5 had been the success Hasbro wanted it to be?

Best of all, it'll be free. I'll pay me exactly what my art is worth.

Hopefully, people will like the little game I write, and maybe help me fund proper art for it.

At the very beginnings of the hobby, we have really bad art. Lotsa stuff traced or copied from comic books .

So that's what I'm gonna do. Do my own bad RPG tracer art of bad RPG tracer art. Bad RPG art inception, obvious for what it is.

If I'm lucky, it'll be charming in a pathetic sorta way.

Indeed, I was just chiming in with agreement. 🙂

I'm also with you in not locking character competence behind dice. Only roll if the consequences of failure are significant, or if there's a meaningful chance the character shouldn't succeed. Otherwise, just let characters do what they're good at.

What's the mistake? 🤷‍♂️

Build the narrative around die roll results. Don't craft a narrative and then try to force the dice to conform to it.

Emergent play. Embrace it.

I will observe, though, how 5E's primary gameplay loop sends blood-soaked adventurers on merry hops from one murder scene to the next. Not sure how "cozy" that is. 😆

Part of my issue with contemporary D&D is how it's been streamlined, so that setpiece combat is about all that's left.

Semantic diffusion = linguistic drift? 🤔

This is my first exposure to the term "cozy game." No survival elements and cutesy aesthetics aren't mutually exclusive, and these are often seen in the same products.

The person that shared your post observed that D&D5 fits either definition. 😁

This is the first time I've heard the term "cozy game", but in either context, you're not wrong about 5E being that.

That's not a dig, necessarily. Just an astute observation on your part.

Agreed. In my opinion, Stafford and Chaosium don't get near the recognition they deserve, considering just how foundational they are to our hobby.

Just replying to myself here, 'cuz I don't wanna just echo criticism of DAV's art style. I appreciate the fact that they made a bold aesthetic choice and stuck with it, instead of playing it safe.

We'd all have complained if DAV looked like everything else, too, right?