I think its firmly both. There are a lot of great ideas in the movie, and they come across really well when you discuss it. But its also a mess of a film that cares more about allegory and metaphor than narrative.

Yeah, the first three are supposed to be one series. Sum of All Fears was a reboot, as was Shadow Recruit.

I’m a 4e fan, ran games with it for five-ish years, and hope to run games in it again one day. People point to one thing or another, trying to emulate mmos or making everyone essentially a wizard, and what have you. I don’t think any of that was really the problem, or that they were necessarily even true.

4e suffered from three things mainly that really killed it:

1. it fundamentally misunderstood what people liked about or wanted from dnd. 4e is almost a pure dungeon crawler and is perfect for an older style of game which is chiefly played in dungeons without too much time in the overworked, and most of the adventures released for 4e reflected this past style as well. The demographic for that style of game was exceedingly small at the time of its release, and has only gotten smaller.

2. 4e is completely drowning in bloat. Item bloat, power bloat, feat bloat - after fifth level, your character sheet becomes so unwieldy that it slows combat to a crawl all by itself. And 4e combat is already slow. They tried to mitigate this with cards and online tools, but the cards were just as unwieldy and the online tools never really got off the ground. The character creator app was great, but everything else never made it past development. (Due to a murder-suicide thing, actually, but that’s another story)

3. 4e did not have an OGL, instead using the GSL which restricted a lot of the rights of third party creators. As a result, 4e had virtually no third-party support, which means that all of the companies that made content for 2e and 3/3.5 had to start making content for other games. Most famously, this resulted in the creation of Pathfinder, transforming Paizo from a company that published dnd-centered content to arguably its chief competitor.

A lack of third party materials plus the poor cost-to-benefit ratio of Wizards producing adventure modules on its own meant that 4e had a lineup of books that were largely core rules expansions or setting splatbooks(both expensive products for the consumer), but very few adventures. That translates to poor shelf presence, less actual play time, poor word of mouth, etc. Before you know it, the only people that ever talk about 4e are the people who didn’t like it, since most other people didn’t even play it.

Some of the stuff that people didn’t like about 4e: the powers system, the lack of social interaction rules, the skill challenge minigame, movement to a hard grid-based system, and game mechanic being expressed in doyalist terms. They also felt that the games’ reliance on keywords was video game-ish and added a limiting amount of granularity.

The powers system is flawed, yes. Its one of the main causes of character sheet bloat. But the complaint that all classes play the same because of it is not really founded. Every class gets powers and they are all structure similarly, but that’s really the result of a well designed and highly functional system. The actual content of the powers is pretty diverse, leading to unique playstyles across all the core classes and amazing moments of synergy.

I have yet to find an edition of DnD with great social interaction rules. I feel like people just throw this one on there.

The skill challenge has been re-evaluated in recent years, and most tables use some variation on this mechanic in their 5e games.

The grid system used in 4e is still used in 5e to this day - they just changed the notation from squares to feet. This is why we don’t have to do any taxing diagonal movement math in 5e. It seems this one change eliminated most peoples problems with it and showed them how they could still use it for theatre of the mind style play.

The doyalist design of the books, combined with all the keywords, is actually pretty good design. DMing a 4e game is a dream for these reasons. And most ttrpgs employ a more doyalist design philosophy anyway - but 3.5 didn’t. Which is why it felt bad, I think, to people who tried converting over. Gotta say I agree with the granularity issue, though.

One of the ironic things is, people don’t realize just how much of 4e’s DNA is in 5e. 5e is sort of just a bunch of good ideas from 3.5 and 4e shoved together, their respective bloat removed, and trimmed up with bounded accuracy.

This turned into something longer and more ranting than I originally intended, but I’ll leave it as is and hope you find value in it.

Bad people can make good art. I’d never want to meet him, but I can’t say he didn’t kill it in Signs. I’ve never seen it, but I hear amazing things about Braveheart

That’s also because in VR you could build, inhabit, and explore worlds that felt real, giving you a sense of liberty in a world largely without. In the real world, VR has already been tainted by the capitalism - indeed, Decentraland specifically is largely a collection of vacant lots, half-finished projects, and corporate playgrounds. The most functional areas are those owned by megacorps.

Capitalism beat us to VR. The choice will be live in the real world, where there are at least some spaces for you outside of the system, or dive into a constructed one run by the people you were initially trying to escape.

I’ve seen The Dark Eye at book and game store in the past, but I’ve always passed it by. Thanks largely to this comment, I will now be spending a lot of money on it.

Arguably MORE optional as this rule does not appear in the PHB, but fair enough. To me, using crits on ability checks messes with game balance too much and challenges verisimilitude. But, to each their own.

There is a small yet significant part of my brain that really likes GRINFO. I just thought you should know that.

I thought this was a joke, but you’re right. Fuckin tragic, yet highly entertaining.

It goes like this

1. create 2 distinct numbers by isolating the last digit from the other. For example, 154 becomes 15 and 4.

2. double the number derived from the last digit. So, the four becomes 8.

3. subtract from the number derived from the preceeding digits. 15 - 8.

4. the resulting number is 7. Seven is divisible by 7, so we know 154 is divisible by 7.

Can confirm. My wife and I pay about half for a shared account so our nieces can watch bluey and whatnot. We, their parents, and their grandma also get the rest of the content as a bonus, and everyone else chips in a little for the price too.

If they started limiting streaming like Netflix is doing, it suddenly wouldn't be worth the cost anymore. But as long as we have 5 adults with jobs splitting the bill, it's really not that bad.