Quote from: Spectre771 on May 18, 2024, 03:16:25 PM

The spell specifically states "inorganic."  It could be like Terminator.  Something about living material protects it during teleportation, non-living material doesn't make it through  i.e.: Nude Arnold.  This particular evil spell doesn't affect living material.  If this spell user was in my group, I would have him learn another spell list that would disrupt organic/living material.

Organic and living are two completely different things.
The fact that people tend to mix them tends to prove my point: this is a poorly worded spell if, by "inorganic", the authors meant "non-living".

The hardwood floors in my kitchen are non-living and organic.  The trees in my yard are living and organic.  Both made of wood, but either item should survive the spell being cast on them.

Perhaps I chose the incorrect wording when trying to illustrate my example.  Most likely... I misquoted the Terminator movie as I haven't watched it in 20+ years.  Maybe John said "...organic material..." instead of "...living material..."

* - I reread my initial post.  I wrote "This particular evil spell doesn't affect living material."  My mistake.  I meant to write "organic material."  My apologies.  MisterK, your reply to my mistype is accurate.

Just to be clear, the kind of textured-background, color-heavy design was created specifically to make it hard to scan. It may now be copied without thought for its origin, but it's fundamentally a copy-protection measure.

Quote from: Mordenkainen on May 15, 2024, 07:07:14 PM

It's not (only) about paying more for art.
Look at the layout here.
https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p
This is a random page, literally the first page I flipped to from the last pdf I had open.
See how the shape of the art has been incorporated into the column layout of the page? See how background textures have been used? See how there is a shadow from the dwarf which spills over into the page? This all gives it life and visual appeal. It's basic stuff at this point. Nothing to do with budget.

I don't love the background texture, it looks kind of cool at the expense of readability. Similarly with wrapping text around images. Text is full justified for readability. I don't think that adds anything. It's dynamic in the sense that it disrupts the text layout, but that's also its weakness.

I agree. A book formatted that way may look pretty and have an initial appeal, but for me it's extremely hard to read and would be horrible as a reference. Accessibility for people with differing vision and perception issues is important.

The text formatting used to structure the page loses much of its effectiveness when combined with text being restructured purely for artistic purposes. The reduced (and variable) contrast created by the background is harder for me to read. And the overall visual clutter of the outer border makes it hard for me to focus on the text.

To me the layout of the RMU books is far superior to that example page.

As for how XP are gained, I think the US has a different approach from Europe. In the US, D&D evolved from wargaming roots and always relied on combat as an important gameplay factor. Which is why many games have very elaborate combat rules that can cross over into wargaming or even boardgame territory. The European approach feels more story-driven and character based, with combat as an adjunct instead of a core component. But the European RPG industry was of course still heavily influenced by the US approach.

I don't know if it's US vs Europe. It's mostly wargame-derived vs storytelling-derived. For instance, Call of Cthulhu had rules for combat (basically the same rules as Runequest because the basic system is the same), but you weren't expected to fight much because combat with guns and without armour is very, very lethal, and combat against Cthuloid Abominations From Outer Space is even more so. Whereas D&D, Traveller, Space Opera (and even RQ to an extend) was based on medieval western fantasy: frontier mentality where guns are always Plan B and are often Plan A, and there are wolves and aliens (or indians). It's more "frontier RPG" vs "urban RPG".

Europe doubled down on this because 'frontier' has not existed in Europe for quite a bit of time and has not been glorified since the decolonisation - but delve a bit into colonial-period RPGs produced in Europe and you will see the same kind of heroic gunslinger (or swordbearer) glorification - the hero of the frontier, with a dose of period-appropriate white supremacy on top. In other words, scratch the surface and we are basically the same.

I think it's a basic dichotomy of RPGs: do you want to produce the equivalent of a Hollywood action movie, or the equivalent of a drama ? Most people will lean towards action movie: it's easier to grasp, easier to slip into and out of, provides immediate satisfaction, and you maintain a healthy distance from your slightly bloodthirsty and smilingly sociopathic character. It's the same for video games: action games outnumber (and outsell) narrative games by at least one order of magnitude (and probably several). It's not a difference between US and Europe so much as a difference between emotionally simple and complex. Action games speak to a very primal part of us, the part who yearns for a simple world where violence is a legitimate answer to every problem (and where you are proficient in dealing it).

It's only more obvious in the US because the gun culture is out in the open (the US history of being built by the gun is still recent, ours - built by the sword - a bit less so), but I wouldn't trust many of my fellow Europeans if anyone had access to a gun here.

Wood is organic. So, no, you'll need a different spell. Or maybe an axe.