TrackerNeil

I think that a twelve-foot balrog is going to do just about as much damage to the Fellowship as a twenty-foot balrog. Either one will kill you dead.

I admit John drove me up the wall at times--he didn't know how to agreeably disagree, and I defriended him on Facebook at one point to keep my own sanity. That said, I always had a real affection for John--there was something genuine, if occasionally maddening, about him. He was one of the "board people" I would have looked forward to meeting. I'm sorry that I never had the chance.

Not promoting my work here, but that of Babyraven, whom some may remember from the board in the old days. As part of a film class, she produced a short documentary, and I was honored to have my podcast be part of it. I am sure that Babyraven would appreciate any likes/comments you throw her way--she did a good job!

That's true, yes, but I think CT's main point was that the parts of Mordor where the "evil" citizens dwelt were destroyed, and their inhabitants with them. That spared Aragorn the onerous task of having to decide what to do with the orcs and trolls who'd served Sauron. That is the point I think he was making, and an interesting one to discuss, in my view. (I don't want to speak for you, CT, and if I have gotten you wrong I'll remove this comment.)

You realize you wrote far, far more on this than Dan and I ever did? If it makes anyone buy this book, my editor will be grateful as well. (We don't make a dime from this.) I'm not going to defend anything we wrote--we had our chance to speak and that's that--but I urge everyone to be critical not just of The Lord of the Rings but of all media. Critical analysis is vital to understanding art, and it's not harsh but loving. Trust me, we wouldn't have set out to write and publish this if we didn't love Middle-Earth and those who dwell there.

I'm going to go back and delete my comment about competition, and any follow-ups; I didn't think what I was saying was controversial, and I don't want to distract from the main point of this thread.

Deleted

Deleted.

A straight guy I know (who shall remain nameless) once told me, flat-out, "I know I'm not supposed to be jealous of gay guys because you have it worse than me, but I really wish I could be close with other men and not have my motives questioned." That really took me aback, and I thought of that when I read the above. That kind of model puts a ton of pressure on straight guys, and on the women with whom they interact. But how does that change? I wish I knew.

The Board, like the Wall, defends itself.

I had a great time with Monsterhearts, which was based on the Apocalypse World rules. The system really encouraged you to take chances with your character, and would reward you for doing so. My group set the campaign in the Midwest in 1984 or so, and it was an absolute blast. Highly recommended.

I'd sooner GM 5E than play it, because if other people want to run boring characters that's not my business.

My group made a rule that every time your proficiency bonus increased you got to add one skill as trained. It worked for us, and given how rarely one's proficiency increased, didn't make anyone a skill monster.

Totally agree with these. The multi-class system in 5E kinda bites, and it doesn't really let you diversify your character the way you can in Pathfinder.