ryven

If you want a crunchy system that can do modern fantasy, I would just use GURPS. The core rules cover everything you absolutely need, and then as you encounter elements where you want more detail, you can drop in supplements as necessary: Horror, Undead, Blood Types (vampires), Magic or Thaumatology, Martial Arts, etc.

(Magic expands on the magic system presented in the core book, Thaumatology presents alternative magic systems.)

I licked several of the Switch 1 carts and I can't taste whatever they're using on them at all. I feel like I'm missing out!

I was playing RE1 on PS1 recently for the first time, and it just put the important things in important-looking locations. If you enter a room with a desk in it, and the desk is in the center of the frame because of the fixed camera position, you should probably press X on the desk. It also has no HUD elements on the main game screen, you need to open the menu to check your health or ammo. Very rarely it uses a sparkle to call attention to an item that is important but too small to see clearly.

Maybe realistic graphics and free camera movement were a mistake. /hj

The Culture seems like the obvious choice. You can be whoever you want, do whatever you want (or not do much of anything, if you prefer), live as long (or as short) as you want... There are no downsides, really, unless you object to living in a society where the Minds are so vastly more intelligent than humans that you're functionally their pet. I can see how some people might find that unsettling.

Maybe. It's because "weapon attack" is the verbiage they settled on for hitting somebody with something that isn't a spell (spells make "spell attacks"). They could call them "weapon or unarmed attacks" but that seems unnecessarily verbose when 95% of them are going to be made with a weapon. You might think that for hand-to-hand combat you could simply refer to "melee attacks," but "melee" is a specifier that can be applied to spell attacks too, so it's out.

So the current situation is this: a rule can simply refer to all "attacks," or it can refer to "melee" or "ranged" attacks, or it can refer to "weapon" or "spell" attacks, or it can use both specifiers (as in "ranged weapon attack").

So if you want to fix it, you need a word to replace "weapon" that could include unarmed combat but excludes all spells. "Physical" might be good, but has some edge case problems: if I have a psychic "blade" that attacks your mind, it makes "physical attacks" despite being a non-physical object. If I have a spell that physically throws a boulder at you, it's pretty easy for me to remember that I should make a spell attack roll, but if you have a feature that defends against "physical attacks" you might think it should apply against the boulder when it doesn't. "Martial attack" might be getting at the right thing, but it sounds strange, and for new players who might be new to RPGs "martial" and "melee" are both uncommon words that kind of sound similar, and that might cause confusion. (Also "martial melee attack" sounds more natural than "melee martial attack," but then it has the opposite word order from "melee spell attack" and that's weird.)

There may be a perfect word out there, but in the end they decided "weapon" was the least confusing, despite requiring the caveat that attacking unarmed is a "weapon attack." And so everywhere that the rules say "attack with a weapon" instead, it is to specifically exclude unarmed attacks, although I admit that it's not always obvious why they want to do that.

The ones that say "when you hit a creature with an attack using a weapon"? Your DM is following the intended rules. In 5e, your empty hand can make "melee weapon attacks," but that attack is not an "attack with a melee weapon" or an "attack using a weapon." Unless that changed in the recent update, I haven't read the 5.5 books.

the obligation to retain the original product logo (Section 7(b));

the denial of any rights to use the copyright holder’s trademarks (Section 7(e)).

Uhhh is it just me or is it impossible to follow the first requirement without violating the second one? The logo requirement seems engineered to make sure that you can't actually fork the project: if you include the original logo, they can hit you for trademark violation, and if you don't include the logo they can say you violated their license terms.

I wash graphic tees and other printed clothing inside out because I was told it does less damage to the image. No idea if it actually helps.

Oh that's unfortunate!

If you're on a podcast called Critical Drinker maybe calling a show "shit" is just the expected level of banter. I've certainly leveled harsher criticism at better media while drinking! And while sober, to be honest.

This kind of seems like a nothingburger.

I would tell people it's about my love of mate.