Recent content by Scott Christian

Three players, the sweetest spot for combat in my opinion. Glad you guys had fun. So it took about 22 weeks (or more). Can I ask: Does that 2 hours include downtime, or is that your actual playtime? Also, what's next?

And that's awesome. I am glad it works for you. And thhank you for understanding that if someone asks you a question about why you didn't try RAW first, they are not scolding you. They are simply asking a question. Thank you for understanding that... it's not an attack on your GM capabilities...

If you have to change my word of "intended" to an all cap "RIGHT" then you know you're in the wrong. I will take this as you know the question is valid, and there is no "scolding" behind it. You just don't want to say so. That's fine. I can get stubborn at times too.

I haven't played PF2, but I do have the books and have read them. I am not sure it's as simple as that on that side of the stream. But, I do know that I would like D&D to be general and an overall experience to many. I also know that the ones that will alter D&D are the ones that will do it...

And, as I said, I agree with that. House rules are a thing. They are somewhat of a tradition. But to ask whether you implemented a house rule prior to trying the actual rule is not "scolding" as Reynard called it. In the end, you do you. But if someone questions on you doing you, especially...

I know the persuasive answer here is: "I would build feats that would let you cross-class, and synergize different class characteristics." But I am not a CEO. And since I don't have to placate anyone, I am going to say: "I will replace with - play your role."

And that is fine. It is something I agree with. If I want to add coin flips to D&D to determine skill challenges, I can. But, if someone were to ask me: Did you play D&D with the skill system before using the coin flip method? I would not think that person is "scolding me." I would think they...

One, they are knowing better than the designer for your playstyle and table. Two, you play the game first, so that means your testing the waters, then deciding. That is a big difference than not playing a game and deciding it needs this sub-mechanic. I hope you can see the difference, and...

I would change one thing, and that's it. I would get rid of multi-classing. ;)

I am not "scolding folks" as you put it. I am asking if they do this prior to actually playing the game first, to see how the intended mechanics played out? Or are they assuming their subsystem works better regardless of the mechanical base for the game? That seems like a legitimate question to...

I am not sure it matters with such a short game. But it might affect some interplay between characters. Would it be evil to lie to someone, and then hold them as a slave to use their power? Is that what you are asking?

ERPGs? (Electronic Role-Playing Games) SRPGs? (Screen Role-Playing Games) DRPGs? (Digital Role-Playing Games) Or perhaps we'll have to change the in-person to IVRPGs? (Inter Vivos Role-Playing Games)

This thread is a little mind blowing to me. I find it incredible that people seem to fall in love with a mechanic, and like a security blanket, can't play without it. And I don't mean that negatively. We all have things we love from different games. But it's just, well, there is a bit of an...

Depends on your definition of broader angles. Have you seen one use meta-currency and also not use it? Have you seen one that uses a core d20 and also uses a core d100 to determine the same result? Your approach to broad is singular in notion. Mine isn't. Which was the reason for my comment.

I get the premise. I also get how it can be exciting, both as a player and GM. But I think if you are developing a game for a large audience, or even a small audience, the majority will dislike this feature. That is the problem with all of these posts. They want to "come at it from a broad...