Search results

Takasi. So, what do your villains actually do? Since they clearly never march on the civilized lands, threaten innocent dog beauticians or raze a hometown. What's more they're never planning to do these things, because that sort of ticking clock runs the railroad timetable. Why are they...

Absolutely, no I just thought it was a relevant consideration to point out. Actually I rather liked the idea, if not the specific mechanics. I've considered similar house-rules myself, before I decided that I don't mind a character sacrificing their permanent assets for a short term benefit in...

I find it ironic that you've abbreviated Role Playing Games to RPGs in a post condemning the use of group-specific terminology. I certainly appreciate when I purchase a core book and they've reduced the number of pages I have to read (and purchase, printing is expensive) by conveying the...

Maybe you could make it similar to the heritage feats, where you get a certain benefit based on the number of similar feats you have.

That's a lot more difficult than you might think. I'm not saying I've done that before, but I would be scared if a bunch of eight year olds ran up to me with pocket knives. Imagine how fast they'd be.

Stream of the Sky, it's funny how many of your Pros there I would consider to be Cons and vice versa. I won't waste peoples time by going into which ones, but it just shows how often things are subjective. Then again, I'm very simulationist/gamist so many of the 'improvements' of 4e were the...

I generally run games that are sandbox, but have events occurring. For example the kingdom is undergoing civil war. The players could choose to side with the younger brother favoured by the church and nobility, or the older brother with rumours of illigitimacy preventing strong alliances who...

I didn't find that very convincing. Judging only from what you've written there it seems like I've got two choices. 1) Play 3e and have a realistic system that works, plus I can use my imagination with it to make it even better. 2) Play 4e and the system is so dull, boring and nonsensical...

I myself find it equally rude to exert social pressure in order to force someone into an environment that they do not wish to be in. Whether their reasons are justified or not.

I emphatically disagree. The concept that rules of behaviour exist certainly extend back that far, they are far from static throughout that period though. That is true. However a quick read through leviticus and deuteronomy will show you just how much they have changed. I refer you to the...

That strikes me as a mature and responsible attitude. I think the problem (partly in real life and perhaps also on this thread) people may just end up feeling judged. And... In a way they are being judged. The thing is you're making a judgement on the suitability of the environment for you to...

I don't use Adepts. The non-super casters in my campaign are usually spellcasters with a low casting attribute. This works well because it means they'll often know one or two metamagics and apply it to fill up their higher level slots (a low level spell raised through metamagics doesn't count...

Just a note. A particular group having social rules that no one else knows or follows unless they're heavily involved in that group is a subculture. (or a culture, if it's a discreet group). If what you say is true, and only women or those heavily involved with women know or follow these rules...

Hmmm, very interesting... wait, is that information classified? What colour? *Prepares to shoot self in head*

I wouldn't say that I hate it or that 3e is necessarily better. I personally have not changed because I love 3e, I know it well and it has a familiarity to it that I find incredibly comfortable. There are plenty of systems available to me that I'd say are better, but that doesn't matter, I play...

*looks blankly for a few moments* Oh, I get it.

I understand this philosophy and I can see why people would do it. If that's what your group likes then how could I possibly object. But for me, I look at that situation and see it differently. The DM is worried that the players will feel like they have no involvement, that everything is in the...

If you and your players are happy then all is well. But as a player I would absolutely hate this. If I'm shielded from my mistakes then that means my victories weren't really my own either. Perhaps it's just a sign that I lean towards the gamist end of the spectrum, but I do like to play D&D...

Well, if it works for you and your players, then that's all you could ask for. I'm just sharing my personal tastes. That said. Have you considered introducing some sort of action point mechanic or other rule that you could legitimately follow which favours the kind of results you're after...

I'm intrigued. Could you expand on this for me please?