Search results

I think every DM and player could use watching other peoples games.

That's just terrible DMing. Don't blame Da Fudge! Fudging is "Oh that PC just missed his disable trap check by 2 points of the DC I set. But the poor guy hasn't disabled a trap successfully in a while, so I'll give it to him." What you describe is crazy pants.

Huh, I missed that post. Yeah both bringing a character back to life and wiping an encounter seem massively more disruptive.

Never! So is wine!

You never tweak an NPC on the fly? Like say one of the PCs is talking to a bartender to gain information. And mid conversation the PC decides to hit on the young waitress that you the DM happened to have said drops off the PC's dinner. And you decide, spur of the moment, that the waitress is...

Olives are terrible!

Now in general I totally agree with you. And I haven't made people track arrows or bolts in a long time. But lately I'm wondering if I should start next time I run a game. Basically as a balance factor for ranged guys who stand far back and take way less damage on average than melee guys.

Other people enjoy different things than you do. I think soccer is pure boredom, but I don't care if other people like it or expect those people to explain themselves. I don't think watching strangers play video games is fun, but watching a good session of D&D with interest funny players and a...

By no means is it a totally original idea, but in regards to d20 D&D it is.

I think its by far and away 5e's best new idea.

Absolutely! I guess my point is, I don't see much difference between swaying the game via a DM's roleplaying or exposition (which all DMs do whether they mean to or not) and swaying the game with some creative accounting.

DMing as purely refereeing is an impossibility unless you were to only read verbatim from a pregenerated adventure made by someone else. God that would be boring.

I'm not super competent at 5e yet, but that seems like an artifact of unimaginable power in all versions of D&D.

Yeah I've found the opposite to be true, in my experience old schoolers tend towards running it like a simulation and letting the dice fall where they may. But I doubt sweeping generalizations help the conversation. I started in 3e and love 4e, and am a dirty cheater.

I guess my question in that case would be why to have that scenario at all for several reasons. But even so, that's not a combat scenario in and of itself. If the PCs then did decide to fight the golems, I certainly wouldn't wait until the right was assured to GE a victory then say " blah blah...

I mean, I get the differences. I just think one is vastly superior to the other. Some players I'm sure don't want to see the handwaving up front. I am one of them. Hearing the DM say "blah blah blah you kill the rest of the kobolds moving on" kills it for me. It glosses over the game aspect. It...

That's cool. Its always good to know everyone on the internet is superior to me at DMing. Or in weird gaming morality.

I would never use plot armor or extra hit points to screw the players out of an earned victory, I agree with you there.

Ah, but that's roleplaying the !monster. I'm more talking about giving an in game explanation for the metagame action of taking it easy on the players because a fights has gotten harder than intended. But I'm interested in what you said as well. Monster tactics and roleplayng is an aspect of...

I gave up on following the playtest, got invited to play in a full game, and am at about the same place. Some stuff I like, some stuff I don't like, a lot of stuff I could take or leave. Generally disappointed they played it so safe. But perfectly playable, even if I don't forsee running it.