Search results

Perhaps I misunderstood your OP. My reasoning to make wealth matter is to either make it harder to obtain, or increase prices to the point where earning a lot of GP matters. I guess another approach is to make more high priced items available for purchase, so the PCs have something to spend it...

If I recall correctly, Star Frontiers (TSR game from a long time ago), had a partial solution. First, the cost of guns and equipment was expensive relative to a PCs earnings, and second, 50% of the PCs earnings were assumed to be reduced by taxes and basic living expenses. (I don't remember...

Either significantly reduce the treasure available in each encounter, or adjust prices to maintain parity with PC wealth. Whether the "common" folk could afford those prices doesn't really matter, as D&D isn't an economic sim, and the focus is on the PCs.

AOW4, Fallout 4, Oxygen Not Included and Transport Fever 2. I played 7DTD for a while, but the changes over the past year, just kill the game for me. I plan on playing Solasta II when released.

Gary Gygax was largely a product of his generation, and socioeconomic status. I bet you could find a lot of people from his generation with similar world views. That era has passed and attitudes have changed. It's time to move on. And if you want to make orcs the good guys, no one is stopping...

Grognards still matter because we've got more money and more time. Further, we stick with the hobby, whereas a lot of the newer players come and go pretty quickly. Losing us may seem insignificant from a raw percentage perspective, but our disappearance we would have a disproportionate impact...

I still play it because I enjoy it, but more significantly, it's what my friends want to play.

I agree. But only if the DM is willing to go along with it.

I thought the multiverse solved the lore difference issues. Also, isn't there a spell that allows you to travel between worlds/settings such as Plane shift? (I thought there was anaother one, but I can't think of it)

An animal intelligence monster will only attack under those circumstances you mentioned anyway(as well as protecting its territory) So, If the PCs don't encounter them, then the animal intelligence monster had no reason to attack.

I'm not sure. Let me think about it.

I know this question wasn't for me, but,,, In my game, monsters with animal intelligence or lower will always fight to the death. Very intelligent monsters, or significant NPC bad guys will always have an escape plan. Whether they are able to act on those plans, depends on the circumstances...

Similar reason. Hedging your bets just in case one or more of them fail, or change/limit access to the data.

Hardback is yours forever. Digital can be taken away from you at any time.

So Disney should do to D&D what they did to Star Wars?

Yes, I absolutely play the monsters to win. Think about it. It's at least 3 to 1 in terms of people thinking strategically, and the DM needs to think for multiple monsters, whereas the players (typically) only run one. And mechanically, the odds in favor of the players to begin with..

Given Disney's poor track record with a number of it's movies recently, I would be concerned about any Executive meddling damaging the game. IMO, they would not be the right company to take over D&D.

The ability to ad lib as the players do stuff you didn't expect or plan for.

It's not the worst thing in the world, but it isn't fun. It happened to me once. My PC beating back the bad guys pretty effectively, so the DM altered the rules mid game so that a spell could reach my PC and knock him overboard. ..and of course there was no way for me to climb back up.

Ever since the infamous "we all won" statement, I don't put much stock in what they say.