Search results

When we switch rules we always allow to retroactively alter the PC, or compensate the PC if we deem it neccessary.

Re: re Well, Tolkien never bothered with game balance.

First, if the PCs won't die unless the players wish or risk it you can drop the whole raise dead spells, making - at least imho - the internal consistency of a campaign more logical. Second, I have accomplished much if I played or DMed a game where everyone had fun for hours. Having fun is the...

I tell them the same.

Just today my sister told me her cat had a dispute with a deer and drove it off. I'll have to tell her she should check the cat's teeth. :)

I am glad I don't use squares - no problem there.

Man, that is a minefield. My experiences with problems at the gaming table don't include such emtional/personal problems, so I can't really judge those. I'd try to have a discussion among the players how to reconcile the characters (and limiting it to that), with each player and the DM thinking...

Well, from me there is a clear and loud vote for not handling it in game. As soon as the players have problems - which seems to be the case here - then the players should solve them, not their PCs. Trying to solve such things with IC actions often results in bad blood between the players.

So they can't imagine a member of a thief guild that does not disable traps? Like a thug, a con man, an enforcer, a mole, a forger, a lookout, a pickpocket...

I don't agree with that. IMHO, in a realistic campaign most of the battles would not be close, they would either be a cakewalk or a massacre. It is extremly unrealistic that a party would always face "close battles", or even most of the time.

That is why I don't play with people unable to roleplay a character fearing death (and acting accordingly) even though the players know better. If I think a course of action is suicidal I warn the player, but as long as I don't say anything they can continue, and trust that their PC will...

Re: er, Anubis? That was to be expected from the beginning. Katanas are like elves or ninja (and rangeres) - a lot of people either idolize or detest them. Some people like to recreate the myths/images spawned by anime/tolkien while others consider this blasphemy against the holy grail of...

I have to correct my stement then - guns ruin D&D for me.

I run 2 campaigns in the heavily modified Forgotten Realms.

I don't know anyone that has fun fearing something. I certainly don't want my players to fear anything during a game. Now, there is nothing wrong with the PCs fearing their enviroment, but I don't need to make the players fear something for that - people who can't roleplay a character fearing...

If I want guns in Fantasy, I play Shadowrun (which I GM in a weekly campaign). Metaquests offer me the possibility to run ANY setting, SF or fantasy, as a side trek in my Shadowrun campaign. (So far I have run Metaquests in Jade (from Fred Perry's Gold Digger), a couple Roman settings built...

I don't care about realism, I care about the fun my group is having. People sometimes forget that the goal of the game is to have fun, and that different people have fun in a different way. Does the threat of PC death help your players having more fun? If so, good for you. It is not the case...

Firearms enter my D&D campaigns only over my dead body. Their presence completely ruins a Fantasy campaign for me.

Not everyone likes the "fight one battle, rest 8 hours, fight next battle, rest 8 hours" approach. There are ways to counter it, but I find rope trick so unbelievable cheesy that I just banned it. A party resting each night or day in an extradimensional hideout is not my idea of Fantasy.

So nice I should stop DMing just because I'd rather spend 4 hours on 2 weekly campaigns where everyone has fun and not on one single campaign where I hate the resulting magic slaughterfest-chessgame. Sheesh, the nerve of some people. Sure, I can use the dupe, the protection from scrying, the...