Search results

At this point, none. I was slightly interested in the starter set despite being based on Keep on the Borderlands (a decidedly bad adventure, esp for the current incarnation of D&D), but from what I have seen it is more board-gamey than what I would want. I will keep an eye on it, but right now...

but in a smaller / shrinking market. If Kobold Press and other 3pps can survive despite WotC, I do not see why Paizo would not be able to. They already converted two APs, I assume we will see more if those worked out for them

why would they wait with that until 5e is bagged, the time to do this would be right now

I would agree with not the goals of the DM, the player goals should factor in A player wants to climb a wall and the DM calls for a check, how is the outcome not based on the player’s goal? The impartial part is hopefully the DC and definitely the roll as much as if the DM decided it would...

not really, since they canned it first

It’s not that unheard of, it’s basically an early module in the Hickman revolution that moved the game from dungeon crawls that were more or less nonsensical (funhouse…) to actually having a plot and villains with motivations

none, there would not be a dominant game, which also means the influencer market dries up

we already have Level Up and Tales of the Valiant, so those two would benefit from this. If neither one is close enough for you, then there are all kinds of subclasses and additional classes for the actual D&D 5e out there already. One of those publishers might just create their own PHB instead...

they won’t get $1B from books, and that was not their 4e number either. Hasbro’s ‘D&D is undermonetized’ was talking about licensing, merchandise, movies, and Sigil, not rulebooks.

pretty sure it did, the number just is always growing with the success. You will never hear Hasbro say ‘we are very comfortable with the numbers X sells at, we would even still be comfortable with 10% less’, it will always be ‘we want more sales’

I do not know what numbers they wanted, but I assume 5e got there

to be fair, if an algorithm can reliably produce that, why would you not consider that useful / helpful? To me the main question then is what do I have to give up as a consequence of / in order to follow that algorithm, and is that worth it

this module tripped me up enough on a casual glance to dismiss it outright in my teens, it was painfully obvious at a glance or even a base level of realism / plausibility, I have the same issue with funhouse dungeons

that bothered me back in the 80s already and made me not run it because it made no sense to me ;)

being the sole source is not the same as preparing a 500 page setting document ahead of the first session

I agree, my interpretation of 'he does not drink alcohol' was more along the lines of, you cannot sweet-talk him into drinking alcohol, not you can threaten to kill his family and he still won't

but a more probable obstacle would limit the actions in a very similar way, see the cave-in vs gelatinous cube migration. I understand that you see a difference there while I do not, guess we have to leave it at that. I agree that neither should become a frequent occurrence as otherwise things...

just because one person does it that way does not mean everyone has to. You did not do any of this and called your game a sandbox, that you did not use D&D is immaterial to this

no I haven’t, will take a look, but I doubt it can do what I described, namely provide one explicit answer as to what the outcome is for any given action in any given situation where all the GM has to do is look it up. Was your ‘how many enemy wizards are after the party’ a BW scenario? If so...

I meant self-restraint as opposed to some game rules / mechanics that attempt to accomplish that restraint I am not sure we communicate restraint outside of what scenario we present in game, let's take your example I did not find the post you were referring to, I searched in this thread for...