Search results

I'd like in on this, if there's room and patience for someone who's only played the game once.

Because I'm not a completist any longer (my last complete set was 14, I think), even if I buy a VR or two my total outlay will still be significantly less than buying the two or three cases I used to buy. I simply won't pay that much. Once upon a time, but not any more.

I get where you're coming from, and I'm just glad they waited as long as they did. Now that I'm buying only singles from Auggie's, my outrage is both muted and vicarious.

Dude, white-spacify that, and I promise to read it.

I agree with Nifft about the user info box on the left. Many of the posts in this thread are taking up more than twice the vertical real estate actually needed, because of all the stuff on the left.

I'd buy this in a heartbeat. Probably in multiples. So would a huge percentage of other DMs. So why hasn't WotC made it? There's got to be a reason we're overlooking. Economy of scale? Maybe "DMs" isn't a big enough market, even when most will buy the packs in multiples? BTW, the Dungeon...

I think the hardest part would be the flood of reported posts. And, like I said, it wouldn't take long for people to catch on and stop being tools.

If doing this is made "against the rules," I don't think it would remain a problem for long. God knows, I already wish I could report some .sigs.

I know exactly what you mean! I like it, too!

"Per buyer," that's definitely true. In absolute volume, though, RPGer DDM purchasers swamped out "pure" DDMers. (IME, many, maybe most, DDMers were also RPGers.) In most situations like this, that might be true. In this particular situation, WotC was ramping up toward the release of 4E, and...

I honestly don't think the first and third mattered. (I barely remember the first, honestly.) Dreamblade was pretty much over, and the game was still healthy (though it did lose some players), when DDM 2.0 was released. And I'm really not sure that the timing of the rules release mattered...

A couple of observations: One, DDM is, AFAIK, still clinging feebly to life. WotC licensed the administration and design of the game to the DDM Guild. (I'm sure you can still get more information at Hordelings: Miniatures Enthusiasts -- Forums.) Two, the game was very popular until WotC...

Yes. Scent allows the pinpointing of enemies (knowing what square they're in), but the rogue is still effectively invisible (i.e., has full concealment). Sneak attack applies.

Man, I woulda killed to be able to Ignore List my bitchy little sister. (Oh, and coworkers!)

Dice4Hire? Izzat you?

I don't have many people on mine, and for a very long time I didn't have any at all. I don't throw people on the ignore list based on stuff like, "I got into an argument with this person." (If I did, I'd see about seven posts of every 10.) My sole criterion is, "Has this person ever made a...

I seem to remember the major objections being about square spaces (necessitated by the removal of facing) rather than about facing itself. I think gradually people have come to accept that the 10-foot square a horse (for example) occupies is the combat area it controls, not its actual size, and...

Maybe so. The problem is, you need decent hands just to cast the spells at any effective level. I crunched the math, way back when, and tried it in practice several times. It really doesn't work. (They've changed it from first edition, right?)

You could have a draw mechanic based on player (mis-) fortune. Something like, "If you miss on an attack, draw a card." Fair enough. We never experienced that in our games. Even at high level, our combats would go eight or ten rounds. That's a good point. It's a shame, though, because if it...

All I can say is just be aware of the ODDS of making a poker hand in five cards. (The absolute odds, not just the relative odds.) You might be very surprised, for example, just how rarely you'll get a lowly two-pair (or higher) in only five cards. (The designers of the first edition Deadlands...