Search results

Take for instance the example of a PC specialising in fire damage. If the adventure you are running with this houserule involves fighting with lots of fire immune elementals, that PC is going to be less useful, maybe a lot less useful, and probably much less fun to play. Houserules like this...

There are a number of reasons I prefer mechanics to have primacy over fluff text. I prefer the flavour of mechanics to be mutable, IMO it makes a game far more flexible. Mechanics are or should be better defined than descriptive text and produce less disagreements as to intention and...

I generally prefer to start with printed adventures that I then customise to suit my needs, and the players and PCs. I'm running it for. I find initial adventure ideas difficult to come up with, but I'm good at modifying and elaborating already-existing ideas, so I find printed adventures very...

I prefer the 4e way of keeping npc/monster mechanics and stats separate from PC mechanics and stats. PCs can afford be a lot more complex than monsters/npcs as players typically only have one or two PCs to run whereas DMs have to run multiple monsters and npcs at the same time. It makes sense...

I prefer the dragon style of game the OP posits, and find the dungeon style of play doesn't suit me for campaigns any more, though one-off games would be OK. Given this I've collected players who suit my style and aren't interested in high-fatality-rate by-the-numbers dungeon crawling. I...

It's well known that adventures don't sell well compared to rule books, which gives one reason why their quality control is subpar. Of the adventure modules that are sold, a fair proportion are just read and never run. But adventures that make a good read call for different qualities to...

To me the main advantage of better balance is that IMO it helps average referees run a better game. Refereeing involves keeping a lot of balls in the air, it's hard to do for average referees, who I think are probably in the majority, and anything that adds unnecesssarily to the workload is a...

IMO 4e spells were much simpler across the board. Because of attack rolls replacing initial saves, much of the work is given to the caster player rather than the DM, but I think that's better work distribution, and it feels more satisfying to me (subjective I know). Spell descriptions in...

The motivation of my original post , I think, originated in a concern that the static nature of 3e combat manoeuvre for melee PCs (as I found casters tend to run around, dimension door etc much more ) was boring and not designed to be as static as it turned out, but an accidental emergent...

I prefer the 4e approach to long distance teleports. How common short range line of sight teleportation is seems a setting matter to me. I am strongly opposed to catastrophic balance mechanics, such as a chance of instant death on a teleport. I prefer less powerful effects that don't break the...

One of the major issues I liked about 4e was the move away from static doorway fights. In 3e and before the only way of holding a battle line was bottlenecks such as doorways and corridors, especially for front-line types. Fighting in an open space was close to suicide for everyone as the...

I suspect it's a deep difference in perceptions. I prefer a smaller amount of "real" danger in my games, rather than constant paranoia over every footstep. Allowing danger to be often detectable beforehand allows me and people like me to play the game without constant 10 foot pole tapping...

This is IMO, but the Deck of Many Things is a good symbol for everything I despise in ultra random death D&D. I hate high swinginess, situations where random death (or fates worst than death ) hides behind every door, with little or no chance to avoid any of it, and a dearth of opportunity for...

I came to dislike long duration buffing spells in my 3e days, as my players I evolved a ever-increasing list of standard buff spells to cast while adventuring. Each of the spells was undeniably effective, but the combination of the layered spells combined to create a huge gap between the buffed...

I did say "less likely" not "won't". I'll spell out my reasoning, though. I find there's a much higher level of system mastery needed to play a caster competently over a non-caster. And a badly played caster doesn't pull his or her weight in the party and so their recharge cycle is less relevant...

I suspect a major factor in whether or not the short adventuring day issue appears in a particular group is the personalities of the player or players who make the decisions in the group. Impatient decision makers tend to press ahead regardless of resource issues, and possibly accept high...

I certainly observed the "15 minute" effect in 3rd edition at higher levels, particularly when the party had access to enough teleport to move the whole party. But it was more associated with long lists of pre-cast buff spells than novaing, though the result was the same - the spellcasters...

Talking only of good DMs and bad DMs excludes the middle of average DMs, who I think are in the majority. And "good" rules can help reduce the workload of DMs and the number of small-scale decisions they need to make, freeing them to focus on the bigger picture, and offer reasonable and viable...

There are different sorts of "player agency", it can exist in different layers of the game. The macro or strategic layer is often what's meant by player agency, but it's not the only one. In earlier versions of the game, any actions beyond the most basic required negotiation with the referee...

I like the skill challenge concept as an idea, but it's a complex set of concepts and the execution so far has been more optimistic than comprehensive. I think they require a fair amount of DM skill to use smoothly, and that this is inevitable and unavoidable - I fear a skill challenge system...