Search results

The woodgrain box. Holmes. 1e AD&D. Moldvay. Mentzer/BECMI/RC. 2e AD&D. 3e D&D. 3.5e D&D. 4e D&D. Plus EofPT, HackMaster, C&C, the retro-clones, and Pathfinder. Geebus friggin' Crisco, how many more versions do you need to be happy?

Here are the results of my poll on how many tabletop roleplaying games the respondents' played in 2011. The poll was posted on three forums: rpg.net, EN World, and Dragonsfoot. rpg.net EN World Dragonsfoot The zero option dropped off on the rpg.net poll, unfortunately, probably because...

That's not even close to what I wrote, which means either you don't understand it, or you're distorting and misrepresenting it. Which is it?

That's a great feeling. I love wondering what's coming next.

I would so like to run that game. Top Secret has the same rule, and our group jettisoned it immediately. It simply didn't work with the flow of the game. It's a fun idea, with a very limited application.

It starts here and goes on for the better part of the next four pages. And that's all the discussion on that subject I'd like in this thread, please.

Ground Rule: If you want to talk about helmets of potion drinking, go do it in the other thread - here, it's threadcrapping and will be referred to the moderators as such. The poll results are in, and they are pretty interesting. First, I found that fact that over half of the respondents rated...

No, I said savant, as in a learned person or scholar, not idiot savant, which is a clinical psychological condition. Except, of course, as I already noted, you really can't. Your attributes have very specific in-game effects that cannot be ignored. In terms of actual rules, they very...

Does this go both ways? So, you agree that Thog's player can play Thog as the best tactician in the group and solve puzzles for the party despite having an 8 INT on his character sheet, because the neither tactical acumen nor puzzle-solving ability are covered by the character attributes?

I don't have an issue with fumbles being part of the rules - a 20 is always a chance of a fumble in the game I'm playing, frex - but nerfing take 10 takes a big whack at the way the rules are intended to work in d20 games. And the idea that every fumble is over-the-top in its consequences is a...

That's for taking 20, not taking 10, per the RAW. The threshold for taking 10 is "not being threatened or distracted," such as combat.

Why aren't you taking 10?

Consider that each time the marshal faces his fears, the shakes slowly diminish - which is to say, after each gunfight, his Bravery score increases by a few points, and over time those penalties may turn to bonuses. This is something that D&D and a number of other roleplaying games model...

No. That may also have something to do with the fact that I'm not "presenting a story" and powerful characters may indeed stumble across weak opponents. One of the reasons I enjoy roleplaying games is that they can stand narative imperative on its head.

Would someone please plant an xp on this post for me? Very well said - couldn't agree more.

Yes, please include convention games in you total, and please includes games played via email, forum post, Skype, et cetera. Played a one-shot to see if Smallville's your thing? Count it. Tried Mouse Guard at a con? Count it. Playing [i]HeroQuest[/o] by email? Count it. Number of tabletop...

Yes. Yes I do.

I haven't played enough 3e to experience this first-hand - and when I did play 3e, I ran it the same way I ran 1e AD&D, very much like the first example - but, "[N]ot every fight has to be a full-force challenge," should be in every referee's quiver.

Bumped - no need to be shy about extolling your virtues, folks.

OD&D recommends including many empty rooms in the dungeon, and this is one of the reasons why - they give the adventurers a chance to find an out-of-the-way space to rest, set up ambushes, and so on. The secret room with a thick layer of undisturbed dust on the floor is a good clue to observant...