Search results

I don't think the poll question is right. The 4th Edition was a basic success. It might not be going strong still today for other reasons. I don't know for sure, but I draw a conclusion from the many fans of 4th Edition I've read and spoken with that they still like th Edition very much and...

Okay.

That would be bad DMing. The DM should never try to arrange for the party to lose.

Shocking.

The players should feel they win when they take it. It shouldn't feel like it's when the DM or even the adventure path lets them or expects them to.

I'd say D&D is not basically a tabletop wargame where you command a unit of one. It is, and always was, a chance to "adventure" in the role or persona of a fantasy character, particularly inside a cave or other dungeon where a powerful monster lurked. It was based on Conan and monster movies...

It can alter their expectations for the monsters, too, which is another reason it's a no-no. If you're dealing with a huge mistake, it would better to restart the encounter and modify it with different monsters. Once you are rolling dice, and playing the game, the players expect the monsters...

It is like if you saw in a movie the directors and cameras and crew suddenly come in and say they wanted to adjust the film. The player(s) are like an audience. What happens behind the scenes is perfectly alright, but it's not for the players to see during the adventure.

The 4e combat roles did not, in fact, exist prior to 4th Edition. As I said in the other thread, perhaps starting the monumental debate to follow there, the 4e combat roles were unique to 4th Edition and represented a departure from tradition. They are not part of 5th Edition, either.

I would prefer that.

From the players' point of view, if something is fudged the DM should apologize and take it back.

If you do this, don't let your players know you do ever.

You must remember this is an attempt to give general advice to someone. Our own experiences are useful examples, but I want to postulate what a general rule would be for the OP and others. I think it would be only a matter of courtesy to permit someone to join your group, but I also make...

There is no need to try to say I am being selfish, narcissistic, and entitled. I think I would need to show you how to run the game, and others, because frankly, I don't get what you're saying or what the problem is. We're talking about new players you don't even know, right? Suppose your DM...

One interesting thing to note is that the number of votes for 4 players is actually very small. 3rd Edition set the standard for the game to 4 players, and I always thought that must be the case. I voted for 10 or more. I believe the game is certainly practical with that many players...

I think it should be a basic rule that DM's do accept new players. I know it can be very hard to work up the courage to ask to join a group. If someone doesn't get along with someone else, you work on that. Even that is not grounds for excluding anyone. Only if a problem becomes serious...

Three players can be great. The game actually runs great even for one player, too. Three players gives you some more ideas, and it broadens the scope of adventure. It can be as combat-intensive as you want.

I already weighed in, but I'd like to express a little shock that so many groups are so anti-social. Inviting a new player in is even like introducing them. "Hey, I'd like you to meet my friends," or "You want to find a group to play D&D with, I have one, so why don't you come to the next...

All the new monsters are really the best in my opinion. I wouldn't say they are simplified, though. I found their mechanics and jargon hard to work with, but I still make the effort to convert some of these monsters to my own game. The encounter and daily powers were very nice also, and the...

I have no objection.