Search results

Do the 3e demographics really establish that any city is going to be powerful enough to scrag a dragon with no problem? Because that is lame.

According to the demands of the storyline and logic of the world, surely? I'm not going to give out a magic item just because some chart says I have to- I'm going to give out a magic item if a bad guy had a magic item and the players kill him for it. And, of course, in any level-based system...

I was serious about the uranium dragon. (Or I guess for Medievalism, the pitchblende dragon) A dragon that poisons and corrupts the very ground it walks on, with radiation and mutation themed abilities, would be pretty cool.

Don't even need to be metal- what about stone or flint dragons?

I want an Uranium dragon.

While it is clear that the game will certainly support modding your dragon to your heart's content- so as far as I am concerned, that argument is done, I'd like to take issue with the idea that it needs spellcasting levels to be a mastermind. Those help...but it's still a giant, scary friggin'...

Aren't they increasing the fluff-per-entry in the MM? Like ecology and society stuff?

Oh no! A game that encourages imagination?! What ever will we do! Sorry for the sarcasm, but I can't help but feel a little...puzzled, by the attitude that GMs have all these rigid limitations to what they can do. In the olden days, and in every other RPG on the market, a GM was supposed to...

Model high-level fighters after Karsa Orlong or the Seguleh, I guess.

But popularity doesn't equal quality! There is no objective measure for this stuff.

Think the T-1000, only with wings.

I would call that success, but not "winning", since the players certainly don't lose.

There isn't, not from my perspective or experience. The GM can't "win", so he's not participating in any kind of friendly competition.

Yes, gaming philosophies that postulate an adversarial, zero-sum or otherwise antagonistic relationship between GM and player confuse me. Without trust, shared expectation and cooperation toward a common goal of "fun!" what's the point of the gaming group at all?

Mercury golems would be cool- all liquid metal killing machines like the T-1000...

True, true. And it's tough to wear the Player's Handbook as a hat. Basically, D&D isn't a recipe for a specific dish, it's a set of tools for creating a wide variety of dishes.

Just like a cookware manufacture gets to decide what you make with their pots and pans...?

I should note that it is much easier to make something more adult than it is to make it more kid friendly, so I, personally, am not concerned about any "sanitizing" of D&D products since I'm going to make them pretty dark anyway.

While logical, a lot of people don't like learning new systems. I mean, I'm not one of them since I have like seventy of the godforsaken things, but these people exist for which D&D is the only game.

Generally speaking, I prefer to only use the game mechanics when I'm prepared for any possible outcome. If I don't want the possibility of character death to occur as a result of a particular combat, I'll just handwave it entirely, or skip over it. This certainly cuts down on the fudging I have...