Search results

Yea, maybe not in terms of numbers, but it's intimate in terms of how much work individuals put into DnD in order to turn WotC's rulebooks into a game. WotC's rulebooks are not a game, they're not *the* game. The game is that thing that people are playing, and it is heavily dependant on input...

I like the way that 1E did it. Be aware of the folklore, use it where it makes for an interesting game, and don't use it (except maybe for a monster name) where another idea seems better. Real-world folklore is told from the perspective of people who haven't read Earth's PHB, so to speak, so I...

But they let me DM. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any players on the other side of the screen. So by your logic, AFAICT, they decide stuff. And the "mutual consent" and all of that is not just semantics, it's really at the heart of the issue. Sure, you could solve the problem using rules...

Players "don't decide anything" ?! :confused: Maybe we're not playing the same game. Or, this is an extreme overstatement. It's possible that the lack of understanding of what effect a player's choice has on the flow of the game is causing the problem in the first place. If the player is...

It's the player that decides which door to kick in and how to use information to get them to the door in the first place. This issue is missing some important context - I don't think kicking in random doors is a part of many people's play styles. A player that complains about not being able...

Well actually, it seems that if you wanted to be utterly useless you have a range of choices, doesn't it? Undead and constructs are a pretty logical choice for a timeless dungeon setting because they don't need things to sustain them like living creatures do. They seem like they would be...

So why in the world would this reasoning be limited to just save-or-die effects? Isn't *any* sort of death, even the kind that takes 4 rounds instead of 1, going to end a PCs career (barring raise dead et. al.)? Why is killing someone in 4 rounds substantially better than in 1 round? Why...

I'm assuming there are some cases where an author has to conform to a back story or some other structure not of his choosing. A shared world setup, liscensed characters, that sort of thing. I find "everything" to be an overstatement, but the distinction is probably unecessary for the point...

I disagree with virtually everything you say in this post. :confused: Here are some highlights: This isn't "breaking it down". This AFAICT is assuming the very thing that is debateable. Yes, by itself this is not a problem. Nor does a per-day resource design prevent you from having some...

Whether or not I do something is not relevant to the discussion AFAICT. It seems to me simpler just to concede the point than change the subject. This is a matter of taste. An all-encounter-resources set-up interferes with the speed at which I want the adventure to move because it actually...

What about the system makes you sleep in the dungeon!? :confused: If you don't want to continue exploring the dungeon because you might get killed, how in the world is sleeping there anything other than suicidal? I agree with the part about "idiotic" but otherwise I'm not sure we're...

I don't know what threads you are talking about. And by "let's" I'm sure you meant other people. The threads I participate in often discuss hypothetical things. For example, it doesn't matter whether or not 4E will include Smurfs as a player race - discussing whether or not this would be a...

IMO this is not a per-day issue. This is something specific to the current set of DnD rules. Wizards and fighters could be balanced in a per-day set up as well. The genre, AFAIK is not one where characters are commonly fighting more than one battle per day. Because of this, your reasoning...

Either 4E is going to be better than 3E, or I'll continue with 3E. In either case I'm at least as well off as before, and possibly things are better. I guess I'm a sheep, I'm not really sure since I don't follow Chinese astrology. The rest of the OP is weird or insulting.

Thanks, I think this answers my request above for a DnD based example. Now I guess I'll add "PCs get to show off their skills and try sub-optimal combat strategies" to my short list (the other one being "potential PC death") of things you mean when you say "mechanical interest". With such a...

The "mechanical significance" thing is stressed over and over in a way that seems to imply that is distinct from chance of death. In some cases in your M&M example it is, but not being an M&M player I'm not really sure how much to make of this example. How significant is it to use action...

I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest. (I realize that an earlier example about your students attempted to show this, but I didn't quite get it.) Maybe...

Reading things written in absolute terms always sets off alarm bells to me. If you were speaking "purely" about your game, then what reason would you have to make universal statements? For example: Now I don't see anything about "your game" in this statement. Since it's about resource...

I'm pretty sure cursed -1 swords grow in trees in Limbo and are plucked by Slaad like fruit. Then they plane-shift to the Prime and hand them out to fighters who have secretly wished for a "magic sword" without being more specific. Other cursed -1 swords are created as a result of a bungled...

I agree with the spirit of most of what you're saying but this statement doesn't feel right to me. Perhaps I misunderstand the context. The attrition model requires that the DM plan the adventure/dungeon in 4 dimensions. It's just not good enough to think about what is sitting where and what...