Search results

Sweet, I got a crapload of Midgard pdfs from their Bundle of Holding. I'll have to check this out when I get a chance.

This actually is another reason to avoid common rolls. If the cleric in the party has a background where he lived as a cloistered priest, and he's invested in religion and/or history skills, telling them that they know this without rolling because they spent all those lonely years studying...

That's fair. It's not cool for anyone to think everyone else should play the exact same way they do. It's not pass/fail, it's more of a pass/don't try/fail with consequences. A bashing down the door example: (DM): The door ahead of you appears to be barred form the other side. (PC): I want...

So, in this case, there are consequences to failure. And it's important. So yeah, in this case, rolling is a good idea. Nobody is arguing against that.

Right, like I wrote, skipping the boring parts for the fun stuff is the way to go, in my opinion. And what's fun is definitely down to taste.

That was my initial point. If it's not important or interesting, why bother rolling? But if it is important or interesting enough for a roll, then there I take time to discuss it with the players.

Without the back and forth, though, the player just says, "Okay, I'm going to roll my History to see if I know anything about the cult, and if that doesn't work, I'll take it to a sage and roll Persuasion." That doesn't make for much of a story, in my mind. On the other hand, I suppose if the...

I feel ya. Weeding through all the class talk has been a hassle. :p

Sounds like my experience with Age of Worms back in the day. Turned me off of APs.

Agreed, but constantly rolling dice for every little thing breaks that illusion for me. It's okay to say you don't like playing certain ways, but elitist proclamations don't help anyone. The RPG scene is a lot wider than simply D&D. What Happy Jacks jokingly refer to as "Hippie Games" are...

Definitely, I don't disagree. I just don't let the dice decide everything, just the questionable stuff, and certainly the important stuff.

That's why I qualified "non-esoteric knowledge" in my post. In such a case, I'd ask the player of the human rogue why his PC might know such a thing before discussing specifics about rolling. On the other hand, how important is this Chancellor's name? Will it result in an etiquette faux pas...

I like to cut the typical DM a little more slack in understanding how knowledge works. One doesn't have to be a master of X to maybe know a tidbit or two about X. However, a master of X will indeed know a whole lot about X, and shouldn't require a roll in regards to non-esoteric information...

That's the thing, though. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. But where's that line? Asking, "Does it have anything to do with any of the words written on the character sheet?" is a basic one, but not really good enough criteria for me, personally. There's a few other questions I ask...

This would be useful for converting a PF AP.

That's not really what UA is for, though. It's a testing ground for new rules. This could fit well as a D&D Alumni article though.

The Eberron UA wasn't an acknowledgement, Eberron has things like Dragonmarks and warforged. I'm not sure what Greyhawk requires conversion for?

Yes, basic game theory here. Why players want to roll all the time boggles my mind, honestly. Might be some sort of Pavlovian conditioning response (roll high, get cookie).

There were some decent releases, no doubt. SKR did good with SB. But for the most part, releases from WotC for GH didn't quite cut the muster.

See, that was originally my go-to answer, but the OP is looking for an old school feel, and "level when it feels right" ain't old school. :)