Search results

Well what you asked was: "What's so smart about careful resource management? Why is taking a chance with limited resources stupid?" So. You are "taking a chance", i.e. trusting chance. How prepared you are will affect the probabilities of outcome for the fight ahead. In this regard, neglecting...

Because you are trusting chance to provide you with the outcome you wish for. It sure may be bold, courageous and strong-headed, but smart, on a tactical level? I don't think you can really make that case, all other considerations/variables being equal. That's not what I was saying. Seems to me...

Sure. You still can. It's not as much an assumption on the game's part as it's once was, however (see Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, vol. 3 of OD&D, 1974, and the First Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, in this regard). Moreover, you sure still have smart and foolish play, but the...

Masks of Nyarlathotep. If you play CoC, don't have it, and don't end up getting it through this sale, you are missing one of the, if not -the-, greatest role playing game campaign books of all time.

The difference, of course, is that if players act like they're tough with first level PCs, they die. Period. Slash. Roll a new character. Risks in a dungeon are managed differently with each edition. The basic, gross assumption is that the greater the risks (and thus greater the probabilities...

When the virtual game table is ready.

DM's call.

Yup. Level limits, as written. :)

That's good to know. :)

I generally prefer to challenge the player's wits rather than the character's stats. A buttload of needless, and frankly pointless, dice rolling then simply does not occur when you start playing this way. The players' wits are challenged, and if they take the bait and get engaged, then they'll...

Make your players learn that "fun" isn't about hitting the "Win" button.

Right. I wanted to avoid a potential "echo chamber" effect, however, where mostly the people who are already fans of the game, enough at least to post on its dedicated forum, would give their input about it. Gives only one side of the story, if you see what I mean. ;)

Yes. I prefer old-school, faux-medieval, humano-centric milieux.

I'm very pleased with Mongoose's Traveller myself, as a matter of fact. :)

Thanks a lot for your feedback, Jeff. Since I share your feelings, I feel it's pretty safe for me to invest. You talked about there being "two Glorantha books" you looked at. The Ruins of Glorantha book, which seems cool, and what is the other one? The "Second Age" main book? If so, I have the...

That "AD&D2 killed D&D"? Depends on who you ask, I think. For some people, in terms of feel, AD&D2, its settings, modules, further treatment down the road, have little in common with what pre-UA AD&D is. For some of these people, AD&D2 in effect "killed" the official game for them. For others...

A bit over the top, but you got the basic logic right. :D

With B/X D&D it'll depend heavily on the particulars of the game, as it isn't implied stricto sensu by the rules themselves. Therefore, "sometimes". In First Ed, it is totally implied by the rules, and more over, if you aren't careful as a player, you end up dead more often than with any other...

I think "OSR" has become a useless acronym used just as much to derisively describe some sort of "cult" or "cabal" of old-schoolers than it actually refers to an umbrella of people with widely different takes on widely different types of vintage games and play styles (D&D and otherwise).

We'll have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid.