Search results

they won’t get $1B from books, and that was not their 4e number either. Hasbro’s ‘D&D is undermonetized’ was talking about licensing, merchandise, movies, and Sigil, not rulebooks.

pretty sure it did, the number just is always growing with the success. You will never hear Hasbro say ‘we are very comfortable with the numbers X sells at, we would even still be comfortable with 10% less’, it will always be ‘we want more sales’

I do not know what numbers they wanted, but I assume 5e got there

to be fair, if an algorithm can reliably produce that, why would you not consider that useful / helpful? To me the main question then is what do I have to give up as a consequence of / in order to follow that algorithm, and is that worth it

this module tripped me up enough on a casual glance to dismiss it outright in my teens, it was painfully obvious at a glance or even a base level of realism / plausibility, I have the same issue with funhouse dungeons

that bothered me back in the 80s already and made me not run it because it made no sense to me ;)

being the sole source is not the same as preparing a 500 page setting document ahead of the first session

I agree, my interpretation of 'he does not drink alcohol' was more along the lines of, you cannot sweet-talk him into drinking alcohol, not you can threaten to kill his family and he still won't

but a more probable obstacle would limit the actions in a very similar way, see the cave-in vs gelatinous cube migration. I understand that you see a difference there while I do not, guess we have to leave it at that. I agree that neither should become a frequent occurrence as otherwise things...

just because one person does it that way does not mean everyone has to. You did not do any of this and called your game a sandbox, that you did not use D&D is immaterial to this

no I haven’t, will take a look, but I doubt it can do what I described, namely provide one explicit answer as to what the outcome is for any given action in any given situation where all the GM has to do is look it up. Was your ‘how many enemy wizards are after the party’ a BW scenario? If so...

I meant self-restraint as opposed to some game rules / mechanics that attempt to accomplish that restraint I am not sure we communicate restraint outside of what scenario we present in game, let's take your example I did not find the post you were referring to, I searched in this thread for...

no idea on either of these two. It seems to intentionally not contain (sub)classes when the TTRPG does. Why that is, is unclear, I cannot think of a good reason other than there being issues with them in DDB however, and in that case they also won't come later.

how many splat books, settings, adventures, etc. you release is completely unrelated to which version number an edition is You would get less pushback if your claim were that TSR released too many settings rather than that 2e was a failure

I showed that it increased sales, and it seemed pretty clear to me from the 1e trajectory that its days were very numbered. I have not seen you offer anything but your opinion (and TSR going bankrupt while 2e was the current edition) that it was a failure, you might want to work on that

that sounds like it should be errata’d

yes, setting information without crunch does not really benefit from DDB. Is this a rehash of information found in the other books or new content?

I agree with this, but the OP wanted to use rules to deal with it, that is why I was asking them how their rules establish them trusting the DM when they otherwise would not

if the rules say that it is the DM, then it still is the DM who has to decide the ‘details’ of the outcome, even if it is within the boundaries. So saying at that point any failure is on the rules, not the DM, still does not feel accurate to me. It shifts some responsibility on the rules, but...

I think it has a lot more to do with marketing and a game being ‘good enough’ than with skepticism