Search results

These days, my preference is that species choice should be entirely cosmetic - instead, have the player pick a handful of traits for their character and let them justify them however they want (maybe Bruenor has darkvision because he's a dwarf, Geralt has it due to his mutations, and Arya has it...

In 35 years of gaming, I can count the number of campaigns to reach the teen-levels on the fingers of one hand. High level play is something I'd like to achieve more of, in theory, but in practice it just doesn't seem to work out. That said, my most played edition in that time is 3e (or 3.5e)...

Agreed. I'm inclined to suggest that the players should create their characters with no items, and then the DM assign those. That way they get those important, and powerful items, but they also can't optimize their builds based on having particular items. Or... don't worry about it. :)

Wasn't there a great server crash a few years ago (well, a decade and a half ago), in which a vast chunk of our collective history was lost?

Definitely not a wish. :) From the comicbook.com interview: "Rather than sort of having to reset the clock, [the rules revisions] means then we can return and do different things the next time we visit a setting, look at it through a different angle, explore different parts of the setting, dig...

I would be extremely surprised to see either a full-blown Dragonlance campaign setting book or a full Manual of the Planes - in both cases, that would make the setting essentially "done". My bet would instead be something more like the old "Planes of Law" set - something covering a fairly broad...

As I said, they've made multiple attempts now at a brand-new never before seen setting. For whatever reason, they've concluded that none of those were suitable for release.

Surely it's not a surprise that the settings aren't one-shots? By this point they've done just about all the settings that have strong name recognition. Dark Sun and Greyhawk are the only real hold-outs, but they're unlikely to cover those (for reasons). And despite repeated efforts, they...

Happy with any of them - just advertise it ahead of time. At present, my game is PG-13, leaning towards PG. That's a consequence of the environment in which I'm running, though, rather than a matter of preference.

That one always amuses me - I found HotDQ to be rather better than I'd been led to believe (albeit still pretty bad), but found "Rise of Tiamat" to be abysmal, and not in a good way.

"A Game of Thrones" for me. All of the first three volumes are great, but that's the only one that stands alone. "Tigana" is currently in my to-read pile.

Yeah, I remember those days. It's fair to say that a huge amount of the current 3pp is likewise of indifferent quality. But, as in the d20 days, there are some gems to go along with the dross. The difficulty, as always, is finding them. :) Makes sense. One of the benefits of being a permanent...

Agreed. As far as I can tell, the big lesson Hollywood should learn from all the bombs this year is "don't release films in 2023". It doesn't look like that's the lesson they are going to learn, though.

That's not true, though. Those things just won't come from WotC. But there's no shortage of people producing all those types of material, via DM's Guild, via the OGL/CC licenses, via DTRPG, and so on. The big problem is the sheer volume makes finding the good stuff much harder. (Plus, deep...

I'd rather there not be alignment-touched species, but would rather have plane-touched species (where some of those planes are themselves aligned). I have no particular view on the number of such species - there could be one per plane, one per group of planes, multiple species per plane/group...

Interesting. I had previously heard that the 2nd Ed book sold ~750k copies, 3.0e ~500k, and 3.5e ~300k - so each version sold fewer than its predecessor, but if you count 3.0 and 3.5 as "third edition" then they (just) outsold 2nd Ed. I think the source for this was Ryan Dancey, or it could be...

I was thinking on it some more, and it's entirely possible that NOW's owners have a pre-existing deal with Paramount for an exclusive window on all their films. So it's entirely possible that there is, effectively, no new money at all associated with HAT being there, and that it's "coming home"...

NOW are another streamer, so they'd have paid a good bit more than 5-15 pounds. I don't know how much, but I do know that exclusive rights would have been worth more than non-exclusive. As to whether any spike in Paramount+ subs is worth more than the difference, we don't know. I did say I...

That's good news for me, but I'm not sure it's good news for HAT - it had been on NOW, which obviously meant they were being paid for that. If it's now becoming available in the in-house streamer, that presumably limits the value of the NOW deal.

Two rooms over. :) Back before my gaming was hugely curtailed, it would depend on the length of the game session - when we had games on a weeknight evening, my limit was half an hour each way for a 3-hour game. Before that I used to have much longer sessions on a Saturday, where I would travel...