Search results

Make spells more varied how they pace their power. Leave some as typical Vancian, all or nothing, big deal effects. But then have some that: Are recastable N times, and get better as they go. Are recastable N times, and get worse as they go. Variations on the first two where the rate is erratic...

I'd be somewhat open to a system where the fighter (and to a lesser extent other warrior classes) could gain in power through equipment OR substitutes for it OR a mix of same. That's basically what Achilles is--he's a guy that didn't need magic armor because his "permanent magic skin armor"...

I think there has to be a split between what is in the listing and what is elsewhere, in a modular game, and it has to be a thoughtful, considered split every time. My reply in the ability damage topic yesterday on modular monster poisons is one example...

You can't entirely fix the 15-minute workday problem with mechanics. (At least not with elegant ones that people will want to use.) That's why there will always need to be DM advice, especially articulating the main tricks that good DMs already use today. OTOH, a well-designed game can...

I think this objection is easy to handle, with a little discipline by the authors. All you need is some evocative keywords, sometimes mixed with some numbers for scaling. This is, in my opinion, how early D&D poison types were intended to work. They just got side-tracked. So you don't say that...

What you are describing is for action to action, micro-level stuff. But I find it interesting that this is very similar to the structure that Mouse Guard uses at the opposite extreme, going from one "adventure" to the next. Basically, after the players have taking a few shots at solving whatever...

DM guidelines, first page, "Contests" at bottom of second column, 3rd paragraph. It is three sentences instead of the one I remembered: It's using stake, intention, and consequences in the plain English that makes them not stand out in this context, but I don't think the word choice is...

One of the reasons BW works so readily the way pemerton discusses above is that its difficulties ("obstacles") are exponential when compared to in-game reasoning, and there are rarely more than 10 of them. Modifiers can drive an obstacle up higher, but even an OB 6 is very difficult to pull...

The patterns are going to be there whether they name them or not. The patterns are going to be there whether they tell us the names or not. The only real problem with naming patterns is if you miss some and/or confuse them. It would actually help to have more than one such naming scheme...

I wasn't entirely plain. I mean the more involved in the decision making process they are, they worse the product. Even outsourcing won't work if they don't know what they are doing and/or can't keep from messing up things they shouldn't touch. (Or rather, outsourcing especially won't work.)...

Seconded! WotC* has tried really hard to prove that "core competency in anything software related" is on the opposite side of the solar system from where they happen to be. At some point, you'd think they'd start looking around for working solutions to support, partner, even buy out. I bet if...

Well, you can think about it. :devil::angel: I was a little surprised at how fast we got so many great responses, and thus wasn't prepared to follow through early this week. As soon as I can, I'll get the first collation done and start the sister mechanics thread. I want the mechanics to...

Me too. It's a necessary skill for great DMing. My point was that when when you doing that, you aren't using the system. Thus, the nature of the experience produced in that environment doesn't really say anything about the soundness of the system. (Well, if you are forced to pull something out...

That, too. :D

The latter--though I guess with the implication that at least some of the options map onto the fiction as closing of wounds, thus the term "healing". I was thinking yesterday about how "damage" in D&D often sits astride the gap of fiction and mechanics, and was wondering if I could safely...

Broadly speaking, tighter action economy, side by side initiative, less options, and the surprising one--increased mortality. It's easy to run for 12 1st level PCs when you know that two or three of them are going to buy it in the first hour, and start playing monsters. It's almost like...

Yes and no. Yes, you can simply change the budget, and the game scales quite well in expected results. What it doesn't do, is scale well in the time of play and the nature of that play. For example, as one who usually runs large parties, I've noticed that somewhere, usually around the sixth...

Not only that, "security by obscurity" never works--especially not in the internet age. That is, everyone is going to figure this stuff out sooner or later--probably sooner. So either the design depends on people not knowing this stuff or it doesn't. If it doesn't depend on the obscurity, then...

There's one sentence in the playtest document that calls out intent and stakes, but of course doesn't explain to the playtester anything about how to use them or why. Given it's placement, it presumably is a placeholder for a thought to be developed later. Let it Ride, not mentioned at all...

This relates to that comment several weeks ago, I believe from Mearls, that a good rules should be one that if you need to look it up, makes sense as soon as you read it. It is a rule that you can honestly say, "I didn't know that before, but I'm not surprised that it is this way." That's not...