Search results

Yes, assume the players knew nothing of the impending attack. If I switch the location than what's the point of the players even making choices? I might as well just cut them out altogether. I think it comes down to if you want to have the PCs inhabit a world, or do you want to have them play...

I think we'll have to disagree. I find a huge difference between making an encounter mandatory no matter where players go, and picking a prepared one because the players went somewhere I had nothing planned.

To give another example of player choice having consequences, take for example that there is a group of orcs about to attack town A. Players happen to choose to leave town A for town B not knowing an attack is coming. Don't change the attack to happen in town B because you want them to have to...

I'm with Monayuris on this. Player choices should matter in the game. His first example is where the DM has not prepared something fixed for where the players choose to go, so inserts something from their library. His second example is that there is only one encounter the players can have, and...

The Greyhawk post-apocalyptic narrative comes from the history of the Rain of Colorless Fire causing a mass migration and the fact that the lands is strangely empty of population. Discussions usual point out the 'howling wilderness' that is Greyhawk's demographics. There is indeed civilization...

While I agree the current edition is a good game, it don't think it's entirely because 'we do RPGs better now' compared to the oldest editions. Because they were early in the design life of RPGs, they had a few clunky areas, but they also were easy to understand and play because they hadn't yet...

The campaign was built for a B/X ruleset, so yes, it had number of dangerous locations the PCs could visit and then retreat to safety to rest up for their next foray into danger. I also DM 5e and play a campaign with a style suited to it, so I don't have any issue understanding how those other...

I recently wrapped up a 24+ session B/X campaign with no cleric and it worked just fine. Players would get low, retreat and heal up before venturing out again. I can't really speak to 1e or 2e, but it was 3.5's math that required a cleric to make the adventuring day work.

For sure. I mean really, who plays an assassin in an adventuring party? That's just not going to go well...

As a B/X player, I say you're all wrong. 2e was a bloated mess. :) Ok, truthfully I left D&D in the early 1e era before MMII and UA and didn't return until 3.5e. I would never, ever play 4e again except as a one-shot for the combat. I found running 4e horrible and as a player the combats took...

Yeah, in 3.5 days I would run into the rogue player who only wanted to jerk around they other players and cause issue stealing and murdering. Now they're tielflings.

Let’s not forget the ‘there can only be one’ rules to achieve highest level as a Druid. Didn’t assassins also have to kill a guild master to get to the highest level? While wonky, they did have a lot of flavour due to them emerging out of play in a campaign, rather that a design reason.

Only NPCs, limited to 8th level. And no magic users at all. Dwarf PCs could be Fighters, Thieves and Assassins. As fighters they were limited to 7th level unless they had exceptional strength to get to 9th. All these restrictions of course were Gygax's desires for his setting.

I don't think the analogy works - it's nothing like that. Your stats determine how you roleplay your character. They don't have strong mechanical ties, as that's not what's important in an OD&D game. You're saying 'old D&D is bad because it doesn't do new D&D well.' Which is not the point. If...

Get off my lawn!!! Seriously, the game is what you make it. I've gone back and played OD&D and there's nothing wrong with it. The thing I like with it is that player's character sheets largely don't matter. It's what you do 'in world' that matters. I also love playing 5e but go into it...

It all starting going downhill when they allowed non-humans to have a class to satisfy the min/max players who wanted get all the benefits of a demi-human and a class. The game was originally archetype based - fighter, magic-user, elf, dwarf, hobbit. Ok, cleric was a weird but not unheard of...

Seems my thinking is the same as others have posted. I'd let the players know that the setting is very human-centric and Dwarves, Elves and other demi-humans are seen as oddities outside of places like Ulek, Celene and other isolated pockets. Tieflings come from Iuz and are definitely viewed...

One of the most liberating things for my campaign was when we walked away from 4e. I went back to B/X and discovered how much more fun I had DMing that than 1e, 3.5e or 4e. It also made me delve into the history of the game and really try to embrace making player rewards things in the world...

Yes, but everyone expected Elves and Dwarves to be like those from Middle-Earth and Hobbits to exist. Not to mention 1e Rangers looking suspiciously like Aragorn. Magic thankfully didn't end up working like Middle-Earth because it wouldn't be fun.

From a D&D perspective, the main complaint I have with Tolkien is that is was so wildly successful that Middle-Earth became the standard fantasy world type, pushing aside other styles. That's why is such a breath of fresh air whenever you read a story or a D&D setting that's not 'standard...