Search results

In GURPS, most DMs I've seen tend to start at 100 points, which represents just shy of heroic - but can get there pretty quick. Then again, I've only had 1 GURPS campaign last more than a few months. Where D&D campaigns, I've run or been in last years.

I think an equally relevant question: How long do your groups STAY at level 1 or even levels 1-3? Some groups power through the early levels fast - say a few sessions. Others take longer to MUCH longer. I've seen a group play for 2 years (around 2 sessions a month) and still not hit level 5 -...

Our typical starting level for a new campaign is 3, though we have started at 5 and even at 10th. I'm perfectly happy to start even higher but have noticed many players aren't actually comfortable starting 3rd tier plus without some lead in - too many moving parts.

So I thought I'd do some checking into the Puppet episode and did some googling. Google now has their AI answer at the very top. It REALLY struck me how impressively wrong it is! But it's presented in a factual manner with no indication (other being labeled an AI overview) of the likely massive...

The player is likely using the term railroading wrong then. Because, railroaded into what? Not using firebolt? I mean, if the players started using firebolt and suddenly EVERY NPC was immune to fire, then they might have a point.

Absolutely, many do. A while back I joined a Deadlands HoE game. I was told it was bog standard rules. So I made a typical gunslinger character. First session, I noticed EVERYONE else had swords knives and other melee weapons - with range not that prevalent. This struck me as VERY odd for...

Personally, I would just let the PCs prevail here, seems like they earned it. As the DM, it's not like I'm going to suddenly run out of villains.

Interesting. I pretty much always start a new campaign at level 3 or higher these days. Characters are currently at 18th (though in this particular case there was a level jump, skipped 11-16). We've rotated DMs several times, each running their own 5e thing. Starting points were (not including...

In my experience, DMs who go the opposite direction - Way, way too many house rules, extra rules and even "hidden rules" are as or more likely. If I start at a table for 5e, Savage Worlds, whatever and am given a big book of house rules (or worse, not given anything in advance but every session...

I've only done a true world in actual danger of not existing plot once or twice but when I've done it there were other realities and even time travel shenanigans in play, so failure was an interesting complication not necessarily a full finality.

I suppose it's very group dependant. I was also thinking of the specific situation where the group REALLY wants to finish an adventure or module. The one time this occurred to my group it was a 3.5 campaign group was 14th level and suffered a 4 out of 5 PC loss. 3 made new characters because...

He DMd for the group once. Strangely we never asked him to do so again.

It was a LONG time ago, but from what I remember no. If the book had a fight with the guards, then NOTHING we could do would prevent that fight - even though the end result was simply progressing from one place to another - either way. It was an extraordinarily frustrating experience. But...

Well in a true Sandbox there is no "plot." Usually things progress based on a natural progression (usually based on what the DM thinks should happen, especially if the PCs aren't involved, but not always - methods differ). And of course, where ever the PCs are they usually wander into and...

No, a classic sandbox is having all of the areas, NPCs etc. already set. The PCs then can wander freely and encounter them, but they are constrained by what the DM has placed. Now, done well/properly the PCs will act as dominoes/ripples and much of what they do will change how the surroundings...

Really, Never? I once had a DM who would literally keep referring to the book (fiction book not adventure book) he was cribbing the adventure from. If we did ANYTHING that deviated from the plot of the book he would just ignore/discount it and continue with the plot of the book. The sad thing...

It's always good to have at least one time in a group where the villain wins big or even "permanently." - just so everyone sees it can happen. Though I also applaud the DM (many years) ago - who pulled off the "yes, the villain was a horrible, evil, mean jerk.." But his plan to save the realm...

But gaming isn't or shouldn't be like that. If the party suffers a TPK/near TPK most groups just have everyone make new characters and continue. Sandbox, linear, the game goes on. Often the demise/defeat of the prior group can be incorporated into the fiction (the extent depending on what the...

100% agree that's the way it SHOULD be.

100% agree it's possible and for me it's actually preferable to not only incorporate player preference but to actively feature it. But that's just not what I remember seeing from the more vehement sandbox proponents. I'll have to dig up some examples to reference.