Search results

You're right, especially in today's market. Good adventures can be a hard sell, but historically good adventures produced by the market leader are not a hard sell. He's referring to 1e-era T$R modules in his post. I think the top-selling modules of that era are I6, S1, and T1. There are also...

Fruit Brute

Lameness. David Kenzer has even said that the reason he started Kenzer & Co. and produced the Kingdoms of Kalamar boxed set and modules was because of the garbage that T$R was putting out at the time, especially Gargoyles.

They are if you read the rest of Erik Mona's post: In short, lame adventures are a hard sell, always have been and always will be. Good adventures are not a hard sell, so one can't apply the modifier "always" to modules being a hard sell. TSR didn't just do it by uniqueness, they did it...

Yes! Like, say, B2. :uhoh:

-- at any given time. Groups can rotate GMs, therefore increasing the size of the market. The problem here is that GMing a D20 game can be hard. WOTC and others should look into how they can make GMing a game easier to increase the pool of GMs and therefore the market for adventures. One might...

Sorry, not when one uses words like "always." If adventure modules are "always" a hard sell as Mr. Mearls says, then they were a hard sell for TSR back in the day. But Mr. Mona says they weren't. One of them must be wrong. I believe Judges Guild also did fairly well in the early 1e era. The...

A lot of the older modules are 'open' enough (for example, B2, D3, and I6) that one can run through them more than once. And others are just so ridiculously difficult that reading through them doesn't do a lot of good. I've read both S1 and Labyrinth of Madness multiple times, but I would not...

Obviously you can't both be right. ;)

Not necessarily, groups can rotate GMs. If adventures really aren't selling, then perhaps WOTC should ask itself what it can do to increase the pool of GMs (like, making D&D easier to DM!). Even those who do not run pre-made adventures still mine them for content. See above. ;) That's WOTC's...

(Sorry for the digression.) Why not the following: Will = based on WIS and/or CHA Fortitude = based on CON and/or STR Reflex = based on DEX and/or INT* (By "and/or" I mean either taking the average of the two and figuring the bonus, or taking the higher of the two bonuses, if any.) *INT...

Am I alone here in actually liking the Comeliness stat from UA-era 1e?

It would be better to say that in 1e, Charisma did different things. No, it wasn't linked to spells, turning, or laying on of hands; but it was linked to hirelings, followers, and henchmen.

Hitler is specifically cited in the 1e DMG as someone whose Charisma would have exceeded 18 if he were better-looking.

Suppose one rolls one's Comeliness separately and adds the Charisma modifier to the total? Then suppose future changes to Charisma or Comeliness affect the other stat on a one-to-one basis (e.g., if one's Charisma increases by one, so does one's Comeliness)? It would explain why the ladies find...

OSRIC 1.11 for Workgroups.

I'm not saying that he couldn't be -- I'm just saying that one couldn't come to the conclusion based solely on the premise that the derivative rules are better than the original rules. I agree. In fact it's entirely possible that you or I could take an idea or proto rule of Gary's and improve...

I don't disagree, necessarily, but what about the case in which the work of the later designer (whom I called "X") is derivative of the work of the original designer ("Y"). For example, I don't think one might say that "Monte Cook is a better game designer than Gary Gygax because 3e is so much...

Always?

Not to mention the fact that errors can be introduced after the code compiles. . . . I don't have a lot of D20 books (and I don't play 3e so errors wouldn't really bother me anyway), but are math errors in them more pervasive than coding errors in programming textbooks? (I'm not talking about...