Search results

Perhaps they were common in many games but most of us old school DMs didn't put them in every adventure. In fact I'd venture some campaigns never say them even once. So most of the time it was a long process to earn the levels back prior to being able to get a restoration.

This seems a matter of taste. I think the debate I suppose is what is in the PHB and thus considered default without DM approval. I always send out a packet that sets up all of these decisions for the campaign ahead of time so the PHB doesn't matter all that much to me. Still, if I were WOTC...

Well for me it is negative but I assumed some people like it. So it was "neutral" in the broader world but it was a negative to me. I mean Paizo sells a lot of adventure paths. I don't mind though the change of terms if railroad has become too toxic but then why is linear good? Won't it soon...

Yes. Creativity and immersion can be enhanced by limits. And since it is a voluntary pursuit, no one is forced to do anything. It is choosing to play in a DMs campaign and agreeing to play by the limitations of that campaign. For me the very best players are those who embrace the idea and...

It doesn't though. I reject both your point and your attempt at humor. We will just have to agree to disagree. Both statements cannot be true. And no, the player is free to play a character that could reasonable exist in the world the DM has designed. Not just anything. I do think it is...

If the town is not preauthored, then the DM would have to author that fiction. He'd probably make some rolls based on the probability a cleric would be there. Super big cities fall into this category. No one is detailing every house or even every business unless maybe you are me. I love...

For me, D&D means something and if we allow the game to be modified to the point (even if in small steps) that nothing is this the same then their s nothing essential to D&D. It cannot just be a fantasy flavored adventuring game. A GURPS variant for example covers those bases but it's never...

This is so awesome. I would love to go on the tour.

No. You cannot rewrite reality (our reality) and make words say things they don't. If a player chooses to author some fiction, that is absolutely something their character cannot do. Their character would "discover" what was authored by the same player. The disconnect is very clear.

It's not hard to understand. People just don't like it.

I'm not supporting anyone's argument here with this statement. I am just informing because I have played Diplomacy. Negotiation is required to be successful at Diplomacy. Thus the name of the game. Everyone is constantly negotiation and they do so in secret.

The assigned role of the DM though is to run a campaign fairly and to have fun. He has no "in world" objectives. It is why he determines what magic items get into the game. The players have characters in the world and they have an agenda. Now, I fully expect them to be honest and fair but...

I think that even an impartial flawed judge is better than letting those involved in the events become judges themselves. Of course it is certain that some player will have more knowledge about some subject than the DM at some point in the campaign. I'd say yes you are supposed to just run...

I can agree here. I want my players taking the game seriously. That means trying to act as though they really are their characters and it's not a "game piece". I never experienced individualism as you describe it "in game". Obviously I have in the world. My groups knew early on that only...

I love Monte Cook and most of his older work but I never could get into the cypher system. I wish he produced stuff for D&D instead but I'm still glad he seems to be doing well. I wish him well.

And that is what I was talking about being irritating. I experienced this long ago in the dissociative mechanics threads during 4e. It is very hard in these situations to get people to see it. In fact, seeing it would probably ruin their current way of playing so they likely aren't ever going...

In fairness it does divide the playerbase though I think the view that the DM is the final authority is the dominant view if you consider D&D and D&D adjacent games.

I think for those of us "raised up" in that style we are pretty wedded to it if we didn't abandon it long before now. Even so, that does not prevent you from playing in a different style. Even as a player, as soon as I determine the DM is not that way I tend to want to leave the game.

In the old days 9 characters was commonplace in the literature. I rarely had that many. We have on occasion played multiple characters per player. Probably not best though for new players. I think many games assume more characters than people actually have and thus the TPKs.

In some cases my players have said "I try to...." That isn't necessary because it is implied either way and not everyone says that all the time of course.