Search results

Used it for sure. Admittedly we got most of the rest of the combat sequence wrong, but it worked. In fact I'd say that the way we ran things it it actually sped up play quite a lot - the DM only had to describe the scene / situation once, and then the players' intentions just got adjudicated...

If you're not part of the ongoing playtest I'd assume that your session would be observed and that both you and the players (either individually or as a group) will be interviewed at least after the experience (and possibly before as well). If not I think you're on the right track. If you can...

Well, anchovies are a Roman "invention" (well, maybe they didn't invent the fish itself, but the kind that come cured in tins), and have long been used as the basis for sauces, including Caesar salad dressing. In fact they where the basis of a staple dish in Roman times (can't remember the name...

Ability bonus plus half-level bonus plus proficiency bonus plus enhancement bonus plus whatever other bonuses apply. So: none of the above. What I want it to be: no enhancement bonus on ammunition, or even better no item enhancement bonii at all. Still none of the above.

I'll admit that I may have played the curse as too close to "intelligent", which it wasn't. But it definitely was a malignant force. It didn't act on any source of information or make choices or lay plans, it just acted against those that fell within it's parameters. Yes, exactly. And I admit...

Well, I got that idea from the players, actually. I had considered the idea that the PCs might sell the compass, and had a value based on normal (3.5) guidelines for the worth of such an item, including the fact that it was cursed. But the players pointed out that there had to be a crew ruthless...

Because it didn't seem clever to me. I can see that, given that they didn't seem to think I was being clever either, I should have just let it go. But it seemed like a kinda dumb plan, that might actually have worked if they had managed to stick to it. I managed to pretty much screw them out of...

Yeah, I can see the point of that. I was actively screwing with the PCs at that point - it could have just remained dark and they wouldn't have found it (immediately). It was mostly just random circumstance that resulted in a PC being in the same chamber as the compass, in the dark. I didn't set...

Although... Now that I've posted the above wall-of-text, I think this is probably the core of the matter. The players thought I had short-circuited their choice in the matter, and really I did. I felt justified because I didn't really feel that their choice was as valid or clever as they...

The players did make a decision not to use the compass. Specifically, they decided that they could still get the fabulous treasure without endangering themselves. They where even correct, up to a point. And they did run across the treasure (the compass) partially by accident, but they wouldn't...

So, the thread on rat-bastard DMs has led me to thinking about some things, including some of my DMing experiences that did not work out as well as I had hoped... So I was thinking that I would recount one (perhaps more, later) of these experiences in the hopes that some of the other DMs here...

As has been stated upthread by FireLance, if the players don't enjoy your ratbastardry, you aren't going to be DMing (RB- or otherwise) for long. There's an issue of trust here - the players have tom accept that your game is fair, specifically that the consequences you throw at them are not...

I would just like more (positive) incentive for players to try to go more encounters / milestones before an extended rest. Most of the suggestions I've seen are in regards to forcing more encounters or penalizing the PCs for stopping early; if the players are going to get their characters in...

Airhorn.

And here I was assuming that it must work like TerrainWalk... (How else are you going to climb through spiders without taking the difficult terrain penalty?)

I was thinking that, myself, and then I realized: what better to put on the reverse of desert tiles than water? I mean, you're less likely to need both at the same time, right?

This. I've seen more failed attempts at true ratbastardry over the years (and this includes me looking in the mirror) than actual RBDM moments, and I think that one of the big traps is the idea that you want players returning to the table despite your ratbastardry... No, you want them returning...

I've been quite effectively ninja'd, but sure, I'll add my two cents... When the players want something that might have nasty consequences, give them both.

I disagree. I think high bonuses on a "nova round" or for the entire party are an assumed part of 4e. Without them you can't take the monsters down in a reasonable amount of time, and you get grind. Yes, the "downside" of this is that not every encounter is really challenging in and of itself...

Righteous Brand got nerfed because it's a level 1 at-will. Also, from what has been said about the Essentials line and the errata in general, we've probably seen the most major errata that we're going to for 4e. Not that they can't or won't still change stuff, but I don't expect many major...