Search results

In my opinion, fighter suffers because it lacks an archetype. It's not clear who he is and what he does (other than "fighting", but that's something everybody in D&D does anyway) - so the class stays generic and flavorless. I'd happily get rid of fighter. And if not, the class should be given...

When I say "good enough" in this context, I have a very clear criterium in mind. The game does not have to be perfect. I can't even determine what "perfect" means here, because I play many different games and I can't say that any of them is globally better than others. But each game I play is...

For me, the whole matter has little to do with happiness. We're talking about a commercial product - about paying for something to fulfill some needs. Either a game is good enough for my specific needs and preferences that I judge it worth the listed price or not. I'm not emotionally...

I used a system like this in my homebrew, but at some point decided it's not a good idea. It worked fine and I would keep it if the game was strongly focused on fencing or something like that. But it was too complicated and too time consuming for a game where combat was only of secondary...

As a DM, I want conflict hooks: - things the character wants, but they can't easily get - character beliefs that may put them in trouble - character beliefs that may be put in doubt - NPCs that don't like them or that want something from them - NPCs that the character doesn't like or wants...

Running games is fun for me, a reward in itself. So, if I could run a game I like, and for sensible people, I'd treat it more as a hobby activity than a job. If they paid me for getting to the session location and back (if it was far from my home), and took care of the snacks, I'd gladly run a...

I want my NPCs to be simple. They may be similar in mechanics to PCs if PCs are simple. They need to be much simpler, if PCs are complicated and mechanics-heavy. After all, each player has one PC, while I have 5-10 NPCs in a single adventure, not counting the nameless ones I improvise on the...

It may sound strange, but it's the other way around for me. I'll gladly play a game with classes that are restricted, because they represent solid archetypes, specific, separate groups in setting or separate tactical roles. That are the cases when classes are useful, they mean something...

Playing a game that doesn't focus its mechanics on combat and uses similar resolution for combat and non-combat conflicts can be a very refreshing experience. Without the system funneling you into violent solutions, it's much easier to think of different types of interesting situations. I...

I like classes where they fit - in games with strong genre archetypes or separate tactical roles. In such cases, they are a perfect tool and I definitely don't want to get rid of them. On the other hand, there are many playstyles where classes don't help in any way and act as an artificial...

Fair warning: Never assume that PCs will cooperate with the NPC, or that they will trust the NPC, or that they will fight the NPC, or even that they will be interested in any kind of interactions with the NPC. Whoever the NPC is. Players are likely to surprise you. If you build a whole, long...

Give me a game where combat is highly tactical and balanced, but does not involve much math. Bonus points if a major conflict may be resolved in 30min. Give me a game where belief dynamics of big groups of people (political preferences, religions, advertising) are modelled by solid mechanics...

Powered by Apocalypse (Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Monsterhearts etc.) Roll 2d6+stat (stats are in range -1 to +3): 6 or less: GM makes a hard move (a negative consequence that can't be avoided and must be dealt with). This can mean a failure in the task attempted, but does not have to...

There are two parts of the equation. On one hand, it's impossible to do a creative work if one isn't passionate about it, at least a little. If you don't like what you're creating, it won't be good. Better leave designing games for other playstyles to other people and make something you can get...

You see, as a GM I don't like to have this kind of responsibility on me. I'll gladly decide n the spot on setting matters, or on NPC personalities and motivations. But in a rules-heavy game there is too many interacting parts and an on-the-spot ruling may easily break things (like neutralize...

The way I see it, there is several factors that, together, make a game rules-heavy. The first is the number of interacting pieces on the character sheet. The more things need to be calculated from other things, or are only made available by other things, or strongly depend on other things in...

In order of importance: 1. Remove ability score from attack roll (keep it for damage and riders) to reduce the pressure to max one ability score. Modify riders, class abilities and defense calculation to make every ability score useful for every class (not necessarily equally useful - but there...

The GM is able to improvise, reacting to what players do. And the GM can prepare an adventure with player goals in mind, so it contains what they are interested in. The module - however it is written - is static. It can't adapt. So it either leaves things for the GM to decide, or forces the...

It's much easier to make a bad rules-heavy game than a rules-light one. In my experience, that is the main difference. When there is a lot of rules, it's more probable that some of them will be bad. It will be harder to detect the bad parts during playtesting. So there will be some rules that...

Definitely homebrew, on both sides ot the table. As a player, I need the freedom of choice that no module gives me. Having to follow a pre-planned plot ruins the fun for me, and the only sandboxy modules I met were very combat-centric. As a GM, I tend to improvise a lot, reacting to what...