Search results

The Wilderlands from Judges Guild/Necromancer Games (already mentioned by Psion) is a great setting, and it's very easy to insert premade modules into it. It's most famous location, The City State of the Invincible Overlord, is a great place, which includes lots of potential adventures. It...

I agree. In the last long-ish camaign that I DM'ed (lasting roughly 10 months) I wrote up backstories for the PCs. However, those backstories had little impact on the campaign as it evolved. Rather it was what the PCs did during the adventures that led to further adventures, goals, stories...

If you're comfortable with it, and everyone is having a good time, why change it? This is a hobby that is meant to be enjoyable. There is absolutely nothing 'wrong' with running a low-magic style of game! Why on earth would you take that foolish statement seriously? Ignore such rubbish...

Ummm ... sarcasm, eh? (Sheesh, I even included a :p !) But at first level PCs aren't heroes. They're redshirts hoping to get a yellow or blue top if they can. A PC who is level 10 is a friggin' hero. Especially if the player needed luck, daring, and wit to get her there. [And for the...

Dragonsfoot.org would be a good place to start finding non-3e D&D players. :)

Cool! There's not many.

There are rules for first-level 'multiclass' characters in the DMG (at least in the 3e version; I'm not familiar with the 3.5 version).

Perhaps it's because I'm a grognard, but I feel that when running a 'real' D&D campaign (any edition), as opposed to a one-shot adventure or 'mini' campaign, it is best to start at first level. Starting at first level lets players see their PCs grow organically, as opposed to sprouting fully...

Same here. Giving players level 3+ characters and telling them 'You're already accomplished heroes -- but of course how you became accomplished is a bit fuzzy, and here's a bunch of background info for you to absorb and integrate into your role-playing...' seems most unsatisfying. As a player...

Sorry John, but I don't think that the skeleton you're talking about is in B2, and I don't remember it coming up during our game. Maybe you're thinking of some other module we talked about?

NPCs betraying PCs is a great virtue in a module! I ran part of KotB last year (using C&C, with JohnSnow as one of the players). The 'betrayal' by the priest from the Keep was a high point in the game. The players themselves seemed to enjoy that turn of events afterwards (even though they...

For a real campaign, definitely level 1. There is nothing more satisfying than bringing a character from level one up to higher levels. Starting at higher levels -- unless it is for a one-shot adventure or a 'minicampaign' -- just seems less satisfying IMO.

While not perfect, it was well put together. It was generic enough to fit into most campaign settings. The backstory was also pretty cool -- I liked the evil wood creatures.

I quite agree. I've never heard of this module. Any additional info? :)

I'm busy in my life as well, so I like modules too. But I definitely prefer the 'bare skeleton' version, since I'm quite happy to fill in the details myself! It is easy to do, not tedious (unlike statting up NPCs and monsters), and a module that is only skeletal in form is easy to fit into...

I agree. 2e Runequest (with a different magic system) would fit amazingly well.

What a foolish thing to say! Why would future Runequest Conan material render your existing Conan OGL stuff unusuable? :\

What !?! :confused: I think that this would be awesome, but I'm really surprised. I remember 'Mongoose Matt' stating emphatically over at RPG.net many weeks ago that this would not be the case. Do you have a link, tets?

Ah, so that review was a disaster in more than one way ... ;)

I am not alone! :) I'm often surprised at how few people know about this real gem. Heh, I assume you mean 'Angmar' not 'Arnor'! ;) It was a great book -- at least the later version expanded by Graham Staplehurst (iirc) was. The original version was rather light on information.