Search results

It was probably here: a poster named Quasqueton ran those numbers for a bunch of TSR modules. Some of those threads might be in the "archives" section, I'm not sure.

I think that's true of many of the TSR-era modules: the assumption that the PCs will only find a percentage of the available treasure. My experiences with Bone Hill bear that out: there's loads of treasure in there but what's been brought out each time was highly variable. (in all the times...

This is an interesting idea, if one has the right group of players. It would probably help if all those players had at least enough DMing experience to know what a vaguely-level-appropriate encounter looks like (doesn't have to be bang-on right but when someone turns in a Lich encounter for a...

Of my current group of four, two are forever-players (I'm married to one of them!) and two are or have been DMs. I've seen more of a mix. Most notably, I've seen a couple of people who were poor-to-awful players go on to become good-to-very-good DMs. And if required, I'm fully capable of and...

More or less, yes, assuming a game with any degree of risk or danger to its characters (i.e. loss conditions). The players and GM are working to different agendae beneath the overlying agenda of "keep the game going and keep the game fun". The GM's main sub-agenda is the same as the...

In an old campaign of mine, a couple of Cavaliers became long-term staples in the party. Since then, however, Cavaliers have often been one-hit wonders, dying at the first or second opportunity. They do, however, make great NPCs in the right culture.

Must have been a cloak because I don't think shields and bracers work together.

I've run and played Bone Hill several times and don't remember there being any Gauntlets of Ogre Power in there. Did those come from somewhere else?

By themselves, bracers (which cap out at AC 2) and ring of protection (which caps out at +5) can only get you to AC -3. To get to AC -7 requires some additional help, most likely Dex 18+. I've seen it done once, by an Illusionist in an old campaign of mine using just this setup, and she still...

My take: it's better to trust that the players will try to abuse things at some point, even if unintentionally. That way you're ready and prepared to deal with it if-when it happens, and if it doesn't happen then all is well and nothing is lost.

I think the answer to the thread title's question's has now emerged: Q: Why do people like alignment? A: So they can assign Neutral Evil as the default alignment of all DMs.

My rule of thumb is the more metal the armour has, the noisier it's likely to be; not just from clinking against itself but from things like the wearer's weapon scabbards (or worse, exposed weapons on a belt or across one's back) and other gear knocking into it, interaction with any obstacles...

When playing with friends who are forever-players, it can easily reach the point where you can fairly accurately predict what they're going to say if-when consulted with: almost invariably amounting to nerfs = no, boost = yes, neutral = who cares. Those players who are also DMs will, IME...

This was what the Sanctuary spell in 1e was for.

Or, just make on-the-fly in-combat healing not a thing; or something done only at very great risk to both the caster and the recipient. As in: --- healing effects - spells, herbs, surge, etc. - take a full round to cast/apply/use (exception: potions, which work as normal) --- any interruption...

Indeed. My game is the one that uses free-floating slots a la 3e Sorcerers (which is where I stole the idea from), largely because I very long ago came to detest pre-memorization of spells as too much fuss for too little reward. Next time out I'll be tweaking down the number of slots all...

There's a difference between cheerleaders who can't otherwise do anything and supporters who can (try to) do things just not as effectively as the expert or who can find ways to support and help the expert...or who can wander off and do their own thing; not like I've never seen this before. :)...

Some adventures are just better suited to some characters. I'm fine with that, as long as the DM tries to mix it up a bit e.g. if the last adventure was all undead where the Illusionist wasn't much use, make the next one all dumb brutes where she can have a field day. As DM I never feel...

My experience here has been mixed. I remember back in the 80s sitting around on numerous occasions with our DM and a few other players over far too much tea, shooting the breeze about all sorts of different rules ideas. Some great and fondly-remembered conversations but I'm not sure how many...

Two words. Party interdependence. Assuming the default style of play to be a group of characters going out on adventures (an assumption that doesn't seem too controversial) then doesn't it make sense to design in such a way as to encourage and support that style? If each character is good at...