Search results

I like the D&D skill system. But I wouldn't mind playing in a skill-less version of the game, either. And if I ever ran a game of AD&D again, I'd probably do so without using the nonweapon proficiencies.

I prefer playing without minis for two reasons. First, it means I can play D&D most anywhere, be it on a table top or in a car during a long road trip. Second, adding minis as an essential part of the game increases the investment needed to play the game. The core books already require close to...

I use modules mostly as written, but make some pretty big changes to them. I usually overhaul the flavor to fit my homebrew, and I change the NPCs to fit with recurring villains of the campaign, if possible. I also make a bunch of on the fly adjustments; for the aforementioned Whispers of the...

I played and ran in surprisingly few of those. I got into gaming in the early 90s with the black box basic set that included "Escape from Zanzer's Dungeon." From there, I ran a few basic D&D modules, and then wound up creating most of my games from scratch. It's only in recent years that I've...

Started in 1992, never played the original. I have played Return to the Keep on the Borderlands, which I thought was terrible.

For some reason, I specifically remember a reference in the 1991 basic D&D box (based off the BECMI rules) that states that trolls turn to stone in sunlight. But it also might be something my teenage mind inserted into the text.

One of the reasons I've found it useful to increase PC power in lieu of items is that certain adventuring classes are more reliant on magical items than others as they increase in level. In a setting where finding a +1 sword is rare, fighters are even more dwarfed by spellcasters, because the...

I personally like the XP cost for item creation. I actually use it to explain why PCs can't just go into market and buy magic items in my game. There are few enough spellcasters to begin with, and they have to essentially give up some of their soul to imbue an item with magic. Why, then, would...

My games have included two house rules to help balance the fact that I run a low magic/high heroism game: -I use Action Points from Eberron/Unearthed Arcana, which help PCs recover from a low save or other bad luck from time to time. -I give all PCs and major NPCs a combat bonus equal to 1/2...

That would be the case if XP was given out solely based on combat. Many DMs, myself included, gie out story awards, et cetera to help players advance. So there doesn't necessarily need to be a CR 25-30 creature; driving off a horde of goblins or getting through an ancient wizard's maze can give...

While most of my campaigns wrap up around 15th level or so, there's no theoretical limit on PC advancement within the setting. The setting has vast areas that remain unexplored, and has many secrets that have only been scratched, such as the existence of a number of sleeping gods beneath the...

Found this quote online: The full interview is here: http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmTv/features/thechroniclesofriddick/vindiesel.asp.

I like save or die effects. However, I don't think they would work well in 4th edition's system of attacking the saves. Having a player roll a d20 to avoid instant death is one thing. Rolling a die behind the DM's screen and then telling the player that his character is dead is something else...

If I was going to introduce a new magic system into the Realms, I'd state that it's Midnight/Mystra changing the Weave to fit her new personality. She's just shaping things to her own desires, which means that magic is cast a little differently. Why the change now, after she's been a goddess...

I'm convinced that 4th edition will be very successful for WotC, and I'm happy with that fact. However, the new edition doesn't seem to be the type of game I want to run, so I'll probably stick with the current version until a 3rd party decides to make the equivalent of a 3.75 edition.

I've got just the three core books and a handful of modules. While I am not convinced that the sky is falling, I guess I would count as a 4e naysayer simply because right now I'm leaning toward sticking with 3rd edition. By comparison, I had a ton of 1st and 2nd edition books by the time 3rd...

Honestly, having three core books is stretching things a bit for me. I'd much prefer a single Rules Cyclopedia-style tome. And I definitely don't want to drag more than three books to my gaming table -- especially when I already have so many options available in the three core books of 3.5. So...

The whole leaving frost giants, etc. out thing reminds me of the early days of 2nd edition AD&D. The first volume of the Monstrous Compendium was drastically incomplete, to the point that the DM's Guide assumed that you owned the first two volumes (and the Fiend Folio, IIRC). The silver lining...

I for one like the concept of prestige classes. I'm not so keen on where the designers took prestige classes during the life of 4th edition. I prefer prestige classes to reflect unique groups or training found within a specific setting. Ideally, I'd like the DM's Guide to include a handful of...

Man, why does everyone knock on Dungeonland? That and the Land Beyond the Magic Mirror are my two favorite 1st edition adventures! (Nice read otherwise, though.)