Search results

Hey, I'll happily cop to being lazy, in that if there's two ways of doing the same thing to the same result I'll almost always choose the one that requires the least effort on my part. In other words, I'm fine with people making this correlation and don't see it as a negative.

Each edition changed quite a bit between the start and end of its run. Comparing at-release 1e with at-release 2e is IMO valid, as is comparing end-of run 1e with end-of run 2e. For me the most jarring difference netween 1e (both as-written and our homebrew version) and 2e was 2e's IMO...

The chance of misfiring within a given round gets higher but it's ironclad sure that's not what they were looking at. Instead they were looking at the chance of misfiring per attack, without regard for how closely or widely spaced in in-game time those attacks might be. Put another way: if...

Odd, in that the more dice you roll at once the less random (i.e. more predictable) the result is likely to be; the law of averages will trend the expected result closer to the middle of the bell curve with every added die. Example: rolling a d16+2 will give an equal chance of any result...

Agreed all round. Change "fun" to "challenge" in that last quote and you're bang on right.

Same here, though it's toned down somewhat from the as-written UA version.

In an adventure module I'm only after content and reference. If the writing is good enough (by which I mean both readable enough and concise enough) to support that, and the editing is accurate, let's rock. I can live without art in a module except for the rare cases where something really...

Oh, I use them, but not always. I just got done running (most of) H2 Bloodstone Mines after a string of homebrew adventures, and the current one is another homebrew. I've also got U1 Secret of Saltmarsh* half-run, awaiting resumption if-when the current party/parties reach a logical conclusion...

Corner case exception: the player who is thinking of becoming a DM and buys a module to see how the sauce is made. That, and many times a player in one campaign is the DM of another; which can (believe me!) sometimes make it a headache trying to find a module none of them have run and-or played...

It works for me - the statues could be quite worn and weathered yet their species still be obvious; and the days of "somewhat well-traveled" could have been a long time ago.

Designing to 20 looks pretty open-ended from the perspective of someone only playing to 12; even more so if some ongoing arithmetical progressions are given for level beyond 20 I'd be fine were they to admit they didn't try (or didn't try as hard) with the upper levels. In 1e Gygax doesn't...

How so?

If it's not on paper, it doesn't count. Paper first, then a digital version that's exactly the same. And page count is highly relevant even in digital form: lower page count means less chaff to plow through, less scrolling or page-jumping, and-or less wasted space.

If I write it out now then a) it's easier to run because I'm not making it up on the fly, b) I've got it if I ever want to run it again for a different group, and c) I've got it if anyone else ever wants to run it. One of these days the idea of "d) I can put it out there for public consumption"...

The DM running out of steam and-or duct tape is a symptom of the underlying loss of wheels, not the cause. For me, all it needs is a great big warning along the lines of "While the game as presented goes to 20 levels, the specific intent is that most if not all actual play will occur in the...

Perhaps fortunately, I'm not designing cars. :) The inherent problem with any open-ended and complex progression system is that there's always going to be phases where it works really well (i.e. as designed) and phases where it doesn't due to accumulated glitches. To give another car example...

Even when I'm the one who wrote the module I'm still reading it as I run it; it's not like I memorize the whole thing (if I could I wouldn't have written it all out in the first place!), and the players are inevitably going to do things I didn't account for and thus I have to read the words in...

How do you do that without presenting the same information twice, though? Duplication is wasted page space, and also runs the risk of errors creeping in where the info in, say, the long-form presentation contradicts the info in the short-form.

I'm not so sure about the bolded. A point-form timeline can be every bit as readable and far easier to understand (and, at the table, use) than the same history written out in long-form paragraphs. Example: if I'm running a game in Middle Earth and want to know the history, I'm going to look...

Sometimes it's there so that if the PCs make inquiries the DM has something to fall back on and isn't left trying to make something up on the fly. But if the PCs don't ask, they don't and won't learn that info. So be it; some players aren't interested in that. Other times it's there to give...