Search results

I didn't say anything about design being good or bad. I talked about WotC's reasons for doing this or that. I don't see why WotC has any reason to release what you would consider a better product. It's a game, played by millions of people mostly (I suspect) in a pretty light-hearted way. I think...

This sounds similar to 4e D&D, where the maths relative to a given level of play is pretty flat. The rationale for level-based escalation in 4e D&D is to ensure a type of "story progression" as the game goes on, from Kobolds up to Orcus. It doesn't affect the difficulty at any given level. The...

Yes. This isn't controversial, is it?

I think I'm failing to see what reason WotC has to do all this. What's the evidence that the current 5e rules are causing any commercial detriment to WotC? You don't need statistical testing to tell you that at-will paralysis on any attack, in a game where save success is in the neighbourhood of...

I think it's a pretty natural upshot of combining resource-based play with GM authority over pacing. Originally, D&D was not designed around GM authority over pacing. You can see this, for instance, in Gygax's advice on Successful Adventures in his PHB; and in Lewis Pulsipher's essays in White...

This is interesting. Over the past few years, I've had exchanges on these board where some posters talk about verisimilitude not by reference to the fiction, but rather in terms of mechanics. That is, some mechanics are described as unrealistic or as lacking verisimilitude in themselves rather...

The last time I used a front door trap, the PCs got caught by it:

When the PCs entered the Forgotten Temple Complex, I rolled a 13 for the town event: Dimly lit portal. You pass an open shrine and see the Immortal within looking down upon you with impassive eyes. Leave a humble offering and ask the Immortal to forgive your transgressions. Appropriate...

The adventure site that I had written up, posted in my previous post upthread, turned out to be a bit of a disaster for the PCs. (Which is, perhaps, the way of Torchbearer.) Fea-bella filled two waterskins from the rivulet, and noticed the lint in the water. Then, the Ob 4 Dungeoneering check...

It took about eight months longer than anticipated to play our next session of Torchbearer 2e, but we finally got a session in yesterday. I thought we might have a staggered arrival of players to the session, and so yesterday morning I wrote up a little adventure site that I thought might be...

If the NPC Elf can stumble over this book in his youth, why can't the PCs? Why are only PCs obliged to adventure in order to find it?

I never said there was. I know the (Gygaxian) AD&D rules pretty well. What I said, which you quoted, is this: There is a clear process in classic D&D: the GM maps and keys a dungeon; the movement of the PCs through the dungeon is tracked on the map; what they see/hear/experience is narrated by...

In RQ, non-human creatures are statted in a way that parallels PC stats. But they aren't built via a parallel process (eg there is no analogue to 3E D&D's "creature type as class" - the only other RPG I can think of that tries to emulate that is HARP). In Classic Traveller, NPCs have stats and...

I agree with @hawkeyefan here. There is a clear process in classic D&D: the GM maps and keys a dungeon; the movement of the PCs through the dungeon is tracked on the map; what they see/hear/experience is narrated by the GM based on the key, with doors playing an especially important role in...

This is wrong about Gygax's AD&D, in multiple ways. For instance: In the MM, Elves are 1+1 HD. Nothing in the Elven PC build rules reflect this - in fact, PC Elves suffer a CON penalty. In the MM, Mountain Dwarves are 1+1 HD, whereas Hill Dwarves are 1 HD. Nothing in the PC build rules...

I think this issue of NPC and PC build and stats is an interesting one. D&D did not try to establish any sort of parallel or equivalence between NPCs/creatures, and PCs, until 3E D&D. Then in 4e D&D NPCs/creatures have the same sort of statistical expression as PCs, but don't parallel them in...

That reminds me a bit of MHRP: a player can spend a Plot Point to automatically succeed in destroying/disabling a trait that is rated no higher than the ability they're using.

I don't think there's much reason to think that WotC would increase its sales - perhaps not even in absolute terms, let alone after outlay - by publishing multiple, different versions of D&D. If I was a 5e designer I'd be pretty pleased with my work. Like anything done in the context of...