Search results

What expenses, out of curiosity?

Why do you think that is? Are new players less tolerant of new DMs?

One of the things I really dislike that has come out of the rise of popularity of D&D (and to some degree other RPGs; but let's be honest, it is mostly D&D) is the monetization of convinging people that being a Dungeon master is hard. Early on as 5E gained steam, we had people like Matt Coville...

I did some googling and it is interesting that there isn't a generally agreed upon term. The best one I could find is "scripted sequence" which is accurate but not very pithy.

I like Heroic Maps too, and they are pretty affordable for what you get. I wish you could buy them directly for Fantasy Grounds with the LOS built in.

I don't do this nearly often enough. I will make myself a note! Yeah, I was speaking of castles specifically. There are tons of very cool real world inspirations for dungeons -- endercities like you mention, as well as caverns, underground river paths, and (my favroite) the underground cities...

Mostly because novels have characters and plots and things, and I wanted to avoid adaptations of that sort of thing. I am more interested in what sorts o adventures people think would translate well to being the sort of series bible, rather than talking about casting Drizzt or Raistlin.

They are still called cut scenes, but are usually referred to as "in engine cutscenes."

This is a good interview with Elise Rezendes

I have tried to use real world castles in play and they just don't work well for what D&D is trying to do. I don't think realism in dungeon design creates fun play.

Is there a difference to the players, do you think? (assuming they don't know whether the GM used a table or not)

Let's talk about map design for dungeons in D&D. What works, what doesn't. What promotes good exploration play versus what hinders it. I see a lot of maps on r/battlemaps (for example) that are IMO bad dungeon design (even for small dungeons) They are usually linear, without any real choices in...

I strongly disagree with your whole take, but this is where I think you are revealing the weakness in your argument: you are imagining some sort of viking hat GM as the only possible explanation for "falling damage should kill you" and it is easily, demonstrably not the case. Look, if you had...

I think this is wrong because the motivation (as far as we know) for Gygax was to model something, not create a useful or fun gameplay element.

I mean I guess but I nixed it in the OP for a reason.

That's not an adaptation of a module though, is it?

This raises* the question: what is the line between an abstraction and a simulation mechanic? *not "begs." That's not what "begs the question" means.

+ doesn't mean "no dissent." It just means, "be productive and civil in your debates."

There's a difference between "could survive" and "no chance of dying" at least if some attempt at modeling reality is the goal. There are other ways to do it than rolling hit point damage, of course, so we don't have to toss the baby out with the bathwater. But if the player says "20d6? I've got...

No one reads the OP... I considered this, too, but thought it might be too expensive. RHoD is a great module I keep meaning to convert.