Search results

What the hell are you talking about? Agree with me re: what? Did I set that binary you mention?

Perhaps not the same type of bad...but they're all bad in their own way.

I guess because some people here think fewer than 3 out of every 100 DMs are bad...if one can't see they might be bad, they are less likely to try to improve.

One needs a certain amount of self-reflective ability and modesty to look back and see one's faults...whether looking back 20 years or just last week. Like you, I was a bad DM back in high school, no doubts. Was fun still had? Most times, but that was in spite of my bad DMing. Of course many...

Maybe you can have one chart. The examples given are all examples of being bad at DMing; they might each have a different value (the last would have a greater negative value than the first...maybe), but they would all contribute to a negative experience.

Yeah, I should have been more clear; I meant 1e-3e.

I feel like a lot of this has to do with the populace being...not great...with on-the-fly math. It doesn't even require bad faith. Instinctively, it feels like such a maneuver (the chandelier thing) should draw some kind of penalty, right? So then a penalty is assigned...and because we're not...

Forgive me if this has already been addressed. How many people, specifically as players, like the old-school alignment system? (Just checking to see if the player role vs DM role makes a difference here).

Oh, it's true.

Oh God, yes... :'(

Didn't 4e have that?

Agreed. I just think DMs are likewise not a different breed of human, and so the idea that they have final say over the character, even if the rest of the group see it differently is...interesting.

Don't ask me, I'm not the one saying they can't. Apparently we just have to trust our DMs, because we are in danger of not knowing better (a flaw they are not prone to as much, it seems).

If one plays with bad faith players, then I suppose you can't trust them to interpret their character correctly, especially their alignment, so then I guess it's up to the DM...who I assume is never acting in bad faith and has some measure of infallibility.

Absolutely no reason to think this is true, assuming everyone is operating in good faith.

You are, though one could understand why you might be a little unsure: People have, almost 2 decades later, found a new way to criticize 4e. One would have thought it impossible, but here we are.

Yeah, but now, in addition to everything else, 4e can be morally wrong because of its mechanics...so, that's fun. :)

I just completed the 1-20 Blood Lords AP as an investigator. It worked extremely well.

Sigh... 1) You both assume the club. Which is fine. My point was that, in the comics, DD doesn't need the club to take out the thugs, pronto. 2) Sure, he fights in hallways and whatnot. It's just that he shouldn't need them to take out the thugs in comic fashion. In other words, DD takes out...

Ok, so in your scenario, DD always uses his club (because sure, why not?) but in the comics he doesn't (doesn't have to) and he still doesn't have any trouble with the thugs. But let's just assume club. As Ray noted, DD still needs to hit each thug twice, unless they get slammed into a wall...