Search results

So write it down after the session? Writing down what happens during the session isn't "prep".

I know. I made the accusation, remember?

Well, it would be kinda weird to be that self-denigrating, right? That's way past humility and right into self-abuse.

Yes. Feel free to homebrew. Just don't make lame homebrew. "You can't be tabaxi because everyone in the setting thinks cats are tools of evil gods" is lame.

My great-uncle was a tortle who died in WWII, and I wish to honor his memory.

And they say compromise is dead!

I tend to think of "heartbreakers" as an 80s and 90s concept; they're typically rooted in a GM's belief that D&D is too "gamist", and the real fix for D&D is more detailed rules around the areas the specific creator finds to have insufficient verisimilitude.

So, Mork Borg? :)

If you're making a long running campaign setting for D&D, it's even more imperative you build in a ton of flex room to allow for new concepts to be added over time. Notice how FR and Eberron have tons of space to add new things into some little-visited corner of their lands? Also notice how...

Age only matter for homebrew. There's a mountain of difference between a shared IP (like a WotC published setting) and the GM's passion project of hundreds of pages of Google Docs.

Lol. It is pretty crazy how you got like 95% of the way to being a flexible DM, but had to make a hard swerve at the last second because the call of the viking hat was simply too powerful. :)

That sounds like a fun concept, and based on the abstract, I would be on board with joining that game. "Undead apocalypse" is a great frame for a D&D game.

Since I have never done it (or at least, not in several decades), it can't be my problem, right? :) And the thinking of it also doesn't cause me any problems either; diagnosing the weaknesses in the approaches of others just makes my own play stronger. So don't worry about me, Bill; I'm in a...

Compromise should generally be possible. A fantasy species for D&D has three distinct layers; the mechanical layer, the aesthetic layer, and the setting fiction layer. The player needs to communicate with of those layers is their highest priority, and the DM needs to indicate which layer...

Even blood magic rituals can't compare to the Secret of the Ooze.

Would you like to know my deep secret? I don't actually like dragonborn. I have never had a dragonborn PC, and I virtually never use them when I'm GMing. Do you know impact that dislike has on my games when I GM, and a player wants to play a dragonborn? 0.0%. If your game has enough room...

I tend to ignore that use case because I would never join a game that has a 10+ year old setting that also has a ton of built-in restrictions. I have one DM that uses the same setting for all his games, but it's just a generic D&D type setting with a few custom gods that he uses for NPCs; he...

People who don't engage in either direction are problematic. Players and DMs both need to step up and explain their thought processes to make sure the fiction works; failure by either party to do so will destroy games.

Don't worry, I've spent quite a few posts this morning telling them exactly. :)

Honestly, a player who doesn't give any pushback at all about weird restrictions is a player I don't want. I want players who take an active interest in shaping the shared narrative (and by extension, the setting that is the frame of the narrative.) I want drivers, not passengers.