Search results

I'm not generally a fan of "modules", but I really enjoyed this book as a pure exploratory sandbox. It's a bunch of themed and linked locations with a lot of discoverable backstory, but without a hint of a "storyline" for the PCs (which I dislike intensely).

That's more of a late-night thing for me, but I admit I don't know what time zone you're in.

Thank goodness, that seems like a horrible architectural fail. :)

Well, this is just a semantic difference, then. I don't consider the players' actions that shape the setting to be worldbuilding. "Worldbuilding" is specifically the actions that set up the campaign setting/frame prior to session 1, whether that be GM notes or collaborative efforts with the...

Yea, that's pretty much it. GMs who make homebrewed settings and then stay them in for years or decades are essentially making personal fantasy heartbreakers. They have a mental image of what D&D should look like, and their setting is where they get to assert the truth of that mental image...

At a certain point, why not just be upfront and say "I'm trying to curate a specific aesthetic for this game?" Because the fact that you're opposed to the look of the tortle more than anything tells me that maintaining the mental image of the setting is what's most important to you.

But....that isn't worldbuilding. That's just, ya know, playing the game.

It's simply a question of playing those games as they were designed. Blades in the Dark has a specific theme. D&D does not. And that isn't holding D&D to a higher standard; I would also view a GM adding a lot of restrictions to PF1 or PF2, or 13th Age, or Draw Steel or Daggerheart as...

As one of the main advocates for the "D&D is intrinsically kitchen-sink" position, I will say I think games like Dolmenwood and Brancalonia, or any other 3pp games that's essentially a well-curated D&D-type fantasy, are great. But I believe there's a world of difference between presenting a...

I don't know....I mean, have you seen some of their posts? Seems scary. :)

Remember the bunch of "Cleric/warlock? That's unplayable!" threads that came out during the start of 5e? Good times. :)

Got me 3 reaction points and made me feel better about myself. :)

Good ones.

What the heck is the “long run”? We’re here to have the players generate conflict and narratives. That’s the point of playing.

I’m sure this was a while ago, so I’m not criticizing any GM actions here. But it seems like a solid example of a time to make sure good GM practices are being followed. If the player is acting in a manner you find confusing: Switch to metagame conversation. Clarify the player’s intent. Make...

This actually seems fine to me. It seems like the player’s specific intent was to push boundaries by taking risky actions, in an attempt to judge if the GM will actually follow through on consequences. It’s a way to establish stakes.

Oh yea. For recording characteristics of something already introduced into the game, then I would definitely want to record it for consistency. My original statement way back before was purely in the context of "not stopping the session because I don't have a NPC statted up".

You have no idea how tempted I am to not answer this question and leave it open. :)

Considering the hype, I'm surprised a House of Dynamite didn't blow up more.

I mean, I don't know what games you're speaking about specifically, of course. But I'm generally able to make up NPC stats quickly once I'm familiar with the system in question.