Search results

Gotta agree with @Lanefan here on this point. The point of a game is to play, with 45 years of people creating AD&D fixes it’s easy to identify what fixes you need for your particular problem points and just implement them. None of us here are young, slow and cautious incrementalism serves...

Not normally, because that doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm just saying that Wisdom (and the other stats) are indirectly used as widgets on the character sheet because they modify skill and attacks that do get invoked directly. Contrast that with a pure identifier like "hair color" or "age".

At least in modern D&D, the primary use of a stat is to modify skill checks (counting attacks and saves as a variation of a skill). So, kinda yes?

Of course, that shouldn’t even be a question. It’s the presence or absence of the fictional space that matters, not the relative freedom to make assertions about the fictional space.

Not sure I totally agree with this, though. I agree that the thespian/acting/portayal portion of the game shouldn't be elevated in importance over the more mechanical portions as a general rule. But I think the core of an RPG, as opposed to something like a board game, is the conversation...

You seem fun.

Chewing up grandpa is what a Druid has to do to get to 13th level, according to Gygax.

Well, at the very least they're a dirty, granola-chewing hippie. :)

“This incredibly ugly troll is named Speve Mones, and definitely not based on some jerk in English class.”

The problem is that splitting up is often the most strategic choice ("Let's split up so we can cover more ground" does actually make sense in a lot of situations), but it leads to "at-table" consequences (loss of player attention, more GM overhead, boredom); thus, we turn to rules mechanics or...

So a similar game space to a co-op game like Pandemic, just with more options and variability.

Ideally, it's disincentivized by both strategic reasons AND by scenario/encounter design.

That does make sense. It's ultimately why although I like aspects of OSR play, it isn't really my go-to play experience. I don't do "caution" or "strategy" well. :)

I don't find it difficult, but I'm a high-improv low-prep GM; I do know other GMs who function better with more time to be more creative. And coming up with evocative fantasy names, especially dozens of them, isn't the easiest of tasks; random name lists have been a feature of lots of RPG...

"One of us! One of us!" :)

Maybe? I mean, huddling up as a group to discuss strategies for spell use isn't really a spelled-out procedure that I'm aware of. I feel like it might be more a factor of the relative consequentialness of spell use. And Shadowdark might require more planning because of the unpredictability of...

You can do a whole bunch of things without assists from technology; the calculation always comes down is the time and effort required worth the personal growth you'd gain in return.

Could be. I find it hard to tell when switching systems; is it because the system rewards it, or because the GMing style has shifted because of the new engine?

I do think the "group huddle to problem solve" happened more (just a gut feeling), but that feels more just like a generational/cultural shift than anything caused by a game's specified procedures. Maybe not, though. 3e did have a lot more spells that were essentially "auto-win" or "trump...