Search results

Yea, and that's really unfortunate.

Yep, we've decided to try Draw Steel tonight.

I just give a general description of the room, and let the players initiate a request for further details. That's part of exploration that is on the shoulders of the players.

My example was extreme to point out its flaws. Even reasonable players will give themselves an edge (even a slight one) when given the opportunity.

I think having to fill in the gaps for every room or encounter would start getting tedious after a while for most people. The novelty of this approach would wear off rather quickly.

I think a lot more people would take advantage of it then you might realize.

Right. But it appears that at least two people in this thread have had bad experiences with some GMs. And I'm trying to emphasize, that this isn't normal.

Well, if they have thousands of GP, and a powerful artifact, that would certainly allow the characters to control the situation, links or not. :)

It seems that a lot of the arguments stem from the assumption that the player has no idea what the pact requirements and consequences are. If the DM is upfront and clear about the requirements, and potential consequences, the player can make an informed decision. But this assumes the GM is...

To let the players control the narrative is potentially game breaking. GM: "you open the door. What do you see" Player: I see 10 chest filled to the brim with gold pieces and all 7 pieces of the rod of seven parts".

All I did was explain my opinion and reasoning in my first post. If you're interpreting that as me saying that you are having bad wrong fun, that's on you. Play the way you want.

If the GM is making the game miserable for you because of the class you chose to play, then the solution is to find a GM who isn't a jerk...

No, the answer is that different classes have different requirements. Lords, thieves guilds, and managers are not the same as gods They are not equivalent. And I have played games where rogues had obligations to the local thieves guild, and fighters to their Lords.

I don't know. Maybe ask WoTC?

A lot has been said about this subject. I won't add anything new other than to say that I'm in the camp of - if you're going to play a Warlock, Paladin or Cleric, you should accept the "obligations" that go with it. Players should expect that if they ignore, or actively go against those...

I'm in the process of building a character for Draw Steel, and all I can say, is that it is not a straight forward process. In fact it's quite frustrating. Having to jump back and forth between sections to build a character is one of the old school rituals that I'm glad I left behind. And...

Thought of something after I posted above. Keep in mind that the NPC in question doesn't have to kill the players if they are attacked by the PC's. The NPC could just knock them out, trap them in a force cage, call on the town guards, etc.

I agree with those that said you should create the NPCs you want and not worry about balance. If the PC's choose to attack an NPC that's more powerful than them, it can be a ...teaching moment. I have a "Bab Yaga" type NPC posing as the friendly neighborhood Alchemist in Otari. (She'll be part...

I was teased and bullied as a kids, but it never had anything to do with D&D. As for my parents, neither really seemed to care that much that I played. The only thing my mothers said about it was that she thought it increased my vocabulary. My father listened to me talk about it on a few...

I usually limit mind control (of PCs) to combat related things such as "Drop you sword" "stand there and do nothing" "Walk away", etc. So evil really doesn't come into play.