Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4290107" data-attributes="member: 48520">as you figured, I don't have a problem with that type of play. My recommendation to the revenge wanting players, would be that the new characters be ones running with the turncoat's new crowd, who are fully aware that the turncoat betrayed his old allies. I've never had a turncoat make a TPK though, I've seen them kill a few party members, but not all of them. I make the turncoat's player lte me know in advance their motives (sneakily. players pass me notses for things they dont want the other players know, and they can pass me the notes far in advance. so the player may be a turncoat, but the other players will be given a number of chances to catch him before it happens if he's been planning it in advance. If he hasn't been planning it in advance, there's no guarantee that the enemy will even agree to take him as an ally. he might just end up with enemies on ALL sides.not sure what NC stands for, but all I was saying is that if a mechanic is nonexistant but situations come up fairly often where it would be useful, it should be in the book because that would ensure some consstency among DMs who use it. for the ones who toss it out the window, that's fine too.we rarely do dungeon delves (I find them incredibly boring if they are common, so it may happen for one-sessions out of like 30), so the campaigns fit the party or is has general enough challenges that they can succeed with any party makeup if they play their cards right. No healer (which is common) everyone spends a fair portion of their finances on potions. They get less crazy go nuts gear, but I'm a bit generous with gold and they have to choose between gear and healing, so they don't have the most amazing gear at all times, but they keep enough potions to heal themselves to full like 4 times over, each. no Rogue, it's not a dungeon delve usually so traps aren't all that common. even if they were in a campaign with lots of traps, I'd make ways for them to disarm them that was more difficult than for a rogue to compensate. no fighter means they need battle tactics, and no wizard, well, it means they get protective items. the campaign doesnt have to change that much, the players just have to play smart.Perfectly valid opinion. I'ma fan of the different types of smite and protection spells (detect only comes up occasionally) so thats why i like having all 9 for alignment.I prefer to remove things or revise things than to create them from scratch, cause I tend to want to have all that decided before the first session, and 4e means much more prep time for me. That's all.I don't think the hole of 4e is a downgrade, just certain aspects. I like the modular nature of the classes for example, it makes them much easier to balance or alter.I intend to stick with my whiteboard, even though I'm going to be playing with a new group. if I give minis a try, I'll be going the warhammer route, and I wont be using a grid. they can tapemeasure it out. I'd ask the players first though, but with a tapemeasure and no grid I might not mind the minis so much.I'm glad I talked to you about this, cause the playstyle issues mentioned here are probably things I should talk to my new group about, so they understand how I run a game. in my old group, I was the first one DMing, so everyone kindof took their cue from me.  They all ran their own campaigns with their own plots, and sometimes their own character options, but they were all as open ended as mine were in terms of playstyle and we all used the same houserules. The other DMs I played with outside that group all ran the games similar to me so I kindof assumed that was how most people played. I knew I'd have to get the new group familiarized with the houserules, but I hadn't thought much about playstyle, I just assumed everyone ran it like that. now I know I should clarify all of this before we start playing.</blockquote>

Verification