Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 4682705" data-attributes="member: 29398">One of the key things for me when designing a new world that makes it different is that things just work differently in some ways than they did in the last game.&nbsp; Others might accomplish this by changing what edition of the game they play.&nbsp; Me, I just look at what worked/didn't work in the last game, tweak to suit that and the setting I have in mind (example: in my current game Gnomes are very rare, so I had to tweak the racial abundance table - yes, I have players who roll randomly for race - to reflect that) and go.&nbsp; But I'm using the same base rule set, built on the 1e platform, that I've been using since 1984.Fair enough, though I as a player would find that a bit dull. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Oh, absolutely.&nbsp; But &quot;heavily influence&quot; does not equal &quot;dictate&quot;, and things can still take sharp left turns sometimes.Fortunately, perhaps, I've got players who also favour the dramatic, and field adventuring is usually far more dramatic than talking about the weather in a tavern. (&quot;So, why *is* it snowing in this tavern?&quot;)I'm firmly on record with my players as refusing outright to DM a game where the PCs do nothing but get involved in buy-low-sell-high trade economics - and they would, if I let 'em.That said, most of the time my games don't so much resemble summer blockbusters as they do the comedy skits being put on by the local amateur theater company down the road.&nbsp; And that's just how I like it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 4682705, member: 29398"] One of the key things for me when designing a new world that makes it different is that things just work differently in some ways than they did in the last game. Others might accomplish this by changing what edition of the game they play. Me, I just look at what worked/didn't work in the last game, tweak to suit that and the setting I have in mind (example: in my current game Gnomes are very rare, so I had to tweak the racial abundance table - yes, I have players who roll randomly for race - to reflect that) and go. But I'm using the same base rule set, built on the 1e platform, that I've been using since 1984. Fair enough, though I as a player would find that a bit dull. :) Oh, absolutely. But "heavily influence" does not equal "dictate", and things can still take sharp left turns sometimes. Fortunately, perhaps, I've got players who also favour the dramatic, and field adventuring is usually far more dramatic than talking about the weather in a tavern. ("So, why *is* it snowing in this tavern?") I'm firmly on record with my players as refusing outright to DM a game where the PCs do nothing but get involved in buy-low-sell-high trade economics - and they would, if I let 'em. That said, most of the time my games don't so much resemble summer blockbusters as they do the comedy skits being put on by the local amateur theater company down the road. And that's just how I like it. :) Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification