Jim Ward still doesnt get it.
- Thread starter JacktheRabbit
- Start date
)
Hardhead
Explorer
I think I know what he's saying, or at least I know what my complaint in that area is.
It'd be really nice if D&D was an equipment agnostic system. I'd like to see the game be completly balanced without any magic items whatsoever, so that a DM could run a magic heavy or light campaign, and as long as both sides had about the same amount of magic, it'd balance out.
Last edited:
Tyler Do'Urden
Soap Maker
Buttercup said:
Pull out a few old low-level 1e/2e modules. That's about par for the course.
Also, remember- they've gotta transport all that loot somehow... DM's who scream over six-figure treasure hordes typically forget that 156,000 sp is... well... a bit of a load, especially considering these coins are probably heavier than those most of us Americans are used to. (From what I've seen, the British seem to have a better grasp of how cumbersome large amounts of coinage can be)
All in all, I think it's fun to give my low-level PC's large hordes of coins. It gives them a leg up on setting up bases of operations, hiring mercenaries, funding research, buying their way into exclusive guilds- all the things that a low-level PC needs to do to prove their mettle to the world- and prove that they're ready for real challenges...
Endur
First Post
These "special abilities" are powerful, but not Monty Haul.
I've played Monty Haul games over twenty years ago. A Monty Haul game is when you sit down at the table, everyone is between 1st and 5th level, and half the people at the table have Artifacts out of the DMG (or artifacts that are more powerful than anything in the DMG).
The Special Abilities seem like something off the charts from Arduin Grimoire.
But, I agree, that while special abilities are fine, there should be some balance. i.e. The character that receives the +3 str or the innate sorceror abilities now counts as ECL +1 or ECL +2. From a party perspective, the best way to balance special abilities is to make sure everyone gets one.
Tom
I've played Monty Haul games over twenty years ago. A Monty Haul game is when you sit down at the table, everyone is between 1st and 5th level, and half the people at the table have Artifacts out of the DMG (or artifacts that are more powerful than anything in the DMG).
The Special Abilities seem like something off the charts from Arduin Grimoire.
But, I agree, that while special abilities are fine, there should be some balance. i.e. The character that receives the +3 str or the innate sorceror abilities now counts as ECL +1 or ECL +2. From a party perspective, the best way to balance special abilities is to make sure everyone gets one.
Tom
Mulkhoran said:
Ranger REG
Explorer
AFAIC, aside from this discussion turning into a mild rant, Mr. Ward is not telling us his style of gameplay is superior, only that you should not be so quick to dismiss it. Keep an open mind. Don't knock it till you try it. If you don't like it then you don't like it.
If you want, help promote other styles of gameplay like your favorite, but at all cost do not take the low road and bash others for their preferences.
If you want, help promote other styles of gameplay like your favorite, but at all cost do not take the low road and bash others for their preferences.
Sir Whiskers
First Post
It seems to me that we have two concurrent discussions going on, which is leading to some confusion. The questions are:
*Is "Monty Haul" gaming better/worse, acceptable/unacceptable, etc.?
*Are FFE's products faulty in some way?
Concerning the MH question, there's no objective right or wrong. If a group is having fun playing demi-gods or whatever, go for it. I wouldn't choose to do so (well, ok, I admit maybe for a one-shot adventure...), but others might. I have played in MH campaigns and campaigns where 2nd-level characters felt rich if they found 5 gold. Each has its own strengths and flaws. Jim Ward is just pointing out that there is nothing *intrinsically* wrong with MH gaming. The rules on treasure in the core books are guidelines, no more, no less.
Concerning FFE's products, we need to separate objective flaws (faulty mechanics, typos, inconsistencies within the product, errors, etc.) and subjective preferences.
Flaws are easy to document and most people will agree on them when they're pointed out. Now that 3E has been out for quite a while, there is no longer an excuse for publishers putting out products with a significant number of mistakes. Occasional mistakes, yes; a lot - definately no. If FFE's (or any other publisher's) products have these problems, then such criticism is fair.
Personal preferences are another matter entirely. If I read a review of a product which states that it's a great hackfest, but I'm looking for a deep roleplaying module, I look elsewhere. In the same manner, if a supplement is tied so closely to a particular campaign setting that it would be too much work for me to use it in my homebrew, I'll pass on it. In neither case is the product necessarily flawed - just not what I need at the moment. If someone reads that a particular FFE product has too much treasure, then the consumer has three choices:
1) buy it and run it as is
2) buy it and modify it
3) don't buy it
Guess what? Those are exactly the same choices we all make when buying *any* product for 3E. Stating that their products are somehow flawed because of disagreements on the amount of treasure available, or the number of monsters encountered, strikes me as an opinion, not a fact. Such criticisms should be stated as such, and not become a springboard for wholesale attacks on either the publisher or an individual.
Finally, a simple question of my own - why in the world has Jim Ward's musings caused such a passionate response? I thought DnD was just a game...
*Is "Monty Haul" gaming better/worse, acceptable/unacceptable, etc.?
*Are FFE's products faulty in some way?
Concerning the MH question, there's no objective right or wrong. If a group is having fun playing demi-gods or whatever, go for it. I wouldn't choose to do so (well, ok, I admit maybe for a one-shot adventure...), but others might. I have played in MH campaigns and campaigns where 2nd-level characters felt rich if they found 5 gold. Each has its own strengths and flaws. Jim Ward is just pointing out that there is nothing *intrinsically* wrong with MH gaming. The rules on treasure in the core books are guidelines, no more, no less.
Concerning FFE's products, we need to separate objective flaws (faulty mechanics, typos, inconsistencies within the product, errors, etc.) and subjective preferences.
Flaws are easy to document and most people will agree on them when they're pointed out. Now that 3E has been out for quite a while, there is no longer an excuse for publishers putting out products with a significant number of mistakes. Occasional mistakes, yes; a lot - definately no. If FFE's (or any other publisher's) products have these problems, then such criticism is fair.
Personal preferences are another matter entirely. If I read a review of a product which states that it's a great hackfest, but I'm looking for a deep roleplaying module, I look elsewhere. In the same manner, if a supplement is tied so closely to a particular campaign setting that it would be too much work for me to use it in my homebrew, I'll pass on it. In neither case is the product necessarily flawed - just not what I need at the moment. If someone reads that a particular FFE product has too much treasure, then the consumer has three choices:
1) buy it and run it as is
2) buy it and modify it
3) don't buy it
Guess what? Those are exactly the same choices we all make when buying *any* product for 3E. Stating that their products are somehow flawed because of disagreements on the amount of treasure available, or the number of monsters encountered, strikes me as an opinion, not a fact. Such criticisms should be stated as such, and not become a springboard for wholesale attacks on either the publisher or an individual.
Finally, a simple question of my own - why in the world has Jim Ward's musings caused such a passionate response? I thought DnD was just a game...
