Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 5795543" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Magazine Issue 263: September 1999part 2/7As 3rd ed is now well into development, Forum stops asking directly rules related questions. They're still directing debate a lot more blatantly than they used to though. This time the question is about when the DM should actively deceive the players. Nashty. My vote is for when there's someone or something actively trying to deceive them IC. Tanner Neilsen thinks if you can prove something, your character can too. Ah yes, the real world physics arguers. They're still a substantial force in gaming. Oliver Brochet brings up the old rules are there to be changed if they become an obstacle to fun canard. Yawn. Andrew Galbraith is one of many people who thinks the distinction between demihumans multiclassing, and humans dual-classing is stupid, and the game works better if you drop it. Let people choose how they advance more organically. Lewis Anderson's most significant house rule is "You said it, your character said it" Start openly discussing if you should kill someone right in front of them, and things will go downhill rapidly. This cuts down on the idle chatter pretty damn fast. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Jan Lundquist paises Justin Bacon's idea of turning spell memorisation into preparation. It just makes so much more sense! Go for it! Phil Pike, on the other hand just wants us to go back to Jack Vance and play up the effort involved in memorising spells. Mind you, calling any magic system realistic is missing the point, as usual. Stephen E. Eldridge thinks Read Magic ought to be scrapped as a spell, and turned into a proficiency, with the difficulty of deciphering a scroll dependent on level. Not a terrible idea, if rather prone to creating obligatory dump slots. Mike Lewis thinks knowingly embracing the cheese and powergaming can be a lot more fun than a serious campaign. It's like complaining about an over the top action movie. The violence and unrealism is the point. Michael Bay approves. John Wright is another person who thinks dragons STILL need a serious powering up. I hope you'll be happy with yourselves when you see what you get. Dungeoncraft: Ray continues to talk about constructing your NPC's. Now, the interesting thing here is that he generates the ability scores first, and then decides on the personality. Well, that certainly is quicker on average than thinking up a personality, and custom tailoring their stats to that, and can often throw up amusing surprises that improve your game in the long run. He also encourages you not to fully stat out everyone, just note the important stats for fighting them, and whatever else might make them unique and crucial to the plot, and leave everything else out, which also means they take less space in your notes. Somehow, I'm guessing he's not part of the 3e design and playtesting teams, with their emphasis on designing all the monsters to formulas, and making sure all the derived stats, skill points and feat slots add up. So this is business as usual, quite possibly written somewhat in advance. These columns aren't current event based, and certainly wouldn't take a month to write, so he might well have most of the planned campaign done already. And it's obvious he's not part of their big plan for the future. We shall see what happens to him when the edition ends.</blockquote>

Verification