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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 7757022" data-attributes="member: 158">Think about the time in which D&D was created, and the style of play that was popular when the article was written, and it makes more sense...However, I use quite a bit of advice from that article even today. For instance, my characters NEVER, EVER “go nova”, and if I tell my fellow players “i’m Out of spells” what that really means is “i’m Down to about 25% of full power” because they have a tendency to keep going even past being resource-dry, even if we don’t expect to face any other opposition. Always expect to face at least ONE more opponent before you can get to a safe place to rest. Therefore, if we do, I always have a little something in reserve, even if it’s scrolls, to make it to safety. Same thing with communication in the field - if you don’t have a solid plan where it’s established what others are doing, and you all end up inadvertently working at cross purposes, you can get yourself killed even if the enemy doesn’t so much as swing a sword! In fact, so much of that “special forces” advice from the article is really Sun Tzu as seen through the lens of D&D.Anyway, back to the latest article about Inglorious B... er, heroes, whether I agree or disagree with a lot of it, it’s thought provoking at least - why do we find the Villain list funny, but not so much with our heroes? Because the trope of the incompetent villain is so widespread that the villain list is a reaction to it, but I think that, just as the “antihero” was a reaction to the omnipresent idealistic hero trope, the antihero started becoming widespread that the idealistic hero was a counter-reaction.</blockquote>

Verification