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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7756252" data-attributes="member: 29398">Ah.  Round here a PC can theoretically start with as few as 3 h.p., most 1st-level back-liners start with about 6-9 and front-liners with maybe 9-15.  With rare exceptions everyone starts with 2-5 body points, then the class-based and con-modified h.p. (fatigue points) roll goes on top of that.Again a bit different than here; I give the foes the same damage output as the PCs based on weapon, strength, etc.  A Kobold with a shortsword does d6 damage; a typical Orc with an axe or a longsword will do d8+1 with the +1 coming from strength.We have a similar condition where you're below 0 h.p. but - having made a con-based check - still conscious; where you can fight on at more or less significant penalties based on your current negative h.p., or you can stagger or crawl clear, or down a potion.  Casting a spell is very risky; you need to make the same consciousness check again or pass out in the attempt, thus interrupting the spell and risking a wild surge.Whether I'm playing the same game as Gygax played stopped being a concern of mine a very long time ago. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, if assumption #3 is in play; but this is a very rare situation.And here's the odd thing: while Gygax put forth all these ideas of how play would proceed based on how he did it, his own style of play in the end pretty much became a corner case by maybe 1981.  That some of his ideas can also apply quite well to play at most other tables both then and now is something of a happy accident, I suspect. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sometimes true, other times a result of table-level impatience.This is just another version of time crunch or deadline.I see a significant difference between "the world will end Thursday if mission x isn't completed by then" and "evil Baron Sutrich has been this way for years, letting him stew for a few more weeks won't likely matter much".  Of course the bad guys aren't always static, and for all that neither are the non-party good guys.And depending on the DM there can sometimes even be an advantage to waiting: more information might come to light.All true, and while justifiable in some cases I agree it's overdone.  Particularly the "virgin adventure sites" - depending on the specific situation I'll often toss in narration implying the site they're exploring has been explored before and has its own history.  That said, I'll also sometimes add unexplored bits - a secret door missed by past adventurers, or a new bit that's just opened up, whatever.That meta-goal wasn't only retained, it became the overarching focus in system design - now it's considered bad for a player to have to sit out longer than a round or two.  While I don't like people having to sit out, I think the game needs to make it clear up front that there will be times when it will happen, and not to complain about it when it does.  The game also needs to point out and emphasize mitigating options for the DM - have party NPC adventurers, encourage henches, allow players to play more than one PC at a time, and so forth.We somewhat cover this by allowing players to run 2 PCs at a time.  Only becomes a real headache when there's more than 4 or 5 players.Lanefan</blockquote>

Verification