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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5662662" data-attributes="member: 3820">Thought exercise? I'm actually still running the same campaign world that I was running in 2e, and although the longest-running game set there has slowed to a "every few months, maybe", all the other D&D games I've run have been set there as well. I find I have less trouble with it than described, overall. Now, a certain number of caveats certainly stand out: I was mucking around with demon-blooded PCs almost from the beginning, and adopted tieflings as soon as they hit Planescape; I have always liked fighters, and never went with the "9 out of 10 named NPCs are casters" approach; and I've always preferred the approach of "give the NPC/monster the mechanics that make sense for its in-world role, not for its rulebook role." We were what they call ahead of the curve in some ways, I guess. I think it's a matter of approach. To my mind, I'm still fleshing out the same world, and few things have changed; all of the mechanics is behind-the-scenes stuff. A fighter kills an orc with a single blow: doesn't matter if it it was a 6-hp orc before or a minion now, what the characters see is what matters. And what the characters see is not significantly different. A thousand warforged didn't suddenly descend on the world -- but in that Al-Qadimish area of the world, I was already using copper automatons, and why not let a player play one? There may not be large populations of shifters, but I already had lycanthropes and humans, and there's no reason they couldn't make babies with one another here and there. Player characters are definitely singular sorts -- but that's how I ran 2e, too. Yes, there are definitely changes in approach that have been necessary. But changes in style, in how the world feels? For some of us, not a lot is different.</blockquote>

Verification