Search results

Different strokes, obviously. Like I said, Frankenstein is ground breaking and innovative, but Dracula is by far, IMO, the better and more compelling narrative.

So how do you expect them to create a character that dives into the setting?

Are your players as well versed and interested in GH as you are?

I mean, cool, but I am not sure how that answers my question.

No truer statement. it is like they are constantly stepping on rakes -- that shoot gold right into their mouths. 5E was literally the "good enough" edition until pop culture made D&D cool again.

Am I right to infer that Golarion has a lot in common with GH? Because a lot of these descriptions sound like Golarion.

Frankenstein is groundbreaking. It is also boring, and not very good from a narrative standpoint.

All narrative systems do it pretty easily, because ultimately the idea of high powered and lesser powered characters contributing equally is a narrative conceit only.

"Explode" certainly isn't copyrighted. It is common parlance for "if you roll the highest value on the die, you keep rolling."

As someone who runs games at cons, I'm not. That is, I don't actually care if someone is angrily blasting the W word because they are a jerk or because they are ND. I am not a therapist, and the safety of the rest of the people at the table outweighs the potential that it isn't their fault. I...

These two statements help me get a better handle on what you are saying regarding "trust." I apologize for taking the extreme interpretation earlier. I like systems that have strong core mechanics, too, and ones that provide concrete examples of DCs (or whatever, as appropriate to the system)...

I am actually often making a secret in-joke dig at myself when I talk about failed novelists that write RPGs, because, well, here we are.

Traditional RPGs feel like a bad choice of entertainment for someone that doesn't trust GMs. At best it sets up a situation where you are second guessing and rules lawyering everything the GM does. At worst it makes you an adversary to the GM and game itself. If a player doesn't trust me to run...

The "trust" part in particular. Which I will never understand. The GM is there to help you kick ass and have a great time.

I mean, it is probably fine, but it isn't like GH was the only one that people had fun with.

At the cost of a bunch of wasted time. You spend 20 minutes finding, reading and parsing the rule, only to discover that the thing you declared you were doing is a bad decision. Now you have to retcon your choice and spend another 20 minutes looking up the rules of a different action. (I'm being...

The diversity of the responses in this thread remind me how much what we love in D&D is built on what we did with the material. And that's why we play.

I love that cover, but 2E was my post-BECMI D&D so I love it generally more than it deserves.

I think there was a lot of experimentation going on in the 80s and early 90s and some designers really got into the idea of crazy mechanics (many of which were not mathematically sound, to say the least). Many people were going for detail. That fell away a little in the 90s, but the books didn't...

Which one? 2E had a revised printing in 1995 (I think).