The Economics of Star Trek - In a forum I frequent, the question of the economic system of Star Trek came up, and as someone who is both a fan of free market capitalism, and also very ...
4 hours ago
5. The combinations here are really vicious, and unless you are out to get your players it is not suggested for actual use. Passage south "D" is a slanting corridor which will take them at least one level deeper, and if the slope is gentle, even dwarves won't recognize it. Room "E" is a transporter, two ways, to just about anywhere the referee likes, including the center of the earth or the moon. The passage south containing "F" is a one-way transporter, and the poor dupes will never realize it unless a very large party (over 50' in length) is entering it. (This is sure-fire fits for the map makers among the participants.)Do you mind if I say "Holy Shit! Ouch!" Thank the Gods they tell you NOT to use it ;)
The fear of "death", its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of this game. It therefore behooves the campaign referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance for survival (remembering that the monster population already threatens this survival). For example, there is no question that a player's character could easily be killed by falling into a pit thirty feet deep or into a shallow pit filled with poisoned spikes, and this is quite undesirable in most instances.Risk is good. Killer DM not so much fun. Good advice, and something that most people don't seem to associate with Old SChool D&D.
|"Can You Speed It Up? We've Got To Wrap This Up in An Hour!"|
Of course, I don't expect everyone to give up how they've been playing D&D for years to focus on running one-hour adventures (why not? Save or Die tweaked to death, Turning Undead nerfed, multi-edition feel at one table - yes, I think you expect one hour sessions to be the new norm). By focusing on this benchmark, however, we create a starting point that we can use to expand to longer sessions of play. It's much easier to create a game that supports a one-hour session, and then use that to build out to two-hour, four-hour, or day-long gaming (gaming is usually around 4 hours give or take, and has been since 1974. So working off a 4 hours standard session would have been the norm).
- The core rules are easy to use. They create a game that moves quickly but is still satisfying. (tastes great, less filling?)
- Character complexity doesn't spill on to the table and slow the game down. (er, but if the complexity doesn't hit the table, it probably isn't really all that complex) It's OK for someone to have a complex character. It's irritating if that character takes significantly longer to resolve typical actions. (guess they aren't going to be using 4e style combat and challenge resolutions)
- Monsters are easy to understand at the table. This relates to the statement about characters above. It's OK for some monsters to be complex, but that complexity should give the DM a flexible, challenging monster, not one that needs lots of time to resolve at the table. (I'll believe this when I see it)
- The DM needs rules that can allow for adventures with as many fights as needed, from a single big brawl to a number of shorter fights. I'd like to see an adventure design system that gives me a suggested total XP value for monsters and traps to use so that I can push the characters to the limit of their abilities (formulating encounters is not the way to go. it takes the soul out of the game. but as the soul's been missing since 2e, I guess I shouldn't have expected different). I can then spend that XP for one battle, lots of little battles, or just sprinkle monsters in an environment as I choose. (sounds like the Bob Ross style of adventure design)
|Not the True Cover for D&D Next, But it Could Be|