I'm a guy. I like pretty women. But all these bikini-clad or bare-midriff adventurers are ridiculous. It makes NO SENSE. It breaks immersion. And it makes it that much harder for many girls or young women to find D&D approachable. Also, as a guy who likes playing funny characters, I think the occasional funny-looking guy or gal is perfectly appropriate. D&D is about adventure, but there should be room for other elements, and one of those is humor. Don't make D&D so...
View full commentI'm a guy. I like pretty women. But all these bikini-clad or bare-midriff adventurers are ridiculous. It makes NO SENSE. It breaks immersion. And it makes it that much harder for many girls or young women to find D&D approachable.
Also, as a guy who likes playing funny characters, I think the occasional funny-looking guy or gal is perfectly appropriate. D&D is about adventure, but there should be room for other elements, and one of those is humor.
Don't make D&D so 1-dimensional (or even 2-dimensional). Leave some room in it for the real world to creep in, where sometimes you fall in love with the average-looking but wonderful girl...
I don't understand why people relate using a grid & miniatures to having deep and fulfilling combat. In my experience, people who play with miniatures are more prone to metagaming during combat - and that is definitely NOT fun nor fulfilling for me. Not using a grid invokes more creative actions I think, but using a grid doesn't prohibit you from doing anything (if it does, you've got the wrong DM!)
I agree with ruttentud & find TotM combats much more fulfilling than tactical grid battles ... when the battle occurs entirely in your imagination, it isn't restricted by the position of miniatures on the playing field. So, when Seti says (a page back) that "theatre of the mind can work, if the group doesn't want complex, fulfilling combat encounters" he is clearly seeing things differently than I do (and being a little demeaning, as well). While miniature combat can be complex in...
View full commentI agree with ruttentud & find TotM combats much more fulfilling than tactical grid battles ... when the battle occurs entirely in your imagination, it isn't restricted by the position of miniatures on the playing field.
So, when Seti says (a page back) that "theatre of the mind can work, if the group doesn't want complex, fulfilling combat encounters" he is clearly seeing things differently than I do (and being a little demeaning, as well).
While miniature combat can be complex in a rules-sense and can certianly be fulfilling for someone who likes those types of rules ... I have never found it to be nearly as complex or as fulfilling as TotM in a narrative-sense. (That is, combats that are dictated by description allow for more possibilities, and therefore more complex and fulfilling battles, than combats that are dictated by the position of playing pieces ... at least, in my experience).
Now don't get me wrong ... I can certianly understand the thrill of succeeding at sophisticated tactical game. (In fact, I enjoy playing tactical wargames like Warhammer, Mordheim, and Confrontation; but for me, they are a different animal than TotM-style RPG).
And, of course, I understand that a healthy dose of imagination is needed to make either method "come alive" ... but when faced with a grid, I always feel limited by both the squares I am froced to navigate through and by what I know is a more geometrically advantageous position, regardless of how cool my description might have been.
So, I am glad they are including rules for both TotM and the tactical grid ... I just hope I don't feel forced to use both.
I know that this will likely be ignored (since I'm late to respond), but I have to comment. MC said: "As a fan of high-level play across the editions, I've never agreed fully with the idea that the game breaks down." He then went on to explain what he meant, but I think he fails to acknowledge what *I* mean when I say that the game breaks down. I think that the rules begin to apply less and less, that special extra-rule challenges come up more an more, and that hand waiving abounds as PC...
View full commentI know that this will likely be ignored (since I'm late to respond), but I have to comment. MC said: "As a fan of high-level play across the editions, I've never agreed fully with the idea that the game breaks down." He then went on to explain what he meant, but I think he fails to acknowledge what *I* mean when I say that the game breaks down. I think that the rules begin to apply less and less, that special extra-rule challenges come up more an more, and that hand waiving abounds as PC level increases. In short ... the game itself (the mechanics, the nuts and bolts) *do* break down and become less relevant and the DM is forced more and more to step outside of the game system (often way outside) in order to challenge the PCs in any reasonable way. I also think that these challenges that are not covered by the rules (or are covered but only by hasty, ill-conceived ... probably never playtested ... rules) can feel rather arbitrary and almost punitive to some players.
As long as EVERY STYLE OF PLAY at EVERY LEVEL/tier is completely OPTIONAL and NOT HARDCODED in the rules, I'm happy with it. Some examples (from D&D 3.0/.5-Play): - We once did some "resistance against the evil kingdom"-type of play with level one characters, which had much of the elements I would expect from the "have your own castle"-game. (we built a camp in the woods and started to recruit rebels from the other outcasts), but no one took the leadership feat or a "have your own...
View full commentAs long as EVERY STYLE OF PLAY at EVERY LEVEL/tier is completely OPTIONAL and NOT HARDCODED in the rules, I'm happy with it.
Some examples (from D&D 3.0/.5-Play):
- We once did some "resistance against the evil kingdom"-type of play with level one characters, which had much of the elements I would expect from the "have your own castle"-game. (we built a camp in the woods and started to recruit rebels from the other outcasts), but no one took the leadership feat or a "have your own base"-feat.
- One of my most cherished characters is a high level wizard, who does not hold any political power at all. Sure he travels the planes, but wherever he goes, he mingles with the common folk, visits the same taverns he did when he first started adventuring, being more of the "mysterious wanderer"-archetype. But if he would decide to, let's say, become involved in a mage academy and take a position of leadership, I don't want to wait 2 or 3 levels, before I can take the proper feats for that. Why?
Because, if I already am a powerful wizard and have the social skills necessary to hold an office, I shouldn't need to wait for some pseudo-balancing game mechanic.
I strongly feel that worldly posessions and political influence (etc.) should be independent of your character advancement. (aside from the necessary skills - I would expect a leading character to have some decent Charisma and some diplomacy/leadership skills) .
Sadly there is a contrary trend I see in many current RPGs - you often have to buy followers/money/special items with XP. (for balance reasons I guess).
But all these things are rewards, ASIDE from XP, that shape the kind of game you want to play. No matter what you own or do, level 10 wealthy-dictator is still less powerful, that level 20 beggar-monk. Minions or no minions...
PLEASE don't restrict this unnecessarily, just give the guidelines to make every type of play easy and viable.
(which I think is what you're probably doing, but just in case...)
Also, as a guy who likes playing funny characters, I think the occasional funny-looking guy or gal is perfectly appropriate. D&D is about adventure, but there should be room for other elements, and one of those is humor.
Don't make D&D so...
View full comment