I run a Virtual Table campaign called Chronicles of Eberron. Just Friday we ended our 8th session. It took all 8 weeks to complete our first adventure and since we play 4-5 hours at a time that's something like 36 hours. In all that time we rolled initiative for combat 6 times. I would estimate we averaged 1.5 hours of combat time when the dice started hitting the table. The rest of our time? Roleplaying. Long story short, that's about 27 hours of it. (And I have 21 pages of hand written...
View full commentI run a Virtual Table campaign called Chronicles of Eberron. Just Friday we ended our 8th session. It took all 8 weeks to complete our first adventure and since we play 4-5 hours at a time that's something like 36 hours. In all that time we rolled initiative for combat 6 times. I would estimate we averaged 1.5 hours of combat time when the dice started hitting the table. The rest of our time? Roleplaying. Long story short, that's about 27 hours of it. (And I have 21 pages of hand written notes in a spiral notebook just for this one adventure alone)
Frankly, I love it. That's the part of the game I live for. Clearly I'm in Peter Schaefer's camp, but my bias aside, why is it the "dreaded" all talk session to some people? Talk may be cheap, but it does not have to be boring. The all talk session is an excellent way to gear up for fighting. There is a lot of talk in war and words ahead of time (strategic or even political) often sway just who is fighting who and where. I would think that a combat happy group might appreciate an all talk session occasionally to better set up those epic fights they get excited over. It's (in my opinion) so much more fun if you walk into a fight acutely motivated by knowing who and why you are fighting rather than getting thrown into a seemingly random encounter.
The whole game is Roleplaying but that is a bit glib. When in combat it is more about tactics and the minutia of the second my second rounds. It's not dissingenuous to make a distinction between the two aspects of the game. On the one hand you are talking in character and deveopling the connections to the world on the other you are moving minis round a board talking about combat advantage and squares. So they may not be opposite but they are most often kept seperate.
View full commentThe whole game is Roleplaying but that is a bit glib. When in combat it is more about tactics and the minutia of the second my second rounds. It's not dissingenuous to make a distinction between the two aspects of the game. On the one hand you are talking in character and deveopling the connections to the world on the other you are moving minis round a board talking about combat advantage and squares.
So they may not be opposite but they are most often kept seperate.
Hey - as someone who has DM'd since the 70's (creak!) I wanted to mention this is great news. I can still recall when "read this text" boxes first appeared in the B* series way back when, so have watched this evolution as it happened. My opinion still is that the original Ravenloft was one of the better formats - just enough story and crunch in a good mix. I definitely feel the disconnect from the story that you mention by having the tactical encounters in a separate section or separate...
View full commentHey - as someone who has DM'd since the 70's (creak!) I wanted to mention this is great news. I can still recall when "read this text" boxes first appeared in the B* series way back when, so have watched this evolution as it happened. My opinion still is that the original Ravenloft was one of the better formats - just enough story and crunch in a good mix.
I definitely feel the disconnect from the story that you mention by having the tactical encounters in a separate section or separate book. Jumping back and forth does make it a bit of a disconnect for myself and the players. It sounds like you're going the right way with this though - keep the tactical setup in your bag of tricks but provide options to streamline encounters back into the narrative. Great idea. Keep up the good renovations.
I'm debating renewing my subscription, and I will admit to being one of those DMs who deeply disliked the encounter format for the reasons Mr. Cordell described above. As a non-subscriber though, I won't be able to see the changes made in "Going Ape" unless it is made available to me. Is it possible we might be able to preview the adventure or have it be made a non-subscriber piece; I believe I'm pre-disposed to liking the new format, but the opportunity to look over the article would help me...
View full commentI'm debating renewing my subscription, and I will admit to being one of those DMs who deeply disliked the encounter format for the reasons Mr. Cordell described above. As a non-subscriber though, I won't be able to see the changes made in "Going Ape" unless it is made available to me. Is it possible we might be able to preview the adventure or have it be made a non-subscriber piece; I believe I'm pre-disposed to liking the new format, but the opportunity to look over the article would help me decide whether or not to return to D&D Insider...
Ha! For those who don't know, the Wandering Damage System was an old Dragon article, apparently being brought back for the 400th issue, that cut the middleman (the monster) out of the damage-to-players equation. It had a Limb Loss Subtable and everything. Just wait. It's a great article.
View full commentHa! For those who don't know, the Wandering Damage System was an old Dragon article, apparently being brought back for the 400th issue, that cut the middleman (the monster) out of the damage-to-players equation.
I would like to know the theme names from Character Themes: Born of Shadow. Just so my players can decide, based on the name, if they want them, since we are choosing themes tonight.
View full comment
So they may not be opposite but they are most often kept seperate.
View full comment