|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Sept 4, 2015 8:07:36 GMT -6
Yes I'm here to admit I like the trite d&d'ism that is color coded dragons. I like that it adds to the d&d fantasy tropes. It's fun and I love it! So two questions
1. What d&d'isms do you just like no matter how much bashing it gets? what's your d&d monster guilty pleasure
2. Does anyone know what sparked the idea of the different colored dragons? Was it something Gary just came up with one day because he *made sh** up he thought would be fun? or was there a factor that inspiried it?
**made shi** up he thought would be fun" - is a copyright of gronanofsymerria,Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. please be sure to stay off his lawn and send him beer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 5, 2015 11:34:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Sept 5, 2015 11:59:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 5, 2015 15:24:53 GMT -6
I think that one "D&D-ism" that I like a lot is the whole "start the adventure in a tavern" thing. It's been done to death, but it's still a great way to kick off a campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Sept 5, 2015 18:57:24 GMT -6
I think that one "D&D-ism" that I like a lot is the whole "start the adventure in a tavern" thing. It's been done to death, but it's still a great way to kick off a campaign. Yeah it can be. I always joke with my players that all taverns in my world are round and well lit. No mysterious strangers in dark corners! |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 6, 2015 1:43:17 GMT -6
"Vancian" magic. Aftre having considered all alternatives (spell points, spell rolls, spell dices, rituals), I still find the whole "memorize - cast - rinse -repeat" routine the most convenient way to handle magic in a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 6, 2015 1:45:00 GMT -6
what's your d&d monster guilty pleasure I hesitate between gelatinous cubes and rust monsters. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 6, 2015 4:29:23 GMT -6
"Vancian" magic. Aftre having considered all alternatives (spell points, spell rolls, spell dices, rituals), I still find the whole "memorize - cast - rinse -repeat" routine the most convenient way to handle magic in a game. I agree. It's easy to keep track of the spells known and used, gives a decent simulation of managing magical resources, and is pretty well balanced overall. I like some of the 5E upgrades to the system, however, and am considering adding them to my OD&D campaigns. (1) Cantrips are unlimited. A basic attack cantrip is more "in the spirit" of a magic user and allowing the MU to cast little magical special effects without having to burn real spells is pretty neat. (2) Casting spells at a higher level for more effect is pretty cool. It encouarges the MU to pick more low-level spells and overcast as needed, as opposed to being forced to load up on high level spells but having some low ones left unchosen. |
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Sept 7, 2015 3:00:31 GMT -6
I like some of the 5E upgrades to the system, however, and am considering adding them to my OD&D campaigns. (1) Cantrips are unlimited. A basic attack cantrip is more "in the spirit" of a magic user and allowing the MU to cast little magical special effects without having to burn real spells is pretty neat. (2) Casting spells at a higher level for more effect is pretty cool. It encouarges the MU to pick more low-level spells and overcast as needed, as opposed to being forced to load up on high level spells but having some low ones left unchosen. 1. Cantrips are alright as long as they don't really affect gameplay, in my opinion. I especially don't like Light to be a cantrip spell, because it instantly makes torches, lanterns and all of that obsolete as long as a magic-user is around. 2. This is a good idea, one of the best parts of 5E. About the topic, I think having really weak magic-users at first level is something I really like. Weak characters in general, but especially M-Us. I like the whole idea of starting with nothing, and eventually becoming pretty super-powered, but earning everything you get. Newer games have issues with entitlement and immediate rewards at first level. Kids these days! (man I'm starting to sound like my dad) I also like race-as-class (not necessarily OD&D there) and level limits, because (in my experience) they work. They dissuade players from picking demi-humans. When I used to play 2nd and 3rd edition, human characters were rare, with good reason really. There was no downside to picking another race. In my B/X game now, there are six characters, only two of which are demi-humans. Not for everyone, but I like it. I really like the classic color dragons, but not so much the metallic ones. The white dragon is my favorite. White apes (B/X) are another favorite monster. I also really love the Men-as-monsters of the early editions: bandits, pirates, dervishes, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 7, 2015 13:24:48 GMT -6
I like what 5E did with spell slots and I wouldn't have a problem using the system as written in an 0d&d campaign. The cantrip rules however are a development from the "bandolier-wizard" that of course is popular in our circles of OSR to talk about. The idea of the wizard throwing daggers and darts every round. I think turning the wizard into a "ranged" class instead of the "utility" class is a diablo-style dungeon crawl I'm not really interested in. Obviously if one is use to wizards throwing daggers each round it makes sense to adjust this to a more "wizardly" zap spell. Personally, I would rather the wizard be worse at range combat than a fighter with a bow (the cantrip wizard kind of replaces an 0e fighter with a bow) and I prefer the wizard to be entirely mundane except when working powerful magic and I prefer all the magic to be wondrous. Shooting elemental darts each round steals the wonder and just reskins the wizard as an archer. I would rather have a wizard with a blunderbuss than an at-will zap spell. There is something esoteric about gunpowder and something very video-gamish about zap spells. Besides, at-will cantrips violate one of the core rules of 0d&d and that is resource management.
If one wanted at-will spells, I would probably rather go with CHAINMAIL spell failure table and a player could use his memorized spell as often as he liked until a failed roll. Or borrow Dungeon World's system (which is similar to CHAINMAILs) which is a 2d6 roll.
10+ the spell goes off without a hitch and can be used again.
7-9 spell goes off but the spell goes arry or something else weird happens, or the spell is wiped from the memory (players choice).
6- spell does not go off and is wiped from memory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2015 10:42:34 GMT -6
One of my favorite D&D tropes is the ancient and abandoned ruin, full of magic, traps, treasure, and terrible monsters. Despite all the harsh criticism dungeon-crawling seems to get these days, IMO it's the perfect background for adventuring and has huge opportunity for creativity on the part of the DM.
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Sept 20, 2015 18:29:28 GMT -6
I would like to second what @masterkerfuffle said. I know it can be done poorly, but I love the notion of a possibly incomprehensible underworld in a fantasy setting. The fantasy setting itself is already kind of on the edge of hearing, a place of chaos and unclarity that we mine for 'refreshment' and growth. But the underworld / dungeon, especially a gonzo one, is like the fantasy world for the characters. It's where they go to role-play, and it's what they mine for refreshment and growth. I just love it.
I guess this is why, to me, insistence that everything in a dungeon be perfectly motivated is unnecessary.* It's the fantasy of fantasy. Of course it's going to look chaotic.
*This is in no way a dig at well-designed and sensible dungeons, which are also cool, but to me seem completely different from the double fantasy dungeons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2015 18:57:53 GMT -6
People who b*tch about dungeons need to read "Red Nails" by Howard and "Quarmall" by Fritz Lieber.
|
|
