|
Post by jakdethe on Jun 3, 2014 15:05:37 GMT -6
I've been thinking about this for a while, after reading some posts on Dungeon!, and finally getting a hold of the game. A lot of guys have talked about how to expand Dungeon!, adding more to it, or using Chainmail's combat system. I'm wondering, what would it be like to just OD&D, and play it like Dungeon!. Essentially OD&D without the role playing (though as with any game, you can role play all you want, outside of the rules).
I ask now in particular, because I'm in a situation where I don't really have time to prepare for a campaign properly, but a co-worker wants to play like every weekend. Dungeon! was a lot of fun, but I could imagine playing just that weekend after weekend would get boring. With OD&D you'd at least get to level up, and you could constantly add in new monsters, traps, and maps.
Some immediate ideas are mapping and moving more like Dungeon!. You'd have "sections", for right now they'd be: corridors, rooms, and chambers. You'd even be eliminating spaces like in Dungeon!. It would essentially function as a sort of scene-like encounter for each section. Corridors would have a less frequent encounter rate, and would mostly have traps, with the occasional wandering monster, and never any treasure. Rooms would have more monsters, but almost always have treasure (or at least have a chance of treasure). Chambers would be like corridors, but they'd also have a chance for stairs, exits, entrances, etc.
Both of the players I've talked to agreed they wanted a more minimalist approach, even going so far as to remove ability scores, and weapon selection (making it function more like a board game).
Thoughts and ideas? Do you think this would get boring very fast? Does it sound fun?
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Jun 3, 2014 14:49:37 GMT -6
The problem with classes as D&D presents them is that they sort of dictate to you a lot of things about the world, such as how magic works. Take those rules out, and now the game is wide open. Also, the fighter-only game allows for a highly S&S approach, and magic as mysterious, otherworldly ,and very dangerous. This is actually why I thought about this in the first place. Running fighter only brings OD&D closer to my personal background in fantasy, and the literature and media I'm familiar with, IE King Arthur, Robin Hood, the Four Musketeers, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 28, 2014 4:17:09 GMT -6
That's a pretty good idea. I know a lot of guys who play AD&D and give everyone the base chance for thieving skills (since they're so low). It'd be the same concept, as pretty much everyone has a 1 in 6 chance of doing stuff in OD&D; you're thief is just better at certain things, and has the ability to improve/learn new skills.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 7, 2014 22:35:42 GMT -6
You can extend this even farther and dispense with players rolling at all. Yes, it makes the players feel like they're in control of their fates, yadda yadda. But we all really know that it's just a way to generate randomness, and if it increases efficiency and immersion why not just have the referee do all the rolling? I don't believe that players rolling dice is actually essential, despite what most players would say. During an important single combat, or some other situation in which a mechanical, game-like feel was desired, I would relent and let the players roll dice with knowledge of what they needed to roll. But most of the time a lack of certain knowledge of the probabilities involved in success is a boon. This also eliminates those periods of waiting for players to find their dice, asking what they need to roll, and building structures from them. I especially hate that last one. It's funny I actually did this at McDonald's one time for two of my players. We only had one site of dice (my wife carries "Emergency Dice"), and I had the LBB rules memorized for 1st level characters. I rolled everything from attack rolls, to hit dice, to saving throws. It was a lot of fun. I just never thought of doing it for a serious campaign, because what people normally consider "fun". I might just have to try this soon.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 7, 2014 12:29:41 GMT -6
You bring up a good point, which I feel kind of extends the idea. If you have a good Referee Screen, or the original Reference sheets, there really is no need for attack rolls, saving throws, etc. on a character sheet. I might just a game or two doing that. I really like the idea of having players "just roll": no calculations, or checking for various bonuses or abilities.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 7, 2014 9:17:42 GMT -6
Maybe I'm using the term wrong. To give an example, in the Little Brown Books, if you choose to play a Elf, that's pretty much that. You don't write down much on character sheet (unless you choose to multi-class). When it comes time to checking for secret doors, the Referee handles that, and the rules for it are in the Referee's section. As a player, you're choice is whether you play an elf; the benefits come later because you decided to play an elf. In other words, you don't pick an elf because he can find secret doors, it's just a benefit. In fact this even extends to keeping charts, matrices, and statistics in the back of the player's book.
Why I bring up this discussion, is the (in my opinion) misconception that the original books (whether OD&D or AD&D) are poorly formatted. Now the tendency, whether it's a brand new RPG, or a retroclone, is to take the more modern "cleaner" and "better organized" approach of listing character abilities under the initial options and choices presented.
I'm just wondering what you guys prefer, and the benefits to both methods. The only real one I can see to laying out abilities under the initial description is that it helps to balance character options when they're are a lot of abilities for each option. In other words, I can see it being helpful in the case of AD&D because each class and race has a whole page of abilities and benefits. I feel like that is really counter-intuitive to the benefit of OD&D at least, because it's main attraction is simplicity, and freedom for creativity and imagination.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 6, 2014 2:42:43 GMT -6
I agree with your original post. A few (several?) years ago i was going to get into a campaign/league at one of the local stores. They had an online forum, so I checked it out. One of the "issues" was people complaining about proxy models being used. From similar types of figures. Not, for example, fantasy dwarves being used as space orks. But one company's star commandos being used as another's space marines. Now I understand objecting when the issue is "I don't know what is proxying for what!" You need to use models that are very clear in what they are meant to be depicting. But that wasn't the issue with the proxies. No, the issue was that it was cheaper to use the proxies, that the line of figures cost less. That the player hadn't spent enough money on his/her army. Apparently it isn't fun to play against someone who spent less than you. I didn't join that campaign. And to be honest it soured me on the store itself. I'm lucky enough that there are a couple of local alternatives, so i got involved in things there. This is one of the biggest reasons I play BattleTech. Proxies are expressly allowed in the rules, and even allowed at official tournaments within reason. It's one of the things I hate about a lot of of modern games: the focus is on minis and painting, instead of actually playing the game (like modern D&D even).
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 5, 2014 8:31:54 GMT -6
Sorry my original post sounded a bit harsh. It was intended to be a more positive comment on the OSR, and the fact that it's about the last thing that doesn't require you to dump money into it.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 5, 2014 8:29:36 GMT -6
ODnD already has a bard class, why not use that? It starts from level 1 and has similar abilities. I heavily considered running OD&D + Supplements + Strategic Review, but I felt a lot of the early classes weren't worked out really well yet. Point in case the Ranger, which everyone agrees is a funky class, to say the least. Though I'll definitely look back into it, because it screams old school.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 5, 2014 3:07:20 GMT -6
I was just talking to some guys about another hobby of mine (airsoft), and unless you're willing to spend $300+ you're wasting your time, and get this: You're a detriment to the hobby!
It really bugged me, and I figured out why. How much does cost to start playing (current edition) "Dungeons & Dragons"? $120+. Pathfinder is $90+ last time checked (brand new I know). The Reprints were something in the $100 range for AD&D (more for 2E), and what was it, $150 ($180 on amazon just now!) for the OD&D reprint.
I just don't get it. Mainstream society is really trying to make it to where if you're poor, your options are stay at home and watch TV. Think about it, the only cheap thing I can think of is Netflix for $10 a month.
Sorry, just had to vent. I don't know if anyone else here shares my concerns and opinions. Honestly I kind of wish the OSR would stay away from this trend (with their premium, limited run, leather bound copies). I remember I fell in love with old school D&D because of free PDF's and $20 print on demand complete games.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 5, 2014 1:08:27 GMT -6
That's some really cool stuff. It's definitely along the line of stuff I normally like doing; I like the simple, yet rich class abilities.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 4, 2014 22:25:17 GMT -6
I wasn't sure whether this should go here, General, or in Men & Magic, so move it as needed. I just had a couple ideas for 1st Edition AD&D. I'm mostly wanting to use the iconic classes with OD&D, but I don't like the Barbarian and Bard completely.
For the Bard in the Appendix, how bad would it be if I let players start with it from level 1? I'd probably give them the Thief's attack and saving throw progression, thoughts?
For the Barbarian (Unearthed Arcana), it's actually my favorite rendition. I'm simply thinking cut most of the survival based skills, and keep just the stealth and and combat related abilities (like in 2nd Edition), as well as the Constitution and Armor Class bonuses. Then I could cut the XP requirements either in Half or in Third. Opinions?
Anyone mixed AD&D and OD&D? I'm definitely thinking of keeping d6 hit dice for everyone like Gygax did. Any other recommendations to keep it from getting out of hand are appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 25, 2014 16:38:24 GMT -6
I forgot to mention, part of the reason for slimming it down to one class, is I like to include multiple magick systems in my game: Sorcery from various sources (Crypts & Things, Microlite20, Call of Cthulhu d20, etc.), Rituals from Carcosa (and sometimes 4E), etc. Tough I suppose it could work just fine having a defined Magic-Using class.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 25, 2014 4:29:09 GMT -6
I've been considering doing something similar, except I'm going to cut all of the classes and just have an "Adventurer". Then it will be the players choice what they spend their gold on: magic, miracles, henchmen, castles, etc. I'm either going with the OD&D prices for research and scrolls, or the B/X costs (as I've read them in Basic Fantasy). The B/X costs are more expensive, so if the OD&D prices prove to cheap I'll go with them. I haven't read the Cleric thread, but I'm going to make Cleric's function the same as the Magic-User, except they'll "buy miracles from the church". It will give them a more historical feel, and the Cleric will obviously have to follows rules of the church, alignment, etc.
If you do need help with costs and don't have the LBB's or B/X available, I can pull up the costs and post them here.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 24, 2014 0:18:54 GMT -6
Lots of great ideas. I definitely agree with waysoftheearth, I was thinking a lot of this before. Especially the fact that chances for success relatively stay the same in most systems. You just can't beat simplicity. a well-informed player can also remove some of the stress placed on the GM by knowing what the character can do: "I listen at the door ... (roll) ... and hear something if it's there." This removes a certain layer of fun from the game because players aren't as immersed in the action, but it can make the game rum smoother. In a game I ran a while back I had players doing stuff like this: "I search for secret doors (throws a six-sided die); six. If it's there I find it!" I really felt these players pressuring for "rules control" of the game, and also that this manner dispelled any sense of immersion. In my view their sense of "rules entitlement" wasn't constructive. Now I do most of the non-combat dicing myself behind the ref's screen. So yes, much depends on the players. But I still prefer simple over complex I've had this happen so much lately, and it kills me. The way I've started to look at it now: if they are rules lawyers I'd rather them not have the power; and if they're not rules lawyers they won't miss the lack of control.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 23, 2014 5:05:01 GMT -6
I could swear I saw someone suggest we make a board e-zine. I'm sure it would be a herculean task, but would be quite amazing if it happened.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 23, 2014 1:08:04 GMT -6
I wouldn't want to play a magic-user that could never learn any new spells, neither would I want a to play a Ranger that never got better at Rangering. The whole point of playing a game with levels is that the character gets better as they level up. That's a very good point. What if it was viewed more as "talents" or "boons", rather than skills? I feel like people complain the skills start off too low to be useful, and by the time your done adventuring you've rarely used them successfully. Is a there good in between or compromise?
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 22, 2014 4:34:20 GMT -6
I was thinking about classes the other day, and I noticed the AD&D 1E Ranger has static skills, that never improve: 50% chance for surprise, and tracking at 90%/10%. This is my favorite version of the Ranger, and got me thinking, why couldn't we do this for every class that has skills? This would be similar to the way I've seen a few people talk about putting the Thief skills at a flat 3 in 6 chance, so it wouldn't have to necessarily be percentile. It would be really simple, easy to stat up new classes, and balance them against each other. I know this would mean "character development" would be "boring", but I prefer a game about exploration and adventure.
Thoughts? Is there any downside I'm not thinking of?
Also by skills I don't necessarily mean skills like in d20, but anything from "surprise" to the Bard's "charm", to the Acrobat's "tumble", etc.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 12, 2014 1:20:31 GMT -6
I have a lot of free time, and love watching shows and movies in the background while I work on projects. What are some of the best adaptations of Pulp Fantasy and other D&D inspirational material? IE: Conan, John Carter of Mars, Lovecraft, etc. I know a lot of adaptations aren't great, but if there are any good ones you can recommend. Even stuff that's just vaguely related like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers style stuff is cool.
Personally I loved the new Solomon Kane movie. I know it's not normally cited as an inspiration for OD&D, but it's definitely got an awesome feel for it, and would make a great Cleric-focused campaign. Another somewhat unrelated show is Wizards & Warriors, from the 80's. It was really cheesy, but a lot of fun, and had a very puzzle-quest feel to its plots.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Feb 25, 2014 12:57:46 GMT -6
Thanks for the all the responses. Take it slow. I get it. Definitely what I'm going to try and do from now on. It's funny because that's how I Referee, and design my game worlds, I just never thought too apply that mentality to the rules themselves. It makes a lot more sense, and seems a lot easier than trying to determine a full set of options and rules before game play.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Feb 25, 2014 5:03:45 GMT -6
I've been digging through all of the old posts on here, in search of an answer to my current problem. I'm having a hard time deciding between extremely rules-light, role-play heavy D&D; and kitchen-sink, Strategic Review + Supplements, OD&D. I've noticed in particular there are quite a few threads recommending ignoring the thief, dropping the magic-user or the cleric, and some suggesting all three.
On one hand I love Arduin, the Strategic Review, AD&D, the Supplements, and all the cool rules that come along with them. I like class features, and think that is a large part of the fun of D&D, and most players think so too. Keep in mind, most players don't discuss the rules like we do, or have philosophical discussions on author's intent; I think it's fair to say most of us here are Referees. Most players just want to have fun, and enjoy silly things like class features, bonuses, and character customization.
On the other hand, I'm sick and tired of all the different rule sets. None of them does exactly what I want, so I'm always moved to house rule, tinker, and combine them. My feeling is that if I'm going to have a ton of classes and rules (by ton of rules I mean AD&D complexity), I don't want to leave out what I want. One game might have the Ranger and Paladin, but not the Bard and Cavalier for example. It's such a pain to mix and match, but that's exactly what I want to do when I take this route. The frustration of trying to bridge the gap makes me want to go with the above method. Of course when I go with the above method, I feel like I'm missing out, even though consciously I know that's not the case.
If it's cool, I'd love to hear the strong and weak points of each approach. What do you guys do normally? Why do you go with the method you go with? Do you keep them separate, and have two games you play for different occasions? I know there's a healthy mix of the two on these boards, so I want to hear from both, so I can finally make an informed decision on the matter. For the kitchen-sink players, how do you handle mixing and matching? If there's already a thread discussing that, a link would be highly appreciated. If there are any good games that handle the "classless" (or one class) style, recommendations would also be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Feb 22, 2014 11:22:28 GMT -6
Yeah I've been going back and forth between extremely rules-light, by the book LBB play, and more codified AD&D style play. I definitely find trying to codify rules to be a bit of a pain. I guess I've just been playing with a bunch of modern gamers a bit too much lately.
One thing I'll say I hate about lists, that you guys point out, is a lot of players just pick whats "optimal", instead of doing something that's fun. I had originally hoped having a huge list of material could act as inspiration for players, but apparently that's the opposite of what happened.
Just out of curiosity do you guys ever play more mechanically heavy games, or ever get the urge too? As a wargamer sometimes I like a bit of rules crunch. Do you guys ever play later editions of D&D for fun, or just because it's there to play?
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Feb 21, 2014 23:51:20 GMT -6
I was just hoping we could have a general discussion on how to customize characters in OD&D. How do you guys handle it?
Personally I add in whatever classes my players want, though lately I've been having a hard time bridging the gap between so many different games. What's necessary for fun, and what's not. Basically where to draw the line on class features, and where I've cut too many out.
Also what are you guys thoughts on feats? I made my own, I call techniques, that are purely combat-oriented bonuses; no restrictions or actions other players can't try.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Feb 14, 2014 21:42:14 GMT -6
When I first got into OD&D (only a few years ago, I started with Runequest), I had read a lot of material relating the same experience as gronan is recalling. Being a youngster I drew the mmo correlation cooper pointed out, and ran my game taking hints from games I'd played. I have to say it ended up playing exactly as gronan described, and it was in fact the best, most exciting, and most fun I've ever had refereeing a campaign.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Feb 13, 2014 2:32:47 GMT -6
I know there is a thread discussing non-Vancian magic systems, but I haven't read it, and didn't want to intrude. It also seemed to be focused on literary inspired mechanics.
I've had this idea for a long time, before I played D&D, of a simple fantasy game where wizards gained dice to cast spells with. I finally decided to work it out and tinker with it, and am pretty happy with the results. This would not replace D&D's actual spell system, as it serves a much different purpose, but it is fun, and leaves a lot of room for creativity.
Generally this system is focused around three types of spell caster: Wizard (Offensive), Cleric (Defensive), and Illusionist (Trickery). Characters would gain a number of spell dice (d6) equal to their level. This system leaves room for Paladins and Bards. Paladins would get touch based healing spells (described below), and Bards would gain 1/2 their level in spell dice, and be able to cast both Cleric and Illusionist spells. At least that's how I'm planning on using it.
Spell Types
Missile: This type of spell conjures a projectile of some sort to be hurled at a target. The missile hits automatically, and no saving throw is allowed. Spell casters can throw as many missiles, as they have spell dice available. The missiles can be thrown at different targets, or all at one target. Missiles can be thrown at a range of 100 +10 feet per level of the caster.
Touch: These types of spells function exactly as missiles, except the caster must be able to touch their target. No roll is needed, damage occurs automatically, and no saving throw is allowed. The damage dealt can be up to the amount of spell dice left, but it is limited to one target.
Area of Effect: These kinds of spells project the effects of a spell across a broad area. All creatures within the area of effect are entitled to a saving throw to negate damage. Damage dealt to each creature within the area is equal to the spell dice used for the spell. Therefore a 10th level caster, could use 10 spell dice on an area of effect spell, and possibly inflict 10d6 damage to every creature within the sphere, that fails their saving throw. It is up to the player and referee to determine whether 10d6 would be rolled for each creature, or if 10d6 would be rolled once, and then applied the same to all creatures affected. There are several shapes that can manifest as an area of effect spell, they are detailed below.
Sphere: Spells of this type can be considered the magical equivalent of artillery. While they have a much farther range than that of a missile spell, they are less accurate, but possibly more damaging. The sphere can be launched up to 400 + 40ft per caster level. The diameter of the sphere is equal to the caster’s level x 5 feet.
Cone: Much like the sphere type of spells, cone spells have an area of effect. The cone projects out in a quarter circle, 5 foot in length for every level of the caster. Otherwise all spell effects are the same as a sphere spell.
Line: This type of spell functions exactly as a cone spell, except the range is 10 feet per caster level, and it projects in a straight line outward, with an effective width of 5 feet.
Chain: This sort of spell allows the effects to “chain-link” from target to target, in no particular shape. The spell caster chooses what path the spell takes, and what targets it affects. This spell functions just as any other area of effect spell, except when one target passes their saving throw, the chain stops and no more targets are affected.
Spell Material
The spell caster must choose how their spell manifests, whether it is a fireball, or conjured dagger. Players should be imaginative, and creative in determine their spell composition. They should also take care to consider the effects of the spell on the intended target, as well as the environment around them. For example a certain creature may be vulnerable to fire, or immune to damage from the cold. Furthermore spells operating via sound or sonic boom could shatter crystals or rocks. Some common examples of spell substances are provided below.
Elemental: All of the various elements can be used to form spells: earth, air, fire, water, electricity, etc. Common forms include fireballs, meteor showers, lighting blasts, or rays of frost.
Conjured Material: Any sort of non-natural item can be conjured, as long as it is appropriate to the spell dice being spent. For example a 1d6 magical missile could be a sort of conjured arrow, or a 1d6 touch attack might be a conjured short sword. A spell caster could use a conjured crowd of dancing swords to fight in a sphere around him, functioning as an area of effect.
Clerical Spells
Clerics cast spells of a divine nature, serving to revitalize, protect, and strengthen those around him. Cleric spells can function as either a sphere, centered on the cleric, or touch spells. The only difference is cleric spells do not get a saving throw, since they are beneficial to the targets of the spell. There are three main types of cleric spells; healing, protection, and augmenting spells.
Healing spells heal damage according to the spell dice used in the spell. Protection spells add a bonus to either armor class, saving throws, or damage reduction. Augmenting spells can add a bonus to either attack rolls, or damage dealt. Protection and augmentation spells last for the entirety of the round they are cast, and apply to all rolls made in that round. The cleric rolls once for all parties affected.
Illusionist Spells
Illusionists have two main types of spells at their disposal: confusion and enchantment. Confusion spells function as cone, sphere, or missile spells. They function in the opposite fashion of the cleric’s augmenting spells, incurring a penalty to attack rolls for their targets, and allowing saving throws for area of effect spells.
Enchantment spells serve to fascinate and distract creatures. The spell dice spent determine the amount of hit dice in creatures that are affected by an enchantment spell (1 spell dice equals a 1 hit dice creature affected). Illusionists can focus their enchantment on a specific target, or simply cast the spell and see who it affects. In the latter case lower hit dice creatures are affected first. In both cases the creature is entitled to a saving throw, and if it fails, the creature is effectively paralyzed. The spell lasts for a number of rounds equal to the Illusionist’s level, the creature being entitled to a saving throw each round.
Cantrips
Casters can spend one spell die to cast 5 cantrips. The cantrips can be cast as the caster wishes, he must simply keep track of the fact he used up a spell die, and how many cantrips he has left from that use. Cantrips are minor spell effects, amounting to no more than a +1 or -1 in game terms, and lasting for one minute. Examples of cantrips would be a small gust of wind, a phantom ghost sound, or creating magical torch light.
Tell me what you think.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Jan 25, 2014 21:52:53 GMT -6
I hope I have a daughter one day that plays D&D with my wife and I. We play a little D&D and a little Traveller when Dad isn't too busy. She's 16 and has played a bit since she was about 10 or 11. Usually very story-oriented stuff, because that's what she likes. It's very special and Dad needs to make more time because the window of opportunity is closing rapidly. As someone who was introduced to the hobby by his father, I can only say I wish I'd had more time to game with my old man before he moved. It's really awesome you guys get to share that, even if it is only once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Jan 25, 2014 18:19:36 GMT -6
Schedule doesn't allow anything special. Wish it did. My daughter just asked me today about playing. Maybe tomorrow. I hope I have a daughter one day that plays D&D with my wife and I.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Jan 11, 2014 7:47:37 GMT -6
Since everyone keeps mentioning reference sheets, I came up with my own version of "Ready Reference Sheets" like the Judges Guild put out. It's basically random tables taken from anywhere I liked, edited in Adobe Acrobat to look clean, but not uniform. I can post pics if anyone wants to see them.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 28, 2013 21:00:55 GMT -6
Thanks for all the responses guys. I'm definitely happy with my play group, and we all have fun, so I'm going to assume it's that they're good players. I've definitely stumped them before, and had a few "non-combat" scenarios, though I'll use all of the advice given.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 27, 2013 11:18:26 GMT -6
I'm pretty much the "old-school DM" of my playgroup, everyone else preferring 3E/NEXT or WOD. I've noticed my players have a habit of wiping the floor with my monsters, on a semi-regular basis. They easily kill monsters that are sometimes twice their total party hit dice even. Of course on the odd occasion someone will die, last night even in fact, and most often when they go in to a straight up fight.
I think this is usually because the players end up with surprise, almost every time, usually because they role-play some way of obtaining it (setting up ambushes, stuff like that). My players also get creative, using nets to try and catch monsters (I give the monster saving throw to avoid it), or throwing boulders at monsters (I use the giant's boulder toss as a reference for damage). Of course fire, and booby traps are common as well (slick floors, marbles on the ground, ditches and pits).
Is this a common thing for anyone else? I'm thinking this is actually a really good thing. I think they're skill as players really is that good to warrant such grand success. I think that they're able to create that almost over the top feel they get in 3E/NEXT through player skill in OD&D. What's better is there is no attempt to balance, and thanks to less rules and mapping, they can actually beat a monster, much tougher than they should be able to through straight combat.
What's everyone's thoughts? Am I just to easy on them? Is this normal for a group of smart players?
|
|