For now, I'll just keep it in my side cart; as long as that does not interfere with my subscription shipments (i.e. it does not delay their shipment because of the item being on backorder).
The item I had canceled earlier was showing as being back in stock, so I reordered it (this was on Tuesday). Now it is showing as being backordered again AFTER I have placed an order...
Can you please clear this up for me?
I haven't read Ewalt's book yet, though it's on my list. Jon Peterson's 'Playing at the World' looks interesting as well.
Have you read Gygax's "companion book" to Role-Playing Mastery - Master of the Game?
I see that the backordered item has been lumped in with my next subscription order. Will having this backordered item in my sidecart like this, affect (i.e. delay) my subscription shipments?
I would like to have the backordered item placed in my sidecart for shipment when it becomes available again. Also, I would like the order I just placed, order number 2909792, to be combined with this order (2862900).
Thank you in advance. :-)
I realize that you have been busy with the "Great Golem Sale", but I've sent two emails concerning this order, with the first having been sent nearly two weeks ago.
Did my emails just get lost in the shuffle?
I played in a "cowboy horror" tournament using Call of Cthulhu rules about a decade ago.
Back in 2005, the short-lived Call of Cthulhu magazine, "Worlds of Cthulhu", published rules for "Wild West Call of Cthulhu"... I never played in or used those rules myself, but it looked like it would be fun to play.
I'm rather partial to the original "Boot Hill" boxed set by TSR, but whenever I have a real hankerin' fer something a tad more complex, I look to "Sidewinder: Recoiled" by Dog House Rules for the "d20 Modern" game system...
This whole "group comes first" business feels odd to me... I read the examples of play in 1st edition...
You should also read the last section of the 1st edition Player's Handbook (just before the "Appendixes" begin) entitled "Successful Adventures". Gygax talks about the "group comes first" mentality within the context of the game.
It might provide you with a little more insight...
"You didn't mention taking off armor, so you're fatigued from sleeping in armor." Next night, "You said you changed into a chain shirt to sleep, but you never said you put your plate back on. That's an AC 14, right? He hits." And yeah, that's only a slight exaggeration.
The same argument for naturally assuming that a character puts their armor back on in the morning could be just as easily be said for the thief character sneaking alone down the corridor... After all, sneaking IS something a thief tends to do... However, some GMs don't like to make such assumptions, and what is "a no-brainer" to one player (like putting on their armor in the morning without actually stating said action), is not so for another player...
Forgotten Realms had abandoned the Great Wheel by the time it went to 3.0
Just a nitpick…
But, the Forgotten Realms abandoned the Great Wheel AT THE TIME it went to 3.0. Right up to the very last FR product released for 2nd edition, the Great Wheel was the assumed cosmology of the planes...
In fact, it was assumed that the first two FR adventure modules released for 3.0 ("Pool of Radiance: Attack on Myth Drannor", and "Into the Dragon's Lair") still used the Great Wheel planar cosmology, as these two adventures, while released as 3.0 products, were written (and released) prior to the "official launch" of the 3rd edition version of the Forgotten Realms with the (3.0) "Campaign Setting" book (these first two adventures even retained the look and feel of 2nd edition products).
This almost sounds like a LARP.
No, not really...
This is kind of how the early editions of D&D were played by a lot of people "back in the day"; where the puzzles and such were presented to the players to solve as opposed to their characters (which usually meant that if the player could not solve the problem, their character was not able to solve the problem either).
But you are correct in that this is not something that is usually codified within the game rules, especially in games that have been produced within the past decade or so, as this sort of play style has fallen out of favor and is thus not very popular amongst gamers today.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Says the person who is willing to break a GM's campaign world for his, and I quote: "own amusement". ;-P
Vincent Takeda wrote:
If you're being smug you're past the point where you deserve to be treated in an adult fashion. I like to send a message that I can resonate with childishness because I know they'll recognize it when they see it. Pots and kettles and all. It's not rage. It's learning to speak their language. Some learn from the conversation, change their ways or move on.. Others pout endlessly. I can't raise every child but it's proven that a tantrum returned helps a child see how foolish they look. At least it works on *some* children. And for the one's that don't? I'm sure it won't be the last time they get some schoolin.
Because that is so the adult way to handle one's problems...
I admit, I can act rather childish at times. But there is a huge difference between forgetting one's self on occasion, and actually reveling in childish school-yard behavior to the point of boasting about it.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
On the other hand, some gm's are just askin for trouble simply by their tone and I give them trouble 100% of the time for my own amusement. When I hear pathfinder games that don't allow elves specifically at a table with someone who loves to play elves, It doesn't even matter if I like or hate elves... What matters is he's not writing for his audience and clearly not interested in doing so... These guys argue that they 'can' handle it but that they *won't* or *don't want to*... I can see it from a mile away and they don't even bother hiding it. That's a whole different ballgame and the gloves come off. They know what they're doing and they do it on purpose and I will tear that pretty world apart without hesitation and have on many occasions. I will curbstomp the snowscape of the smug and they can hardly feign surprise when it happens. They get a crystal clear message that their style doesn't fly at any table I'm sitting at and they don't come back and it's for the best for both of us.
I would have no respect for someone who would be so vindictive just for S&G's, simply because that person does not like it when the GM says "no" and they do not agree with the reason(s) given... It is an equally if not more childish response to the problem; and all because you just can't accept "no, because I don't like that!" as a viable answer or they happen to appear "too smug" for your liking.
It's okay to not agree with the reasons someone gives you, but to be antagonistic about it? And for what?? Your "own amusement" no less...
What happened to just walking away for the mutual benefit of yourself and that particular group?
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
those exotic races, usually have nothing that competes with the human;s bonus feat and bonus skill points, and nothing that competes with the dwarf's ability to gain absurdly high bonuses on 95% of the possible things you can make a saving throw against. most of them have trap options prebuilt...
2nd edition AD&D does not have feats or skills (at least as they appear in Pathfinder or 3rd edition anyway), and the saving throw system was different in 2nd edition as well. So no, this level cap is used only when I run 2nd edition AD&D.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Terquem! ;-)
I just received a package from you that contained 2 copies of "visions of WAR" (one of the regular hardbound, and one of the "limited edition" hardbound)...
I did indeed order both of these books, but I received them both back in August.
The order number on the pick-slip is #2748198. I was not charged for either book.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
That all sounds so... Vindictive...
If I’ve misunderstood your point, I apologize in advance.
But you make it sound as though you just don't like any restrictions at all (such as a campaign setting with no elves) based solely on principle alone. I find that a rather odd stance to take as that just smacks of (and please don't construe this as an attack, because it's not meant as one)... Entitlement (I am not calling you entitled, just that I think what you said sounds entitled. I hope you can see the difference).
Don't get me wrong, I don't care if you leave because you think our play styles will be incompatible, because like you said, it'd probably be for the best. But your reasoning just leaves me scratching my head...
As I've mentioned before, I mostly run 2nd edition AD&D games. And when running 2nd edition, I have two hard rules concerning player character races that are non negotiable...
The first is, if the race never saw publication in 2nd edition with stats for player characters (and I include Dragon and Polyhedron magazine sources), then that race simply cannot be played. This also, by extension, includes a good number of hybrid races as 2nd edition did not have near as many hybrid races as 3rd edition or Pathfinder (where seemingly almost every race has a "half" something or other)....
The second rule that I use that is not negotiable, is that I use level limits for non human characters (and almost every non human race in 2nd edition had a maximum level that they could attain). I will however, allow a non human race unlimited advancement at the cost of having to gain more experience points needed to advance in level (the amount depends upon the race, but the cost is usually twice the amount normally needed).
A rule I have that is negotiable is that of playing races that are specific to certain campaign settings (e.g. kender, half-giants, half-dragons, tieflings, etc.) outside of the setting that the race comes from. Whether I allow the race or not is determined on a case by case basis.
This still leaves a wide variety of races open for players to choose from, and in all my time gaming, this has yet to be a deal breaker for anyone who has sat at my table.
Because D&D imo is a rpg where logical and mundane sense gets tossed out the window... Where Clerics can raise the dead and Wizards create demiplanes and summon creatures out of thin air. Logic and mundane just are simply not something thay imo can be attrbuted to D&D.
If you're going to use that logic, then USE it! Don't just pick and choose things to your advantage...
Never use gravity or combustible material in ANY game you run; because you know... Dragons and stuff!
Even today people want to tell us there are ghosts and demons and the power of the Debil, and they say it with a straight face and 100% conviction.
Careful, there are real Christians who post regularly on this forum that might just take offense at a portion of that post...
Last time I checked dragons the size of jumbo jets were not flying around in the middle ages.
I always find this argument baffling...
Why does the lack of dragons and magic in real life mean that the game cannot at least attempt to follow some kind of logical "mundane" sense?
We play strange games, then. I mean, yeah, not all of the NPCs will, but in every game I've run the players have gotten attached to (at least) one specific NPC
I purposefully omitted my personal experiences from my post as those would be purely anecdotal.
In my own games, NPC often do play an integral part of the campaign (e.g. I'll often run those dreaded "DMPCs" when the players request that their party be "shored up")...
pres man wrote:
You say that as if it was an absolute.
No, it's not an absolute, but if the discussions on these boards about NPCs (in general) is any indication, NPCs are rarely "on screen" from the start of a campaign until the campaign's end. What seems to happen most of the time (again according to the past discussions on these boards about NPCs in general) is an NPC comes in, helps the PCs out, perhaps stays an adventure or three, then LEAVES... Perhaps to come back later, but until that time, that NPC in question is "off screen", and thus does not directly affect the campaign like an awakened pony PC would...
EDIT: An awakened pony does not have to be portrayed as a character from MLP to have a negative impact on the campaign.
Unless the campaign was about giants and genies.
And unless the PCs themselves are giants and genies, then chances are that the "on screen" time would not be "constant" (i.e. from campaign start ALL the way through to campaign end)...
And if you meant a campaign of giants and genies as PCs, well, I would think that the same GMs that would have issue with awakened ponies, might just have issue with PC giants and genies.
pres man wrote:
(which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly)
You've linked to that a couple of times now...
But those creatures served as mounts for giants and genies, and only really interacted with parties on a limited basis.
And as such, only affected the campaign for the short time they were "on screen"
The awakened pony example is something that would always be "on screen" so it affects the campaign on a constant basis...
To some, having the horse from Tangled or "Donkey" from Shrek show up as a cameo might be cool and fun, but to have them stay for the entire campaign might just draw the line from cool to downright silly.
press man wrote:
"Whether shape-shifted or merely having the magical ability to speak, the talking creature is perhaps the most common trait of fairy tales. The motif is certainly present in many more tales than fairies."
This is true, and guns and laser rifles have been in "fantasy" for a long time as well, but just look at how many on these very forums downright DISTAIN their presence within any game(s) they play.
D20 modern blended magic and technology fairly well. The "d20 Past" supplement would have the relevant weapon and equipment stats for the time period, though, Dog House Rule's "Sidewinder: Recoiled" would be a better product for the "western" portion of your "Weird West" game if you were to use the d20 Modern rules...
Just this past Halloween, I ran an adventure for my group. Despite having played until 2:00 AM Friday morning, the players unfortunately did not finish the adventure.
We were all up and ready to game by 9:00 AM (Friday morning)...
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I've never seen much point to that expecially considering the longevity of those races.
Well, I only used elf or dwarf as examples (you're free to pick your own demihuman as an example)... ;-)
But I agree with your statement above, but I also believe that the point of view of a longer lived race would be "why the rush"?
I believe that even a halfling with a life expectancy of 100 years would tend to take what we would see as more time than possibly necessary to do something. And while level advancement is not the perfect analogy, it is the closest you and I could ever get to a game representation of a long lived point of view; so I will allow unlimited advancement, but at the cost of more XP once that character is past the normal level cap (this also serves to reflect that as time goes on, the character puts aside the "exuberance" of youth).
Vincent Takeda wrote:
there's never a time when I play that I don't *want* to get to level 16 or 17 for the powers certain classes offier...
I mainly run 2nd edition AD&D games, and I use the rules for level limits for demihumans, but I use the option of allowing unlimited advancement past those normal limits by "charging" at least twice (but never more than four times) the number of XP required to advance a level.
Just out of pure curiosity, is that an example of a compromise you could accept if you were dead-set on playing say an elf or a dwarf?
What I found funny, and mind you, not in a mocking while pointing and laughing kind of funny, just something that made me grin because of the circle of logic used, was when more than one poster had stated that traps break their immersion, and then added that having to replace dead party members also breaks their immersion...
What I found humorous with that is these people are fine with believing in a world that is totally devoid of traps (or that somehow their characters miraculously never enter a dungeon that has them), but somehow, they can't buy into introducing a new character to a party that is out in the middle of the wilderness.
Just seems to me that if you believe in a world that no one places a trap to protect their home/lair/chest full of gold (or that you just keep getting “lucky” by never finding homes/lairs/chests full of gold that have them), then it should be an easy mental leap to replace characters that are out in the boonies as well...
Oh well, whatever style of gaming floats your caravel...
Good gaming to ya! :-)
Erick Wilson wrote:
which is kind of a dick move to begin with.
And there you have it!
This is THE reason why the argument at hand will never be settled...
My campaign worlds are not CR appropriate. Sure, I toss out CR appropriate adventure hooks, but I will not hide the fact that there is an ancient red dragon living in the nearby mountains from a group of 1st level characters. So if they ignore the warnings from the local NPCs and decide to go check out this dragon living on the mountain-top... I guess the dragon will eat well that day.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal.
I'll never fully understand this...
If the PC's are in an ancient dungeon complex, that is home to evil humanoids and who knows what else, then those residents are going to "wander" around, set [deadly] traps, and what have you. Heroes are not invulnerable.
Yeah, yeah, I know, YMMV and all of that!
Good gaming people; however sanitized or un-sanitized you like it...
Every item in this order, except one, is listed as "pending". The single item not listed as "pending" is listed as "shipped Monday". Was this item shipped separately? Is there a tracking number?
Also, why was the 2nd edition Player's Handbook put back into my side cart and not shipped with this order?
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Yes, different tactics for different scenarios... But these tactics are not universal, and thusly are not followed by everyone (e.g. not everyone wants to take prisoners regardless of any potential ransom value). And if you personally have never seen evidence of anybody using tactics different than yours, that is just anecdotal...
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
the tactic of capturing a target for ransom is different from the standard unloading of pain for slaying a dragon
Which is fine, just as long as you realize and understand that different people may have different strategies and may use different battle tactics than you do, and that your preferred strategies and battle tactics are not better than the next person’s.
No problem, it was my pleasure... :-)
The good news however, is that back then, there weren’t too many gaming magazines. The top two were Dragon Magazine and White Dwarf.
Here is an index of the articles that appeared in Dragon Magazine: Index
pres man wrote:
Problem with that stance, is that there are people, who like me, actually prefer to GM and have spent the majority of their gaming "careers" in the GM's seat because they do not really enjoy gaming in the player's seat.
So, "groaning a lot" is not the sign of a bad GM, unless that GM was somehow able to take the GM's seat hostage and refuse to give it up...
I looked at the article I mentioned, and it is an article describing the "10 Commandments of Paladin Virtues" (as seen through the lens of 1st edition AD&D anyway). It attempted to mirror an 11th century knightly code given to the crusaders by the Catholic Church.
Dragon Magazine #51 wrote:
The article then goes on to explain these "commandments" and how they can be adapted into game use.
Hope that helped! :-)
A Dnd game (at least, any Dnd game I've ever played in) is not very much at all like...
Anecdotal is anecdotal, and thus only pertains to YOUR personal experience. People play the game in countless different ways, so just because cireose's analogy does not match up to the way YOU have ever seen the game played (regardless of whether you have been a gamer for 1 or 100 years), does not mean that his analogy is flawed or incorrect in any way what-so-ever.