.Klamachpin's page

What if, instead of eliminating gold from the horde, the ante gets multiplied for each player removed from a multiplayer game? This would get ridiculous in really large games, but for 3-5 people it might work quite well.

Play proceeds as normal until a player is eliminated. After that, all antes are twice the strength of the ante-winning card. (So if a strength 6 dragon wins the ante, all players put 12 gold into the pot instead of the usual 6.) When another player is eliminated, all players put in 3 times the ante, and so on. This should force an escalating urgency to win gambits and get into a good position as quickly as possible, since the big antes mean that players will be going broke faster and faster.

I haven't playtested this, but I like it in theory.

In theory, yes, it seems a good idea. Unfortunately (at least, with the people I play with) it leads to only one winning strategy - win the pot or die. This particularly comes to light when Bahamut or another high-strength card is put in the ante. 26 gp ante + at least 52 gp in the pot? Winning that gambit will likely end the game, even if you were successful at another strategy (drawing to a max hand, playing flights, stealing as much gold as possible). Unlike poker, part of the fun of 3DA is the fact that it's not all about winning the pot.

Granted, eliminating gold fromt the horde swings the game a bit in the other direction - toward the strategies of not focusing on the pot. I personally like that better, though, since successful hands can be spread out among players more easily. Also, it just seems easier to remember a triggered event such as removing gold from the hoard rather than an ongoing effect like doubling up antes every gambit. But that's just my opinion.

I am currently in process of getting a new player in my group, and am discussing with him the feasibility of certain types of PCs in the AP. He has asked about a mounted character - like a Paladin or Ranger/Fighter type. I'm not used to seeing mounted characters in my games (I'm quite fond of the "squeezing through tight spaces" encounters), and as such wonder about how focused on mounted combat a PC should be to allow him to not feel overly useless in large parts of the game (fighting on a ship, various dungeon crawls).

What advise/nudgings would you give to the player? Have you had mounted PCs in your STAP game, and if so, how did it turn out? Are there any glaring adjustments to the game that should be made to accomodate a mounted character?

4. If south candle is lit first, the procedure fails. If both candles are lit before any throne is sat upon, the candles explode and then self-extinguish, resetting the trap so that the entire procedure must be started over.

The order which is extremely important is candle, corresponding throne, then mirror. Repeat for opposite set.

If the north candle is lit first, the order is:
north candle, south throne, north mirror, south candle, north throne, south mirror.

If the south candle is lit first, the order is:
south candle, north throne, south mirror, north candle, south throne, north mirror.

Whether the north or south candle is lit first does not matter, so long as the appropriate order of events is followed.

Otherwise, you are correct.

I find it easier (and your players may as well) if you have the north mirror facing southeast and the south mirror facing northeast, such that you should see the reflection from the appropriate throne. Though I have not run the adventure yet, I plan on making sure a divination spell is available - otherwise this trap could become very frustrating. The planned divination result is as follows:

Light the candle, sit on the throne, look at your primal past
Light the candle, sit on the throne, see yourself aghast
Touch the darkness, standing tall, movement very fast
An exit remains forevermore, but an entrance will not last

When 3DA first came out, my FLGS promoted it heavily. It is a good beer & pretzels game, and still is popular at the store. About once a month the owner holds a tournament -- the first iteration of which was ill-conceived.

Since 3DA is advertised as a poker variant for D&D characters, the final table was to be played like poker, eliminating people once they had no chips (or were in debt) at the end of a gambit. However, it was forgotten that poker is able to pair players down like that due to raising minimum antes.

The final table eliminated two of the six players quickly, and then the game dragged on for 4 hours before another was eliminated. Ultimately the top prize ended up being split, since the players didn't want to play anymore. Total time for the previous 3 swiss rounds: about 90 minutes. Total time for the tournament: about 10 hours.

That 50 gp per person was either a very lucky designer's guess or a great tribute to playtesting. Going 10 gp either way will modify the length of the game by a great margin.

Eventually, a house rule of gp elimination was created, in order to play the game pairing down. Each time a player is eliminated from the game, each remaining player must remove 20 gp from their hoard. If they can't, they too are eliminated and the process repeats for those remaining. The house rule still has its problems, particularly when it comes to "the showdown", but it works beautifully for the larger 6-player games.