houstonderek's page

Title says it all. Thanks :-)

I switched away from a 3x based game, the problem just about disappeared.

I always give three options.

-elite stat array
-4d6 drop lowest arranged in the order rolled
-15 point buy (no points given for buy downs)

There are a few who prefer rolled stats. Certain people tend to be afraid of rolling poorly and stay away from rolls. But in the end everyone has fun. Rolled in order is like opening a surprise gift sometimes you get a brand new game console other times you get socks. But if getting socks doesn't send you into a RAGE of "why can't I be the best" and you can have fun with the poor rolls as much as you can with the awesome ones then this IS the best method for you.

Rolling 4d6, drop the lowest, any order, averages out to a 20 pt. buy much of the time. Only a fool would take option 1. or 3. if they understood that. ;-)

Are we so entitled in 2016 that it's an imposition to just ask the publisher if something is ok?

Seriously, if you're trying to publish and make money, the onus is on you to figure out what's allowed, and ask questions before you do something. WotC is being nice and letting people play in their sandbox. If their mistakes are too much to handle, make up your own game rules and publish them.

houstonderek wrote:

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

That they'll actually finish the 5E SRD?

If you're hoping for a 3x type SRD, don't hold your breath. They're not making that mistake twice, I'm sure. The SRD is more for 3pp than letting cheapskates have most of the game for free.

No, not even that. There's a list of things they refer to in the SRD, like magic item attunement rules, random property tables, and spells, that make parts of what they released unusable for players and publishers alike.

They expect you to actually own the books. Again, it's by design, it isn't meant to be a comprehensive rules database, it's an indication of what you're allowed to play with as a third party publisher.

They don't care if it's useful for players, that's what the books are for. They sell stuff, they're a business, not a gamer charity.

He's talking about it from a 3PP's perspective, not as a player wanting all the rules for free.

Attunement is referred to in the SRD but it isn't open content. That's a potential trap for 3PP who isn't careful or who skims the SRD and makes pretty reasonable assumptions. That link shows other examples too.

I'm sure WotC has a phone. And a way to find the number for that phone. If it's that important, you can dial ten digits and have an answer. I think e-mail is a thing, too.

Effort, it pays off. Especially if you're trying to publish something to make $$$.

I have to say, some folks are being pretty dismisive of Gygax. Let's never forget that he, more than any one person *period* is the reason we have the game(s) we all play and love today. Although there certainly were other people that helped Gary shape D&D, he was the main, driving creative force that made the game, not to mention the company he founded to publish the game, the success it was and continues to be through its' many successors.

I just think Gygax deserves a bit more respect that he's getting in this thread

I'm not dissing, for the record. I'm not a fan of the game not being a game first either. I like the dice to matter, I can't stand DMs fudging, all sorts of things. If a character of mine dies, I don't get upset, I see an opportunity to try out a different concept.

I still love reading my 1e DMG, the dude had a weird way of writing that was oddly compelling.

Gygax is like any other man. A mixture of virtues and flaws.

And without him and Dave, RPGs don't become a fad, and video games would look a lot different. D&D heavily influenced the video game industry, a lot of the original programmers were big time role players.

You can be dismissive, that's fine, but pretending everything would be the same, and your hobby would exist, without him is just myopic dissing to dis, frankly.

I see a lot of "why doesn't it do things like 3x" comments.

It isn't 3x. Pathfinder is for people that like 3x.

houstonderek wrote:

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

That they'll actually finish the 5E SRD?

If you're hoping for a 3x type SRD, don't hold your breath. They're not making that mistake twice, I'm sure. The SRD is more for 3pp than letting cheapskates have most of the game for free.

No, not even that. There's a list of things they refer to in the SRD, like magic item attunement rules, random property tables, and spells, that make parts of what they released unusable for players and publishers alike.

They expect you to actually own the books. Again, it's by design, it isn't meant to be a comprehensive rules database, it's an indication of what you're allowed to play with as a third party publisher.

They don't care if it's useful for players, that's what the books are for. They sell stuff, they're a business, not a gamer charity.

One of the things I've enjoyed but been surprised about, is how its not an issue being a girl in a RPG gaming group. Most times I'm the only girl in the group but no-one has batted an eyelid.

I know RPG playing is very much seen as a geeky guy thing but I think more women are giving it a go.

Quick survey... who here has a girl in their group... and is she treated with the respect she unquestionably deserves!! ;))

The only girls I play with are my daughters. The other female players I play with are women.

Gygax liked games, not community theater. He was an old school war gamer, and D&D, as Arneson taught it to him, was wargaming with one person instead of a mini representing a squad or something.

When non-wargamers started getting into the hobby when the fad was at its height, they focused on the "roleplaying" part over the "game" part. No senseless deaths, arcing stories, etc.

Eh, it was a rant from an old guy not liking change, nothing really to discuss. The game evolved, the dice don't mean as much to a lot of groups. Play how you like, no one is coming to confiscate your books.

Get the core three, then use them to translate almost fifty years of delicious D&D goodness into 5e. It's actually relatively easy, regardless of edition, the biggest thing is gauging challenges across editions. ;-)

Joana wrote:

This older post reports that tabletop RPGs as a category (i.e., 5e & Pathfinder combined) were down 12% in his store in 2015.

To be expected. The successful launch of 5E was bound to produce a spike for that year which would be seen as a dip the following year.

A reflection on my own sample bias: I don't actually know anyone who still plays Magic or other card games with any regularity. I know of lots who do but it just seems to me like TTRPGs should be bigger than they are. Irontruth convinced me they almost never were big.

1E AD&D was a fad, and RPGs enjoyed some relevance in the Eighties, but their biggest impact was on video games. TTRPG is a nice niche market for a few people to make a decent living on, but it is, commercially, very small potatoes in the entertainment field, outside of inspiration for other media.

A two level dip in fighter definitely did Cadogan a world of good.

DiTerlizzi is one of the few gamer types I kept on FB. He and Easley are my two favorite artists that worked on D&D.

I don't subscribe (my gaming time isn't substantial enough to justify keeping up that closely), so, if I may ask, how did the Insiders do with the tone and deadliness of the original?

We're doing RotRL in 5Ed, and we haven't been mapping, and I think it's because the areas involved are just too big for graph paper. Maybe if we were told what scale to use (1 square = 5, 10, 20, 30 feet) and where to start on the paper.

It's a little bit TOO TotM, and not enough grid.

I could never afford minis as a kid (and I coveted the entire Ral Partha line, trust me), so I even ran 3x TotM style (it's what I knew) until newer players used to (and in possession of) minis wanted to use the Chessex mat the way it was intended.

houstonderek wrote:

I think the secret door in the goblin stronghold in RotRL's first installment really brought home my problems with 3x games. My character tracked the goblin boss to the secret door, KNEW there was a secret door, and I rolled a three or something to "find" the secret door.

In AD&D, I would have just started describing everything I did until I found the latch. In 3x, I rolled a three, and there was nothing to be said after that.

Except, maybe, "I take 20"?

But there are cases where that is an issue. If you had a negative Perception (or Search) modifier and the DC to find it was >= 20, you would have been stopped there. Of course, not finding the way to open the door is different from not knowing there's a door there. That's why there's hardness and hit points for walls.

I rolled first. And failed. Didn't know you could take 20 after a failed roll, or I was so in my feelings I forgot. ;-)

I loved being the mapper. I miss that part of the game.

I think the secret door in the goblin stronghold in RotRL's first installment really brought home my problems with 3x games. My character tracked the goblin boss to the secret door, KNEW there was a secret door, and I rolled a three or something to "find" the secret door.

In AD&D, I would have just started describing everything I did until I found the latch. In 3x, I rolled a three, and there was nothing to be said after that.

Needless to say, I prefer games where logic and deliberation trump a stupid die roll.

Yep, and now it's "I rolled a 33!".

I was going to run a 1st Ed campaign this year, set in Mystara, but it turned into a Pathfinder campaign. There was too much to convert. There was also some grumbling about how much harder it was to create certain character classes in 1st Ed and max levels, etc...

I would be amused by a 1st Ed conversion of Golarion. Thinge were so much more... final in 1st Ed. As others have echoed, it really only bears a passing resemblance to 3.5/Pathfinder. I think the thing I really miss are the feats and skills. We may have gone too far in the other direction (with too many feats) right now, but eliminating them entirely was a problem as well.

I would like to use the magic/leveling system from 1st Ed alongside the weapon expertise system from Mystara (Basic DnD). That, I think, would make for an interesting combat mechanic.

I started an AD&D campaign a while back, but the table didn't seem to be feeling it. With the modern versions of the game defining everything about your character on the sheet, having to actually think things out and not just roll a d20 to resolve EVERYTHING seemed like a chore to them. So, I just let the game die, I wasn't having fun. :-(

Edit: I'd play that, by the way. Sounds like a fun time. AD&D 1E and BECMI (Rules Compendium) are my two favorite iterations of D&D.

Aww, Grimtooth! :)

My Flying Buffalo and Judge's Guild stuff was the hardest material loss when I went on "vacation" and lost everything I had. Oh, and The Free City of Haven. I loved the Thieve's World stuff.

I've never played ToH or even read it or flipped through it.

So I know nothing about it. I've only heard it is death trap after death trap after death trap. So what I've heard might not even be accurate.

But if you do use 5th Ed., removing short rests will hinder some classes more than others. For example warlocks might only be potent for a single encounter and not be able to contribute much thereafter. Fighters and monks would have to "nova" a lot less often than designed.

Like I said, it's the oldest school of the old school modules. The entire thing is based on how carefully the players can navigate the tomb. Reckless power gamers die quickly, since there is almost nothing to overpower. People who just like to roll dice and not think about much die quickly, it's a thinking person's adventure. People who stock up on ten foot poles, spikes and hammers, and all of the old school goodies, go slow and steady, and never rush into stuff eventually have their souls sucked by the demi-lich at the end, since, invariably, they almost never have the right spells memorized.

If you run ToH straight, short rests, etc, will mean nothing. Most of the traps and stuff just kill you if you're not cautious. The hard part of running it in 5e is that the game, while it gives a nod to AD&D, isn't AD&D. They still have DCs, and a host of mechanical things that a die roll and not your brain will resolve.

Seriously, the only way to run it and get the full feel is to actually run it in AD&D. Everything from 3.0 on, even 5e, is written with modern sensibilities in mind, especially character mortality. AD&D (and OD&D) were written for a war gamers, and they didn't mind death as much. AD&D 2e and beyond were written for a completely different audience, with completely different expectations from the game.

I guess a kind of bad analogy would be trying to recreate the Roman chariot races, but with APCs. The drivers are way more protected from mistakes made in navigating. ;-)

SmiloDan wrote:

To be honest, the ToH always sounded like an unmitigated grind of DM capriciousness and spite to me

Since a lot of it is not even "save or die," but just "die," that is a fairly accurate assessment.

It was specifically created FOR Gygax's players, you know, guys that came up through the wargaming ranks and played a game with story elements. They didn't care if their characters died, they cares that their brains could outsmart Gygax's brains. The guy that played Robilar just threw his orc army at the thing until he got to the end.

It was a different time. D&D was just a game back then, death was expected at one point or another, and a lot of the best moments (for people not emotionally invested in an imaginary avatar represented by a piece of paper) were goofy, silly deaths. FBG sold a crapload of all of the Grimtooth books for a reason, after all.

Don't project modern sensibilities onto Gygax's AD&D. The players back then were a different breed until non-wargamers started to get into the hobby bigtime.

houstonderek wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Has anyone attempted to convert the 1e Tomb of Horrors to 5e?

If so can they please provide any tips?

I am thinking of replacing the no save death traps with something less lethal. And perhaps adding more monsters.

Why would you do that? The entire point of the module was to be nearly unbeatable. We used to use how people described their ToH experience to judge whether they were munchkins or worthy of our table.

Fair point, I do want to preserve the feel of the original module as much as possible.

I have a couple of players at my table that were not even born when that module was first published and are not used to that style of game. They know of the module by reputation only. Mostly we play Pathfinder APs, so that is what they are used to. Any advice on how to handle my situation?

We did pregens, never used it in a campaign. It's the most old school of old school modules, I'd use it as a "history of the game" moment and use AD&D rules or download OSRIC, and play it straight.

Yay. More sexualized children on Paizo's boards. Joy.

I'd go that far, seeing as it was pretty much stated flat out by Paizo staff at the time. ;-)

Why would I play a class built around a weapon? It's one of the dumbest base classes in Pathfinder. The Summoner keeps it from being the dumbest.

Has anyone attempted to convert the 1e Tomb of Horrors to 5e?

If so can they please provide any tips?

I am thinking of replacing the no save death traps with something less lethal. And perhaps adding more monsters.

Why would you do that? The entire point of the module was to be nearly unbeatable. We used to use how people described their ToH experience to judge whether they were munchkins or worthy of our table.

houstonderek wrote:

Again, everyone bought Pathfinder, which did nothing to fix any of 3x's problems. People spent a billion dollars to see a Star Wars movie that was basically the same movie from '77 with some better graphics and slightly different plot. I think you underestimate the current generation's love affair with recycled material.

The did because Wotc dropped 3.5. For fear of no longer being able to purchase 3.5. material. Paizo fills that niche quite nicely. I see no reason as a gamer to buy the same book again with new art and little to no changes. When I already have one. When I can get it for the SRD. I'm trying to look at this objectively. You keep looking at as if everyone will act like you do. Even then if Wotc had kept with 4E. Now with a edition that fixes the flaws. Paizo has to step it up a notch. Not rely on the same product and expect the same sales.

And using Star Wars. Really. The fans will go watch Star Wars en masse or any new thing about Star Wars because it's Star Wars. Pathfinder and rpgs are nowhere near as popular as something like Star Wars or Star Trek. I get what your saying but it's not the best example.

Scale is irrelevant. Right now, Pathfinder is the "Star Wars" of the RPG world.

My point wasn't that TTRPGs are as popular as movies. They aren't. They aren't as popular as the TV show Survivor, even. My point was that people will buy recycled stuff happily, in any genre or medium. The 2000's pop culture, so far, has just been recycling things from the previous two generations. Almost every movie is a sequel or a remake any more, new music is mostly dumbing down older music, even the biggest video game releases are mostly sequels.

Pathfinder is a 3x retro-clone. It was published so Paizo could keep publishing APs. It innovated nothing, fixed nothing, and that's fine. People liked 3x, it pretty much saved the hobby from even more obscurity and irrelevance, and it was a fun game. Nothing wrong with what Paizo is doing, but they aren't doing anything new and improved.

It had more classes, but they weren't as diverse.

What "diversity" does Pathfinder have? The witch? Samurai? Ninjas? Gunslinger? Magus? Nothing new in any of them, nothing that hasn't been done before.

Oracle? Summoner? Inquisitor? Pfft.

Pathfinder turned a few cliches into base classes. Whoop-de-doo.

It did fix 3.5 tho, the artwork is way better and more relatable, the character classes are more diverse and have way more options and feats, and the bestiaries are the best released for any edition.

Seems like improvement to me. :-)

Pathfinder hasn't quite reached the level of insanity 3x at the end achieved. The sheer volume of 3x materials just published by WotC is ridiculous. Trust me, there are more base classes, spells, feats, prestige classes, etc, in 3.x than Pathfinder. And WAR is horrible. I'd rather look at Lockwood paintings in my books, to be honest.

Mechanically, Pathfinder and 3x are identical. Shortening the skill list and CMB are quite minor as innovations go.

Paizo, like someone stated above, didn't "win" because they innovated anything, they "won" because someone (or a bunch of someones) at WotC screwed the pooch. Period. We'll see if 5e is just a placeholder to get to the 50th anniversary, or if it will help WotC get back some of their mojo, but Pathfinder is just the continuation of the edition published in 2000. It is 3x with different expanded base classes. The exact same disparities, lack of balance, and slog-fest high level combat. Same one or two encounters a session since combats take so long. Same "the powerful wizard is 23 because leveling is so fast, he can't even grow a proper beard yet" mechanics. Same problems with economy action.

Nothing changed, Paizo fans are just more fanatic than the average, it seems.

EltonJ wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think the fuss is largely due to brand power. It's a good game if you want something quick and simple - but it's also selling well (far more than the other games you cite) plus is still the most recognisable RPG, despite Pathfinder's commercial success over the last five years.

Does not a brand actually have a finite life? Like about 30-50 years-ish? I heard that D&D might have some problems because of the life of the brand.

As long as their closest competitor is named after an SUV, Dungeons & Dragons never has to worry about their brand name recognition being exceeded.

Considering that most people don't know a game called "Pathfinder" exists, but almost all of them have at least heard of "Dungeons and Dragons" pretty much proves your point. The name "Dungeons and Dragons" is worth more than all of the other TTRPGs combined in cache and recognition by a LONG shot.

houstonderek wrote:

Funny, what this describes is Pathfinder to a T. Paizo even hired new people to design for their 3.5 clone. Seems to me, judging from most gamers I know, people buy all sorts of recycled stuff.

I just can't see the same amount of gamers buying the same product again imo. Not without any of the flaws fixed. Espcially with 5E that did try to fix flaws. If a gamer dislikes caster/martial disparity, dislikes how long combats take at higher levels. The new core does nothing to fix that why would they switch.

A unchanged rehash I think is going to be a hard sell. I'm not saying it won't sell. But given that Paizo gives it away for free. All you need is one person buying a core rulebook. The rest of a gaming group take from the free SRD.

Again, everyone bought Pathfinder, which did nothing to fix any of 3x's problems. People spent a billion dollars to see a Star Wars movie that was basically the same movie from '77 with some better graphics and slightly different plot. I think you underestimate the current generation's love affair with recycled material.

Duiker wrote:

$750,000 per year is a quarter the average revenue of a single McDonalds location. I can't possibly conceive of classifying a national publisher with that level of revenue as "in the game" for any meaningful definition of the game.

RPGs aren't fast food. Frankly, I doubt many RPG companies (including Paizo) can even remotely compete with a single McDonald's location.

They can't compete with a good console video game release. I'm just guessing, but it would probably take Paizo ten years (or more) to make what GTA V made in its first week ($800 million).

bugleyman wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Oh no, using a computer to manage information. In 2016. How horrible.

There's difference between using a computer because it's handy and using one because it's necessary.

But I suppose if you enjoy complexity for complexity's sake...

Then we'd play Rolemaster! Or Villains and Vigilantes or ...

I'm down. Especially for V&V. ;-)

Medriev wrote:

Frankly, nothing would make me stop buying PF products quicker than an announcement of a new edition.

Frankly, nothing would make me stop playing Pathfinder quicker than...every other Pathfinder player moving to a new edition.

Because it's hard to play an RPG with no other players.

This is pretty much the reason I don't play AD&D 1e much any more. ;-)

RDM42 wrote:

Because, of course, you are absolutely representative of the entire customer base.

Why would anyone buy the same rpg with the same flaws and benefits again. I certainly don't have 120$+ to do so. I'm pretty sure some gamers feel the same way.

Funny, what this describes is Pathfinder to a T. Paizo even hired new people to design for their 3.5 clone. Seems to me, judging from most gamers I know, people buy all sorts of recycled stuff.

Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Pathfinder didn't grab part of the market by saying "buy the exact same game," they did it by saying "It's the game, with changes to make it better, and some backwards compatibility."

I would also appreciate the market research you did that shows Pathfinder 2e is more likely to fail than succeed.

The RPG market is a small, saturated market.

The chances of success for any game in this market are small; the chances of the same company succeeding twice are similarly small.

Look at how many games come and go quickly from start up companies.

Look at the recent major failures from big companies-- 4th edition D&D and the "New" World of Darkness that either did or nearly brought down established brands/companies.

Look at all the games with established IPs and fan bases that have churned through multiple company failures and have to be repeatedly rescued-- Battletech/ Mechwarrior, Shadowrun.

The first 3 editions of D&D came out in a different world where there was a lot less competition.

To think that Paizo could do a Pathfinder 2.0 that was competing with both 5e D&D, with the concept of just continuing to play Pathfinder, with all the other games out there you have to acknowledge that there are long odds of success.

There is far less TTRPG competition in the Paizo era than the AD&D era. Less game systems, less TTRPG companies,etc.

The difference is AD&D competed with Atari and the NES. Modern games, in a niche (at best) market, compete with Playstation, WoW, and arguing dumb stuff on Facebook.

We shall see. I think he is better than most people think. He had two very good season with the Eagles, I think they are going to regret firing him especially based upon who they hired to replace him. I don't think Petersen is the answer there.

He had two ok seasons, mostly with the former guy's players (a guy that needed to go, things get stale, but is currently finding success on a team that had less than he left Chip with when he arrived), then nose-dived once he got rid of a bunch of those players in favor of his hand picked replacements.

The NFL is about talent and coaching. If you have a Belichick, some talent deficiencies can be masked or overcome by scheming, if you have a loaded roster, coaching deficiencies can be masked (Bill Callahan taking over Gruden's Raiders comes to mind). Chip's scheme was successful with the incredibly talented team Reid left him, it wasn't so great after he ran most of those guys off.

Time will tell, but Chip has to drop the "smartest guy in the room" nonsense and figure out that his cute little college schemes mean nothing when EVERYONE is fast, strong, and the cream of the crop. It's easy coaching in college, only about 2% of the players you face are possible pro material, it's hard when just about every player suiting up on Sunday is the cream of the crop.

Plus, he just stepped into a division with three of the better defensive units in the league, to take over an offense that has nothing in the cupboard. Good luck there. ;-)

Edit: re, the middle part. Lurie isn't a snap judgement guy, and he had a ton of success with Reid running the show. If anything, he was a little TOO patient with Reid toward the end, considering the amount of talent on the team. Chip has to have some serious personality and judgement deficiencies for Lurie to pull the plug before three seasons were in the books. There must have been some smoke to Jackson's, McCoy's, and (to a much lesser extent) Maclin's fire, as to how Chip carried himself and treated people (I doubt he's "racist", but I get the impression he is an arrogant p***k), and how he evaluated players.

Chip came in believing the hype surrounding his "genius". The NFL doesn't tend to treat coaches like that well.

I have a strange feeling in my gut that pdfs are coming. They basically have no reason whatsoever not to, at this point

They're waiting for hardcover sales to slow down. You can't sell a PDF for $50, and the FLGS can't stock them. Hasbro is about physical products on shelves, after all.

I loved Watership Down, it was a very facinanting read. I have also...

I agree about the movie. The Gene Wilder one, the Depp one doesn't exist in my old mind. My girls want to watch it, I have it on blu-ray, but I'm waffling a bit, they're only five, and parts are kinda scary, I guess.

The "during the game, at the table" is implied in "impartial referee", by the way.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

False dichotomy.

If you see such, it is unintended. I am merely making the point I find calling the DM, 'the referee' as limiting and not fully giving attention to all I feel is the responsibility of the gamemaster... you seem to fairly clearly disagree. I also feel Kirthfinder may unfairly or unnecessarily limit the DM, especially in forcing them into just the role of referee.

How about "impartial arbiter of the rules and maker of the rulings at the table, while gaming, a game generally preceded by hours upon hours of prep, world building, and scenario crafting".

Better?

The role of a gamemaster in a traditional role-playing game is to weave the other participants' player-character stories together, control the non-player aspects of the game, create environments in which the players can interact, and solve any player disputes. The basic role of the gamemaster is the same in almost all traditional role-playing games, although differing rule sets make the specific duties of the gamemaster unique to that system."

Actually, in the very first RPG ever published, and the AD&D edition that followed, the Dungeon Master was specifically told to be an "impartial referee". Most games, until 2e was released, expected the GM to be an "impartial referee".

Sorry, but you're factually wrong about what "traditionally" was the role of the GM in RPGs.

Edit: or whatever you're quoting. Sounds like someone revising the wargaming roots of the first and second wave of RPGs.

Slithery D wrote:

You're dead, the GM runs the NPC inhabiting your body. If you're a particularly gifted roleplayers who's down for it you could run it for him within certain criteria, but that's unlikely. Most likely your undead self flees the party or attacks them. Your options are: 1) party tracks down and kills undead, resurrects PC, or 2) roll a new character.

Appreciate the answer, but your answer happens to avoid the context of my question. I'm asking this because it has been made evident, that some people believe that were I to remain in control of my character, through the transformation to vampire, my personality would then be radically changed. My question asks for their clarification on how they would have that change be a thing, at their table. So this response is not really helpful.

-Nearyn

You feed on sentient, living creatures to survive. You take their lives, not to save the world from anything, but to continue to exist.

The response isn't "helpful" because, from what I can tell from this thread, people want all of the power of being undead, but none of the consequences.

Mudfoot wrote:

But the OP asked about level 20...

So what? We know that rule-wise those feats can be taken an infinite amount of times.

They have a feat that gives you infinite feats? Interesting.

Pretty sure that, even at 20th level, you have a finite number of feat slots.

houstonderek wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

Not to mention that tract is pretty well drawn... Her smirk when she told her friend that she had used the mind bondage spell on her father to get her more D&D stuff has NEVER been matched.

I always wanted to meet the DM mom lady. Yum. ;-)

I don't think the mom and the DM were supposed to be the same woman.

The DM lady was one of the player's mom. Just not Blackleaf's player.

You're missing the point of his statement. It isn't that the GM is "just a referee". It's that, during GAMEPLAY, his job is to be the impartial arbiter of rulings, and he isn't playing "against" the party, he's setting up a world and scenarios and letting the party to what they will. As in, he's the referee, he just happens to be doing the talking and dice rolling for the NPCs and whatnot.

"Impartial" means not taking sides. "Referee" means person adjudicating the rules fairly and consistently.

Nothing in the statement says "unimaginative", "boring", or "lazy about world building and creating an immersive game".