Well we all know the basic rules for D&D 5th edition are free for download. If you've read over them, what do you think?
Does it seem like a game you are going to play?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's enough info for DM's to judge how it will run
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll post here what I posted in the Free PDF thread:
Initial reaction for me was "similar to the playtest with some changes." And for the most part I enjoyed the playtest. I think the true merits of the system is that it doesn't require TONS of rules to make fun and interesting characters. Coming from a mostly 3.5 and 4e perspective I can say I'm glad bloated numbers with dozens of effects all stacked together are mostly gone. Further I think monsters of lower levels will remain somewhat relevant for longer periods and magic isn't an assumed progression a character MUST have to stay relevant. Further, feats are actually worth their salt instead of what they were in 3.5 and 4e.
Some things about the system:
· Ability scores max out at 20. So that fighter character isn't pushing his Strength into the strata sphere. He'll probably start rounding out his lesser stats, which makes ability checks better.
· Ability score bumps can be swapped for feats. This makes obtaining them more significant.
· No bonus spells means that spell slots remain a very potent resource that will most likely be held onto longer for the proverbial "right time". This, I feel, puts more emphasis on dealing with encounters with a level of thoughtfulness instead of just tossing in Fireball at every opportunity.
· less is more approach. With 3.5 (and to a lesser extent 4e) it was an exclusion-based system. Meaning that TONS of mechanical obstacles were fabricated to make attempting them severely difficult except if you had a feat, skills, power, etc. If so, its often a moderate or even easy attempt. In D&D next, it appears that things function about the same and proficiency or a feat give you a minimal boost, but not so much that not having it implies any such attempt is near futile.
All in all, it scratches an itch that neither my 3.5/PF or 4E games appear to do.
|
Same answer from the other thread:
Well, after my disappointment in the D&D Next playtest, I fell for it, downloaded the pdf and read it (thank you tablet!).
It's actually good enough to take the place of the Rules Cyclopedia (maybe not the free pdf, but the hardbacks will surely do), as a medium-low complexity game, it does feel like the D&D I grew up with, and perhaps I'll whip up a game or two using the rules.
It's not a ruleset that entices me to cast aside other - more interesting - games, both less, equally, or more complex.
Were I to use a light rules game, I'd run Cortex Classic. An equally complex game, DragonAGE. A more complex game... the list is too long.It's nice, it has the right feel, but lacks pretty much everything else that make an RPG interesting.
Let's hope that splatbook apocalypse will not kill it too soon.
As a side not that, I am overall happy with the feeling I get from the game. I certainly wish to try a game with a few levels of play.
For anyone who has read through the Wheel of Time Roleplaying Game supplement WotC released (I think it was released within a year or so of the original books in 2000), the spells/spell slots borrow heavily from that. A spell has a base casting level, but many of them can be cast in a higher level alot for increased/added ability. Cure being a good example, I am very happy with this change.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like it. I think that I can teach this to my 5-year-old without her eyes glazing over.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to learn, I'll give it that. And there are some good things, like ability scores capping at 20, being able to exchange ability increases for feats. But I'll have to see the monsters and the DM book before I give my final verdict.
As it stands right now, not interesting enough for me to make the switch.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get ya. For me it's not a matter of switching, but that of adding. I've been called a "systems collector".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like a system I could enjoy. And it also sounds like a system that some of my other players (that are new to RPGs in general) could enjoy as well. Like Chuck Wright said a few posts above he feels he could teach this (D&D Next/5e) to his 5-year-old ... heh heh not that some of my players are 5 yr olds ... but a simpler rules set might be easier on them. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably still play Swords and Wizardry than either, but it seems good (I do like Pathfinder as well).
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I bought the Starter Set last night, read the combat rules and looked over the character sheets... IMO WotC did a respectable job of creating a version of D&D that is quite straightforward and playable for new players and kids. It currently appears to me like the kind of fantasy RPG one would cut their teeth on before advancing to the full suite of options and complexity many enjoy with Pathfinder. We'll see down the road how this new iteration develops.
Various things that caught my attention in the Starter set and the free Basic D&D PDF I downloaded today:
- Advantage (taking the best of result of two 1d20 rolls) and Disadvantage (taking the worst result of two 1d20 rolls). Interesting. I would like to see this in action as a player and as a GM to see if I like it. Example: Disadvantage is invoked if a PC tries a Dexterity (Stealth) check when wearing most armors.
- Many spells like Dispel Magic, Fly, Fireball, Cure Wounds incease in effect by spell "slot level" (and not caster level as in 3.0/3.5/PF) when cast at a higher level. So a spell like Flaming Sphere can be cast as a higher, more potent spell, thus ensuring it can be a useful spell for, say, a 17th level wizard, (9d6 damage)... I like this.
- Multiclassing requires prerequisites be met: "Without the full training that a beginning character receives, you must be a quick study in your new class, having a natural aptitude that is reflected by higher-than-average ability scores." Gory details to come in the Player's Handbook. Excellent news to me -- I've always had problems with some players multiclassing willy-nilly for the best combos without regard to character vermisimiltude. Granted I could make house rules, but I prefer it that the core rules themselves regulate things, but without prohibitions. In other words I prefer a character should merit certain complex options in order to access them.
- When the rules discuss exotic languages there is a table showing draconic spoken by dragons and... dragonborn. So are dragonborn a PC race to come?
- Backgrounds: and blend of RP fluff and crunch. Very interesting for a basic game, I think many people will derive roleplaying inspiration from it.
- A PC requires 300 XP to achieve 2nd level. A Goblin has is a Challenge at 1/4 (AC 15, 7 hp, 50 XP), a Hobgoblin is a Challenge at 1/2 (AC 18, 11 hp, 100XP), while Bugbear is a Challenge of 1 (AC 16, 27 hp, 200XP). A party of 4 well equipped, well rested PCs is expected to be able to dispatch the forementioned lonely Bugbear with little injury or loss, i.e. a 1st-lvl party of four should easily handle a total Challenge of 1. Thus said party of 4 needs 1200 for everyone to gain 2nd level, and therefore they will have to defeat in total (presumably over various encounters), say, 8 Goblins (400) + 2 Bugbears (400) + 4 Hobgoblins (400) = 14 goblinoids (1200). I think that's too generous, but the pace of PC levelling up is a very subjective topic...
Lots more interesting info to be found, of course... :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- When the rules discuss exotic languages there is a table showing draconic spoken by dragons and... dragonborn. So are dragonborn a PC race to come?
Tieflings are also mentioned in an example in the Basic D&D PDF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does the xp needed per level scale? I can live with 1 adventure equalling going from level 1 to level 2, but people can't make an informed decision on scaling XP with a data set of one level.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- When the rules discuss exotic languages there is a table showing draconic spoken by dragons and... dragonborn. So are dragonborn a PC race to come?Tieflings are also mentioned in an example in the Basic D&D PDF.
Your right, I missed that paragraph! Indeed gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and even drow ("a fugitive from the subterranean expanse of the Underdark, trying to make his way in a world that fears his kind") are mentioned too. :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chuck,It's
2nd 300
3rd 900
4th 2700
5th 6500
6th 14000
7th 23000
8th 34000
9th 48000
10th 64000
11th 85000
12th 100000
13th 120000
14th 140000
15th 165000
16th 195000
17th 225000
18th 265000
19th 305000
20th 355000
...off the top of my head
BTW, whens the big FGG 5e announcement going to come?
It looks like 3 adventures per level after reaching 2nd level. I'd prefer it closer to 4 or even 5, but I don't track experience anymore. I just tell my players when they get to level up. <grin>
Announcement is tomorrow. I've heard the time being anywhere from 10 a.m. to 12 noon (PST).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason for the quick advancement is because the first three levels are largely meant as a tutorial for playing the game. The designers actually went on to say that after playing the game for a while advanced players will most likely start their characters at 3rd level (the point where many classes get their sub-path).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For interest and making brief comparisons, here are some more monster XPs (found in Starter Set):
Commoner - 10 XP
Stirge, Twig Blight - 25 XP
Skeleton, Wolf, Zombie - 50 XP
Orc - 100 XP
Evil Mage (4th-lvl caster), Giant Spider, Ghoul - 200 XP
Grick, Ogre - 450 XP
Owlbear - 700 XP
Flame Skull - 1100 XP
Young Green Dragon - 3900 XP
:-)
|
|
The reason for the quick advancement is because the first three levels are largely meant as a tutorial for playing the game. The designers actually went on to say that after playing the game for a while advanced players will most likely start their characters at 3rd level (the point where many classes get their sub-path).
I remember my friends and I used to start at 3rd rather frequently in the AD&D 1st Edition days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides the 4 races in the basic PDF, there are also:
Gnome (forest, rock)
Tielfing
Drow
Dragonborn
Kender
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Warforged
I hope they expand this list.
And now to try and retype my response before the internet ate it.
I amazingly liked what I read. I largely wrote off the playtest because of the bestiary (wtf exactly is a monstrosity? Why is an owlbear (a fusion of owl and bear) a monstrosity while the griffon (fusion of lion and eagle) a beast?), but wish I would have given it an actual chance.
I am curious if it will be too much of a hassle to port over things I enjoy about Pathfinder and earlier editions (1-4th, despite never actually playing 4th), or not. Also, wonder if they will have conversion books for doing so (preferrably for converting all previous editions).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It currently appears to me like the kind of fantasy RPG one would cut their teeth on before advancing to the full suite of options and complexity many enjoy with Pathfinder.
Alternatively, it might be the kind of fantasy RPG one plays after advancing past the needless complexity of systems like Pathfinder.
Or maybe it isn't a question of being "advanced" at all, and just one of preference? ;)
|
|
It currently appears to me like the kind of fantasy RPG one would cut their teeth on before advancing to the full suite of options and complexity many enjoy with Pathfinder.Alternatively, it might be the kind of fantasy RPG one plays after advancing past the needless complexity of systems like Pathfinder.
Or maybe it isn't a question of being "advanced" at all, and just one of preference? ;)
Well "advanced" doesn't necessarily mean better, and the observation is predicated on how things look at the moment. I am a Pathfinder fan who has enjoyed many other game systems too, and it will be interesting to see how D&D 5th grows in complexity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a good analysis. It hits on a lot the thoughts I was having about the new system. The lack of reliance on magic items is a huge plus for me with this system. As a GM I hate feeling like I need to give out stuff like cloaks of resistance, rings of protection, belts of strength etc.. just to allow the characters to supposably keep up with the math of the game.
I definitely love the 20 attribute cap, and that players are forced to choose between a feat or an attribute boost.
The backgrounds and charts with the ideals flaws etc... were more interesting to me than I anticipated. I really hope they hook players into thinking more about PCs as characters and less about them as "builds." I find the focus on character optimization in Pathfinder and 4e really tiresome. However, I realize that it doesn't have to be the focus in those systems, but I notice it being really prevalent, and I would prefer to play a version of the game that moves away from that.
One change that I'm hoping for in the DMG is an alternate xp system that moves away from xp for killing monsters. D&D is one of the only systems that awards xp nearly entirely for killing things. Pretty much every other game grants xp for accomplishing objectives. The D&D default xp system has a pretty profound affect, particularly on published adventures (e.g., pathfinder APs) because it forces the writers to add in extensive "filler encounters" just to ensure the appropriate xp is available. This can often have a negative impact on the pacing of the plot and can cause a storyline to drag out much longer than it should because its stuffed with extra meaningless encounters that really only exist to be source of xp. Sadly, even if the dmg provides an alternate xp system, it looks as though xp for killing things will continue to be the default, and thus will continue IMO to plague published adventures.
I'll post here what I posted in the Free PDF thread:
Initial reaction for me was "similar to the playtest with some changes." And for the most part I enjoyed the playtest. I think the true merits of the system is that it doesn't require TONS of rules to make fun and interesting characters. Coming from a mostly 3.5 and 4e perspective I can say I'm glad bloated numbers with dozens of effects all stacked together are mostly gone. Further I think monsters of lower levels will remain somewhat relevant for longer periods and magic isn't an assumed progression a character MUST have to stay relevant. Further, feats are actually worth their salt instead of what they were in 3.5 and 4e.
Some things about the system:
· Ability scores max out at 20. So that fighter character isn't pushing his Strength into the strata sphere. He'll probably start rounding out his lesser stats, which makes ability checks better.
· Ability score bumps can be swapped for feats. This makes obtaining them more significant.
· No bonus spells means that spell slots remain a very potent resource that will most likely be held onto longer for the proverbial "right time". This, I feel, puts more emphasis on dealing with encounters with a level of thoughtfulness instead of just tossing in Fireball at every opportunity.
· less is more approach. With 3.5 (and to a lesser extent 4e) it was an exclusion-based system. Meaning that TONS of mechanical obstacles were fabricated to make attempting them severely difficult except if you had a feat, skills, power, etc. If so, its often a moderate or even easy attempt. In D&D next, it appears that things function about the same and proficiency or a feat give you a minimal boost, but not so much that not having it implies any such attempt is near futile.
All in all, it scratches an itch that neither my 3.5/PF or 4E games appear to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a good analysis. It hits on a lot the thoughts I was having about the new system. The lack of reliance on magic items is a huge plus for me with this system. As a GM I hate feeling like I need to give out stuff like cloaks of resistance, rings of protection, belts of strength etc.. just to allow the characters to supposably keep up with the math of the game.
YES! Magic items should be awe-inspiring. I think with the assumption of magical items being required in the game, even ones with just a +1 attached to them will carry significantly more weight within the world. Also, I think it's important for the DM to build up how important magical items are. The DMG should have a nice segment of including them and the consequences of doing so (in both releative power shift as well as making the PCs bigger targets for people who are now going to crave those magical items).
I definitely love the 20 attribute cap, and that players are forced to choose between a feat or an attribute boost.
At first I hated it because I felt that I'd always choose a feat and I'd be left out with the ability score bumps but with feat design being "super sized" I feel they're not as necessary. Want to be a good Two-Weapon Fighter? Just take 1 feat and there you are. No more plethora of feat-chains that take 1/4 of your character's progression to achieve just to start playing the sort of character you want.
The backgrounds and charts with the ideals flaws etc... were more interesting to me than I anticipated. I really hope they hook players into thinking more about PCs as characters and less about them as "builds." I find the focus on character optimization in Pathfinder and 4e really tiresome. However, I realize that it doesn't have to be the focus in those systems, but I notice it being really prevalent, and I would prefer to play a version of the game that moves away from that.
As someone who routinely creates "builds" and then creates a role-play around that, I agree. Another thing is that I already have systems to do the tinkering with, so 5E doesn't really need at address this aspect for me. If I want to get down into the nitty-gritty of Character Optimization then I have v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E to scratch that itch.
Also, what I'm going to start doing is have every player write down what their character's short term and long term goals are. A Fighter, for example, might have a short term goal of being accepted into the order of Purple Dragons of Cormyr and his longtime goal is to own an estate or castle and land to become a stronger leader within the country. A Rogue's short term goal might be to get into a local thieves guild and his long term goal might be to create multiple safe houses in the city to which he can store all sorts of his weapons, poisons, etc (the latter example reminds me of Brent Week's Night Angel Trilogy ). Basically thinking less about what sort of feats, powers, spells I'm getting next level and more about "I really need X-amount of gold to buy a small apartment so I can run operations from there to blanket this area"
One change that I'm hoping for in the DMG is an alternate xp system that moves away from xp for killing monsters. D&D is one of the only systems that awards xp nearly entirely for killing things. Pretty much every other game grants xp for accomplishing objectives. The D&D default xp system has a pretty profound affect, particularly on published adventures (e.g., pathfinder APs) because it forces the writers to add in extensive "filler encounters" just to ensure the appropriate xp is available. This can often have a negative impact on the pacing of the plot and can cause a storyline to drag out much longer than it should because its stuffed with extra meaningless encounters that really only exist to be source of xp. Sadly, even if the dmg provides an alternate xp system, it looks as though xp for killing things will continue to be the default, and thus will continue IMO to plague published adventures.
While I don't mind the XP progression chart in the basic rules I do remember seeing the DMG as a sort of "Hackers Guide" with lots of alternate tools provided to adjust your campaign accordingly. As for modules and XP, it's been a while since we ran PF but I was under the impression that you gain XP for doing things in the adventure that progress the story (like saving the townsfolk in area B4 will get everyone in the group 400 XP).
do the monsters not have levels anymore........I really liked how that worked for random treasure rolls?
They've replaced monster level with CR; I don't think we'll know how that interacts with random treasure till we see the DMG, or at least the DMG bits of Basic. On the other hand, I'm not getting the Starter Set till the 15th, so maybe it's all in there and I'm just missing out.
It currently appears to me like the kind of fantasy RPG one would cut their teeth on before advancing to the full suite of options and complexity many enjoy with Pathfinder.
Sounds like they nailed the purpose of a Starter Set.
I think its a bit early to compare it to PF at this point. Hopefully, the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and DM's Guide will provide sufficient amount of options over the Starter Set and Basic rules PDF (which I'm assuming it will).
I like the Basic set. The Movement rules are an improvement and should make combat a lot more interesting.
The Death Saving throws might be fun to play.
The stacking Exhaustion is interesting. I know I'll be using that a lot more in my adventures.
All in all, I think Basic is a good start. It provides a good entry level for new players. I look forward to seeing the new books. December should be interesting to see where I spend my holiday funds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One change that I'm hoping for in the DMG is an alternate xp system that moves away from xp for killing monsters. D&D is one of the only systems that awards xp nearly entirely for killing things.
Unless the encounter is with non-negotiables (skeletons, beasts, high morale warriors) the XP rewards are usually spelled out as defeated rather than slain.
XP is granted for detecting or surviving traps, at least one encounter doubles XP for a capture.Some give less XP for a peaceful solution but in those cases a few deaths in the party are likely (or a TPK) if they opt for deathmatches.
Some of the encounters are RP only, and fighting is not possible.
Given the general threat level especially early in the game, diplomacy, trickery, and intimidation are excellent low cost alternatives.
The knockout rules make capturing enemies an easy option for melee types.
By killing I also meant defeating monsters, and yes pathfinder APs do award some xp for achieving certain goals, but the amount xp gained from that is far less than the xp gained from defeating monsters.
The baseline xp system works well for a campaign that is highly location based where PCs explore dungeons, beat on monsters and grab loot. In a more story/plot focused campaign it's not as useful.
I generally like the elegance and simplicity of the Basic rules (e.g. bounded accuracy, inspiration, advantage/disadvantage, simple action economy, concentration, healing hit dice), but have concerns about saving throw progression (lots of weak saves at high levels, which would seem to leave PCs very vulnerable) and the fact that Basic only uses 3 of 6 saving throws in the spells section. Will be following developments closely.
Yep. I like Dragon age rpg as every stat can be attacked. DND should do the same
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having read only 33 pages of the Basic Rules (and undertaken a couple of the playtests, running a short campaign in it) I have to say that 5th edition seems to me to be the best edition of D&D yet.
It combines the best of both 3.5 and 4e whilst changing stuff that I felt was odd or didn't work well.
It streamlines things, makes loads of things optional from feats to using a grid, and supports both simple character creation and customisation.
And I love Backgrounds (sort of like 4e's Themes).
If I hadn't just started a 3.5 campaign I would likely have chosen to run it using 5e.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read through it now, and I have to say...I really like it. Interested to see where it goes. To me personally, it feels more like D&D than 3.0, 3.5, or 4e ever managed to. I can see it becoming my first choice of alternate system (after Swords & Wizardry).
As I've said before, the level of support WotC shows will determine 5e's level of success. Give us adventures and setting material, not just rule supplements (ie, bloat).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll be happy with it right up until the time they start introducing all the other “Classes”
I hate them, hate them all
When I started I tried to get my players to “Role-Play” things like
Barbarians (you are a fighter who doesn’t wear armor, doesn’t trust Wizards, and is not afraid of anything)
And Rangers (you are a fighter who wears light armor, and lives in the woods, protecting travelers from wild animals)
And Druids (you are a Neutral Cleric who only uses spells that effect the natural world in order to keep the Circle of Life going on forever)
Yeah, that’s right. I always felt that the ridiculous number of new classes ruined the game for me
(And the new Pathfinder ones are killing Pathfinder for me)
Why do we need to keep re inventing Role Playing Choices as mechanical advantages of one kind or another?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be sure to tell Dennis Sustare that his new-fangled "Druid" class is just too damned flashy. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll be happy with it right up until the time they start introducing all the other “Classes”
I hate them, hate them all
When I started I tried to get my players to “Role-Play” things like
Barbarians (you are a fighter who doesn’t wear armor, doesn’t trust Wizards, and is not afraid of anything)
And Rangers (you are a fighter who wears light armor, and lives in the woods, protecting travelers from wild animals)
And Druids (you are a Neutral Cleric who only uses spells that effect the natural world in order to keep the Circle of Life going on forever)
Yeah, that’s right. I always felt that the ridiculous number of new classes ruined the game for me
(And the new Pathfinder ones are killing Pathfinder for me)
Why do we need to keep re inventing Role Playing Choices as mechanical advantages of one kind or another?
I skipped nearly all the supplemntal 3.5 era books except PHBII and DMGII. Now that I am with PF I love the APG. Though I plan to skip the ARG, ACG, and will evaluate PF unchang'd closer to release. Game is only ruined by supplemental material if you choose. Some folks like those options why deny them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have read through the basic rulebook and there are actually a lot of things I like in the system.
I like advantage/disadvantage instead of lots of modifiers. I like hit dice, the revised vancian system they use, multi-attacks at full
attack modifier. tying skill modifiers to class level seems like a fix that should have been obvious when 3.5 came out.
I am intrigued by things like archtypes, backgrounds etc and would like to see more of them before I make any sort of real decision.
I wonder about not having a touch or flat footed AC, but then I realized that it shouldn't be needed because there won't be quite a huge variance between attack rolls as there is i 3.x.
However, for all these system changes that I like, they really won't have ANY impact on if I choose to switch or not. That will depend ENTIRELY on the level of adventure support that WOTC provides.
If they can write interesting adventure paths that let me easily run players from 1-high level and those adventure paths are well written and have events that actually matter in their campaign worlds I will probably pick up the rulebooks and run the adventure paths that I think are good in the 5E system.
If they do what they do what they did in 4E and give up on the idea of linked adventures because they couldn't find authors who were good at it. Or if they put out crappy adventures where the players are "in" a favorite setting but don't get to do anything that interesting because "status quo is god" then even if 5E was the perfect system I wouldn't play because I don't have time to write my own adventures any more.
I personally don't care for published adventures, and don't give a hoot whether Wizards makes them or doesn't. Even though I don't use prepublished settings, I hope they release quite a few setting material, as I love to yoink the things I like and include it in my own setting. I much prefer running and playing in homebrew over published settings like Forgotten Realms, Golarion, Raveloft, Eberron, etc.
I skipped nearly all the supplemntal 3.5 era books except PHBII and DMGII. Now that I am with PF I love the APG. Though I plan to skip the ARG, ACG, and will evaluate PF unchang'd closer to release. Game is only ruined by supplemental material if you choose. Some folks like those options why deny them?Because there is a large (or at least very vocal) subset of the player-base that get completely outraged if a GM doesn't allow all published material. There's numerous threads related to this on the boards.
Old school players/GMs tend to be less inclined to this (though not immune) as in the BECMI/1e/2E days it wasn't expected for anyone but the DM to know all the rules, players were outright discouraged from reading the DMG and MM, and the DM's word was considered law.
Newer players (though again, not all) tend to take the view that anything published is "Part of the game" and that GM's trying to restrict those options is "being a control freak."
Personally, I think a middle-ground is best, where the game is a collaborative effort, but the GM's word is still final. He is, after all, the one putting the most time and effort into crafting the story and doing all the necessary prep work. Even running something pre-published takes prep time above and beyond reading the material.
I really hope you didn't open a can of worms with this statement, as I have read people calling foul on the bolded portion.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone wants to adjudicate the game, they can BE the GM as far as I'm concerned. If not, input is appreciated and listened to . . . after the game session.
It's how I've done it for years and I've never had a complaint with how I deal with games.
It's also how I play.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to think I was a really great DM, like 38 years ago, then the internet came along and proved me wrong