The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: D&D play (split - point about spam)
Started by: vismaior1411
Started on: 4/8/2005
Board: Actual Play


On 4/8/2005 at 5:02pm, vismaior1411 wrote:
D&D play (split - point about spam)

Clinton R. Nixon I agree with you.

Message 15042#159874

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by vismaior1411
...in which vismaior1411 participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 4/8/2005




On 4/8/2005 at 5:16pm, James Holloway wrote:
RE: D&D play (split - point about spam)

jdagna wrote:
I've found conversations like this can be most useful when you try to stick to very concrete topics. For example, instead of asking "What kind of scenarios do you want to play?" ask "Can you describe a scenario you really enjoyed?"

Testify. The problem is that when you start asking general questions about a game, people will really just try to come up with the answer they think you or the rest of the group want to hear.

Message 15042#159879

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by James Holloway
...in which James Holloway participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 4/8/2005




On 4/8/2005 at 5:49pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: D&D play (split - point about spam)

Hi Matt,

I recently started and nixed a D&D game for similar reasons. I had one player who I knew very well, and 3 players who were D&D-ists by habit. Needless to say, the 3 D&Ders fell right into party mode, would debate for 20 minutes if they should put on the new armor or not, etc, etc.

D&D tends to produce the paranoid player if only for the fact that death comes so quick, some modules encourage hardcore play, and a lot of GMs also reinforce the issue. And the odds of death don't necessarily decrease with leveling up, because at higher levels you have to contend with traps that teleport you straight into the Elemental Plane of Fire and equally "Oops, you're dead" type stuff.

Probably the best thing that D&D could take into canon would be a serious set of guidelines to prevent the insta-kill abuse on the part of GMs. Were that kind of thing in from earlier editions, I bet paranoid player syndrome would be lessened if not completely eliminated.

Chris

Message 15042#159895

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Bankuei
...in which Bankuei participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 4/8/2005




On 4/8/2005 at 6:45pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: D&D play (split - point about spam)

Dudes, this thread is two years old.

Message 15042#159916

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Wilson
...in which Matt Wilson participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 4/8/2005




On 4/8/2005 at 7:03pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: D&D play (split - point about spam)

Hiya,

I just split the above from More on my D&D experiences.

Guys! PAY ATTENTION.

By posting to threads resurrected by this spammer, who is becoming very active lately (see the Inactive File, where I've been putting it), you are FUCKING UP the Forge's function. And making major work for me.

I can't baby-sit you. Do not post here out of insta-reflex - read all the posts in a thread, look at the dates, and post accordingly.

I have no tolerance for any excuses or apologies, "Oh sorry, didn't see the dates." Look at the dates and think.

Best,
Ron

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 5932

Message 15042#159924

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 4/8/2005