?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Can I Get a W00T, Gamer Nerds!

I found a "compatibility mode" setting in Windows 7 that makes E-Tools work again!

I realize this may not be world-shaking news for you, but for me it's a big deal. Because it means that D&D 3.5 once again becomes a practical reality!

*geeks out about this for about 10 minutes*

I never thought I'd be so happy to be able to run D&D. :D Now, to see if I can find a way to incorporate the good parts of 4E (99.9% of which are in the DM's prep part of the game) into 3.5.

My players: any requests? I know we've had a lot of start-and-stop games, but that's largely been because I haven't been able to hit on a formula I liked between Saga, 4E, and so on. But with the re-availability of E-Tools, I intend to get something going again.

-The Gneech

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
sirfox
Dec. 18th, 2009 03:04 am (UTC)
woot.
jamesbarrett
Dec. 18th, 2009 04:00 am (UTC)
yay!
sirfox
Dec. 18th, 2009 04:03 am (UTC)
Maybe you could come up with a few characters / builds, and the players could trade them about each session through a few evenings to iron out the kinks, and try out new tweaks to the rules/system? Then once we've all had a chance to get a feel how different things work, generate new characters, maybe continue from $last_plot point as folks who were around/affected by whatever the climax was. It'd give you a chance to set up the world, plot, and environment, too.
the_gneech
Dec. 18th, 2009 05:04 am (UTC)
Well, I was thinking more "meta-" preferences, like "standard D&D where anything goes" (like gnoll clerics and whatnot) or "Teh Serious Big Fat Fantasy," etc., although slightly more specific stuff like "I'd like to play a bard but they're so squishy..." is fine too.

I've thought of doing a sequel to Red Hand of Doom, since that has an already-established group of characters, but they were also reaching the upper-creakiness level of 3.5 so I'm not sure how feasible that would be. But it also seems like every time I try to start a new low-level game, we get a mish-mashy kind of group with severe imminent clashes -- for example the thing I started where you were looking for the cure for the plagued village, where you and Jamie were looking to play "trouble-causing antiheroes" while I was trying to set up a "plucky heroes save the world" game.

If I know beforehand what people are wanting to do, I can come up with a better structure. Or, alternatively, if people want to just go with the flow, I can either establish expectations up front or even just set up the old cliché of "there's some guy hiring adventurers at the tavern" and you guys can iron it out from there.

-The Gneech
sirfox
Dec. 18th, 2009 10:57 pm (UTC)
I'd not mind continuing with Red Hand Of Doom, it was a fun party mix. If we pick up some other storyline, my only request is that we start off with at least a few levels under our belt. Whatever the system, it's often not until the party is a few levels in that both options and complexities start rearing their heads. Since we'd be half addressing tweaks to a system, we would find stuff out faster that way.

I do enjoy playing nonstandard races (not just gnolls all the time, honest, they're just easy) for variety's sake, but if you have some stuff in mind, i can be quite accommodating to whatever the party's needs are.
hantamouse
Dec. 19th, 2009 03:53 am (UTC)
I don't understand the upper-creakiness problem. I'm a bit frustrated at never seeing what the upper half of the class tables are like to play. (There are even rumors of the existence of prestige classes!)

The RHoD group worked well, and apparently that's less common than it should be.
the_gneech
Dec. 19th, 2009 04:46 am (UTC)
Well, you remember what the fights at the end of RHoD were like, don't you? Everybody's turn took 10 minutes to count all the buffs, primary attacks, secondary attacks, etc., and people kept dying all over the place because combat is so "swingy" at that point. I don't remember what level that was, but it wasn't even into the really creaky bits.

That said, I'll see what I can do about running some high-level stuff, possibly using RHoD as a launching point.

-TG
hantamouse
Dec. 19th, 2009 04:25 am (UTC)
The Epic Fantasy thing seems a bit too railroady. The smaller independent adventures that later turn out to be connected is just the sort of cliche that would work best.

How practical is it to flavor the game in other Fantasy sub-genres without changing the rules? I know you've always wanted to "Sword&Sorcery", yet we never have.
the_gneech
Dec. 19th, 2009 04:41 am (UTC)
It can be done, but there need to be allowances made. Leaving out elves and halflings and such is easy enough, but leaving out magic swords and rings of protection makes the numbers go all wobbly ... or even more wobbly, as you get up in the level 9+ range. Monsters in particular are built on the assumption that you'll have an AC of at least X and an attack bonus of at least Y, that the wizard will be lobbing fireballs while flying invisibly, and so on. When those assumptions turn out not to be true, things can quickly go south.

I think (think, mind you) that the Sword and Sorcery Saga writeup would scale up reasonably well, because it's based on the Star Wars model where gear is usually not really the deciding factor. However, I've read that the WotC designers tasked with writing Level 19 SWSE adventures had a bear of a time of it because there was precious little conceivable that the PCs couldn't just roll right over.

It's a flaw of the level-based system, I'm afraid -- the universe either scales up with you (which leads you to wonder why bother with levels at all) or the PCs rapidly outgrow anything that's not completely over-the-top.

-TG
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow