ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (05/17/85)
In article <119@sdlvax.UUCP> drw@sdlvax.UUCP (drw) writes: > >One further point, a DM deciding this approach would also be advised to keep as >much of the actual statistics ( in the sense of what he gets and when ), from >the players, and only let them know only what they would really know if they >were the character. Try and get away from that - look a Hobgoblin, that's >1d8 + 1, attacking once a round for 1-8 damage syndrome. The less the players >think they know the more interesting it is for everybody concerned - try for >some atmosphere!!! I've long been an advocate of the 'Keep the players in the dark' school of DMing. This most especially applies to having a standard Monster Manual, which the players inevitably browse through at their leisure. (so if they do an average of ( (1+8)/2 * 8/20 ) damage per round, with us inflicting ( (2.5+9.5)/2 * 7/20), then we should take 3.25 rounds to kill each monster, a total of 9.75 rounds, during which we will have inflicted...) Yawn. I junked standard D&D long ago. The players should only know stats about themselves (not one another), and they should have to assess a monster's power from the description the DM gives them. The worst pain in the world is to have one of the players know the rules better than the DM. (Page 329, DM's Guide, Paragraph entitled 'Duration', potions of ssilver teeth last a minimum of 3 turns. Only 1 turn has expired since Balliorongraby quaffed his. You are wrong.) If you say, well, there are these certain circumstances that make this only last for one round, the players get a persecution complex. But if they didn't know how long the potion was supposed to last for in the first instance, there is no problem. -Nige Gale Advocate of the 'Make it up as you go along' School of DMing. (I'd appreciate some support, here, Brian)
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (05/24/85)
Received: from enea by ukc.UUCP id a017866; 14 May 85 15:51 BST UUCP-From: chalmers!jacob@enea Received: by enea.UUCP; Tue, 14 May 85 16:33:10 -0200 Date: Tue, 14 May 85 15:12:28 -0200 From: Jacob Hallen <enea!chalmers!jacob@ukc.ac.uk> Message-Id: <8505141312.AA13528@chalmers.UUCP> Received: by chalmers.UUCP id AA13528; Tue, 14 May 85 15:12:28 -0200 To: ukc!ncg@ukc.ac.uk Subject: Re: Blunt Weapons Newsgroups: net.games.frp In-Reply-To: <5128@ukc.UUCP> Organization: Chalmers Univ. of Techn. Gothenburg SWEDEN Cc: Status: R Blunt weapons take a much less skilled person to make, they should cost less than one twentieth of an equally heavy edged weapon, they are easy to mass-produce in a relatively short time and they are much harder to break than an edged weapon. These things are not simulated in AD&D so edged wepons get an unfair advantage. Jacob