After watching Web DM’s video on making your D&D game more deadly, I quickly jotted down 37 ways you could make combat more challenging (and deadly) for your players without going down the road of changing the rules.
Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition had a lot of cool features.
One of them being masterwork items.
Masterwork items simulated well-crafted weapons, armour, and items found in the world, which gave you minor bonuses when used.
The most popular of these were masterwork weapons.
I am was a member of a lot of D&D groups and forums and one type of post comes up again and again.
It’s what I call the “Can I have…” post.
I see so many GMs posting on these forums “Can I have a vampire as a Patron for a Warlock?” Or “Is it possible for a Hill Giant to be a Wizard?”
I am not sure what these posters are actually looking for – whether it’s validation of their idea or permission to include these in their games.
Whatever the reason it strikes me as a contest of creativity vs. rules.
Worlds are created as much by taking things away as it is by adding things.
There was a recent discussion on Facebook around GMs restricting choices from the players – specifically around races and classes – in their campaigns.
And a few people felt this was alienating and silly, and reeked of a GM power trip.
In my opinion, this view is misguided.
I hate Experience Points (XP).
As a GM I have always hated doing the math after every game and I dislike creating XP for individual encounters.
The time it takes could be spent playing or, if you are like me, sleeping after a late night session.
The last thing I feel like doing after a gaming session is calculating XP.
I was playing a game the other week and experienced railroading in the extreme, which I hadn’t experienced in a long time, and it left me frustrated and deflated with the rest of the game.
(I have since left that campaign due to not liking the rules, but that’s a whole other post.)
The game started great.