Your, best WTF moment in gaming.

[Anthony]

Hey, I'm wrong. The D&D 3.5 srd does say what happens when you turn a bag of holding inside out: "If a bag of holding is turned inside out, its contents spill out, unharmed, but the bag must be put right before it can be used again." Boring. If it was EGG, it would suck everything in a 10' radius into some outer plane.

[Danukian]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Hey, I'm wrong. The D&D 3.5 srd does say what happens when you turn a bag of holding inside out: "If a bag of holding is turned inside out, its contents spill out, unharmed, but the bag must be put right before it can be used again." Boring. If it was EGG, it would suck everything in a 10' radius into some outer plane.

Once again proving AD&D superior in flavor to D&D 3+!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Danukian

Once again proving AD&D superior in flavor to D&D 3+!

I always get the feeling that EGG was the type of DM who felt a session wasn't complete without a dead party member or two. There's so much stuff in AD&D that's ridiculous by modern sensibilities. I mean, permanent level drain? Save or die? Rust monsters and disenchanters?

There's a part of me that misses that style of play, though it's kind of hostile to ongoing campaigns.

[Flyndaran]

Back in the early ninties, that's how I helped to take out a Tarrasque. I put another type of dimentional holding device into a bag of holding, and jumped off at the last moment. I still died from the fall but I looked awesome doing it. End campaign.

[dcarson]

Had a player with a overly paranoid thief decide that the bag he found was booby trapped and would be dangerous to move or open. So he slit the bottom of it. Bag was no longer a Bag of Holding and several times as many as will fit coins were in the same place. Didn't kill anyone but some nasty (valuable) shrapnel damage for several PCs.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Danukian

Once again proving AD&D superior in flavor to D&D 3+!

Or inferior, depending on one's tastes.

Originally Posted by Anthony

I always get the feeling that EGG was the type of DM who felt a session wasn't complete without a dead party member or two. There's so much stuff in AD&D that's ridiculous by modern sensibilities. I mean, permanent level drain? Save or die? Rust monsters and disenchanters?

Gygaxian gaming, based upon the advice he gives in print sources through the mid 1980's, is usually just about the worst advice I can see giving new GM's. It constantly downplays story, and insists the puzzles are for the players; his style sorely and severely limits the appeal of the game.

Originally Posted by Anthony

There's a part of me that misses that style of play, though it's kind of hostile to ongoing campaigns.

It's hostile, period. I do miss the simplicity of such play, but not the wailing and gnashing of teeth, nor the mundanity of resurrection magics in such campaigns. It does, however, lead straight to the hack-n-slay videogames of the 80's and 90's...

...where it works just fine.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Gygaxian gaming, based upon the advice he gives in print sources through the mid 1980's, is usually just about the worst advice I can see giving new GM's. It constantly downplays story, and insists the puzzles are for the players; his style sorely and severely limits the appeal of the game.

That is definitely something I have a beef with - the 'puzzles for the players' concept is a wrenching fourth wall breaker. We (as GMs) spend most of our time trying to stop use of player knowledge and metagaming in general and then along comes some Gygaxian monstrosity that demands it! It also bones roleplaying - if your high IQ puzzle solving genius is playing the dumb-active meat shield PC, it's jarring to have a character who should probably struggle to read solving complex word puzzles whilst the genius wizard stands there drooling.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I always get the feeling that EGG was the type of DM who felt a session wasn't complete without a dead party member or two. There's so much stuff in AD&D that's ridiculous by modern sensibilities. I mean, permanent level drain? Save or die? Rust monsters and disenchanters?

There's a part of me that misses that style of play, though it's kind of hostile to ongoing campaigns.

Gygax is famously on the record for saying that it should take you a couple of years of play to reach level 5 - and you shouldn't bother naming your character before level 5 because he'd just die anyways.

He would have LOVED nethack. And probably Dwarf Fortress too.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

It's hostile, period. I do miss the simplicity of such play, but not the wailing and gnashing of teeth, nor the mundanity of resurrection magics in such campaigns. It does, however, lead straight to the hack-n-slay videogames of the 80's and 90's...

...where it works just fine.

Videogames have a lot of advantages:

No other people to get angry at, just a mute, deaf box of electronics. I'm not hardly in favor of controller-breaking rage, but I've done a fair bit of yelling at the TV - I'd probably implode out of embarassment after yelling at a person like that.

Savegames. Save points. Level restart codes. "Insert coin". Resurrection is even cheaper than it ever was or probably ever will be in D&D - and desktop computer games with "Save any time, anywhere, in any number of 'slots'" are like a magic undo button, which is even better if the game likes to teach you about lethal hazards by killing you repeatedly (Mario, I'm looking at you very pointedly).

Since the computer handles all the dice rolling, at least your inevitable miserable end is handled quickly (and efficiently)! Combine with savegames and the "recovery period" can be very short, making it less "death" and more "reset button".


Nothing makes me more frustrated with a video game than the combination of lethal gameplay, "save points" a significant amount of play-through-time away from the thing that's being murderous, and the lethal game mechanic being slow to play out. Obliterate me in a fiery instant and let me restart nigh-instantly around the corner 20 yards back that way to try again.

[Sam Cade]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

The ones in the top right hit the target sideways?

Yup. Insufficient twist to stabilize the longer heavier projectile so it goes ass over teakettle.



Tech Talk: "Twist Rate" is the distance a bullet travels down the barrel in order to complete one complete rotation. It is usually expressed as "1:X" with X being inches.


Longer,heavier spitzer shaped bullets need faster twist rates in order to stabilize.....and now the fun begins. :-)

Early M16 rifles (and other weapons like the Daewoo K2) had 1:12 twists which while fine for the 55gr bullets of their era, won't stabilize the modern, heavier 62gr and causes them to tumble in flight.

This is especially fun in Twilight:2000.