Quote from: Haffrung;1086969GMs who never use published adventures have always been a small minority. So have GMS who only use published adventures. The vast majority of DMs have always done both. Which is why these sorts of polarized discussions - GMs who use published adventures vs GMs who don't - have never reflected reality.

I personally use published adventures for my casual group and created adventures for my serious group.

I have been running existing settings in both though.

Oh I see that Mages have magical power per scene.

Yeah that's a hard pass for me. At least with D&D 4e "per encounter" also means "after a 15 minute rest". But I personally do not like magic being tied to goofy refresh mechanics.

Quote from: Haffrung;1086969GMs who never use published adventures have always been a small minority. So have GMS who only use published adventures. The vast majority of DMs have always done both. Which is why these sorts of polarized discussions - GMs who use published adventures vs GMs who don't - have never reflected reality.

When I say I "never" use them... that's probably not accurate. I have used published adventures (usually dungeons but not always) re-worked to fit in my sandbox. So money is still being exchanged. But it's pretty rare.

I've run some of the classics - Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Barrier Peaks and a few others, totally re-skinned and my players never realized it until much later. But again, to you point, it still required a lot of DIY in order to make it work contextually for what I was running. I freely admit I was doing it more as a challenge for myself than because I had nothing to fill in the game-space with content-wise. I thought it would be funny to reskin the spaceship into being a dwarven mine full of golems...

But I kept the vegepygmies... that almost gave it away.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1086981Oh I see that Mages have magical power per scene.

Yeah that's a hard pass for me. At least with D&D 4e "per encounter" also means "after a 15 minute rest". But I personally do not like magic being tied to goofy refresh mechanics.

Contextually it's also because spellcasters have to make a check for every cast. Those assumptions are due entirely to the potential lethality of the non-casters.

Non-casters in FC can be *extremely* dangerous (especially to casters).

Edit: One of the BIGGEST (and I fell into this trap right along with everyone else) problems with presenting FC to D&D players is we bring our D&D assumptions to the game without really letting the Fantasycraft rules sink in. There are boatloads of D&D Sacred Cows that are littering the graveyard when walking into Fantasycraft that we tend to gloss over. I *always* recommend anyone interested in the game to read the book cover to cover TWICE *at minimum* and ask questions first. It's looks like D&D. It smells like D&D. But there are some major differences (good ones imo) that aren't readily apparent.