View Profile: Shasarak - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No More Results
About Shasarak

Basic Information

About Shasarak
Location:
Auckland, New Zealand

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,460
Posts Per Day
1.13
Last Post
Proper Burials & Undead Origins Yesterday 10:28 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:45 AM
Join Date
Saturday, 21st August, 2010
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Saturday, 19th January, 2019


Friday, 18th January, 2019


Thursday, 17th January, 2019


Wednesday, 16th January, 2019


Tuesday, 15th January, 2019


Monday, 14th January, 2019


Saturday, 12th January, 2019


Friday, 11th January, 2019


Thursday, 10th January, 2019



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Monday, 17th September, 2018

  • 02:09 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post How do you like your published settings? Static or evolving? And through what medium?
    ...er it's worth the hassle. Even worse is when players own different versions of the setting and expect to be able to use what they own...and by extension expect you-as-DM to accommodate that. My surprise was more about the amount of “setting police” players that seem to be out there, according to many posts in this and similar threads. If I want to use the 1e gray-box version of Forgotten Realms (maybe with some additions of my own), and one player is expecting the 3e version because that's what she's used to, while another player is looking for the post-apocalypse 4e version - yeah, there's going to be some mismatched expectations up front followed inevitably by erroneous assumptions during play. The only way to avoid this is to not use FR as a setting.... On the other hand instead of not using FR as a setting you could say that the campaign is starting in Year 1357 DR and run from there. In 40 years of running all types of campaigns I've never run into a problem like those. Shasarak's solution has always worked for me and I've never made a big deal about it and I don't remember a single player ever complaining or even asking about it. Again, I don't see why a timeline doesn't work. It has always worked for me. I guess I'm just special.

Tuesday, 24th July, 2018

  • 05:51 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    Why would you leave out the official quote I provided for you that a dragon being magical in combination with the wing strength is how it flies. It makes it appear that you argue disingenuously when you do things like this. (1) I was replying to Shasarak, who I thought was suggesting that flying dragons are physically possible. (2) That is inlcuded in my (iii): it doesn't really make sense to think of the world of D&D using such scientific categories as gravity and fluid mechanics. A world in which beings have "innate magic" that combines with their muscualture to let them fly is not a world in which scientific categories such as gravity and fluid mechanics have application. (Whichi was TwoSix's point some way upthread.) I also think it is worth nothing that in 3E (at least according to the d20srd) a dragon's flight is not SU. Of course they are biomechanically possible. That is what the physics says. What kind of respiratory system does a DnD Arthrod have? Maybe you are imagining the wrong sort.I'm talking about the real world. Are you asserting that D&D giants are biomechanically possible in the real world? If you are, that's interesting because I thought the general opinion was that, with the possible exception of fi...

Monday, 23rd July, 2018

  • 04:03 PM - Kobold Boots mentioned Shasarak in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    @pemerton, Shasarak The gravity conversation interests me if only for the two points that immediately come to mind. 1. Gravitational forces assuming 1G constant will not prevent really large things from flying given enough lift and thrust. Similarly it will not prevent large bone and muscle mass creatures from evolving given the right circumstances. 2. Whether or not something is magical or not really depends on whether or not your sensibilities allow for something to exist in a conventional physics sense or not. (e.g. This huge dragon isn't airflow optimized and his wings aren't large enough to provide lift or gliding control so it has to be magic.. ) Note that where physics ends and magic begins in any person's world is a personal thing and may actually vary depending on the subject. The huge dragon may require magic to fly (and may have learned enough to do so) whereas the smaller one may not require it to fly (and as such may have developed its own tricks instead.) Regardless, the physics/magi...

Tuesday, 17th October, 2017

  • 10:22 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post RPG Combat: Sport or War?
    I'd like to stress that when playing a 'grittier' RPG system, you have less freedom, in a way: Since combat is lethal, it's something that must be avoided at all cost. Players _must_ come up with ways to overcome their opposition by means other than open combat, otherwise your campaign is going to be short-lived.For me, this illustrates the point I've been making upthread, to Saelorn, Shasarak and billd91. In a genuinely grim & gritty RPG, ambushing someone with a sword, or a crossbow, should be (more-or-less) as dangerous as dropping a rock on them. It's purely an artefact of D&D's mechanics, which rates a sword at d8 or d10 but leaves the rating of a boulder to the GM, that results in a fighter being unable to kill someone in a weapon ambush but able- at least at the tables of those GMs mentioned - to kill someone with a boulder ambush. Which once again relates back to Aenghus's point, that the effectiveness of the boulder vs the sword turns primarily on end-running around the damage rules. It's entirely an artefact of mechanics, not of "narrative first". In a "narrative first" game involving people of "flesh and bone" (to quote Saelorn), an ambush with a sword or bow should be capable of lethality. (And in games like RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel, etc - ie with broadly simulationist action resolution mechanics - it is.) But D&D chooses to subordinate letha...

Friday, 7th July, 2017

  • 05:02 AM - hawkeyefan mentioned Shasarak in post Mearls on other settings
    ...terest them. This way, DMs can easily keep unwanted assumptions 100% out of their rulebooks and their games. In my own case, if the Great Wheel of Planescape and all of its polytheism was a separate expansion pack, while the Players Handbook made no mention to it, then I would be at peace and able to enjoy the game better. Different DMs are sensitive to different things, but we can all benefit from compartmentalizing the options. I disagree that it's WotC's responsibility to cater to the sensitivities of DMs and players. I think it's up to the DMs and players themselves to decide what material to use or not. I mean, I get the appeal of rule books written exactly to my personal preference...but it's simply not a realistic expectation. So Ravenloft was never meant to be a living setting in its own.? It's only visited from others? That's where my lack of history trips me up :) I thought it was a fully fledged setting that could host campaigns without needing outside support? As Shasarak said, the many realms that made up the Demiplane of Dread, the setting for the Ravenloft game, were each made for a particular dark lord. These realms were the domain of a dark lord, but also their prison as well. Each of these dark lords was taken from another world...Toril, Oerth, Krynn, or any number of unnamed worlds. Typically, the PCs in Ravenloft adventures are drawn through the misty barriwrs from their world and into the demiplane of dread. So the setting was its own, but it was conmected to the other worlds and interacted with them.

Friday, 23rd June, 2017

  • 05:32 AM - Yaarel mentioned Shasarak in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    @Shasarak and @Azzy You are kinda proving my point about ‘D&D peer pressure’ to pretend to ‘worship’ ‘gods’. If I told you, I hate Kobolds. I imagine your response would be something like. Thats nice. I dont care. But when I say, I hate polytheism. You guys seem as if unable to stop yourself from launching into some kind of reallife culture war about issues that I couldnt care less about. I enjoy D&D without ‘gods’. I watch televisions shows where polytheism is irrelevant. I want to play games where it is irrelevant too.

Monday, 12th June, 2017

  • 02:30 AM - Hussar mentioned Shasarak in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    It's interesting that you bring up Caderly Shasarak. That's one of the few FR books I actually have read. Although, it was a LONG time ago and I don't think I read all of them. Wasn't there something about a killer yo-yo in those books? Anyway, think about what you just said though. Cadderly is the exception. Most of the priests don't adventure, and never did. Yet, funnily enough, there were higher level clerics than Cadderly at his temple. How did they gain levels? They specifically weren't adventurers, so, what did they kill or loot in order to gain several thousand xp points to go from 1st to, say, 3rd level. Just to roll this back to the idea of NPC's using PC rules. Lanefan spells it out pretty well. In AD&D, sure, you could use NPC rules for a humanoid (and only a humanoid - sorry, no class levels for your beholder), or, you could kinda sorta just bolt on some PC abilities onto an NPC, or, as was the much more common case, you could use a unique stat block. 3e changed all that. Not only did you have the option of...

Friday, 19th May, 2017

  • 12:34 AM - robus mentioned Shasarak in post To Post or Not to Post: An Ethics Question
    Something that is being ignored is fair use. I'm not saying that this is a case of that (I'm not a copyright lawyer) but it certainly sounds like the work is transformative (by recontextualizing the works) and there is certainly no impact on the "market" as the works have already been freely shared on the Internet. So the legality and the ethics are not as cut and dried as they may appear. And Shasarak is correct that an awful lot of stuff on the internet would be illegal if including others work was the only criteria.
  • 12:00 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post To Post or Not to Post: An Ethics Question
    Shasarak, I know where you are going with this. And I'm not going to have a debate with you about it. Suffice it to say in your country and mine what you are suggesting is illegal. In almost every ethical system what you are suggesting is unethical.

Saturday, 15th April, 2017

  • 01:41 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post We're Finally Mainstream! Now What?
    Shasarak, I simply can't follow your arguments. It seems like you are taking comments and arguments from anyone that doesn't side with you as being all in one pool, or something. But anyways, it doesn't matter. Labels are only as good as people are willing to agree upon them and use them consistantly. Which isn't happening here.

Tuesday, 14th February, 2017

  • 03:28 PM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    Simply having an opinion about a call is nothing to apologize for. Here is the thing though Max, doesn't a Onetruewayism zealot also state their opinion? It becomes increasingly messy to differentiate which unfavourable opinion of one's game is tolerable and which one is not. This might all just be a simple matter of etiquette. @Shasarak did the exact same thing with me in the other thread, calling me a lazy DM because I don't allow every character concept under the sun at my table when I DM. It ain't right either way. His style and my style are clearly different, but we shouldn't go around making disparaging remarks of each others preferences. Hiding behind it just an opinion doesn't give it a free pass. Sorry. EDIT: We cross-posted. Just saw your post above. ;)

Sunday, 12th February, 2017

  • 01:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    Imaro, Maxperson, Shasarak: Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, p 62: [T]he design for elementals themselves had to change. . . . The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach. THey were created by the primordials to be elite soldiers . . . In the elemental hierarchy, they form the basis of world-scouring armies. The designers know that these are new creatures - they are not a reconcepting of Jeff Grubb's creation. It surprises me that this is even contentious. Again, contrast eladrin: from pp 40-41 of the same book: Some of the existing good-aligned monsters did incorporate neeat designs that we wanted to preserve and improve upon. Most of the eladrins fell into that category. . . . [W]e noted their generally fey appearance, and this led to a natural association with the Feywild. . . . Eladrins were already powerful magical beings in previous editions of the game. Now they have a very similar role, but as mysterious lords and ladies of the Feywild. When they a...

Saturday, 4th February, 2017

  • 04:20 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    what inherent value would you say it has for you to hew as closely as possible to what feels like the structural essence or foundation of the setting? I asked (a version of) this question on the other thread. Shasarak answered - roughly (but I hope not too loose a paraphrase) the answer was that the setting is a work of art, and departure from canon is a type of "affront" to the artwork. ("Affront" is my word, not Shasarak's - it's not quite right, becuase the artwork doesn't itself have feelings, but for present purposes hopefully it conveys the general idea in a comprehensible fashion.) Respect for my players. If I tell them I'm going to run Darksun, I feel obligated to give them Darksun, not some bastardized version.This seems to imply that one of the reasons you think that my decision to include the WoHS in my GH game was that it disrespected my players. If that is correct, it makes it even more odd to me that you haven't made any inquiries about the circumstances of the case. Is it relevant, for instance, that I started GMing that group as the outcome of a "revolt" against a prior GM whom the rest of us all agreed was terrible - and that it was on the basis of an offer to run a game ...
  • 04:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    ...s there are? Maybe they liked the extra magic sub system?Well they clearly liked the magic system, given that they engaged with it via PC building when they were under no obligation to do so. They also liked the story. (I think it's a fairly compelling one. That's why I put it into my game!) But some of them were certainly quite familiar with GH. And even those who didn't know it very well would have seen the well-known cover of Unearthed Arcana with its two moons. I think they simply realised that two visible moons doesn't preclude a third invisible one. I'm not saying that the 3rd moon is canon - of course it's not. I'm saying that adding it doesn't make the game cease to be a GH game. Any RPGing will mean that the setting takes on non-canonical features/elements.I think most Greyhawk GMs would agree with you there.Maybe. That said, this thread consists of a significant number of posts - from Maxperson, Imaro and maybe some other posters (eg I'm less clear about Shasarak on this poiint) - stating that my GH game is not really a GH game precisely because of addditional elements - like the 3rd moon, and the WoHS to go with it - that I have introduced. there's a differences between grabbing someone's work whole cloth and dropping it into your setting, slightly modifying someone else's work and using another's idea as inspiration to springboard off of for your own creation.This is not in dispute either. In my case, the WoHS are dropped largely whole-cloth into GH, with only as many changes made (Suel origins, astronomical details, relationships to other sorcerous traditions) as are needed to have them fit into their new home. My claim is that such a whole-cloth drop (with such slight modifications as are needed to make it work) doesn't make the game cease to be a GH one. as more material got published for campaign settings as well as in Dragon Magazine and in novels, there were a lot more players cropping up with passing familiarity in the se...

Tuesday, 31st January, 2017

  • 03:02 AM - Maxperson mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    But the only reason you have given for it being "alternative GH" rathwr than GH per se is that you, Maxperson, would have certain expectations disappointed. You have expressly eschewed offering any reason that is not individual and particular to you. Pretty much everyone has a line where settings stop being that setting. It varies from person to person, so of course I can't speak to anyone but myself. My line isn't your line. Your line isn't Shasarak's line. His line isn't Imaro's, and so on. The line does exist for everyone, though. How is that a reason for judging whether or not it is really a GH game (as oppposed to, say, a game that you want to play in).I didn't say I wouldn't want to play in it. I said I wouldn't view it as Greyhawk.

Saturday, 28th January, 2017

  • 08:01 AM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ... if you're playing canon, the setting of Krynn doesn't cater for those races, however we have a PHB and now Volo's Guide riddled with additional races and classes which do not have a history in that setting. Now If the intention of the DM is to create a game within the parameters of setting are you saying that is not allowable? Similarly, I have my own limitation for my setting, I don't permit monks at my table for whatever reason for my Mystara game. The players know this beforehand. We have been playing within this setting for the last 20 years and they're very much aware of this ruling. It is not as if they are coming every week to my table with a character sheet and I'm going "No, not happening" Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what @Shasarak called "lazy". Sorry no you're very much misrepresenting him. @Shasarak has very much outed his intentions by neither responding to my post or @Caliban's. He firmly said that all should be allowed otherwise it's lazy DMing. I'm assuming this is because he still carries the scars of a bad DM or his players have limited (lazy) imaginations and can only play one-trick ponies.
  • 07:49 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    [MENTION=6701872]Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn.Unless you have anecdotes of those two refusing to work something out with a player wanting to play one of those things, you've created a false equivalence. Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what Shasarak called "lazy".
  • 06:58 AM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    However, I generally do try to work together with the player, but not always. There are some races that simply don't fit, or I'm simply not willing to deal with. That's my prerogative as a DM. AaronOfBarbaria doesn't follow that line of reasoning, neither does his head-scratching friend Shasarak. The former posted his reasoning in the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread. The latter is so entitled that he casually calls the rest of us lazy. Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn. Lazy DMs those two. How about all the other world builders who didn't include Kender. Lazy! And now with Volo's Guide, well you just cannot imagine how many Lazy DM's are out there these days. Its an epidemic I tell you!
  • 02:38 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    I also don't like to eat liver. It tastes horrible to me.Using your analogy, and attempting to explain what appears to be Shasarak's view that you just don't seem to be getting: Not eating liver because you don't like the taste makes perfect sense. I don't eat liver either, interestingly enough. But when you say "No dragonborn at my table." it doesn't sound like you are saying "No liver for me, thanks." so much as it sounds like "No liver for anyone eating at the same table as me."

Thursday, 19th January, 2017

  • 09:56 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ...au trope, and it makes the ancient empire trope carried by the Suel pick up stupid backage. All the Suel and the Scarlet Brotherhood have going for them is that they are workings out of these pulp tropes, so once you dilute them you just get less compelling stuff. *The inclusion of a cult of Chauntea in module OA7 - which introduces needless and distracting FR-isms into an otherwise very good module that, more than any other OA module except perhaps OA3, actually makes tropes around the Celestial Bureaucracy, immortality, peachling children, etc central to play. Look, this thread is 163 pages of people mostly trying to explain to you why canon is important to them. At some point you just need to accept that it is a concept you don't understand. I think you're misunderstanding me, or underestimating me, or both. I can read the posts. I can draw inferences from what is said. I'm inviting posters, though, to actually articulate the value that is moving them to care about canon. Shasarak has done this not too far upthread. But some other posters seem to shy away from it: eg they feel like they need to advance instrumental reasons (eg "players will get confused if canon changes") when it seems transparently clear that their concern is not instrumental; or they try and defend blanket claims about the importance of adherence to canon, yet in doing so put forward examples where canon has changed rather markedly (eg what, if anything, differentiates D&D orcs from JRRT's, or D&D orcs from D&D hobgoblins). I think some notion of "integrity of a body of work" is probably in the right neighbourhood for a number of posters other than just Shasarak, but the criteria by which integrity is judged could probably bear more elaboration. For instance, what sorts of trade-offs between thematic integrity and "factual" integrity are permissible (eg can we get rid of earthbergs to get something that is more fitting to the themes of Norse mythology - ie foster thematic integrity - even t...


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...

Saturday, 19th January, 2019

  • 07:50 AM - Hussar quoted Shasarak in post Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 2 and 3 Rules, Pacing, Non-RPGs, and Gameplay
    So the difference that I am seeing is that in an Old School game the DM would say no to optional material and in a New School game the DM would say yes to optional material. Which was very much the opposite of my experience. In Old School games, if it had a TSR logo on it, it was fair game, outside of maybe Dragon magazine stuff. People that I gamed with very much seemed to expect that anything that TSR banged out was going to be used at the table. Whereas IME, in 3e, people seemed far more likely to stick to core or maybe borrow a few bits and bobs outside of core. Funny thing was, I was often trying to encourage my players to use stuff outside of core and they more often than not refused to even look at it. :D

Thursday, 17th January, 2019


Tuesday, 15th January, 2019

  • 09:56 PM - billd91 quoted Shasarak in post Was WotC On to Something When They Dumped the 3.x OGL?
    People that like playing DnD but want more character choices? Also, I think, people who like Paizo's APs and play them in the PF1 rules but are interested in seeing what Paizo can do without the constraints of the 3e engine.
  • 11:48 AM - trancejeremy quoted Shasarak in post Was WotC On to Something When They Dumped the 3.x OGL?
    The OGL was originally a way for WOTC to deal with two things they saw as potential issues with their new third edition. Firstly, they viewed things like adventures as products that didn't sell all that well to be viable for a large company, but something that some people wanted and probably healthy for a product line. Secondly they remembered what Mayfair had did with their Role-Aids line (being advertised as being compatible with AD&D) The OGL was a way of them to let 3rd parties handle what WOTC considered beneath them, I guess, and because of the clause prohibiting mention of compatibility without an additional license (the D20 System Trademark License), give them some control over the competition. I guess because they weren't sure how well it would be supported, they started working with 3rd parties and had a draft System Rules Document (SRD) for like a year before 3e launched. I think the problem was is they didn't realize that people (and companies) were willing to produce m...

Monday, 14th January, 2019

  • 11:49 PM - GreyLord quoted Shasarak in post Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 2 and 3 Rules, Pacing, Non-RPGs, and Gameplay
    Maybe you missed some of the stuff that was coming out at the end of 2e? Between the Skills and Powers and Combat and Tactics expansions 3e is not such a big step from 2e as you may imagine. It's AMAZING HOW SHORT people's memories are. It's been less than 20 years. OSR did NOT care. Of course, people like to try to make these things CLOSER than they actually were, or that MORE people were using them than actually WERE using them. However, even that is not relative to the discussion. Even if you thought 2e and 3e were the same thing, the point is that the original OSR did NOT! It was very simple. They felt that 3e was not D&D and that D&D prior to 2000 was. Everything that originally came out was made to try to either copy pre-2000 D&D (OSRIC is a primary mover of the OSR movement) or recreate it in some way. The entire dividing line was what was D&D prior to 3e and what was then the current D&D (3e and beyond). It was not really a movement as people see it today...
  • 12:47 PM - Imaculata quoted Shasarak in post Should I pick up Starfinder if I hate Pathfinder
    My only complaint is that they are too thin, only 160 pages for the Alien Archive. Yeah, given the price tag I would expect more pages too. It is a bit underwhelming.
  • 04:03 AM - Saelorn quoted Shasarak in post Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 2 and 3 Rules, Pacing, Non-RPGs, and Gameplay
    Maybe you missed some of the stuff that was coming out at the end of 2e? Between the Skills and Powers and Combat and Tactics expansions 3e is not such a big step from 2e as you may imagine.Skills and Power is no more representative of 2E than The Book of Nine Swords is representative of 3E. One of the points that tends to get lost in any edition war, is that the 2E one person played is not necessarily the same 2E that anyone else played; and the same is true of 3E or 4E. (With 4E, in particular, a lot of people gave it an honest try for the first year, and never experienced any of the later changes). But still, your point stands, that 2000 is probably not the best dividing line. Personally, I draw the line around 1996.

Saturday, 12th January, 2019


Thursday, 10th January, 2019

  • 10:02 PM - Mistwell quoted Shasarak in post Top Games Played On FG In 2018: D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds
    I must admit that now I am curious about how often you get paid to playtest something and how I too can get on to that lucrative playtesting bandwagon? Try Cardboard Junkie, Game Designers Clubhouse, The Game Crafter, and Indie Game Alliance. Also, when my wife was more active in writing for Geek Mom / Geek Dad, we used to be sent playtest copies of games and she was paid for the article/video of the playtest.
  • 08:38 PM - Mistwell quoted Shasarak in post Top Games Played On FG In 2018: D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds
    Well yeah, it is explained right in the name. I don't know about you, but I only play playtest stuff if it's fun or because someone is paying me to do it. Do people playtest a lot of stuff they don't find to be fun and which doesn't involve being a paid playtester?
  • 07:33 PM - Mistwell quoted Shasarak in post Top Games Played On FG In 2018: D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds
    The Pathfinder Playtest finished in December so now you would be just playing for the fun of it. There is another type of playing?
  • 12:50 PM - Imaculata quoted Shasarak in post Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong
    Personally I wonder if it was true that modern people have such bad attention spans then how come modern novels like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time and Harry Potter are so much longer then Lord of the Rings and apparently just as popular. The Song of Ice and Fire books (which Game of Thrones is but one of), are written very differently from Lord of the Rings. Chapters are often short, and end in cliffhangers. I feel George RR Martin's style of writing is very similar in style to watching a movie or tv-show. So I can definitely see how it could cater to people with shorter attention spans.
  • 11:05 AM - dave2008 quoted Shasarak in post Top Games Played On FG In 2018: D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds
    From my point of view playing a playtest designed to stress test an RPG is not as good as playing a finished game. True, I just would have hoped to see it go up rather than down
  • 05:42 AM - Ash Mantle quoted Shasarak in post Top Games Played On FG In 2018: D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds
    The Pathfinder Playtest finished in December so now you would be just playing for the fun of it. I agree that is what it looks like now, I was just wondering if that will change down the road. I here a lot of people on these forums say they started with D&D and then moved on to other things, some times many years later. It never really happened for me, I've tried a few other systems, but I pretty much always play D&D since the '80s. That is my fear. I hope it is just a hick-up. From my point of view playing a playtest designed to stress test an RPG is not as good as playing a finished game. My friends and I were playing in a campaign using the PF2.0 playtest rules, so we weren't even stress-testing the system. We found the system...not very good and not very fun. Our characters didn't feel like heroes, I fear the developers went a little too overboard in downplaying the power of every ability and then locked those abilities behind certain levels. Creating a character even fel...
  • 04:01 AM - dave2008 quoted Shasarak in post Top Games Played On FG In 2018: D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds
    The Pathfinder Playtest finished in December so now you would be just playing for the fun of it. That certainly explains the big drop, but it was declining every month, which I have a hard time seeing as a good sign.

Wednesday, 9th January, 2019

  • 10:23 PM - Saelorn quoted Shasarak in post Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 1 Failure and Story
    I would disagree with that. Character creation takes up far too much rule space to not be considered part of playing the game.That really depends on the game. I could see that someone may not enjoy it and consider it to be homework though. Certainly there are parts of the game that drag intermittently for me as well.I mean, yeah. But also, even if you're having a lot of fun with it, it's still a distinctly different sort of game. However you go through the progress of generating a character, whether it's point-buy or random-rolls or just using a pre-gen, none of that is relevant to what you do with the character after you have it. And what you do with the character, once you have it, is the game I'm talking about.
  • 08:39 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Shasarak in post Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong
    Personally I wonder if it was true that modern people have such bad attention spans then how come modern novels like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time and Harry Potter are so much longer then Lord of the Rings and apparently just as popular. Yeah, I think the short attention span thing is entirely a myth. Older works are hard for many people because they have different vocabulary, diction, and other linguistic elements, than we're used to. I agree. I don't think it is bad attention spans, instead I think it is more to do with how engaging the book is. A book could be 800 pages long and it would still be read if the reader finds the book engaging whereas one half the size might be dropped due to writing which the reader had trouble engaging with. Even limited time to read won't dissuade people from reading a long book. If you can only get through a chapter a night but those chapters are a great read then it hardly matters if it will take a few weeks to read the book. Exactly. I literally...
  • 03:20 AM - Saelorn quoted Shasarak in post Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 1 Failure and Story
    My guess is that it is in comparison to DnD where it is often better for you to play an Orphan with no brothers or sisters to prevent the DM from using your family to screw you over.I've said it before, but there are some absolutely terrible GMs out there, and the worst among them will try to protagonize your character, as though they were a fictional character in some mere story. If you can't trust your GM to treat your character like a real person, then playing an orphan with no ties to the world will give you some measure of protection.
  • 03:03 AM - cbwjm quoted Shasarak in post Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong
    Personally I wonder if it was true that modern people have such bad attention spans then how come modern novels like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time and Harry Potter are so much longer then Lord of the Rings and apparently just as popular.I agree. I don't think it is bad attention spans, instead I think it is more to do with how engaging the book is. A book could be 800 pages long and it would still be read if the reader finds the book engaging whereas one half the size might be dropped due to writing which the reader had trouble engaging with. Even limited time to read won't dissuade people from reading a long book. If you can only get through a chapter a night but those chapters are a great read then it hardly matters if it will take a few weeks to read the book.
  • 02:00 AM - R_Chance quoted Shasarak in post Worlds of Design: When There's Too Many Magic Items
    Yeah, good luck getting to the map through the water proof container inside the padded steel box. That's where they keep the back up map. The one they are currently using / adding to is more... vulnerable :)


Shasarak's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites