Computers beat up my role player - Page 12
Page 12 of 57 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 564
  1. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Glyfair
    I'm not so sure. From many of the stories in the various "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" columns I get the impression that they were quite fond of solo adventuring in those days. No "fellow players" to backstab.

    I wonder if this was partially because once they reached higher levels there weren't many other PCs to adventure together. Combine that with the difficulty in getting a group together, and how common cohorts and hirelings were and you get a lot of solo adventuring.
    Basically on target

    All the really able players wanted to adventure wheneverpossible, and that often meant playing solo. this was doubly true for me, because I was so oftem DMing or bust writing. That is why I had so many PCs, so when necessary a whole party could be there even though I was playing solo.

    It should go without saying that I much preferred to play with others...assuming they were veterans who knew what they were doing with their PCs.

    Cheerio,
    Gary
    XP Scott DeWar gave XP for this post

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Numion
    Many people consider 3E to be catering to powergamers and be the source of decline in roleplaying, so it's kinda ironic that the creater of D&D fits that bill too.
    I beg your pardon!

    That is a leap that is absolutely unfounded.

    What I did was to maximize the potential of each of my PCs while staying within not only the rules but also the spirit of the game. The success of such play is wholly within the realm of the game form. Excellence of play is rewarded, while incompetence is penalized.

    Power gaming is entirely different from playing well. Never once was I attempting to have the most powerful character, only to play to the best of my ability within the framewirk of the game rules and the DM's campaign, the scenario presented at the time.

    Cheerio,
    Gary
    Laugh Scott DeWar laughed with this post

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry
    In Forge and Robin Laws-terminology, Gary comes off to me as one of the more "role-play lite" gamers out there. He's in it for the fun, if in-character banter happens, then great, but having fun with it, whether it be puns, crazy traps, deus-ex-machina-yet cool situations, etc. is the primary focus. It's why I like him so much - this very thing influenced my and my friends' play as we were growing up. We had the stupid names and jokes, the power-gamed characters who carried everything from pouches of black pepper to throw off trackers to cut-off medusa heads on sticks to scare monsters with, etc. And if our characters started a game buck naked in the bottom of the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, then that was cool too - we'd never done it before!
    Now that is spot on...

    The principal operative word in the exercise is GAME, not role-playing. If the latter term were to be considered paramount, then it would be an acting class, and likely a very badly performed one at that

    And how is using innovative tactics power gaming? Ot most certainly is not!

    My PCs used clay marbles to discover slanting passages, flour to cover invisible things, used monsters polymorphed into snails as missiles--then returned to their normal state by a dispell magic and variuous other imaginative devices of my own creation enabling successful adventuring. Those other PCs playing with my PCs benefited from such stratigies and tactics and appreciated them.

    Finally, as a matter of fact, a PC of mine only attacked other PCs in the party once--when two of them were blatently conspiring to attack my PC and gain a wand of lightning bolts he had. They got it all right, but only the business end

    Cheerio.
    Gary
    Last edited by Col_Pladoh; Monday, 23rd July, 2007 at 05:47 PM.
    XP Scott DeWar gave XP for this post

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by TerraDave
    (From what I remember in one of the Q&A threads): Originally, abilities where generated by rolling 3d6 in order, as we know. BUT, Col Pladoh's players would simply refuse to play a bad set of stats....so they would roll, and roll, until they got the stats they wanted. Other methods, like the reasonable 4d6 drop one and arrange, and presumably the more exciting UA variant, where born from this.
    Yuppers, that's about how it went...and it wasn't wring for those persons.

    Some people can take what's handed to them and have fun making the most of it. Others have someting definate in mind when they sit down to play a character, and if they can not play the cort of game persona they envision, it is no fun for them to play. There's nothing inherantly wrong about that approach.

    Enabling the player to enjoy the gaming experience as he desires is completely justified in this regard. It does not alter the purpose of the game nor its spirit.

    Cheerio,
    Gary
    XP Scott DeWar gave XP for this post

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
    It makes some people feel better about their gaming choices.


    I see it more as those that can't do feel better about that lack by giping about what has been done by another...an attempt to make themselves bigger by tearing another down


    Gary
    XP Scott DeWar gave XP for this post

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
    Excepting, of course, that if you were a cavalier, you couldn't gain double specialization (or even specialization). One requirement is that you are a single-class fighter or ranger.

    And, Shadeydm, you can gain double specialization at 1st level.

    However, there is only one new method of rolling ability scores in the UA; it is not 9d6 for every ability score. It is intended to ensure that you can make the minimum requirements for any class, though, so close enough.

    In UA, you see an attempt to balance the fighter against the Magic-User, Cleric, and other spellcasters. The new classes are designed to be on par with those classes. It is an attempt to create a balance that, if balance was truly the holy mantra that some would have it be, should make us applaud the intent if not the execution.
    Ah, at last!

    Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap

    As I have covered on another thread here on these boards what I did not have a chance to get into a revised edition of OAD&D but did have the opportunity to demonstrate in the Yggsburgh campaign setting for the C&C game is the following;

    Monster HD number would have remained basically the same, although intelligent monster leader types would have more HD than the run of the mill members of their sort, thus using the attack matrix their chance to successfully attack would remain the same save for exceptional members of their kind that would increase.

    Monster HD type would vary by the size and robustness of the creature: Small and relatively puny ones would have d4, those slightly more powerful would have d6, then d8, next d10, and finally d12 for the big and very robust monsters such as ogres, giants, and of course dragons. Furthermore, normal robust adults of large humanoid sort would have their d12 HPs determined by rolling d6 and adding 6 (for 7-12 HPs per HD), while elderly, injured, and immature specimins would only half the normal potential--so a d6 for the d12, This same system applies to the lesser HDs as well--d10, d8, d6, and d4.

    Finally the large and powerful or otherwise particularly deadly monsters would have in addition to any strength bonus added to their damage inflicted, a size or attack form bonus equal to the number of HD they possessed (or half that number of the wealer sort getting onlt hald HD potential). Thus for example an oger would be attacking with a +4 additional damage, a hill giant +8 for size and ferocity, plus theior Str bonus, of course.

    Now I suppose some whill call that monster munchkinism...

    Cheerio,
    Gary

    P.S. Of course my ideas regarding gaming, and virtually everything else for that matter, change over time because of experience and relection, additional knowledge and understanding. I do believe that is called growth and maturity.
    Last edited by Col_Pladoh; Monday, 23rd July, 2007 at 06:56 PM.
    XP Scott DeWar gave XP for this post

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Numion
    Yep, some things. Like people butting in in threads they find completely pointless


    Pray tell, how does one "butt into" a thread on a board that invites participation in any threrad not restricted by the moderators?

    It appears that you are expressing pique at someone that dares criticize what you evidentally find precious

    Cheerio,
    Gary the Buttinski
    Laugh Scott DeWar laughed with this post

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Storm Raven
    Not really though. The various fighting classes were already so much more durable than the spellcasting classes through the levels that were played (generally 1st through about 10th-12th) that boosting them up didn't do much other than radically unbalance the system more than it was already. Only at the higher end of that scale did the spellcasters start to come into their own.
    I must disagree, Let your 7th kevel fighter eat a lightning bolt, a frieball, and a couple of magic missile attacks from a 7th level m-u and see how well he manages. or maybe stand against a hold person spell by an m-u or cleric of the same level. This is not to mention wand attacks of the same sort...as well as paralyzation and polymorph.

    For that matter see if he can survive seven charm person spells cast by as many 1st level m-us... I know that even mu highest level PCs would attempt to get away from a gaggle of low-level m-us armed with charm person spells.

    Absolute balance between classes is not possible, but I surely did seek to keep the various types at least reasonably on a par with eachother.

    Cheers,
    Gary
    XP Scott DeWar gave XP for this post

  9. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Col_Pladoh
    Ah, at last!

    Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap

    Praise from the Colonel is praise indeed!

    Good Gaming!

    RC

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
    Praise from the Colonel is praise indeed!

    Good Gaming!

    RC
    Just another gamer in all

    As to edition wars:

    The reason I dislike expressing an opinion regarding any game is that it really doesn't matter what I think about it. Those that do like it will think I am a jerk if I do not agree with their fondness, while those that don't like it will feel validated in their dislike because of my particulay taste.

    What really matters is how one that is playing any particular game enjoys it. If it is fun, then that is a great game for him. If it is not enjoyable, then it is not a worthwhile creation for him.

    Arguing about taste in games convinces no one either way and will surely cause irritation in the strongly help opinion camps, be they yas or nay.

    So much for stating the obvious.


    Gary
    XP Scott DeWar gave XP for this post

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Are you a good role player?
    By Crothian in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: Friday, 1st April, 2005, 09:26 PM
  2. Are you a Roll-Player or a Role-player?
    By Mista Collins in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: Wednesday, 13th August, 2003, 12:15 PM
  3. Roll Player -> Role Player .. hopefully
    By Ave Rage in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Sunday, 13th April, 2003, 07:24 AM
  4. What are you? Powergamer or role-player?
    By Eternalknight in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Tuesday, 4th June, 2002, 02:44 AM
  5. How deep is the Division? Roll Player & Role Player
    By Valicor in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Thursday, 9th May, 2002, 06:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •