Search results

That's fair. At the same time, however, if someone in the group had the rules with them for a new game and suggested trying it one weekend instead of D&D, would everyone outright refuse?

So people have made the claim that they have friends, or at least know gamers they game with, who absolutely refuse to ever play anything new. How true has this been for you?

I believe it, but I find it strange that everybody in a group of friends or gaming companions are against merely trying a game once. I don't find it likely that the majority of people are needlessly stubborn. If nobody in your group wants to try a new game... well, what's wrong with them? Like...

^Yes. You win, good sir.

Why? Just say "Hey guys, I found a game that looks like a lot of fun, let's make some characters this weekend and see what we think of it." Such a sentence takes very little effort and less than ten seconds. She actually already said her biggest hurdle is money, which I would classify as the...

It can also be a weakness, though. Yes, it gives many people what they want, but then if you move or otherwise have to find new people in order to game, you might meet people who play the same system, and thus you go to play with them, but then you discover that it's essentially a different game...

It would seem I am not. What I meant by "manufactured game" was a game which is made as a product to sell. I was specifying the difference between a game based on it's rules and story and all of it's innate features, from the people who are making it, the actual product you're purchasing...

From the sounds of it, HarnMaster seems like one of those games that does realism a far deal better than D&D, and which I'm using as a higher realism value game against which I'm measuring D&D such that I'm claiming D&D isn't very realistic. If realism is something you value, it seems to me that...

Oh, come on, "'nish" is an awesome word! What are the Ranger and Rogue sensing motive against? I'd figure either the Fighter sets the DC through a bluff check as he tries to hide his intentions to be sure he gets that first punch in, or he's not trying to trick anyone and takes up a fighting...

Well, I'm designing a game right now, too, so I won't share exactly how I'm dealing with buffs and debuffs, but I do have at least this one awesome suggestion; List every aspect of player abilities or potential abilities, buff and debuff-wise, and give it a meta-game value. That is, that value...

That is, frankly, completely irrelevant when you're discussing a manufactured game. The manufactured game is what it is regardless what your table likes. Your table probably already knows what it likes, what it wants to try, etc. That's a non-issue. If the system you'd be paying money for...

That's exactly the case, but if I'm being rude, even if by accident, I don't want to push that. How do you mean that? Do you mean they're unaware that there are other systems out there, or that it's more like just a strong, subconscious connection, or what? Because I've noticed some people...

Within context, it's advice to be descriptive and not to think of the game as only the rules, but as the adventure it's detailing, not to throw the rules away to make combat exciting. Grab out your DMG and read that entire four or five paragraph section. I don't feel like posting a wall of text.

HPs are said to be, in explicit and unambiguous terms and in almost every RPG I've ever played, not merely physical injury. In 4E especially, you're not even bleeding until you've already lost half of them. A "mundane" man can't catch his breath and recover from some superficial bumps and...

Double post, somehow. Sorry. While I'm here, though, I'll say that, yes, this "cinematic" talk is useless and clouding the issue, as I pointed out in my last post. Also, a large chunk of that reason is because there is no clear definition of "cinematic". While we all understand it to be...

The entire system is focused on combat. There are other aspects of the game, but let's not fool ourselves about one of those aspects getting nearly as much focus. The base mechanic for determining how combat is won or lost is how many HPs remain on each side of the combat. It's not a semantic...

... Yeah? It's cinematic... on a consistent basis... but is not consistently cinematic? Do you define "consistently" as "more total time spent this doing the relevant thing than not"? That's not what consistent means. Sure. I disagree on the "hero points" and "cheating to make it cinematic"...

On the topic of "consistently cinematic"; How frequently do HPs get used as a basic mechanism for the game? At least in almost every single fight there is and in other situations where people might get hurt, but which isn't a fight. You could play games of D&D where there are no fights and no...

I actually would like to see what someone neutral to the discussion thinks is rude, if only out of curiosity.

Sure, if you want to ignore the relevant rules. Obviously the rogue was aware if he passed a sense motive and won 'nish. It's not like the rules are a big mystery, here.