Search results

What I feel a Conan game needs even more than Sword & Sorcery already do in general is fast paced action resolution and combat resolution. A Conan fight is not one in which you put things on pause and take a minute or two to consider your next action. You need to be able to choose your turn in...

For some reason I came out of Episode 3 saying that it was a lot worse than the previous two. It really is the only one of the three that is in some way good and also watchable in its entirety. Much of the hate against Episode 1 is justified, but it does have it's great moment. Episode 2 does not.

Yeah, it's that metacurrency and math-play stuff that I really don't like in any RPGs.

I flipped through the Conan 2d20 rules twice and knew that I really did not want to invest any time in trying to understand how the game works. It seemed very unsuited for a Conan game due to appearing overly complex. No clue if it might be decent for other applications.

Random encounters in B/X are not just attacking. You're also meant to make a surprise check and a reaction roll. Most monsters will first threaten or wait for the PCs to do something and only very rarely attack immediately. And might even think the PCs are friendly or allies. You can also...

Huh. It did not occur to me to frame such a thing in the context of being fair or unfair. Okay.

I think it's impossible for rules to be unfair to the GM. I also don't know what it would even look like for a rule to be unfair against the players relative to the GM.

So it's been a couple of months. Any noteworthy releases that use the license yet or are currently still in development?

I am not familiar with that mechanic. But my stance is that equal treatment between GM and the players is both impossible and not desirable. Though there might be radically different conceptions of what a GM is in the first place.

Perhaps at some point in the not too far future, some bankrupcy lawyer will reveal that the whole house of cards was rotten for a long time.

Yes, absolutely. No, that was not what the post I quoted was referring to. Having game rules create fairness (as in equal treatment) between both GM and the players is a meaningless concept.

No, I think it's a meaningless concept. But I am wondering if that is what people are trying to talk about here. (I still don't understand what this discussion is about.)

If we use fairness as "equal treatment" (which I think is a very useful definition), then we have to distinguish between fairness from the GM towards all the players, which absolutely is paramount, and fairness of the rules towards both GM and players, which I think is a meaningless concept.

When you make a ruling, you argue "this is what I decide is happening because I feel that it's appropriate and works best in this situation". It's inherently subjective. In contrast, when evoking a rule, you argue "this is what the book says does happen". You can argue over the interpretation...

I feel that the word "Destiny" in the Star Wars movies is used exclusively when the Emperor is gaslighting Vader and Luke to accept that they can't oppose his control over them. Destiny is always "because I say so".

I think you're looking at my post still too much from the perspective of D&D-like games. Apocalypse World (much more so than all other PtbA games I've seen) approaches scenes and conflict in a radically different way. All the things you pointed out are aspects already present in AW. Though with...

No, it's psionics. Completely different thing.

Okay, but then what is fairness in a game with no win conditions and no opposition between players? What is unfairness?

The combat system should support big battles in which you don't have to track every individual stormtrooper or TIE fighter and don't make a roll for every shot that each combatant takes. It's much too slow and granular for what should be a few cool stunts in the foreground against a background...

All the 2d20 games. And The Witcher. And the currently licensed Star Wars RPG.