Search results

Ditto to the above comments. A gaming company doesn't owe anything to any group of fans. Especially since that "base" is really a vast congolomeration of differing gaming interests and really isn't a single "base." The primary focus of Hasbro is to make money. Individuals within the corporate...

Actually in the end it doesn't surprise me at all. All this really is is a spirited debate on what different people consider the term "roleplaying" to mean. :lol: In the end, for me, it means when someone who's not a gamer asks me "what does it mean to roleplay?" - I can say: "To me it means...

I'd also recommend DCC 29 as the best source, especially for this sort of limited game and the d20 material not needing adaptation... Dark Chateau and The Rising Knight are two good C&C modules, but probably not good for you running a 3.x game. John

My apologies for misrepresenting/misunderstanding your views. It's just that the post above you used primarily all rules as the basis for how a character is represented. This is the part I agree with completely. It should be a blend of all these factors. But I noticed you listed rules 1st...

Agreed - How appropriate an encounter or challenge is should always be paramount on the GM's mind. So I would add "scaling the adventure" to the party's level and experience is also important. Not to say that on a rare occasion a party shouldn't encounter something that they should run from...

Thanks for the response Fusangite, I can see where you're coming from here and that's cool. We disagree mainly because for you character emerges from the application of the rules, and I tend towards the opposite philosophy that the rules are simply malleable ways of expressing the actions of a...

Hey Buzz, The differentials you see with the board games are well-taken. The movie reference was meant to be a point of reference - but I'd disagree that this represents "metagaming." Cinematic metagaming would be the movie suddenly stopping an Steven Spielberg appearing on screen to explain...

Fusangite, No problem - as I said above I don't mind if others disagree with me. My questions here are merely honest queries to understand your point of view better, so that as a GM I can understand where any players who come to my table might see things. I use these threads as a tool for my...

Nlogue I am actually in agreement with everything you say here. Just be aware that there are those who vehemently say that the playing the Barbarian like that is stupid and that winning IS the most important thing... so those will argue that the character should flank and use the optimal rules...

Nope - no difference. These are both roleplaying IMHO, but if the following was the case: DM: You see the man who razed your village. Bob: Ok. I attack. I use charge. Wouldn't this lose something from either of what you described above? I think the expression of rage and revenge here is the...

Ok, so what I try to do here isn't say "you guys are wrong.." - just want to make that clear, and reiterate that indeed it is largely a matter of interpretation. So all I hope to do here is break down why there are those who see distinctions and what those of us who do see a separation think...

Or, to quote the signature of someone else around the boards... "You face death itself... in the form of 1d4 Tarrasques." :eek:

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule to answer this question - the best solution is to say that a DM manages the flow of a game to both challenge and reward the expectations of the players. That said, I like a game with a good bit of menace. Which, in agreeing with Treebore, doesn't...

Thank you... you said what I was wanting to say and better than I did it... I get hung up in my own semantics sometimes and forget that I'm not reiterating that my views really are only meant to explain what I like and are NOT meant to try and tell others what they should think. So with that...

Edit - Actually I think I should just let be what will be - I usually don't like to get involved in these sort of "style" wars, and I wish I hadn't here. I really don't begrudge any of this and sorry if some of you take it so personally... I just feel strongly about what I like and sometimes...

I'd also add that while this one moment, by itself, shouldn't be misconstrued as not role-playing... I'd hate to see every battle and combat simply described this mechanically. No "Grug lets out a tremendous roar and attacks the pitiful Orc!"? I'd also have to argue that simply saying "player...

Agreed. As long as the actions taken are consistent with the character, which is the important 1st part of the statement. But sometimes the absolute best tactics to win an encounter aren't necessarily in keeping with an individual character, and too many players skip the question of "what...

Agreed.... my example of the barbarian doesn't mean I would want a character to act "stupidly" in all situations... and certainly I tell players with characters like this who might start to do something in combat based on that roleplay "I think Grug's been in enough battles to avoid making that...

No need for "Detect trap" ever then. Who needs a Rogue when you've got the barbarian :lol: A party should always be one big happy family? Besides, a little grappling in the woods isn't quite like they took their swords and axes and split skulls lol...

I love playing poker and no limit.... but only for fun (play money online).... real gambling? Not so much.... :) John