Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="theRogueRooster" data-source="post: 5136590" data-attributes="member: 4521">On the subject of character classes, since we are setting the Dungeon/Adventure as the basic element of gameplay, it makes sense to me to balance the classes by the same criteria, meaning not all classes need be combat oriented, as long as they can take the lead in other types of encounters (assumed to also be present in the Dungeon).  I personally would not be happy with a system that allows me to plug in Frodo for Gandalf at the Bridge of Khazad-dum with an equivalent chance of success.  In the Kamikaze System (has a nice ring to it, yes?), should a group be lacking an important class for the Adventure at hand, let's give them the option to hire on followers to fill in the gaps.All this comes with a caveat so big that I just went back and underlined it, and that is: classes balanced-by-Dungeon is only feasible if the encounters contained within can each be resolved in a relatively small amount of time.  For example, if an encounter, combat or otherwise, can be resolved in around 15 minutes, it's no big deal if not all the players are participants (or main participants).  But it's not reasonable to ask players to sit on the sidelines for hours at a time.So my vote would be for a shorter combat system that would necessarily be abstracted to a larger degree than it is now.  Something that would involve more than one roll and less than, say, half a dozen rolls for the entire group to resolve the combat.  I'd prefer to keep some aspect of tactical maneuvering in the system, even if it doesn't involve a grid and miniatures, so that it feels like combat.  In the same vein, other types of encounters would also have their own mechanics or mini-games which may or may not work like combat.Good question!  My guess is that there would need to be some sort of criteria on what actually constitutes a Dungeon/Adventure.  For example, does the court intrigue plot require action by the players right now?  If so, it's probably a Dungeon.  If not, then can elements of it be integrated into the current Dungeon?  I think it would be perfectly acceptable to slip in a number of encounters into one Dungeon that would affect the setup of another Dungeon.Or moving in a different direction, maybe there would be a way to nest Dungeons within a Dungeon.  A long term Dungeon (like the court intrigue) made up of a collection of short term Dungeons (like the undead problem).The answer may also partially depend on how one designs the Dungeon.  If the Dungeon is "Travel from the Shire to Mount Doom and Destroy the Ring of Power" then, yeah, you'd have a problem with handling multiple concurrent plots, because the Dungeon is much too large in scope.  It would need to be broken down into several smaller Dungeons, like:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Travel from the Shire to Bree to meet Gandalf, avoiding the Ringwraiths</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Travel from Bree to Rivendell, still avoiding the Ringwraiths</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Determine what to do with the Ring and get all the Free Peoples on board with the plan</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Find a way past Mount Caradhras</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Etc.</li> </ul>Then at the conclusion of each Dungeon (and where appropriate) the players can choose to pursue another plot's Dungeon or continue to follow along the current plot.I've got many other potentially dumb ideas, but they'll have to wait.-tRR</blockquote>

Verification