Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6175665" data-attributes="member: 5143">I agree that sometimes things need to be modified for individual groups.  I think the key thing for me is that I don't really HAVE a playstyle.  I didn't develop one except what the rules generated for me.It's perhaps that I really had no idea what D&D was when I first started playing.  I was 15 and it was all completely new to me.  How powerful were Wizards supposed to be?  I had no idea.  I didn't read fantasy books.  I still didn't watch that much fantasy movies or tv shows.  I was playing a game where it TOLD me how powerful Wizards were supposed to be.  It told me how fast people were supposed to heal.  It told me that certain moves in combat were more likely to work than others.So, my playstyle was based on what the rules told me my playstyle should be.  It just grew naturally out of what seemed like the best idea given the rules in the book.  It wasn't until much, much later that the idea that someone would change the rules to suit what they wanted instead of just doing what the rules said even occurred to me.  It still seemed like too much work so I avoided it, however.  After all, was it easier to play in the style that worked well for the game or spend the effort to change the game so in played in an entirely different style?  I already had Rifts, Shadowrun, Star Wars d6, Paranoia, Ninjas and Superspies, Heroes Unlimited, Palladium Fantasy, GURPS, Buck Rogers, Marvel, Champions, Hero Fantasy, Rolemaster, and a bunch more.  Each of which encouraged a different playstyle and feel already.  I'd played them all, but the feeling and playstyle that came just by following the rules in the D&D book was always the one I preferred.  That's why I kept playing D&D instead of switching to any of the other systems.I'm lazy and the last thing I want to do it do rules design.  So, I'll play the game that's closest to my playstyle and deal with any issues that arise due to bad rules as they come...while hoping the designers come out with a new edition that fixes the problems.Yeah.  This has always been the issue for us.  Without specific rules for something, it's left up to the DM to decide what effects, if any, performing the action actually has.  Which is fine, if you don't care if you succeed or fail.  But we've always taken the game seriously enough that failure kind of hurts.  It's not an option we take laying down.  So, it causes bad feelings and arguments each time the DM says no to something that a player felt should have worked.It's not that I don't believe people shouldn't shine slightly more in one area than another.  Fighters SHOULD be better at fighting...that's what they do.  They should be worse in social situations.  But I believe better or worse should be about 10, maybe 20 percent difference in performance.  Battle should never be a situation where the Rogue leaps under the nearest table and hides until people stop fighting.  It's amusing once or twice.  Then, you realize that each time combat happens, you are leaving the room and playing some SNES games until the DM tells you you can come back.See above.  I agree, to an extent.  I want everyone to be able to contribute at all times.  I never want there to be a situation where a player feels that they are better served playing SNES games in the next room than being at the table.</blockquote>

Verification