Game

[Fyrestryke]

Because I am a complete geek. <snip>
Even though I am now a certified expert in Excel (I actually hold an expert-level certifiication from Microsoft, so I am not just saying that), I still keep updating the log because I am, at heart, a bit of a data-collecting geek. As it stands, I started the log on January 1, 1997, so in a few weeks I will have ten (10) years worth of book-reading data at my disposal... a whole decade.

Wow! That's awesome. I'll have to look at that next time I'm over. =)

 

[Grimhelm]

Dave and Jason would be six and I'm pretty sure both of them are still interested in a regular game (or as regular as Dave can make it.)

Well, I don't know. I hate to exclude anyone. If it comes to that, I will exclude myself! I could maybe go with 5, but 6 is pushing it.

 

[Fyrestryke]

Just to make things fair, too, since Chris voted for all the Inzeladuns it should be known that I only voted for one. Had I voted for all of them, the score would be 3 for Inzeladun in one category and 3 for superhero...

Well, I voted for them all because I don't much care what rules we use. The rules are just a method for performing our actions. Inzeladun is just...Inzeladun... I must say the idea of an oriental game is very nice.

 

[Fyrestryke]

Well, I don't know. I hate to exclude anyone. If it comes to that, I will exclude myself! I could maybe go with 5, but 6 is pushing it.

I'll never understand this philosophy. I play Champions every two weeks with 8 guys and a GM. But, that GM streamlines the rules to help streamline combat. When we were playing DND, one rule I thought was most excellent was that if you rolled in the threat range of your weapon, it was an auto crit, no need to confirm. It's little "house rules" like that which speed things up. That is but one option. Now, mind you that DM cannot personally handle any extra players (I desperately want to get Thormagni into the game), but the way I look at it, if Vince (or whoever's running the game) can handle it, there's room for all of us to hang out and have fun. And for me, that's what it's all about. Getting to go on cool adventures is just a plus, hanging out with my friends (all of them) is why I play.

 

[thormagni]

Well, I voted for them all because I don't much care what rules we use. The rules are just a method for performing our actions. Inzeladun is just...Inzeladun... I must say the idea of an oriental game is very nice.

Well, I voted for D&D Inzeladun, even though I have only played one session in Inzeladun. Why would I prefer it over Iron Heroes or Grim Tales?

1) I wouldn't have to buy another book or learn another set of D20 sub rules. I mean, I wouldn't HAVE to buy the book whatever system we chose, but I know I would if we were going to play it regularly.

2) It is the "default" rules set for RPGs these day. Which means that it would be easy to introduce new players to and wouldn't require us old players to learn any new rules we don't already know.

3) It is a good system for a high-fantasy game, which I realize Inzeladun no longer will be under everyone's "new" vision for it, but from what I have heard the old, high-magic, high-fantasy Inzeladun games sounded like a lot of fun.

Frankly, I'm just not that enthralled with the idea of playing a bunch of human fighter/rogue variants with rusty swords and cheap armor struggling to scrape up enough cash for the next meal, lodging and armor repairs. I'm looking for an epic fantasy game. Wizards, clerics, dragons, grand quests and epic battles. Not a lot of 5-foot stepping, attack of opportunities, and "the obscure feat I found in Green Mongoose Studio Games latest rulebook makes me invincible in this situation."

All that being said, I will play whatever the group decides to play. Even if it leaves me counting my copper pieces to buy a new rule book and studded leather armor.

 

[thormagni]

I'll never understand this philosophy.

I think I made a huge mistake when I tried to break my D&D group up into two groups 'cause it got too large. That's probably why it has been on hiatus so long. Sure, the group was so big it was unwieldy and hard to get everyone together at once, but everyone seemed to be having a good time, despite the occasional grumbling. Breaking it up sent some players one way, others another and others out of the game altogether. In retrospect, it was a big mistake.

 

[Grimhelm]

Basically, Chris, it is just the mentality that too many cooks spoil the stew. Too many players tends to make for a longer, more tedious game, no matter the house rules. Personally, 5 or 6 is okay with me as a player, I guess. I just favor smaller parties.

 

[thormagni]

Basically, Chris, it is just the mentality that too many cooks spoil the stew. Too many players tends to make for a longer, more tedious game, no matter the house rules. Personally, 5 or 6 is okay with me as a player, I guess. I just favor smaller parties.

As a wise man recently said to me, errr, wrote to me, most of the time we can't get everyone together anyway. So having too many players would only be a problem rarely, since normally, if we had seven players only 3.5 could show up on any given day anyway. When I reduced the group size down to five and five, if two or three people can't make it, suddenly we couldn't play. If we had a group of eight, we still woulda had four players left and could have had a game.

Ah for the days when I had no more to do in life than play games.

 

[Grimhelm]

Well, I guess I would like to have 4 or 5 guys who can show up regularly. It can't really be that hard, can it?

 

[thormagni]

Well, I guess I would like to have 4 or 5 guys who can show up regularly. It can't really be that hard, can it?

Sure has been recently! Myself included.