Game

[Grimhelm]

I guess I was thinking of our group. We have had a consistent turn out for board games for months now. Oh well. Craig, Bob, and I have been playing with the addition of at least one or two more people every week or two.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I also have to really draw the line at no more than 4 players and 1 GM.

Nope. If we only have four players, I would have to tell people they can't play because of Bob, a guy who hasn't played with us in over a year and a half. Also, if one or two of you don't show, then there is no game. Also, I remember having a lot of fun playing at Mark's with two tables full of folks.

Its about getting together with friends and creating something, not about being efficient. I have had a lot more practice with OGL rules and I don't expect the game to bog down much.

I love creating worlds and people... let's create something. To heck with efficiency.

Could I get a high level comparison of the different Inzeladun rules being proposed?

D&D - you know these rules - and that they break down utterly at high levels to the point of unplayability.

RuneQuest - Classless system. Streamlined combat. Better HP system. Better magic system. No feats. About a third the number of rules that D20 has. Not D20. SRD also available. No book purchase necessary. Can be played high magic or low, apparently without the breakdown D&D has. Fairly rules light. (I think Mark might like this system)

Grim Tales - low-magic, OGL-modern type rules for fantasy games. It is by Badaxe games if you want to look it up. There is an SRD for these rules somewhere, so books will not need to be purchased. Basically it modifies the magic system to de-power wizards and sorcerers.

Iron Heroes - makes Fighters and so forth the equal of wizards even at high levels. Super-Hero like fighting styles. Want to fight like the Jedi fight? This game. Drawback? Even more combat rules than D20. Very rule intensive. A rules-lawyers dream. Book purchase necessary because of the sheer volume of new rules.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

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.)

Not to mention if Allen, Amanda, Charlie or Craig would want to play... Not likely, but I would hate to forbid it.

 

[thormagni]

Grim Tales - low-magic, OGL-modern type rules for fantasy games. It is by Badaxe games if you want to look it up. There is an SRD for these rules somewhere, so books will not need to be purchased. Basically it modifies the magic system to de-power wizards and sorcerers.

Just to add a bit and clarify Vince's description, Grim Tales is based on the D20 Modern open rules, rather than the D&D/D20 rules. So instead of having a fighter, magic-user or thief, you would have a "strong hero" or "smart hero" or "fast hero" or what have you. In addition to skills and feats, heroes have "talents" which replace the class abilities of the D&D/D20 classes, basically.

 

[Grimhelm]

Well, firstly, it isn't really about hanging out. If it was, then we wouldn't need to play anything and we'd probably all being hanging out now! The fact is that we are there to play a game. There is no reason people can't propose how they would like the game to be played. But, this is a nitpick.

In the end, I am swayed. Yes, I have had lots of fun with large groups. I will play regardless.

 

[Bob_Probst]

RuneQuest sounds interesting and D&D's always fine. I also threw a vote out for Superheros because I enjoy the genre.

 

[Grimhelm]

I think the others are also right to say that having a group of six or seven assures in most cases a turn out of 4 or 5. This is acceptable. If only we could come up with a superior way for explaining character absence...

Perhaps our group travels with stasis boxes where characters sleep from time to time, and these boxes are held in a pocket universe in my backpack. Yeah! That's it!

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Well, firstly, it isn't really about hanging out. If it was, then we wouldn't need to play anything and we'd probably all being hanging out now! The fact is that we are there to play a game.

Well, I am sure the reasons are different for everyone. I see it as a social engagement as much as anything else. Do people play poker with their friends because they love poker or because they like playing poker with their friends? (I am not speaking of tournement players who do it for a living, for money or for gambling addictions, who often play with total strangers and are totally focused on the game, but casual players who make mistakes and spend as much or more time just gabbing with their friends as they play.)

I, for one, play the game with my buddies. I don't go to tournements or play it with strangers. I don't enjoy it for the sake of it, like some do. That is also why I never sign up for games at conventions - I don't care for the experience of playing with strangers. It completely lacks the comraderie I like. The game is just a peg to hang the social experience on, at least for me.

Sometimes the game doesn't even matter. Lately, Craig has come over with his board games. Does it really matter which one we play? Not for me. I am just glad Craig decided to come over and visit. Amanda prefers board games, too, so I am glad because she is more likely to play when Craig brings his games. It is about the social experience as much as the game for me. If the game choice doesn't matter, then what is the gathering really about?

Anyway, I am digressing. So I shall continue to digress because I am a bit bored this morning. RPG playing is also about creation. If it were played with scientific precision, then it would lack a lot of what I want out of the game. Look at your character, Roland. How many times did you juggle his feats, classes and powers to create the character you envisioned? That was art. If I had refused to let you do that, and made you stick with what you originally chose, that would have been more precise to the rules... and would not have given us (and Inzeladun) the great character that he was. The rules are just a set of loose guidelines for me, not something hard-and-fast (that is one reason I am looking hard at RuneQuest - it has fewer rules to begin with, allowing more room for imagination).

There is no reason people can't propose how they would like the game to be played. But, this is a nitpick.

I suppose you have a point there. I just don't see the need to have this scientific, mathematical model for efficiency. To me, RPG-playing is art and art isn't necessarily scientific or necessarily efficient. I propose we just gather some friends and have a great time, regardless of number.

It also sounded like he was dictating who I could and could not invite to my house if he was to be expected there, which means I would have to pick and choose amongst my other friends. Out of four, two would be him (Bob) and you (Mark). The other two would have to be chosen from Jason, John, Dave, Allen, Amanda, Charlie, Craig, Chris and a few others... I don't want to have pick and choose among my friends on who to leave out and who to include just because one person wants the game to be efficient. Yuck. By what criteria would I choose them? Based on attendence? That would give me Jason and John, but what about Chris, who really wants to see Inzeladun again? What about Dave, whose attendence is just slightly worse than Jason's? Even if we extended the group to five, that would give us Dave, still leaving Chris out. It just isn't a fair proposal.

In the end, I am swayed. Yes, I have had lots of fun with large groups. I will play regardless.

Excellent to hear that!

 

[Grimhelm]

Understand that I am not denying the social aspect of the game. And, I share your view of gaming with strangers. Rather pointless as far as my own tastes are concerned, though part of that is playing many times and getting a campaign really going and creating a vision of something unique, a thing that cannot be achieved in one-shot adventures.

This shouldn't be a debate. We are saying much the same thing, but because you and I like to argue so much, I think we like to turn agreements into arguments just for the sake of arguing! For me the game is more about the game and my vision than it is social. For you it is social more. That is cool. It wouldn't be any fun if we all thought the exact same way anyway.

And, when I speak of efficiency, I am not really trying to employ some cold mechanic. I just want things to run smoothly. If there are little things we can do to achieve this goal, I am all for it. Hell, I was not always the most efficient player. Roland was a freaking mess. And look at Zepe. Those kinds of guys are tough to play efficiently. Maybe new rules will do a lot to streamline decision making too...

 

[InzeladunMaster]

We are saying much the same thing, but because you and I like to argue so much, I think we like to turn agreements into arguments just for the sake of arguing!

That's funny! True, but funny. We are silly people, aren't we?