Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 6069729" data-attributes="member: 36160">I hear that's a pretty popular game.Some tabletop games have lots and lots of rules widgets you get to select for your character: GURPS, high level characters in any D&amp;D, HERO.Others have merely lots of rules widgets: 4e characters.Others have very few: BECMI characters, FATE characters.Am I to conclude you think that falling anywhere on this scale that isn't MAXIMUM CRUNCH is videogamey?Clearly we have different takes on this!I do have to question how much bang-for-buck -- maybe that should be humor-per-hour -- we're getting by mandating a game of search-heavy solitaire before you can split some goblin skulls with your friends.But I guess that's down to how little I enjoy it, and how much you do -- takes all types <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I agree with most of what you're saying here, especially that fitting the capabilities of a new character into my skull can be challenging if I've never seen this stuff in play before.But I don't characterize the difference as choosing powers/being given powers.In fact, I'd like it if the existing scheme required classes (major classes in my parlance) to give you one, real choice, every level: a new spell, maneuver, talent, power, whatever. They don't have this yet, and that is something they'll have to work on.What I don't like are sixteen choices to make a first level character -- so the scheme they've got now is close to perfect (for me!).The only thing I don't like about it is the rigorous structure it continues to place on racial choice (I like monsters-as-characters!) and the way it forces them to find more-and-more synonyms for &quot;armored guy&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lackhand, post: 6069729, member: 36160"] I hear that's a pretty popular game. Some tabletop games have lots and lots of rules widgets you get to select for your character: GURPS, high level characters in any D&D, HERO. Others have merely lots of rules widgets: 4e characters. Others have very few: BECMI characters, FATE characters. Am I to conclude you think that falling anywhere on this scale that isn't MAXIMUM CRUNCH is videogamey? Clearly we have different takes on this! I do have to question how much bang-for-buck -- maybe that should be humor-per-hour -- we're getting by mandating a game of search-heavy solitaire before you can split some goblin skulls with your friends. But I guess that's down to how little I enjoy it, and how much you do -- takes all types :) I agree with most of what you're saying here, especially that fitting the capabilities of a new character into my skull can be challenging if I've never seen this stuff in play before. But I don't characterize the difference as choosing powers/being given powers. In fact, I'd like it if the existing scheme required classes (major classes in my parlance) to give you one, real choice, every level: a new spell, maneuver, talent, power, whatever. They don't have this yet, and that is something they'll have to work on. What I don't like are sixteen choices to make a first level character -- so the scheme they've got now is close to perfect (for me!). The only thing I don't like about it is the rigorous structure it continues to place on racial choice (I like monsters-as-characters!) and the way it forces them to find more-and-more synonyms for "armored guy" :) [/QUOTE]

Verification