Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="InzeladunMaster" data-source="post: 2651847" data-attributes="member: 9774">See, I prefer action to conversation in a game.&nbsp; To me, what a lot of people call &quot;role-playing&quot; is just a good way to get exposition and plot in the game.&nbsp; The fun parts are the action parts.Rolling down a mountain, my hands around my enemy's throat, howling in victory at the end or dying while trying my damndest to win is why I role-play.&nbsp; 'To crush the enemy and see them driven before me,' that is what is best in role-play.&nbsp; When I GM, I delight in seeing my players crush the enemy.&nbsp; Frankly, some of the best darned fights I have seen have been in the Conan games.&nbsp; Those games ran red!Role-playing, to me, is just making character appropriate choices.&nbsp; A character, faced with death and having no weapons, who accepts that death but grapples with his slayer in an attempt to take the enemy with him, made a choice.&nbsp; Another type of character, who fearfully accepts his fate, has made another.&nbsp; If those choices match the character, then it was well-roleplayed - regardless if conversation happened.&nbsp; Talking in character?&nbsp; That I can take or leave as it happens or not happens.&nbsp; I don't accept the equation, role-playing = talking in character.I doubt I would enjoy Rolemaster because the I understand the combat is cumbersome.&nbsp; Action and combat are why I role-play.&nbsp; To me, that is what I disliked about 3E DnD - the combat became cumbersome with magic.&nbsp; Character generation does not really matter to me.&nbsp; I tend to create primal, archetypal characters anyway.&nbsp; My question about any given system is - how fast and furious is combat?If we switch systems for Inzeladun, it will need to have a good, bloody combat system that is unencumbered by magic.&nbsp; One of the things I like about Conan is that almost none of the spells are suitable for combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="InzeladunMaster, post: 2651847, member: 9774"] See, I prefer action to conversation in a game. To me, what a lot of people call "role-playing" is just a good way to get exposition and plot in the game. The fun parts are the action parts. Rolling down a mountain, my hands around my enemy's throat, howling in victory at the end or dying while trying my damndest to win is why I role-play. 'To crush the enemy and see them driven before me,' that is what is best in role-play. When I GM, I delight in seeing my players crush the enemy. Frankly, some of the best darned fights I have seen have been in the [I]Conan [/I] games. Those games ran red! Role-playing, to me, is just making character appropriate choices. A character, faced with death and having no weapons, who accepts that death but grapples with his slayer in an attempt to take the enemy with him, made a choice. Another type of character, who fearfully accepts his fate, has made another. If those choices match the character, then it was well-roleplayed - regardless if conversation happened. Talking in character? That I can take or leave as it happens or not happens. I don't accept the equation, role-playing = talking in character. I doubt I would enjoy Rolemaster because the I understand the combat is cumbersome. Action and combat are why I role-play. To me, that is what I disliked about 3E DnD - the combat became cumbersome with magic. Character generation does not really matter to me. I tend to create primal, archetypal characters anyway. My question about any given system is - how fast and furious is combat? If we switch systems for Inzeladun, it will need to have a good, bloody combat system that is unencumbered by magic. One of the things I like about [I]Conan [/I] is that almost none of the spells are suitable for combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification