RPGs ?!?

thormagni said:
Well, it doesn't help when every time we tried to explore we ended up getting slaughtered in creative ways. I'm just sayin', people are unlikely to charge over the next hill or climb that wall when odds are good they will be dead moments later.

I don't think anyone actually died in that campaign.

thormagni said:
My RQ "knight" stopped wearing armor because the game system made it nearly impossible to be an effective combatant and to wear armor, especially compared to the meager benefit armor gave. When you set me up with better armor, I went back to wearing armor.

Right, which is why I offered to switch systems, and why I set you up with better armor. I needed time to figure out what was wrong with the rules and what was the best fix that wouldn't mess the system up. Anyway, I don't plan on using RQ anymore. If I play again I will use Savage Worlds.

thormagni said:
By the way, I think we are old fogies. It appears to me that 4e's main goal is to create even MORE video-game like experiences on the tabletop.

That is sad, and the impression I am getting also.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

InzeladunMaster said:
I don't think anyone actually died in that campaign.

Well, only through the use of Fate/Hero points. Our archers were shredded when they tried to sneak around and explore. And when our thief type explored in the city with the zombie factory, she was also quickly discovered and zombie-swarmed. It seemed monumentally unsafe to be out and about, away from the party.

I recognize and appreciate that these bad effects never happened because they were fate-pointed away. But they were very definitely lessons in why not to split off from the party and look around too much. (although, it appears, unintentional.)

Right, which is why I offered to switch systems, and why I set you up with better armor. I needed time to figure out what was wrong with the rules and what was the best fix that wouldn't mess the system up. Anyway, I don't plan on using RQ anymore. If I play again I will use Savage Worlds.

Which I certainly appreciated. My only point is that the mechanics of a game system can and do affect what players try to do with the game. I would like to try Savage Worlds myself. A game system that makes combat rather quick and not the center of the game, should encourage roleplaying. That should be a good test of "John's Theory of Game System Influence."

That is sad, and the impression I am getting also.

There have been a few good things I have heard which sound encouraging, and many things that leave me scratching my head. I'm leery of any new edition that is so incompatible with the old edition that it is nearly impossible to play or convert characters from one to edition to another. At that point, is it really a new edition or a completely new game?

One thing that sounds interesting is the default "points of light" setting. In it, the heroes and player races are besieged. Huddling together in small communities against the monsters and bad, creepy things, which command most of the world. Instead of most D&D settings, which are usually fairly settled kingdoms with bad things happening and monsters nibbling around on the edges.

Compare the "points of light" to say my current Greyhawk campaign. It is set in the Viscounty of Verbobonc, a fairly stable land surrounded by other fairly stable lands. The Temple of Elemental Evil is an aberration and one that has been sacked many times over the campaign's back story. The tension in walking from community to community just isn't there. (which, by the way, was one thing I liked about the Inzeladun game. It was really clear that it was a dangerous world with few safe havens.)

FWIW, the super game I am proposing is much more like the points of light campaign, than the standard superhero world where the heroes are big, public figures with headquarters and team names who thwart the villain of the month every month.
 

I am going out on a limb here, but I have to say that I always liked 3E. I thought the game progressed very well. I thought we did get magic heavy, but perhaps this could be tweaked in some way to afford less magic and more wits or sword use. Anyway, my memories of the system are fond. I like the fact that it gave characters/players many freedoms in the sense that they could get very creative with powers and ideas. Hell, coming up with your own prestige classes and stuff was really cool. It added a very unique quality to the game that had never been there before. I can understand how it got weighty for DMing, but I liked it. So, there! :)
 
Last edited:

I like the Conan re-write of D20, which ended the heavy-magic need of standard D20, but allowed the powers and customization you are talking about.

But high-level games were nigh-impossible to GM in combat in regular high-magic 3E.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top