What do you want to see for your Fantasy Roleplaying System of choice?

[OneWinged4ngel]

Like Nonlethal Force, I, too, have a new system in the works, ETA a bit more than a year for publishing. Still can't say much about it, other than that it's a complete reimagining of 3rd edition style D&D (mostly only keeping the "it's an adaptable high fantasy system" part), and provides a versatile building block class system designed to capture the benefits of a class system while facilitating creative freedom to a point comparable to classless ones with a very interactive and reactive combat system modeled to handle combats in a way reminiscent of things ranging from Pirates of the Caribbean at lower levels to God of War and Advent Children at the higher levels (with all the improvisation, environmental action, movement, and dynamic action), as well as expanding the realms of non-combat encounters to the point you could seriously have a full, complete game without ever swinging a sword and still feel like you're getting the tactical depth of combat.

And yes, that's the reason I've been off the radar for so long.

Keep an eye out

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The most important thing for me, I guess, is that the game needs to reward player skill more than character mechanics, in the vein of OD&D and AD&D.

I've heard this before, but isn't it also a player skill if the players develop tactics based on mechanical abilities of their characters and see them come to fruition, adapting their tactics in response to their enemies abilities?

What is player skill in your view? And how do you avoid that player skill gets in the way of role-playing your character? (If it's all about how smart the player is, what does it mean to play an INT 6 Barbarian?)

Hmm. I think that might require its own thread...

 

[(un)reason]

I'd have to say that my choice would be the majority of the above. I like playing lots of different games, and having several with wildly diverging approaches gives you the best chance of being able to find or build a ruleset suitable to a particular idea and theme. I'd get bored playing the same game all the time, no matter how good, just like I'd get bored of listening to one band all the time, or watching only 1 tv show all the time.

 

[OneWinged4ngel]

I've heard this before, but isn't it also a player skill if the players develop tactics based on mechanical abilities of their characters and see them come to fruition, adapting their tactics in response to their enemies abilities?

What is player skill in your view? And how do you avoid that player skill gets in the way of role-playing your character? (If it's all about how smart the player is, what does it mean to play an INT 6 Barbarian?)

Hmm. I think that might require its own thread...

No need for a new thread, it's a very simple question to answer.

There's two broad, primary categories you can divide (mechanical) player skill into. Skill in build, which is the skill required to pick out optimal features and put them on your character sheet, and skill in play, which is the skill required to make smart tactical decisions during the resolution of a tactical wargame and other in-session gameplay aspects. He is quite clearly referring to the second category.

Incidentally, unbalanced build options lends itself to a game emphasizing the first aspect, whereas a more balanced system lends itself to a game emphasizing the second.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No need for a new thread, it's a very simple question to answer.

There's two broad, primary categories you can divide player skill into. Skill in build, which is the skill required to pick out optimal features and put them on your character sheet, and skill in play, which is the skill required to make smart tactical decisions during the resolution of a tactical wargame. He is quite clearly referring to the second category.

Incidentally, unbalanced build options lends itself to a game emphasizing the first aspect, whereas a more balanced system lends itself to a game emphasizing the second.

Well, if that's it, then 4E fits that bill, doesn't it? Fights are pretty tactically by my reckoning. Your "build" is just the start, if you don't know how to work together with the rest of your party and prioritize your targets accordingly, you will suffer.

But so far it always seemed to me as if there was more about "player skill" then that.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Pathfinder is my choice for D&D since WotC canceled D&D.

 

[Jack Colby]

I'd like a new game that plays like original, old-school, D&D. I am playing 4E but it's a different sort of game, and does not satisfy my desire for actual D&D. I also play pretty much every version of D&D/AD&D before 3E (which is not D&D any more than 4E is, and in my opinion it is less D&D-like... not suitable for my consideration in a D&D poll.) However... none of the earlier editions are perfect. I'm always looking for something that does all I want and none of what I don't.

 

[OneWinged4ngel]

Well, if that's it, then 4E fits that bill, doesn't it? Fights are pretty tactically by my reckoning. Your "build" is just the start, if you don't know how to work together with the rest of your party and prioritize your targets accordingly, you will suffer.

That can be said about most every game that involves a party. Seriously. What rpg would you say *doesn't* make you suffer for failing to prioritize your targets and work together with your team? Anyways, those things are just a very small part of what depth of strategic gameplay can involve. I'd actually say 4e is a lightweight in the gameplay depth department.

But so far it always seemed to me as if there was more about "player skill" then that.

What does mechanical skill involve, then, besides making intelligent decisions during group gameplay and outside of group gameplay? Enlighten us.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

No option for 1e, so I didn't vote.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Pathfinder is my choice for D&D since WotC canceled D&D.

I´m happy for you that you found your edition of D&D after which D&D stopped being D&D. I´ve visited some message boards and noticed that playing the edition of D&D after which D&D stopped D&D is a cool thing for a lot of people who like D&D.

It´s good to see that 4e continued the tradition of being the edition of D&D that stopped being D&D for some people. Hopefully, 5e continues that tradition. Otherwise, it´ll stop being D&D for me.