Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4729477" data-attributes="member: 40177">Very good question, and one that will get a dozen different answers from half a dozen posters.My own take on it:1)&nbsp; Expansions that build on the core.&nbsp; I realized recently that I like games that add to the existing rules, rather than add onto them.&nbsp; For example, to use a 4e reference, I like martial power more than the PHB 2, because Martial power gives me expansions on an existing product.&nbsp; This came from when I started looking at Earthdawn - the &quot;splats&quot; gave more world detail, and maybe a few new classes, but it mostly just added more and more detail to what had already been described, and I like that.&nbsp; (It's one of the things I like about DARK SUN, too)2)&nbsp; Character Creation.&nbsp; I love games where I can make a PC quickly, but where I know my choices matter.&nbsp; I also love games where you have to make sacrifices and tough calls in character creation - for example, Savage Worlds doesn't really give you enough points to make uber characters, and I find that a lot of fun.&nbsp; 3)&nbsp; Simulationist Leanings.&nbsp; I prefer more simulationist games - for reasons I've stated elsewhere (essentially, if I wanted something &quot;gamist&quot;, I'd turn on my xbox... but that's a personal opinion).&nbsp; So, I like seeing rules-light systems that are attached to fairly detailed settings (or implied settings).&nbsp; 4)&nbsp; Versatility.&nbsp; I enjoy games where I can envision something, and have the rules cover it with little difficulty.&nbsp; Games that do this really well, in my book, are the d6 system (especially WEG's Star Wars), Savage Worlds, and - surprisingly to me - Fourth Edition.&nbsp; 5)&nbsp; Games with settings that actually encourage game play.&nbsp; For example, Mechwarrior is a great world, but it makes for a poor RPG.&nbsp; Unless you get the PCs out of their mechs... and then, the game world just seems poorer because of it.&nbsp; I haven't played the new Mechwarrior, though, so maybe it's changed.6)&nbsp; The game has to be easy to pick up.&nbsp; If the rules are too hard, I don't like it.&nbsp; If the setting has too much information you &quot;need&quot; to know, I won't run it.&nbsp; For example, Shadowrun is a game where there is so much information (in terms of rules and in what gear can do in the world), that PCs just can't keep track of it all.&nbsp; Unless the whole group consists of players well-versed in the rules who also know a big chunk of the game world, Shadowrun doesn't fit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 4729477, member: 40177"] Very good question, and one that will get a dozen different answers from half a dozen posters. My own take on it: 1) Expansions that build on the core. I realized recently that I like games that add to the existing rules, rather than add onto them. For example, to use a 4e reference, I like martial power more than the PHB 2, because Martial power gives me expansions on an existing product. This came from when I started looking at Earthdawn - the "splats" gave more world detail, and maybe a few new classes, but it mostly just added more and more detail to what had already been described, and I like that. (It's one of the things I like about DARK SUN, too) 2) Character Creation. I love games where I can make a PC quickly, but where I know my choices matter. I also love games where you have to make sacrifices and tough calls in character creation - for example, Savage Worlds doesn't really give you enough points to make uber characters, and I find that a lot of fun. 3) Simulationist Leanings. I prefer more simulationist games - for reasons I've stated elsewhere (essentially, if I wanted something "gamist", I'd turn on my xbox... but that's a personal opinion). So, I like seeing rules-light systems that are attached to fairly detailed settings (or implied settings). 4) Versatility. I enjoy games where I can envision something, and have the rules cover it with little difficulty. Games that do this really well, in my book, are the d6 system (especially WEG's Star Wars), Savage Worlds, and - surprisingly to me - Fourth Edition. 5) Games with settings that actually encourage game play. For example, Mechwarrior is a great world, but it makes for a poor RPG. Unless you get the PCs out of their mechs... and then, the game world just seems poorer because of it. I haven't played the new Mechwarrior, though, so maybe it's changed. 6) The game has to be easy to pick up. If the rules are too hard, I don't like it. If the setting has too much information you "need" to know, I won't run it. For example, Shadowrun is a game where there is so much information (in terms of rules and in what gear can do in the world), that PCs just can't keep track of it all. Unless the whole group consists of players well-versed in the rules who also know a big chunk of the game world, Shadowrun doesn't fit. [/QUOTE]

Verification