Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 5595011" data-attributes="member: 23935">First of all, I prefer to play as game reasonably close to how it was designed.&nbsp; Substantial alteration preferences has me looking for a game where the alterations are part of its design.&nbsp; I'm indifferent though if defences are static then attacks against those defences have to be static as well.I'd prefer this somewaht to the hp inflation seen since 3E.&nbsp; Again though it could inflict massive damage to the system to limit hp damage.Maybe, depends on the magic system, the types of effects, etc.&nbsp;I despise minis and defined battlemaps so that would be an improvement for me.&nbsp; Mind you, taking the tactical positioning out of the game will seriously impact power and effect crafting.Meh.&nbsp; Not so much.&nbsp; Most such systems end up penalising PCs and unlucky players.&nbsp; I prefer really fast char development systems if such rules are in play and the effects can be permanent.&nbsp;E6 play can be fun, but the level limit it immaterial.&nbsp; What is material is how much power can be accrued in the setting and what alterations to play occur because of the accrual.The Runequest/Ars Magica system; it adds quite a bit of time to attack resolution and gives the same result as if the attacker rolled two dice together and used the bell for attack and damage*.Maybe, maybe not -- depends on if the score damage was permanent and the genre expectations the game was trying to emulate.&nbsp; For D&amp;D, probably not.Maybe, maybe not -- depends on if the score damage was permanent and the genre expectations the game was trying to emulate.&nbsp; For D&amp;D, probably not.Probably not.&nbsp; I never liked any of the incarnations of Wild Magic and saw M-Us fall out of favour in campaigns that enforced it.&nbsp; It becomes very problematic to balance a fun factor for a game where spells are reasonably common, reasonably commonly cast, and unreasonably unpredictable.&nbsp; I've seen a few systems where it seemed ok.&nbsp;* Actually in AM's case it didn't since each die was a strress die which had open-ended successes and fumble chances.&nbsp; Each attack sequence took about 3 times as long as a D&amp;D sequence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 5595011, member: 23935"] First of all, I prefer to play as game reasonably close to how it was designed. Substantial alteration preferences has me looking for a game [I]where the alterations are part of its design[/I]. I'm indifferent though if defences are static then attacks against those defences have to be static as well. I'd prefer this somewaht to the hp inflation seen since 3E. Again though it could inflict massive damage to the system to limit hp damage. Maybe, depends on the magic system, the types of effects, etc. I despise minis and defined battlemaps so that would be an improvement for me. Mind you, taking the tactical positioning out of the game will seriously impact power and effect crafting. Meh. Not so much. Most such systems end up penalising PCs and unlucky players. I prefer really fast char development systems if such rules are in play and the effects can be permanent. E6 play can be fun, but the level limit it immaterial. What is material is how much power can be accrued in the setting and what alterations to play occur because of the accrual. The Runequest/Ars Magica system; it adds quite a bit of time to attack resolution and gives the same result as if the attacker rolled two dice together and used the bell for attack and damage*. Maybe, maybe not -- depends on if the score damage was permanent and the genre expectations the game was trying to emulate. For D&D, probably not. Maybe, maybe not -- depends on if the score damage was permanent and the genre expectations the game was trying to emulate. For D&D, probably not. Probably not. I never liked any of the incarnations of Wild Magic and saw M-Us fall out of favour in campaigns that enforced it. It becomes very problematic to balance a fun factor for a game where spells are reasonably common, reasonably commonly cast, and unreasonably unpredictable. I've seen a few systems where it seemed ok. * Actually in AM's case it didn't since each die was a [I]strress die[/I] which had open-ended successes and fumble chances. Each attack sequence took about 3 times as long as a D&D sequence. [/QUOTE]

Verification