- [DramaScape] Secret Bio Lab
- [Mongoose Publishing] Traveller Element Cruiser Box Set Kickstarter
- [Mongoose Publishing] Traveller – Marches Adventure 2: Mission to Mithril
- [DramaScape] US M4 Sherman and German Tiger I WWII Tanks
- [Mongoose Publishing] Traveller – Great Rift Adventure 3: Flatlined
- [DramaScape] SciFi Research Station
- [Mongoose Publishing] Traveller – Great Rift Adventure 2: Deepnight Endeavour
- [DramaScape] Modern Zombies
- [DramaScape] SciFi Police Station
- Dark Times Issue 2 Now Available
I never thought I'd get back to levels and hit points but Dragon Age has completely bowled me over. I tried 4e and it just left me cold.
Less is more.
- Location: Sheffield, UK
- Thanks: 909 given/805 received
- Planning: Heroic Fantasy
Peturabo wrote:I came away thinking that I would have liked it when I was a teenager, because it was full of fiddly bits that you could tweak, and build, and talk endlessly about during break times at school. There's a quality game there [...]
Amen to that, and don't for a minute imagine that the corporates aren't all over this for their business model. See the recent convo about splat-books, arms races etc.
Peturabo wrote:[...] and some muscular narration with dramatic choices sounds like seven flavours of win.
They are working hard to make a significant proportion of the fights have more prospect for drama and flair than 'just' old school dungeon-crawls.
I do all my best narration after the session. People find the writeups more exciting than the sessions themselves, hopefully because our combats are slow and suffer from Grind. (And tangentially: with 6 players' attention thresholds to accommodate, I do find I have to avoid indulging anyone who wants to riff on their character's personality for very long, so that we can keep some pace up.)
But for lovers of purple prose, those who want to expand their thesaurus's section on "Thwack", and maybe even a demonstration of how other people's D&D combats can be exciting(?!) check out the log on Obsidian Portal.
|\/ "The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better
| fantasy will it make." JRR Tolkien – The Monsters and the Critics
- Location: Baildon, West Yorks
- Thanks: 18 given/10 received
- Playing: CoC, 'Future Earth' BRP
- Running: Lately: D&D4e H1, H2
- Planning: Middle-earth Dwarves of Erebor in FATE (LoA)
I'm not RUNNING it because, after many years of playing from 1e to Pathfinder, it just doesn't suit my Greyhawk campaign anymore. The numbers got too big in 3e and the power curve soared to where expectations became ridiculously inflated and metagame choices became the norm; gaming by spreadsheet.
4e didn't attract me because it seemed to continue taking things more towards powers and the battlemap; I realise from other members that it doesn't have to be run that way, but if the game is skewed towards that......
On top of this my campaign has always been very grounded and low power in feel so things like Tieflings and Eladrin, for example, just don't work within what I'd built up.
I eventually, after a lot of niff-naffing, settled on using BRP for the game as it's an elegant, simple system that doesn't allow for power crazy, invincible pcs and am in the process of converting things over for my 13 year old son to game in Greyhawk. Naturally, I've also given myself a s***load of work to do as well.
I wouldn't dream of running down 4e or those that play it because in the right hands I'm sure it's an enjoyable game and, if someone offered me the chance, I'd give it a go as a player.
I enjoyed running Pathfinder for a short while as well; a well put together game but, again, just didn't fit.
- Location: Frinton On Sea, Essex
- Thanks: 1983 given/2363 received
- Playing: Trail Of Cthulhu.
- Running: Esoterrorists, 13th Age.
- Planning: Cthulhu Confidential, Yggdrasill.
Baz King wrote:Evilgaz wrote: You could have a session were everyone talks in character for four hours and never a dice is rolled, but that's just what the guys at the table are doing, D&D isn't really supporting that, its just your game of choice hanging around in the background.
Yeah but.... D&D isn't actually getting in the way of that either though is it? It's not actively preventing that sort of session.
If the rules don't incorporate this as part of play then D&D is hindering that type of play - like finding the planning permission consultation documents in Hitchhiker's Guide: it can be done, but it is totally concealed and non-intuitive given the RAW. This may not be a bad thing, but it is a thing.
- Thanks: 0 given/0 received
- Playing: Freemarket, Solipsist
- Running: Lots of one-shots at Glasgow Indie Gamers
- Planning: Tokyo Bitches (a HotB/KotE hack), Ribbon Drive
I'm not a fan of "if you're not with us, you're against us" statements in general. It often indicates that a massive swathe of in-between options is being missed. If I can be stupid about it for a moment in order to demonstrate how I feel about that point, there's nothing in the D&D rules about having snacks at the table so does the ruleset effectively prevent obesity (since obviously there won't ever BE any snacks at the table, what with there being no in-game reward for having them... right)?
I am swaying towards the conclusion that what's in the rules is nigh-on irrelevant to the quality of the roleplay at the table or how much enjoyment said roleplay brings to the session - at least, in as far as "the game mechanics enforce it" vs "the game mechanics don't even mention it" is concerned.
Sure, an RP-fanatic could discourage non-RPers by choosing to run a system that enforces roleplay, thereby end up with a self-selecting group of heavy RPers and no "duds" to dilute the experience (because they'll be off playing, oh I dunno, D&D or something *eyeroll*), but that isn't what's being suggested here. The claim, as far as I can see, is that we have swathes of gamers who love to roleplay but - and this is where I get confused - will only do it when there is a specific reward or encouragement within the rules. Am I misunderstanding you? IME people who roleplay do it because it's fun, and whether it's in the rules makes no difference.
- Location: London W2
- Thanks: 2 given/3 received
- Playing: D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, Dark Heresy
- Planning: A trip to China!
Snakebait wrote:I'm not a fan of "if you're not with us, you're against us" statements in general. It often indicates that a massive swathe of in-between options is being missed.
I agree with this. There's something about net debates that often threatens to lead to assumptions along the lines of, "If you don't agree with what I'm saying 100%, then you must believe the exact opposite." I don't think this is usually deliberate- I've been in danger of doing the same. But it's worth bearing in mind- and also what I think happened to the Pro-Active/Reactive thread. Sorry for drifting off-topic.
- Location: Sheffield
- Thanks: 6289 given/3592 received
- Playing: Esoterrorists, Unknown Armies, Cthulhu Invictus
- Running: D&D 5e, The One Ring
- Planning: Lots. Always.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests