| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 20:03:41
um...well, madness...
or obsession rather. I'm a hunter and gatherer, I hunt and gather RPG stuff, CDs, books, and DVDs...all with degrees of severety, after all there is enough junk out there in the music department that can be compared (qualitywise) to an equipment book released by WW for WOD, and then there are equipment books developed by FASA.
I usually go for the latter in all my obsessions...
During my 2 decades of roleplaying I bought tons of stuff and resold some of it as well. There was a time when my group tried a new system about every other month, needless to say some collections...well grew.
Is it strange when your RPG library has almost the potential to fill up an entire bookshelf? Or fellow players tell you that they have only seen some of the stuff you own from afar?
Admittedly, most of the RPG stuff was bought some 10 years ago, after all WEG stopped at about that time with Star Wars. There are some items I regret selling, even if I've never really played them. Take Rolemaster for example, with the middle earth add ins from MERS, or my Nephilim stuff. Or Star Warriors, even though I never played any of those.
Then there are items I am happy to be rid of, like Traveler. On other occasions I gave the stuff away as a present, like the 3rd D&D edition, only to replace it with 3.5. Sure there are some memories involved in the 3e PHB, after all I got it one day prior to the GenCon release  , but I am quite content with 3.5... for level based RPGs there is no better, and believe me, I've played enough level games to know.
So 3.5 is my favorite level based fantasy RPG. True enough Wizards released a D20 Star Wars, but I still cannot wrap my head around a level 6 Jedi Investigator/5 Jedi Master and whathaveyou.
There are some things that should neither be limited by levels and by no.s of attacks. Star Wars, to me, is an action game, a game where, if I spend my force point, can shoot 5 times in one combat round, hit every target I shot at, AND dodge whatever the enemy is shooting at me. It just don't work in D20.
I played a sample SW game at GenCon2000 and I decided, devious bastard that I am, to test the system. We were to fight a dark jedi and escape in our ship. I got tired of the entire hit hit hit routine, after all there IS dodging, especially in SW, and activated the ship guns and fired at the dark jedi. Naturally, as I had expected from looking at the 3e PHB just a day before, there were no scaling rules and no such thing as rules regarding the use anti vehicle weapons against an enemy.
What does this have to do with 3.5 and FR? Rules should encompass all those things that a whacked out player with far too much time on his hands, like me, can come up with. Sure you as a GM can wing it, but if you do not wing it the same way next time your players come up with something absolutely nuts, you are in for a world full of verbal hurt.
Do we need 2k feats? Nah. Do we need rules that help us run a game more smoothly? Hell yes!
Anyone who as ever seriously GMed knows what a bloody pain in the ass players can be, not in the wicked sense but rather in the way that they still have one surprise left. If you don't know the rules, things can and usually will get ugly.
Aside from WEG's Star Wars, which I still consider (apart from some minor flaws) the best game for new player accesibility, 3.5 does just that, bloody simple mechanics that can (and usually will) get more detailed than they initially were.
When I say I played a lot, that is about on par with my saying I partied a lot, both statements are true. (although I never RPGed til physical collapse!) Roleplaying is about people and fun, no one can perscribe any other being how to have fun. The rules are just crutches you need to have fun, and make it easier to have fun. (and if I was actually writing this for a real essay I would not put fun into a paragraph four, make that 5 times!)
The Realms, hell any RPG, is ours the moment we start rolling dice or opening the first pack of cigs on a game day... some wanna race through the levels like they were playing diablo, make new chars and rush on. If they like that, that is fine with me, but I'd suggest networking Diablo. If they like deep immersion roleplaying, fine to me, but I'd suggest LARP. Not because I think that is what they should be doing, but because I think they'd enjoy that even more.
We all have different styles of play, and the rules are still only guidelines. If anyone makes too much of them, that is their problem, not the rules'.
I just realized that I started writing something completely different than what came finally out, but so be it...
There is no right or wrong way to roleplay... hell, when a friend of mine told a co-worker that he was roleplaying, the co-worker thought of something ENTIRELY different from rolling dice!
So, there is no true way to play...
G'night |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 23:45:38
Gary Gygax and Ed Greenwood?
They sound familiar...... |
| Faraer |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 23:20:16
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
The basics of D20 are simple, roll a d20 add your bonus, reach a target number, done.
Yes, they are. Then all that other stuff is complicated! We're just used to it. And this isn't edition partisanship; all versions of D&D are complex games.quote:
As for players complaining about rules-knowledge or its lack, we had a GM who always bought one RPG or another, read the character creation and wanted to GM without knowing anything about game mechanics etc. We started boycotting him until he started reading the rules, because it was absolutely no fun to play.
It isn't just DMs who don't know the rules who prefer improvising and ad hoc judgements over rigorous adherence to the rulebooks. Couple of guys called Ed Greenwood and Gary Gygax are two of them. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 22:48:14
See, that's sort of how I feel.... My territory just seems to be a bit larger, in my mind. ;) |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 22:43:22
In my space things are the way I like 'em, as much as circumstances allow, if anyone decides to tell me they decide for me from now on I think I will dust off my experiences with heavy firearms and stop'em |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 22:37:07
See, my point was, I'd rather things be the way -I- like them. Not the way that others like them.
That's not very realistic (it comes down to the 'Who decides what's best?' argument), but that doesn't mean that -I- can't decide. We're sentient humans, and as I believe in no higher power, I believe that ultimately it is up to each one of us to decide what we feel is best. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 22:30:32
I for one do appreciate variety, if tastes were all the same and I, for example would have to listen to the same music as my co-workers, I'd listen to Shakira, or whatever is *in*.
Instead I enjoy making fun of that music and ridicule the lyrics of popular music usually after my ears are done bleeding.
Without such diversity I couldn't even enjoy the mere idea of asking Jehova's Witnesses to wait at the door while I finish sacrificing a chicken or some such thing |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 21:46:22
Heh. Me, either, but considering they're one of my primary forms of entertainment, I sure as heck want them to be things that I like!
One has to have a rest after all of the physics, after all.
And I hope I didn't alienate any who read this thread; the 'topic' was sort of just begging for a lot of conflict already. (Good job, Mace! ;) ) |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 21:42:59
Each to his own, if I could wish for my wishes having any impact I'd not start with RPGs tho ;) |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 21:32:24
quote:
Your first statement confuses me...
It's a general problem with liberalism, really, not just your statement. Locke himself acknowledged the ironic dichotomy of freedom versus equality. You just can't have both. So you can't have "all play methods are equal" and "everyone should be able to have complete freedom in how they choose to play," because, by definition, some people might want to play who do NOT consider all methods of play equal - and by your statement, those peoples' definitions "should" be valid, too.
... It makes sense, I swear.
quote:
As for wanting others to play like you want them to... what do you (or I for that matter) care how people play in a city you or I haven't been to? If I don't like the way some people play I usually leave the group, I can spend my time elsewhere.
What do you mean what do I care? I just told you that I do. :)
quote:
As for forcing them to play my way, nah, either they learn it some day, and without me, or they don't.
Encouraging others to play the way you want encourages the type of books that will be printed in a given RPG (if more people clamor for X books and buy them, the publishers are more willing to publish X kind of books), which will in turn give ME as a player more enjoyment, because I will get the kind of books I want, and it will FURTHER encourage the type of players who I like to play with to play such a game. For example, I tend to "like" the kind of people who prefer Mage: The Ascension over Vampire: The Masquerade.
It's a sociological cause-and-effect stream; sort of like chaos theory, but a little more predictable.
Is it greedy, manipulative, and contrived? Sure is! |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 21:10:21
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Why would players get angry if you DMed something differently one time from another? No player I would DM for would care.
A game that represents everything twice (once with abilities and class levels, once with die bonuses), has multiple types of modifiers to juggle, combat manoevres each with special rules, exceptions to the rules to remember in the form of feats, etc., and takes a dense half-page to describe a fairly simple monster, doesn't approach being 'bloody simple', even by the extremely complex standards of RPGs.
The basics of D20 are simple, roll a d20 add your bonus, reach a target number, done. D6 is even simpler: roll a bunch of dice, add'em up, reach a target number, done.
Much of the info on maneuvers only come into play if people use them. As for monsters, I never really spend much time worrying about some elements in the describtions in any edition.
As for players complaining about rules-knowledge or its lack, we had a GM who always bought one RPG or another, read the character creation and wanted to GM without knowing anything about game mechanics etc. We started boycotting him until he started reading the rules, because it was absolutely no fun to play. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 21:05:03
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I always find it interesting that people professing complete freedom as simultaneously often trying to convince said opinion on others, thus inhibiting their own freedoms... ;)
Just a really common thing I see that goes on, no matter what you're talking about.
I'm weird. I want people to roleplay the way that I want them to. It's entirely egocentric, sure, but I would have more fun if people did. Sorry to disappoint you (or anyone else) reading.
Your first statement confuses me...
As for wanting others to play like you want them to... what do you (or I for that matter) care how people play in a city you or I haven't been to? If I don't like the way some people play I usually leave the group, I can spend my time elsewhere.
As for forcing them to play my way, nah, either they learn it some day, and without me, or they don't. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 20:17:38
Why would players get angry if you DMed something differently one time from another? No player I would DM for would care.
A game that represents everything twice (once with abilities and class levels, once with die bonuses), has multiple types of modifiers to juggle, combat manoevres each with special rules, exceptions to the rules to remember in the form of feats, etc., and takes a dense half-page to describe a fairly simple monster, doesn't approach being 'bloody simple', even by the extremely complex standards of RPGs. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 20:12:25
I always find it interesting that people professing complete freedom as simultaneously often trying to convince said opinion on others, thus inhibiting their own freedoms... ;)
Just a really common thing I see that goes on, no matter what you're talking about.
I'm weird. I want people to roleplay the way that I want them to. It's entirely egocentric, sure, but I would have more fun if people did. Sorry to disappoint you (or anyone else) reading. |
|
|
