|
|
Post by zipp on May 20, 2008 17:38:53 GMT -5
I'm still contemplating what would be best to do. Of course, I liked the characters as well and am somewhat loathe to see them go.
On the other hand, I love seeing all your creativity, and am sure you could all easily come up with similarly fascinating characters.
In the end, it will depend heavily on how many people return to play and what style of GMing I decide on. Like I said, I've been playing around with ideas for a near statless game, or at least a game where the stats are guidelines rather than rules. Description and creativity would be the key in such a system, and personally I think such a system fits better with the LW world, which is all about story telling and choices, than the D20 system (which I maintain is a system meant for dungeoneering).
|
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on May 20, 2008 17:58:36 GMT -5
Maerin chuckles. Well, "meant for" is not quite the same thing as "limited to". As much as I personally look forward to the current OGL game being replaced with something better, the current OGL game is not quite as saddled with D&D-isms as it could be. If the class system in the LW RPG did not impose such stringent limitations on possible characters without extensive house ruling, it would be even better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on May 21, 2008 1:24:02 GMT -5
Maerin chuckles. If the class system in the LW RPG did not impose such stringent limitations on possible characters without extensive house ruling, it would be even better. That is actually the only only complaint I have with the LW game. I think it is extremely well done otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by zipp on May 21, 2008 1:52:48 GMT -5
Maerin chuckles. If the class system in the LW RPG did not impose such stringent limitations on possible characters without extensive house ruling, it would be even better. That is actually the only only complaint I have with the LW game. I think it is extremely well done otherwise. Not to shoot you down or anything, but I don't know how anyone can excuse the multiple rules errors and poor "copy and paste" jobs that lead to them. Granted, they did a lot of things right, like the gazeteer and the timeline. Great things that any LW fan should desire in their collection. But the rules are a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by Balgin Stondraeg on May 21, 2008 10:04:28 GMT -5
Maerin chuckles. If the class system in the LW RPG did not impose such stringent limitations on possible characters without extensive house ruling, it would be even better. That is actually the only only complaint I have with the LW game. I think it is extremely well done otherwise. That and the fact that armour doesn't reduce damage but "makes you harder to hit". |
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on May 21, 2008 12:14:34 GMT -5
Granted, they did a lot of things right, like the gazeteer and the timeline. Great things that any LW fan should desire in their collection. No hard feelings about disagreement. After all, we definitely disagree on the above point.  In the end, everyone looks to their own tastes on this. I have run a number of successful games using the LWRPG rules now, including one fairly high-level pbp game on LWRPoL which seemed to satisfy my players well enough. While I do not particularly like the d20 rules (even improved as they are by the LWRPG OGL improvements), that is not the same as saying they do not work. One can run a good game even with bad rules, but only because there are more and other considerations that more typically define "a good game", in my view. Toss those considerations aside, and even then bad rules only take a bad game and turn it into a worse game. In my opinion, trying to consider "bad" as more acceptable than "worse" in a gaming context is a pointless waste of time. Without a new RPG to hang a game on (which looks to be a 2009 thing at this point), one is left with only two choices. One is to basically remake a game from scratch, which is time-consuming...often to the point of rendering the effort unfruitful; or use the tools already provided, tweak what one can in a limited and effective (and efficient) fashion, and trying and come up with a good enough story as to compensate players for the occasional bit of "residual-d20" rules nonsense. In the end, it's kinda the same situation as the Tower of the Sun: wait for a hypothetical replacement site and put lots of good creativity into limbo, or accept this one as our home for the time being and make the most of it. |
|
|
|
Post by zipp on May 21, 2008 12:40:21 GMT -5
I know and respect where you're coming from with the whole "good story make good game" thing, but I am still of the belief that difficult and unintuitive rules can take a game with a good story and smack it upside its epic head. Sure, good rules can't save an RPG, because the whole point of an RPG is the roleplaying... if you want rules, you play the tactical miniatures version.
The whole thing rests on balance. Rules that are fun and intuitive enough to carry a situation and situations that are more interesting than people rolling dice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrarvyn on May 21, 2008 13:07:52 GMT -5
Come on Balgin, LWd20 just repeating the standard d20 rules in certain areas is hardly a notch against it. If anything at all, LW armour should increase your health, not decrease your chance of being hit or reduce the damage you take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on May 21, 2008 13:24:35 GMT -5
Maerin grins. I suspect there are almost as many different theories as to how armor should actually function in a d20/OGL game environment as there are those who debate the issue. I personally tend to fall on the side of "damage reduction". But, supporting that particularly side of that arguement, I understand its limitations. As soon as one takes that side, one opens up two other cans of worms in the debate: effectiveness of certain sources of damage reduction against certain weapon types and the strong and somewhat unrealistic dynamic damage range associated with various weapons and the equally unrealistic situations that can sometimes arise because of that. Neither can of worms is typically all that easy to discuss (particularly since D&D game design has a longstanding tradition of, shall we say, "deviating from realities" so far as certain weapons' capabilities are concerned), let alone resolve.
But that brings me to where I do agree with on point of Zipp's, philosophically speaking. If realistic combat is that important, there are better game systems (indeed, better game system categories to best represent that level of realism).
I manage to avoid that philosophy hamstringing my own games by avoiding aggravating the issue. My games (and the rewards in those games: experience, etc.) are not so heavily reliant on combat that such considerations are completely obstructive. That brings me back to a point made earlier: just because the d20 game designers obsess about combat in their game does not mean I as a GM feel I need to.
Though far from perfect, it has been one of 3.x edition's saving graces in my view that there is sufficient meat in non-combat environments to actually make the system more well-rounded than its predecessors. It's not perfect, and from what I have heard thus far regarding 4th edition, they are neutering what I consider best about the non-combat aspects of 3.x edition. I certainly do know game systems that are and will remain better (and I typically use such systems in my tabletop and demo games; LW is about the only game remaining that I will consider running with OGL rules, let alone mainstream d20; and that is more out of consideration for my potential players here than any good taste of mine).
|
|
|
|
Post by zipp on May 22, 2008 12:39:44 GMT -5
Though far from perfect, it has been one of 3.x edition's saving graces in my view that there is sufficient meat in non-combat environments to actually make the system more well-rounded than its predecessors. It's not perfect, and from what I have heard thus far regarding 4th edition, they are neutering what I consider best about the non-combat aspects of 3.x edition. I certainly do know game systems that are and will remain better (and I typically use such systems in my tabletop and demo games; LW is about the only game remaining that I will consider running with OGL rules, let alone mainstream d20; and that is more out of consideration for my potential players here than any good taste of mine). Yes! This brings me to the MAIN thing that bugs me about most RPG systems... the systems for dealing for "situations outside of combat" SUCK! |
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on May 22, 2008 15:05:05 GMT -5
That's what the GM is before
|
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on May 22, 2008 15:23:03 GMT -5
Yes! This brings me to the MAIN thing that bugs me about most RPG systems... the systems for dealing for "situations outside of combat" SUCK! Heh.  Now THAT is probably a whole new discussion thread in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Balgin Stondraeg on May 23, 2008 11:14:53 GMT -5
[If realistic combat is that important, there are better game systems (indeed, better game system categories to best represent that level of realism). Yep. They've got names like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Rune Quest. Those games also have great skill systems too (and aren't obsessed with level based progression). I know I've written it somewhere before but the whole level based against skill based rules system contrast is actualy quite strong. With level based games you have the problems of thing becoming obsolete after a while (after achieving certain levels nobody wants to meet "low level monsters" anymore and people tend to make light of dangerous situations because they handled them when they had less levels). The problem skill based systems face (and it's amuch smaller one) is that it's harder for the GM to gauge a character's "level" and work out what they could effectively cope with. |
|
|
|
Post by Bewildered Badger on Jun 26, 2008 9:38:50 GMT -5
Something just occurred to me. When the team found the mysterious invisibility causing artifact, I got a PM from Zipp describing what impressions I got from it. This included the fact that certain members of the team (I'm not pointing fingers here, but if I was I'd be pointing at a downward angle  ) wished to get there own hands on it for various purposes. What I was wondering was, was this the natural result of various team members having various different goals? Or was there a subtle magical influence being cast upon us all? At the time I thought it was the former and reacted accordingly but looking back I'm not so sure. Thoughts please! |
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Jun 26, 2008 10:27:36 GMT -5
Was the invisibility thingie the same as the amulet we all went nuts over? I think zipp was building up the paranoia, I think you with a high will score were less affected, but even if not you would have been suspicious of everyone. Cat was definitely told not to trust the group, and he really did think you'd all fallen under some spell - good thing he was strong enough to withstand it and hopefully steal it from you when the time was right! Except Zipp shifted us into Spiders before Al and Cat's plan could start -Cat also made some perception/sense motive roll well enough to spot Al's behaviour, so was goign to betray Al (for his own good) the second they'd gotte nthe amulet |
|
Now THAT is probably a whole new discussion thread in and of itself.
) wished to get there own hands on it for various purposes.