Results 21 to 30 of 43
Thread: posts related to announcements
-
06-02-2002, 05:27 AM #21
RPG`s are fueled by imagination, not the mechanics. This is why I argue for
story`s primacy over rules. Blaming the system for poor gaming,
unsatisfying experiences, or roll play over role play is like blaming the
car you took on vacation for having not taken you to more interesting
attractions. D20 is a rules set. Rules are for answering concrete
questions about interactions between my character and the game world. I
want to ride a horse, how it that done? I want to craft my own sword, how
is that done? I want to jump a 30 foot chasm, how is that done? I want to
attack that orog with my pike, how is that done? This is what rules do, it
is what d20 was designed to so. Rules do not provide story, or motivations
for riding horses, crafting weapons, jumping chasms, or attacking orogs.
Story does these things.
If story is king, any rules set will do. Some will need more tinkering.
When story determines how much magic there is, the rules just tell how it
works, not how much there is. The DM places magic items as treasure, or
allows or disallows their creation. He can do this for reasons of story or
according to the underlying principles of his world. Or, he can do it
without any guiding principles other than what the rules allow. The rules
set, in order to support the largest number of settings support a great
variety of things. You may notice that there are many undead that drain
levels and abilities. There are many ways to recover abilities and levels,
and there are rules that govern all this. Does that mean that the game
demands that level and ability loss is common? No, it doesn`t, but it will
support that style of play. The rules will support Ravenloft play, with its
vampires and other undead, just as it will support a campaign with no
undead. The rules will support high level play and high powered characters.
Does this mean the rules require play to go in that direction? No, it just
supports it, if DM`s and players want to go that way. Playing FR? D20 will
support that.
When story governs play, the DM looks at which rules to mediate play with.
Some are just out there for circumstances that are infrequent (using a
lethal weapon to subdue an opponant) some a given DM might simply chose
never to employ (traveling the planes). When rules serve the story, the
story happens with the tone, flavor, and exitement that the DM`s imagination
and abilities allow. The rules just tell us how to mediate interactions.
When we ask them to do more, its like asking our car to plan our next
vacation. Its only the vehicle to fun, its not the producer of the fun. We
are.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
06-02-2002, 05:47 AM #22
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
> If story is king, any rules set will do.
I`ll have to disagree, too many games especially D20 have dice decide story
events.
In a story the protagonist will succeeded as needed for the story, not /at
random/ which a die roll enforces. Good GM`s mitigate this, and mayhaps even
eliminate it somewhat, but why are they using a poor tool? If they have to
/ignore the tool/ to get the game to perform in a way they want (and "tell a
story") then I say the tools are flawed, lets get better ones. For me Saga
is a better tool, BESM is a better tool, and several games I`ve written are
better tools. I know lots and lots of people like D&D, and there is nothing
at all wrong with that., but to me I want different more apt tools for my
style of gaming (Just like I`m sure people who like Hack and Slash probably
don`t want games that support "drama" and storytelling, and emotional rp, as
much as one which gives combat mechanics, tactical options, and lots of ways
to kill stuff)
These days I won`t touch D&D (excepting of course Basic D&D) simply because
it isn`t the proper tool for me and my gaming style--I still respect that it
gave leave top have some really good published worlds, but I feel bad that
those worlds don`t have mechanics more supportive of their "flavor"
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
06-02-2002, 06:02 AM #23
Personally I think a mix of both rules and story is needed, as almost everyone has a different style of play and a game runs best if you cater to all tastes, rather than just lay down the law and say this is how things are, do it my way or not at all. Some players prefer structured rules to the game, others a free-flowing storytelling style.
The aim of the BRCS setting it not to say which way is best, but rather to provide a standard set of rules for running games set in Cerilia. I imagine almost everyone will change certain sections to suit their own games and styles of play. One of the main aims of the BR developers when designing material for the BRCS is to create material that will be acceptable to the majority of BR fans, not just to one or two.
Also, once complete, the BRCS will be the basis for futher campaign material and before anything else can be written, it is necessary to have a standard set of rules to work from.Let me claim your Birthright!!
-
06-02-2002, 06:21 AM #24
>RPG`s are fueled by imagination, not the mechanics.
Applause
>If story is king, any rules set will do.
More applause
>When story governs play, the DM looks at which rules to mediate play
with.
Yet more applause
A good DM/GM and some good players can use almost any system to have a
good game. You only allow the mechanics to govern the game to a certain
degree - to the degree the DM and players are most comfortable with.
Indeed, many players (and DMs) like a certain amount (which varies
greatly) of "roll - playing". There is satisfaction in allowing fate
(dice) to dictate the outcome of events, rather than leaving it all to
the imagination of players and DMs. If rolling dice is going to be part
of the game, having a good, believable system will work wonders for this
part of the game experience.
There are certainly many systems out there that are "better" than 3E in
many respects, depending on the preferences of the gaming group of
course. My favorite is the "EON" fantasy RPG (a Swedish game). Still, I
enjoy 3E very much, and find that it is both flexible and even sort of
believable (or at least consistent) when handled right. For my BR games,
3E serves just fine.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
06-02-2002, 06:21 AM #25
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 15:17, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
RPG`s are fueled by imagination, not the mechanics.
Ideally yes. In practice not always - or more accurately the mechanics
can obscure the use of imagination. (ever tried to play Space Opera ?)
This is why I argue for
story`s primacy over rules.
I agree 200%.
Blaming the system for poor gaming,
unsatisfying experiences, or roll play over role play is like blaming the
car you took on vacation for having not taken you to more interesting
attractions. D20 is a rules set. Rules are for answering concrete
questions about interactions between my character and the game world. I
want to ride a horse, how it that done? I want to craft my own sword, how
is that done? I want to jump a 30 foot chasm, how is that done? I want to
attack that orog with my pike, how is that done?
When the minute details have to worked over with many rolls - you`ve
lost the imagination flavor. You want to ride a horse ? -- take riding
lessons instead of a "skill". You don`t need a rule or a "stat" to do
this. A player whose character wants to craft a sword (probably needs to
reevaluate their priorities but hell.. okay) go ahead give it a try --
from a DM POV does the character NEED a sword or does he WANT a sword --
I don`t see the need for a rule for this.
When a two-minute (game time) battle with Orogs takes 10 minutes (or
more) to play in real time because you`re playing out combat in detail
(and about 50 rolls of dice) -- you`re not fooling me.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
06-02-2002, 11:34 AM #26
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 16:15, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
>RPG`s are fueled by imagination, not the mechanics.
Applause
>If story is king, any rules set will do.
More applause
>When story governs play, the DM looks at which rules to mediate play
with.
Yet more applause
A good DM/GM and some good players can use almost any system to have a
good game.
A good DM and good players don`t need ANY system. So of course they can
work with anything - but some systems promote role-playing better than
others - I think that`s not only fair comment but reasonably obvious as
well. I don`t hear anyone really disagreeing.
You only allow the mechanics to govern the game to a certain
degree - to the degree the DM and players are most comfortable with.
Indeed, many players (and DMs) like a certain amount (which varies
greatly) of "roll - playing". There is satisfaction in allowing fate
(dice) to dictate the outcome of events, rather than leaving it all to
the imagination of players and DMs. If rolling dice is going to be part
of the game, having a good, believable system will work wonders for this
part of the game experience.
There are certainly many systems out there that are "better" than 3E in
many respects, depending on the preferences of the gaming group of
course. My favorite is the "EON" fantasy RPG (a Swedish game). Still, I
enjoy 3E very much, and find that it is both flexible and even sort of
believable (or at least consistent) when handled right. For my BR games,
3E serves just fine.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
06-02-2002, 10:46 PM #27
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke"
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 1:22 AM
> When the minute details have to worked over with many rolls - you`ve
> lost the imagination flavor. You want to ride a horse ? -- take riding
> lessons instead of a "skill". You don`t need a rule or a "stat" to do
> this.
If by riding a horse you mean following a skilled horseman in front of you,
unskilled riders can ride horses. You`ll notice no DC is even assigned to
that basic task. There is a problem when two skilled horsemen try to out
ride one another. They may try to dismount one another. One may try to
escape from another. How do you decide if one is successful or the other?
Deus ex machina?
> A player whose character wants to craft a sword (probably needs to
> reevaluate their priorities but hell.. okay) go ahead give it a try --
> from a DM POV does the character NEED a sword or does he WANT
> a sword -- I don`t see the need for a rule for this.
Priests of Moradin are typically required to craft their own weapons.
Sometimes there are other story based reasons for crafting weapons. A fair
number of sagas involve heros crafting their own weapons.
> When a two-minute (game time) battle with Orogs takes 10 minutes (or
> more) to play in real time because you`re playing out combat in detail
> (and about 50 rolls of dice) -- you`re not fooling me.
Dramatic situations, whether combats, dialogues, or puzzles normally take
longer than they do in real time. In the movies sometimes they just show
every character`s reaction shots to prolong the drama, sometimes they use
slow motion. Spending more time on the exciting or risky bits seems much
more reasonable to me than spending a lot of time on the stuff in between
the interesting dialogues, combats, and puzzles.
> A good DM and good players don`t need ANY system. So of course they
> can work with anything - but some systems promote role-playing better
> than others - I think that`s not only fair comment but reasonably obvious
as
> well. I don`t hear anyone really disagreeing.
You have a long pattern of arguing fine points of rules. So you appear to
mouthing platitudes. You`ll have to excuse those of us who have some
trouble associating your name with the total abandonment of a game system
for pure story. As for your comments, I do disagree. Rules don`t promote
role playing, so one set can`t do it better than another set. If you really
believed that player`s don`t need any system, you wouldn`t follow that
statement up with a plea for a good rules set. I`ll refer again to my
metaphor of the car not determining how much fun you have on vacation.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
06-02-2002, 10:46 PM #28
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sidhain"
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:42 AM
> > If story is king, any rules set will do.
>
> I`ll have to disagree, too many games especially D20 have dice decide
story
> events.
>
> In a story the protagonist will succeeded as needed for the story, not
/at
> random/ which a die roll enforces.
This works much better with players who are seeking pure story. An almost
theatrical group who is more interesting in the dramatic for its own sake,
rather than in excitement we normally associate with drama. We all know the
story of Hamlet, we go to see it because we want to see the drama for its
own sake. Sometime, perhaps a lot of the times for players, not knowing how
the story turns out, whether the hero will triumph or have to fall back,
will provide a much greater sense of fun (fun through excitement) than just
a well executed dramatic trope.
> Good GM`s mitigate this, and mayhaps even eliminate it somewhat, but
> why are they using a poor tool?
Let`s be careful not to associate good GM`s with a certain style of GM`ing.
There is a reason the big blockbuster is full of explosions and action.
GM`s and players may want action-adventure, they may want character studies
(My Dinner With Andre the Role Playing Game!), or they may want story driven
gaming. Others exist as well (theme driven, genre driven setting driven),
so the purposes of the players and GM will determine what good play looks
like. I would reject rules driven gaming as role playing, that is the true
meaning of roll play.
So, while story can be central, do we expect the story to provide
opportunities to show off our authorial and acting talents or to entertain
us with opportunities to overcome the unknown, challenge the odds, and
confront risks? Certain styles of gaming (call it the genre of story - no
dice for Hamlet, at least until the fencing, and lots of dice for The Mummy)
will make different demands on our need for dice to establish success. Some
players will get into games where "a story [in which] the protagonist will
succeeded as needed for the story". Others will call that "deus ex machina"
and walk away yawning.
> If they have to /ignore the tool/ to get the game to perform in a way
> they want (and "tell a story") then I say the tools are flawed, lets get
> better ones. For me Saga is a better tool, BESM is a better tool,
> and several games I`ve written are better tools.
You don`t have to ignore the mechanic of the game, you just don`t create
rules for every possible occurance, or use every rule just because its been
provided.
> I know lots and lots of people like D&D, and there is nothing
> at all wrong with that., but to me I want different more apt tools for my
> style of gaming (Just like I`m sure people who like Hack and Slash
probably
> don`t want games that support "drama" and storytelling, and emotional rp,
as
> much as one which gives combat mechanics, tactical options, and lots of
ways
> to kill stuff)
You don`t need a system to support drama, storytelling, and emotional role
play, all you need is to be well read, and you can do that while playing
board games.
> These days I won`t touch D&D (excepting of course Basic D&D) simply
> because it isn`t the proper tool for me and my gaming style--I still
respect
> that it gave leave top have some really good published worlds, but I feel
> bad that those worlds don`t have mechanics more supportive of their
"flavor"
I`d rather have a "players guide to role play" than mechanics that support
role play. Mechanics that support setting flavor work best when GM`s first
understand what they are intending to model, rather than trying to model a
world backwards from the existing rules.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
06-03-2002, 01:33 AM #29
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 07:48, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke"
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 1:22 AM
> When the minute details have to worked over with many rolls - you`ve
> lost the imagination flavor. You want to ride a horse ? -- take riding
> lessons instead of a "skill". You don`t need a rule or a "stat" to do
> this.
If by riding a horse you mean following a skilled horseman in front of you,
unskilled riders can ride horses. You`ll notice no DC is even assigned to
that basic task. There is a problem when two skilled horsemen try to out
ride one another. They may try to dismount one another. One may try to
escape from another. How do you decide if one is successful or the other?
Deus ex machina?
Gee I think not. Stick anyone up behind a placid pony and they`ll "ride"
it. You don`t need a riding lesson to do that. Suggest that your
character is going to get up on the back of the untamed stallion leader
of the pack - and I`ll (while giggling insanely) suggest that your pony
club experiences may not have quite given you the confidence to try
that. But I`ll let you try. ("But I took riding lessons!")
Players should always get a chance to succeed at whatever they attempt -
unless I as the DM don`t want them to - in which case I make it seem as
if they had a chance but failed. I don`t need a rule to decide that a
player won`t often win a horse race against the most noted cavalry
officer in the land - unless the player has in fact (a) gotten hold of
a very fine piece of horseflesh, and (B) had considerable experience or
training in riding horses -- even then (unless it`s important from the
plot line) he`s probably only 50-50.
> A player whose character wants to craft a sword (probably needs to
> reevaluate their priorities but hell.. okay) go ahead give it a try --
> from a DM POV does the character NEED a sword or does he WANT
> a sword -- I don`t see the need for a rule for this.
Priests of Moradin are typically required to craft their own weapons.
Sometimes there are other story based reasons for crafting weapons. A fair
number of sagas involve heros crafting their own weapons.
Priests of Moradin don`t need a rule - if they learn to craft weapons as
part of their priestly duties, then I guess they can craft weapons don`t
you think ? (also if a player wants to role-play a weaponsmith - then
guess what ? - yep, he can make weapons too !) Those sagas usually
involved a "great need", or (in layman DM terms) a "plot line necessity"
to do so, their success at such an effort is mandatory - only the choice
to do so was optional.
The arguments is one of "I want a rule for crafting weapons", versus "I
need a rule for crafting weapons". To be quite frank, that`s the epitome
of munchkinism. I want I want I want ... It`s not just DMs that give in
to munchkins, it`s Game Companies as well. (most particularly when they
design a new game by asking what people want)
> When a two-minute (game time) battle with Orogs takes 10 minutes (or
> more) to play in real time because you`re playing out combat in detail
> (and about 50 rolls of dice) -- you`re not fooling me.
Dramatic situations, whether combats, dialogues, or puzzles normally take
longer than they do in real time. In the movies sometimes they just show
every character`s reaction shots to prolong the drama, sometimes they use
slow motion. Spending more time on the exciting or risky bits seems much
more reasonable to me than spending a lot of time on the stuff in between
the interesting dialogues, combats, and puzzles.
I`ve got no problem with taking the time - as long as it`s not dice
rolling time. When you have 6 players sitting around a table all trying
to get their "turn" in - no-one really wants to hear a blow by blow,
feint by feint, breath by breath, (every 6 seconds) description of each
others melee plans.
DM: "With a concerted effort Grog the barbarian and Happy the elf
shoulder the door again. The lock still holds but the hinges give way
and both tumble into the room. Quickly regaining your feet you realize
you are not alone. There`s a rather large ogre standing there hefting a
nasty big spiky bludgeoning thingy and five kobolds. Two of the kobolds
have covered the doorway."
Grog (Phil): "Right, well Happy - you leave the big guy to me and try to
hold those kobolds off my back"
Happy (Mark): "Duh, OK Grog - it`s lucky you sure are smart."
DM: "Phil - you don`t have a weapon out - is Grog going to wrestle or
punch the ogre ?"
Grog: "Drawing my trusty claymore, I attack the ogre."
Happy: "I use my `whirling steel circle of death` to keep the kobolds
back."
<< combat round 1 >>
DM: (rolling a d20 twice behind the screen of fear and ignorance) "Grog
manages to easily evade the clumsy ogres hurried blow, and swings his
broadsword (rolling a lousy one for damage) neatly through the air to
draw blood with a nick on the ogres left thigh." [Yes, players don`t get
to roll their own dice - how can you fudge what you don`t control ?]
[roll 3xd20, 1d6 for damage, 1xd20]
"Happy, your circle of death was effective - but only just - one of the
kobolds managed to penetrate your defense before you beat him back. You
won`t be able to keep them out for long." [There is no such thing as a
`circle of death` - Happy is just using his combat skills defensively
(and his twin scimitars) - one kobold managed a hit (6 pts) but Happys
combat skill and luck (high HP total) allowed him to avoid any real
damage.]
[perhaps for some that`s not enough detail, all in all it probably took
one minute of real time - almost the same amount of game time. After all
the players aren`t here to defeat ogres and kobolds, these are but
obstacles - sure they`re still meant to be fun obstacles, but
role-playing isn`t (IMO) about detailed combat.]
> A good DM and good players don`t need ANY system. So of course they
> can work with anything - but some systems promote role-playing better
> than others - I think that`s not only fair comment but reasonably obvious
as
> well. I don`t hear anyone really disagreeing.
You have a long pattern of arguing fine points of rules. So you appear to
mouthing platitudes. You`ll have to excuse those of us who have some
trouble associating your name with the total abandonment of a game system
for pure story. As for your comments, I do disagree. Rules don`t promote
role playing, so one set can`t do it better than another set. If you really
believed that player`s don`t need any system, you wouldn`t follow that
statement up with a plea for a good rules set.
I didn`t say *any* player and *any* DM, I said if you had GOOD DM and
GOOD players. If you don`t then you`re in trouble learning to role-play
with a poor set of rules. A good set of rules would aid *any* player and
*any* DM, regardless of their level of experience and/or competence.
I`ll refer again to my
metaphor of the car not determining how much fun you have on vacation.
I don`t think that your metaphor really works.
A car that breaks down constantly causing you to push it five miles a
day, without reaching your intended destinations. A cramped car that has
no air conditioning on a long hot journey in stop start traffic with
four bored children. Compared to a modern spacious air conditioned
minivan that never breaks down. I`ve been on all those vacations. I also
think that I`d have a better vacation driving a ferrari.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
06-03-2002, 05:16 AM #30
Peter Lubke, on Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 1:22 and again at 8:24 PM
> > When the minute details have to worked over with many rolls - you`ve
> > lost the imagination flavor. You want to ride a horse ? -- take riding
> > lessons instead of a "skill". You don`t need a rule or a "stat" to do
this.
>
> Gee I think not. Stick anyone up behind a placid pony and they`ll "ride"
> it. You don`t need a riding lesson to do that. Suggest that your
> character is going to get up on the back of the untamed stallion leader
> of the pack - and I`ll (while giggling insanely) suggest that your pony
> club experiences may not have quite given you the confidence to try
> that. But I`ll let you try. ("But I took riding lessons!")
Look, he argues with himself! He doesn`t need a skill, be we do need to
determine his degree of experience. No skills or stats needed (at least at
1:22), but later in the day we can distinguish between pony club levels of
experience and breaking a horse (which some might call Animal Handling, but
go with it).
> I don`t need a rule to decide that a player won`t often win a horse
> race against the most noted cavalry officer in the land - unless the
> player has in fact (a) gotten hold of a very fine piece of horseflesh,
> and (B) had considerable experience or training in riding horses --
> even then (unless it`s important from the plot line) he`s probably
> only 50-50.
I`m pretty sure we all agree that DM`s can fiat their way through entire
campaigns. The real question is not "what can we do" but "what do we do".
My guess, based on your many rule citations and close readings of parsed
rules text is that you use some form of Ride skill based on the system you
play. Even LUG`s Star Trek RPG had a horseback riding skill. Its not a
particularly obscure skill. Because of its routine qualities, many players
woulf prefer a routine way of settling horseback riding questions, rather
than submitting to yet another fiat.
> > A player whose character wants to craft a sword (probably needs to
> > reevaluate their priorities but hell.. okay) go ahead give it a try --
> > from a DM POV does the character NEED a sword or does he WANT
> > a sword -- I don`t see the need for a rule for this.
>
> Priests of Moradin don`t need a rule - if they learn to craft weapons as
> part of their priestly duties, then I guess they can craft weapons don`t
> you think ?
I take it from this that you don`t use the craft skill. Characters opperate
according to the entity theory of ability, not an experience theory,
according to your statements here. Characters either can or cannot do a
thing. There is no degree, no differing quality, no variable time for
performance. Characters do not increase in ability by progressive
experience becomming capable of ever more complex tasks.
> The arguments is one of "I want a rule for crafting weapons", versus "I
> need a rule for crafting weapons". To be quite frank, that`s the epitome
> of munchkinism. I want I want I want ... It`s not just DMs that give in
> to munchkins, it`s Game Companies as well. (most particularly when they
> design a new game by asking what people want)
You apparently don`t know what "munchkin" means. Munchkins want more
powerful weapons, they spend their character development points on skills
that overcome enemies. Spending development points on backround skills -
look ma, I`m a smith- and crafting your own weapons rather than just
regarding every sword the same as every other sword (all that matters are
their stat blocks) is the mark of a real roleplayer.
> > When a two-minute (game time) battle with Orogs takes 10 minutes (or
> > more) to play in real time because you`re playing out combat in detail
> > (and about 50 rolls of dice) -- you`re not fooling me.
>
> Dramatic situations, whether combats, dialogues, or puzzles normally
take
> longer than they do in real time. In the movies sometimes they just
show
> every character`s reaction shots to prolong the drama, sometimes they
use
> slow motion. Spending more time on the exciting or risky bits seems
much
> more reasonable to me than spending a lot of time on the stuff in
between
> the interesting dialogues, combats, and puzzles.
>
> I`ve got no problem with taking the time - as long as it`s not dice
> rolling time. When you have 6 players sitting around a table all trying
> to get their "turn" in - no-one really wants to hear a blow by blow,
> feint by feint, breath by breath, (every 6 seconds) description of each
> others melee plans.
Then why complain about the time. Are time spend and the use of dice
confusingly similar concepts? Again I have to ask, how do you actually run
combats?
> DM: (rolling a d20 twice behind the screen of fear and ignorance)
You seem to have issues. Perhaps the the DM should just e-mail his notes
over to his players, make sure the planned adventure meets their
expectations?
> I didn`t say *any* player and *any* DM, I said if you had GOOD DM and
> GOOD players. [...]
>
> I don`t think that your metaphor really works.
> A car that breaks down constantly [...]
Its too bad that you bother with such jalopies. Don`t do that. Select a
car that has the basic qualities of "car-ness". You know, moves you from
here to there reliably. I`ve gone to vacations in a ford escort and a new
saturn. In terms of just the car, very different vehicles. Price alone
reveals how the market demands both vehicles. The vacations were not
effected by the car. Of course we had the foresight to select a car capable
of making the trip. I`ll also point out, since the glaringly obvious is not
always so obvious, D&D is a gigantic success. Its not the jalopy you claim
it to be. It may be a ford escort, rather than a saturn or lexus, but as I
said, the vacation shouldn`t take place in the car. The fun is on the
beach, in the resturant, at the sights and attractions.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks