The Back Room

[Corvus]

Personally, I would agree that FATE seems like a fairly good system for the Tavern, though the Savage Worlds system (The official basic overview of the rules: Savage Worlds: Test Drive V6) is another potential option.

[Earth]

To MAther: I'm not suggestion a game of Homstuck.. Unless there are so many people who want to play it that we have to. But something made with Skaia's system of personalizing each session.

[Grim_]

There's the spirit of the century srd, which is fairly similar to the ruleset that I am most familiar with, that is to say the dresden files rpg (also FATE based).

 

http://www.faterpg.com/dl/

(The various spirit of the century srds are under FATE 3.0).

[The_Mather1]

I know, I was aiming for the "Figure out a game that combines everyone's interests," part. Currently the only game I am taking part in is Dream Ender because I would rather be submit to torture than playing DnD.

 

Which brings me to another point, what the hell is all of this DnD [cabbage] doing in the Tavern anyways? If you really need it here, request a sub-forum, the Tavern is for soft-roleplay, not tabletop-geek-games. DnD is not a soft-rp game, it's the socially awkward bastard of dice games and trading card games with a dash of cosplaying in some cases.

[Earth]

I think it's fine here so l.. Well we get into Rip-Roaring arguments all the time so that's not the point. Egh. We can live with it.

[Grim_]

And I would suppose dungeoneering and the like (which as I recall you participated in without complaint) are so much better? If you're pissed off at the lack of soft roleplaying games out here in the tavern I have a simple solution for you; run one yourself, or stop complaining.

[The_Mather1]

Whenever I try to run one, it only lasts for an hour before everyone loses hope of it (see BC-302). And yes they are, because in those our characters aren't created from paramethers and we're free to do whatever we want, as if we were our characters, not just some divine will guiding them. Tell me the last time someone could make armour out of rock, make a city out of a mountain, distort their face into a sight of horror or just simply pick their nose in DnD. DnD isn't roleplay, it's like a text based interactive RPG, sure you say what your character does, but you can only do so within certain paramethers, there is no real freedom.

[Corvus]

Yeah, if you are really desperate for running a non rules based RP, go ahead and start one, its just that they have a habit of dieing, like the last rules free RPG that I remeber died on page 1. Really the only reason I didn't start one personally is that the Tavern tends to descend into competition and Rules free games require compromise to work, which does not happen like the entire superconductor physics incident, so it would end up getting bogged down in those issues. As has been stated over and over for better or worse: The tavern plays and discusses what the tavern likes even if it should be elsewhere.

[Earth]

Exactly. Also I tried several times to runs tuff. It failed because either I was a bad mod, didn't set the rules well enough for the Tavern, or just didn't have the time. You need to do all tht (DON'T BE A BAD MOD) in order for a game like thatto work.

[Grim_]

You are not you and neither are you some divine will guiding your character, the whole point of role playing is to put yourself in the position of the character, who will generally have some rather large differences from you (Ex Juan the Gangster wizard, Salvador Malvora psychic vampire, KROMGOL barbarian, etc.). You don't see rules for most of those things in DnD (which incidentally probably shouldn't be the gold standard) because you don't need rules for everything. That and sculpting cities takes a fairly large amount of power (if you're not going to use slave labor, but that's a whole different ball game).

[The_Mather1]

Earth, which of those were in your opinion missing from BC-304? Because as I can remember it most certainly wasn't time, I set of an entire weekend so that I could host a 24-hour session if there was enough activity, no one joined during that time.

 

Wyvren, Grim, would you not say in DnD "You can't do that because" X can only Y..." is a common responce to attempting the impossible? Whereas in a dungeoneering game "You fail, X-ing your Y in the process, you think it would be unwise to try that again." would be a common responce. Which of them makes most sence, the voice in your head or learning through failing?

 

Also in a DnD you either can or can't, trial and error is not a way to learn new skills. You can only learn when you lvl up or if you're incredibly lucky. In a dungeoneering game you can teach yourself, probably sustaining a few injuries in the process but you can still go from oblivious to master without a single kill or text with the good ol' fashion "magic" of practice and perfection.

 

Neither are perfect, but at least in a dungeoneering game the GM is miss fortuna rather than god allmighty and the rules are written in paper, ready to be bent rather than out of stone and to be carried out with strict precission.

[Alg]

You are not you and neither are you some divine will guiding your character, the whole point of role playing is to put yourself in the position of the character, who will generally have some rather large differences from you (Ex Juan the Gangster wizard, Salvador Malvora psychic vampire, KROMGOL barbarian, etc.). You don't see rules for most of those things in DnD (which incidentally probably shouldn't be the gold standard) because you don't need rules for everything. That and sculpting cities takes a fairly large amount of power (if you're not going to use slave labor, but that's a whole different ball game).

Part of it might be that it's too easy to think of a character as a set of numbers within a set of rules. Having your character act like a normal person just isn't as exciting in a setting full of superpowered monsters. It's probably justifiable the same way that Jack Bauer never having to pee in 24 is.

 

Though with the Tavern, it's also likely that we spend more time arguing about both sides of powergaming and what we can or can't get away with than actually playing. That might discourage a would-be GM from starting a new game :razz: Not the fault of anyone in particular, seems that powergaming in general is far more rewarding than roleplaying.

[archimage_a]

Retech:

[hide]

 

Player A: Hey Homie!

Player B: Sup dawg

Player A: Hey, I want a *insert race + random class* that can *ability X, Y, Z*

Player B: Yeah, we can make that work. Why not try a *insert classes here* of the *archetype*?

Player A: How about *ability Z*?

Player B: Oh yeah, I'm not sure you can do that with the class you chose, but if you multiclass into *insert class*, then you could probably do that with *insert feat*

Player A: Sounds cool

Player B: Chill with ya lateeeer

 

I don't see any imbalance here.

Except, you know, where you and Wyvern descend into a rules debate...like you did with Nex's Crab idea.

 

 

Or where we have:

An anti-human zealot who flies around with a musket, who's goal is to establish a colony for her people in the middle of Human Land.

An undead hoard controlled by a ghost, who's goal is world domination.

A Lawful Good Monk with a Mace, who's goal is to build a kingdom.

A Chaotic Good Monk with a bladed scarf, who's goal is to become a spherewalker.

A Cleric, who's goal is to dispel the ghost.

 

With absolutely no common ground between them, trying to function as a group.

 

 

2. Like you do all the time? I was making a critique of your suggestions, which is what people generally do when one posts something in the back room.

Aye, but you aren't suggesting a workable alternative.

I have no problem with critics...I have a problem with people who stand on the sidelines and shout 'YOUR DOING IT WRONG'

 

3. I think you're mischaracterizing their positions. I believe it was to make reasonable characters, not pregens. (At least, if I remember from the last time we brought this up).

I believe MY point was that THEIR Reasonable Characters don't include YOUR characters.

THEIR point has nothing to do with Pre-Gens, and was never implied as such.

 

 

I am not agreeing with either side. I am saying that one side needs to give some ground.

 

 

 

As an addendum...I would have no problem with your suggested idea of User-Mod collaboration...I just have very little faith in the Tavern's ability to create characters that are mildly relatable to each other, or of similar capabilities.

Hence why it would better, in my opinion, for people to choose from a list.

[/hide]

 

 

That might discourage a would-be GM from starting a new game. Not the fault of anyone in particular, seems that powergaming in general is far more rewarding than roleplaying.

This.

 

 

 

If someone wants to run a game then you have my full support.

 

If no one wants to run a game then I suggest we ask Wyvern, since he has said he is willing to run a game if we ask him to be our GM.

[Grim_]

Earth, which of those were in your opinion missing from BC-304? Because as I can remember it most certainly wasn't time, I set of an entire weekend so that I could host a 24-hour session if there was enough activity, no one joined during that time.

 

Wyvren, Grim, would you not say in DnD "You can't do that because" X can only Y..." is a common responce to attempting the impossible? Whereas in a dungeoneering game "You fail, X-ing your Y in the process, you think it would be unwise to try that again." would be a common responce. Which of them makes most sence, the voice in your head or learning through failing?

 

Also in a DnD you either can or can't, trial and error is not a way to learn new skills. You can only learn when you lvl up or if you're incredibly lucky. In a dungeoneering game you can teach yourself, probably sustaining a few injuries in the process but you can still go from oblivious to master without a single kill or text with the good ol' fashion "magic" of practice and perfection.

 

Neither are perfect, but at least in a dungeoneering game the GM is miss fortuna rather than god allmighty and the rules are written in paper, ready to be bent rather than out of stone and to be carried out with strict precission.

Have you actually read through any of the rule books? If you attempt to do the impossible you will fail. The impossible obviously changes in relation towards your power level. I will agree that the experience and skills system in the later additions of DnD are flawed, however your example is hardly much better, in general you will learn something faster, more efficiently and more completely with some sort of guidance. In dungeoneering the GM could do whatever the hell they wanted within the framework of the rules because the rules set was never shown to the players (at least to my knowledge there wasn't one) and it ran on the GM's total whim. At least with an existing and known ruleset you have some insulation towards GM [bleep]ery (not total, that much I can guarantee).

 

EDIT: Another option would be to go the classic gygaxian murder-hobo adventurer route and create a mildly homogeneous party of mercs who can't stand an honest days work.

[The_Mather1]

Rules aren't really neccessary, only my games have had any rules and that's mostly anti-idiocy, to avoid people working against eachother/the game just because they want to.

[Alg]

Rules aren't really neccessary, only my games have had any rules and that's mostly anti-idiocy, to avoid people working against eachother/the game just because they want to.

The thing with D&D-type games is that what the GM says often trumps what the rules say. If a player does something that's completely within the rules but a gamebreaker, a GM could deny it. In that sense the rules are more of a template that a GM can use to build his/her own setting.

You've seen Lynx do that kind of thing in DE, for example. Archi does it in Space, too, though with more subtlety and often a healthy dose of snark.

[The_Mather1]

DE and Space are Dungeoneering style, not DnD.

[Retech]

I think you should probably learn a bit more about DnD before you make some judgements about it. If you have a good grasp on it, you can basically build ANY kind of character that you want. As long as you view class as purely mechanics and not actually roleplaying, you can do it. I'm sure between all of us, we can come up with a character that can do everything that you want in a character.

 

Archi:

 

Lots of DnD games are with completely unrelated characters that are undertaking a common quest. Usually, as long as the GM provides a common goal in advance, everyone can write a backstory about that.

 

And monks can't be chaotic. :P

[Icuownage]

Has anyone played Deus Ex before?

 

I was thinking of starting a game with a similar system to that, except for that is a single player game and I'm not sure how it would work in multiplayer.

[Jehosaphat]

So much arguing about arguing about (arguing about?) games, so few games.

 

I would start one, but mine all inevitably die for one reason or another. Probably because I have a tendency to make [cabbage] up as I go along...

[archimage_a]

Deus Ex is rather good. Only played the first two, haven't got the new one yet.

 

 

To Retech:

Lots of DnD games are with completely unrelated characters that are undertaking a common quest

Indeed they are.

However its like Ico's game...where there is a common quest, which was totally ignored in favour of killing everyone in two towns.

 

Usually, as long as the GM provides a common goal in advance, everyone can write a backstory about that.

Another problem is that a GM says:

'Ok, what setting do you want?'

Which cues the players to create a character with no regard for setting.

 

And monks can't be chaotic.

They were all characters that have been suggested to me, with the exception of the first, which was made by me =P

 

 

In short:

Discussion hurts the game.

GM needs to just create a game, create a main quest, explain the quest, explain any detail about the world.

The players then need to read(Oh the pain, oh the pain of it all) the information provided, and create characters that fit the setting.

 

 

Probably because I have a tendency to make [cabbage] up as I go along...

Don't we all? :shades:

[Nexaduro]

I agree with Archi.

 

And it wasn't a Monk! It was a Bard/Fighter multiclass!

[archimage_a]

...

The classes all seem to merge together.

Monk-Chanting and hitting stuff

Bard/Fighter-Chanting and hitting stuff

 

 

:rolleyes:

[Jehosaphat]

Probably because I have a tendency to make [cabbage] up as I go along...

Don't we all? :shades:

Yes, but that is pretty much literally all I do. Tiny amounts of preplanning to make sure I don't have plotholes, then random bullcrap for however long the session lasts. It gets old after a while.

 

Although I might revive Tavern the RTD, but put in a player-number restriction so I don't end up waiting for someone to post.

[archimage_a]

Yes, but that is pretty much literally all I do. Tiny amounts of preplanning to make sure I don't have plotholes, then random bullcrap for however long the session lasts. It gets old after a while.

Pretty much what all of us do.

 

One of the reasons Dungeoneering was so successful is that players came up with 99% of the bullcrap, the mod just responded.