Monte Cook on modularity


4th Edition

351 to 358 of 358 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Paranoia was such a fun game....the computer made me say this...the computer is your friend. The computer helps you, guides you, contr... corrects you.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Correct the smart players were playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying (1e) by the time 2e AD&D had come out...
The "smarter players" were still playing 1e AD&D. :)

I think it may be partly philosophical at this point.

1e AD&D = Life is hard, but if I work hard I'll become mighty!

1e Warhammer FRP = Life is hard, and hopefully I'll die before I get dismembered.

Hmmmmm, think this may be an insight the US vs UK view of existence?

S.

Psah...the fun games were Rolemaster. AD&D on CRACK!!!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

C'mon guys - RuneQuest.

Though RM (and MERP) was fun - my character once bit off his own tongue and swallowed it following a fumble.

Scarab Sages

Sebastrd wrote:
I've played a 4E character (an Avenger) in a 3E game, and it worked out fine. I'm very curious to see what happens with 5E.

How did that work?

Was this something the whole group was supportive of, ie no envy that one player getting special treatment, or that the in-party balance had been tilted?

Was this some kind of experiment by the GM, in the sense of "We'll see how this goes, and scrap it if it gets clunky.", or was it presented as "My game, my campaign, my rules, don't like it, there's the door."

Did you actually play by different rules than everyone else?
Or did the different rules only apply to the character generation time, then everyone was let out the gate under the same assumptions?

The latter is the real meat of this issue; I can't see how a group of players can play, using different rules for each participant.
How does the GM reconcile that the opponents would soon realise that running past '3E guy' resulted in an Attack of Opportunity, but running past 'BECMI guy' or '2E guy' didn't?

Does 'BECMI guy' get constantly forbidden from doing anything, because "you don't have the feat for that", or does he get a free pass to do cool stuff, because he's playing BECMI, where we were never restricted by needless feats?


Snorter wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:
I've played a 4E character (an Avenger) in a 3E game, and it worked out fine. I'm very curious to see what happens with 5E.
How did that work?

I got invited to a game, and the DM wanted to run 3.5 because that's what he was familiar with. I wasn't interested in playing a 3.5 character again, so he let me bring my 4E guy.

Except where the 4E rules were explicitly different, I basically played by the same rules as everyone else, which was kind of my point. The systems are so similar that it worked out fine. I'm sure at some point the numbers diverge enough to become noticeable, but it didn't for our game.

That being the case, I can easily see a scenario in which you have someone playing a 2E-style character, someone playing a 3E-style character, and someone playing a 4E-style character, all built on the same mathematical base, all playing at the same table.

Scarab Sages

Sebastrd wrote:

I wasn't interested in playing a 3.5 character again, so he let me bring my 4E guy.

Except where the 4E rules were explicitly different, I basically played by the same rules as everyone else, which was kind of my point.

That's what I was expecting.

I'm rather worried that some people are getting their hopes unrealistically pumped up, that they will be able to join a game where every one is playing the 'feel' and complexity they want, simultaneously, rather than everyone discussing what kind of game they like, then coming to a consensus, re what will actually be run.

Which is no different from what we already do.


Snorter wrote:

That's what I was expecting.

I'm rather worried that some people are getting their hopes unrealistically pumped up, that they will be able to join a game where every one is playing the 'feel' and complexity they want, simultaneously...

You may have misunderstood me, then, because that's exactly what I think my experience showed is possible.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Correct the smart players were playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying (1e) by the time 2e AD&D had come out...
The "smarter players" were still playing 1e AD&D. :)

I think it may be partly philosophical at this point.

1e AD&D = Life is hard, but if I work hard I'll become mighty!

1e Warhammer FRP = Life is hard, and hopefully I'll die before I get dismembered.

Hmmmmm, think this may be an insight the US vs UK view of existence?

S.

Dragon Warriors would seem to trend closer to WFRP than AD&D, and that's certainly UK.

On the other hand, Call of Cthulhu is US, and rather on the nasty side of outcomes for PCs.

351 to 358 of 358 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Monte Cook on modularity All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition