John Kretzer wrote: Those 'fiddly bits' as you call them are often the difference between telling people what your character is instead of actually showing them what your character is. Derailing: How much of this should be done in play rather than adding complexity? I doubt there is an answer here we could all agree to. I guess the often heard argument that universal systems don't do a particular genre justice grates on my nerves. I don't see the need for additional mechanics to make up for weak narrative.
I find Mutants & Masterminds to be a slightly more rules lite version of Hero System. 2nd edition will be very familiar to anyone with experience with D20 products. I have run a couple non-Supers one shots with it. It is very cinematic, so if you are looking for gritty realism, G.U.R.P.S. is your better bet.
Dalgar the Great wrote: Honestly, I've taught my little sisters to game and Pathfinder is hard for that, at least for me. I've been introducing younger kids to RPGs through FATE (sometimes accelerated edition sometimes CORE) and then graduating them to Pathfinder after a few adventures. I'm not saying you CAN'T teach your daughter through PF, I've just had more success with FATE. Entire way good luck with the little one :D I agree that Pathfinder has a steeper learning curve. A rules light system that is not Class based would probably be a lot easier for kids to pick up and less work trying to stuff beloved characters into rigid archtypes.
I believe some of Killer Shrike's (killershrike.com) proposals for Magic using the Hero System could be ported into M&M with a little effort. I have never been happy with the Enchanter and Ritualist approach either. Also, are you familiar with prodigyduck's spell list conversion?
Fate/Fate Accelerated Edition: If you want to focus more on story and less on crunchy mechanics. Character creation is wide open. G.U.R.P.S.: If you want some serious Simulationist fun. Plenty of supplements for Science Fiction settings. Hero: Crunchy system that allows for just about anything. Some support of Science Fiction settings. None of these systems come with a pre-fabricated setting. All three can handle Psionics without collapsing into a heap of unfun. I would not recommend G.U.R.P.S. or Hero for a one off campaign. There is a high learning curve that is a hard sell for a one time thing. Both systems are better tailored to being consistent playing platforms across multiple genres. If you are going to learn them, you might as well use them again and again.
I prefer 2e. I find the changes in Characteristics counter-intuitive. Powers moved even more towards Champions/Hero which makes them even more versatile but at added complexity. For me, the deciding factor is that 3e has even less granularity than 2e. It is a solid system, but if you like 2e I see no reason to 'upgrade'
Old Man Henderson wrote:
There's never just one.
For me, cheating is a betrayal of trust. I do not particularly want to game with anyone I cannot trust at least enough not to cheat on game that is supposed to be fun for everyone. Disruptiveness is a little more gray. Your game, your rules. If your friend wants to run a 2e game, bully for him. At your table, you get to decide the rules.
One way to help alleviate the 'I have no idea how to respond to your idea' problem is to ask the player flat out what they hope to achieve. Using the octopus example, was it meant as a distraction? An obstacle? Did the player actually expect it to be able to attack the bandits? Stalling gives you more time to think. Better understanding the player's desire may reveal the idea was not as crazy as originally thought. You may be able to tailor a result similar to the player's desired effect without breaking versimulitude. The octopuses wild, frantic thrashing knocks down two of the bandits while the others stare in disbelief. Ninja Boy fails to leap over the heads of his foes, but does manage to careen into two of them, knocking them to the ground. Also, failure does not necessarily mean failure due to lack of skill. An unexpected variable crops up that causes the failure that otherwise would have been a sure thing. A skilled climber fails a climbing check because the wind kicks dust into his eyes. An expert juggler fails a Performance check because a small boy accidentally bumps into him. I do not think poor rolls should necessarily make the PC look foolish. Unless you want comedic relief. |