Not every game is about going off and fighting things.
No, but D&D/PF overwhelmingly IS about those things. There are hundreds of pages of rules detailing how to kill things, poison them, burn them to death, or shoot them with arrows. There's like one page of half-rules on how to interact with them socially.
If instead of going off and fighting things, you'd rather intercept secret codes, seduce femmes fatales, and maybe foil plans to nuke New York -- then the James Bond 007 game is about 437 trillion times better than D&D/PF. If you'd rather hack computer systems, pull off impossible heists, and blackmail dragons, then Shadowrun is far, far superior to D&D/PF. If you want to kill monsters and take their stuff, then D&D/PF still rules.
And you don't have to resort to overexagerated examples.
Are you kidding? I've actually DONE that. Only we didn't even bother stating levels, so my example is understated, if anything.
Totally off-topic, and no offense intended, but I'm always interested to see people use "overexaggerate" in scolding someone else for the perceived use of exaggeration. Given that the word "exaggerate" itself already imples overstating reality, to say "overexaggerate" is to employ a slang term which does exactly what you're telling the other person not to do.
|
That's ironic. When I refer to the imbalanced games I ran, I generally think of all the Rifts and Heroes Unlimited games.
If you take mutant humans from TMNT, devolve them completely and buy back compensating super powers, class them as Agents from HU, select a re-class of agent from N&S - selecting a martial art in the process, and then convert them to RIFTS then you're right where me and all my friends were in high school. Totally been there, done that.
The dragon wouldn't be able to contribute in the infiltration of a Coalition States outpost (the psi-stalkers & dog boys'll sniff him out from half a mile away, literally!), where the Vagabond could blend in perfectly. This isn't contrived at all in my mind; it's part of the setting itself.
The dragon is a MD creature where the Vagabond can't even afford the armor. Situationals aside, the comparison is absurd. The game becomes something far more arbitrary than Pathfinder's typical setting to compensate for these issues, and while it can be fun, I prefer the latter.
He was still technically "overshadowed" by the planet-destroying demon mage and power armored super soldier, but it was easy to give everyone some very satisfying challenges. He just found different ways to shine.
When a system has a semblance of balance, no one has to try very hard to shine. They can spend their energy on other things, because the designers put the shine in beforehand. Think of it as efficiency!
|
|
Not every game is about going off and fighting things.No, but D&D/PF overwhelmingly IS about those things. There are hundreds of pages of rules detailing how to kill things, poison them, burn them to death, or shoot them with arrows. There's like one page of half-rules on how to interact with them socially.
If instead of going off and fighting things, you'd rather intercept secret codes, seduce femmes fatales, and maybe foil plans to nuke New York -- then the James Bond 007 game is about 437 trillion times better than D&D/PF. If you'd rather hack computer systems, pull off impossible heists, and blackmail dragons, then Shadowrun is far, far superior to D&D/PF. If you want to kill monsters and take their stuff, then D&D/PF still rules.
I think it's worth noting that these other systems evolved as competitors to D&D. Remember, it was Arneson's idea to have the wargame generals go exploring the castle instead of laying siege to it. That's where it started, and very much a part of what we play today. Shadowrun had to evolve in the shadow of that great idea. They had to find a market differentiator, or they wouldn't have been relevant enough to discuss here.
I do, though, wonder if those other games might have been more balanced if they had the same 'blue ocean' opportunity that Arneson and Gygax had. I think so. I really, honestly believe that the open and skewed format required to make everyone shine makes for a weaker game system.
I, for one, run wildly imbalanced games. When I design a game, I ignore balance, because I know thatBalance, true balance, is a ghost you can chase but never catch. Balance does not make a game inherently better. Any GM/DM worth his or her salt knows how to make an imbalanced game fun for all participants.
That said, I instead aim for the narrative and the fun. It often ends up leading to power games, which is like a bad addiction for me, but ~shrug~ meh.
So uh, "Balance is impossible, balance is bad, and good DMs should be balancing the game on their own."
You don't see the problem here?
Not every game is about going off and fighting things.No, but D&D/PF overwhelmingly IS about those things. There are hundreds of pages of rules detailing how to kill things, poison them, burn them to death, or shoot them with arrows. There's like one page of half-rules on how to interact with them socially.
If instead of going off and fighting things, you'd rather intercept secret codes, seduce femmes fatales, and maybe foil plans to nuke New York -- then the James Bond 007 game is about 437 trillion times better than D&D/PF. If you'd rather hack computer systems, pull off impossible heists, and blackmail dragons, then Shadowrun is far, far superior to D&D/PF. If you want to kill monsters and take their stuff, then D&D/PF still rules.
And you don't have to resort to overexagerated examples.Are you kidding? I've actually DONE that. Only we didn't even bother stating levels, so my example is understated, if anything.
You can go through entire sessions in Pathfinder without combat. Combat is only one part of the system. There is not alot about the role playing section in the rules because players (and the GM) will conduct that on their own. A huge problem with a large number of players now is that combat is the only way they can see a solution to their problems or become so bogged down with it that they cannot see its limitations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a great space opera with mecha (which could easily be a manga/anime series) I love Jovian Chronicles by DP9, and even Heavy Gear by the same company. They pick a genre, have a nice mechanics system with cinematic optional rules, and make it work very well.
My favorite for that is Mekton Zeta. Flexible game, great rules for constructing mecha / vehicles and scaling the vehicles for everything from something the size of a motorcycle to a planet. I ran a Star Wars game with it once. The scaling allowed you to do everything from TIE fighters to the Death Star and the Anime type characters fit very well into the Star Wars universe...
Not every game is about going off and fighting things.No, but D&D/PF overwhelmingly IS about those things. There are hundreds of pages of rules detailing how to kill things, poison them, burn them to death, or shoot them with arrows. There's like one page of half-rules on how to interact with them socially.
If instead of going off and fighting things, you'd rather intercept secret codes, seduce femmes fatales, and maybe foil plans to nuke New York -- then the James Bond 007 game is about 437 trillion times better than D&D/PF. If you'd rather hack computer systems, pull off impossible heists, and blackmail dragons, then Shadowrun is far, far superior to D&D/PF. If you want to kill monsters and take their stuff, then D&D/PF still rules.
I think it's worth noting that these other systems evolved as competitors to D&D. Remember, it was Arneson's idea to have the wargame generals go exploring the castle instead of laying siege to it. That's where it started, and very much a part of what we play today. Shadowrun had to evolve in the shadow of that great idea. They had to find a market differentiator, or they wouldn't have been relevant enough to discuss here.
I do, though, wonder if those other games might have been more balanced if they had the same 'blue ocean' opportunity that Arneson and Gygax had. I think so. I really, honestly believe that the open and skewed format required to make everyone shine makes for a weaker game system.
You know, far more systems evolved as a backlash against the ridgid structure of d&d to allow players to play more open ended games.
I think my favorite system is the most basic homebrew I have seen.
Every player has x points. Skills cost points equal to the number you want to raise to (so 6 points for lvl 3). Players write the name of any skill they want on their character sheet, and pay points for it.
Its compeltely ballanced and it gets players to play exactly what they want, giving the GM valuable information on what players want to see in the game in the process.
Fall damage maxes out at 20d6. 70 points of damage on average, maximum 120. High-level characters will hit the ground, get up, dust themselves off, beat up an army and go find a cleric for the little boo boo they have.
Skydiving without a parachute (!!!).
But didn`t whatever you land on take as much damage?
Are we about to create and advancment in fantasy siege warfare?
Wait, OotS did it first.
Yawar
Did anybody bring up yet the Book of Weaboo Fightan Wuxia Magic Profanation of Pure, Cherished Pseudo-medieval Fantasy also known as Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords?
Book of Weaboo Fightan Wuxia Magic Profanation of Pure, Cherished Pseudo-medieval Fantasy
That has got to be the best book name I have ever heard.
Not every game is about going off and fighting things.No, but D&D/PF overwhelmingly IS about those things. There are hundreds of pages of rules detailing how to kill things, poison them, burn them to death, or shoot them with arrows. There's like one page of half-rules on how to interact with them socially.
If instead of going off and fighting things, you'd rather intercept secret codes, seduce femmes fatales, and maybe foil plans to nuke New York -- then the James Bond 007 game is about 437 trillion times better than D&D/PF. If you'd rather hack computer systems, pull off impossible heists, and blackmail dragons, then Shadowrun is far, far superior to D&D/PF. If you want to kill monsters and take their stuff, then D&D/PF still rules.
And you don't have to resort to overexagerated examples.Are you kidding? I've actually DONE that. Only we didn't even bother stating levels, so my example is understated, if anything.
You have never played in one my games I run a 60/40 social to combat for the most part your skills are more important than general ass-whuppin.
You have never played in one my games I run a 60/40 social to combat for the most part your skills are more important than general ass-whuppin.
That's what I prefer, too, but D&D/PF sucks at it. Skill-based systems like Victory Games 007 rules are a LOT better for it.
I think my favorite system is the most basic homebrew I have seen. Every player has x points. Skills cost points equal to the number you want to raise to (so 6 points for lvl 3). Players write the name of any skill they want on their character sheet, and pay points for it.
That sounds like the classless, a-la-carte rules I wrote for Pathfinder -- someone put a PDF of them up somewhere. That kind of system is my favorite by a very wide margin, but it's hard to find player willing to try it.
I think my favorite system is the most basic homebrew I have seen. Every player has x points. Skills cost points equal to the number you want to raise to (so 6 points for lvl 3). Players write the name of any skill they want on their character sheet, and pay points for it.That sounds like the classless, a-la-carte rules I wrote for Pathfinder -- someone put a PDF of them up somewhere. That kind of system is my favorite by a very wide margin, but it's hard to find player willing to try it.
When I was in college it was very popular there. A couple good GMs in the club ran very loose systems like it (each with their own modifications), so people got used every game having unique, wierd mechanics. It helped that most of us were interested in game design.
I removed some posts. Less name-calling, please.