Ah, I use '?' as a general, direct inquiry on the subject matter quoted, indicated a lack of knowledge on it. So it would be a question about 'Dashiell Hamet'.

Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashiell_Hammett

on that note, you should probably also have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Chandler


If you haven't read these guys, you are in for a treat. Just about any book store or library is going to have some work form both of them- if not in the mystery section, in the lit section.

Yeah, I'm considering it.

I don't know about majority, but anyone who claims that there is no room for interesting stories and characterization in D&D and it's all about killing monsters and taking their stuff needs to spend some time at my table.

Quote from: jgants;306766My CoC games run similar as well.  As I always say, my CoC games much more resemble Dashiell Hammet stories than Lovecraft ones.

Can I play in your game?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;306786I don't know about majority, but anyone who claims that there is no room for interesting stories and characterization in D&D and it's all about killing monsters and taking their stuff needs to spend some time at my table.

Why not both?

(And even though you don't, there are plenty of those who state that there is no room for killing things and taking their stuff if you want interesting stories and characterization.)

Quote from: Old Geezer;306791Why not both?

Oh, I never said that killing their monsters and taking their stuff didn't happen in my game. But that wasn't the all too commonly parroted wrongness I was refuting.

I don't think this phenomenon is limited to Exalted. I've run across several bizarro statements that tell me that the person may have read the game rules, but hasn't actually used them in play.

d20 Traveller for example, when you read the combat section and its Lifeblood rules they seem kind of confusing, except when you use them in play they work smoothly. I've seen some commentary difference with that between online and real world.

Every time I hear someone whine about the GM needs to have limits on their power in a game, it strikes me as someone who has read a lot of forum talk about gaming but has yet to have extensive actual play time. Why? Because when they refer to stories of GMs being dicks, it has been my experience that asshole GMs don't have Players for long because the Players will leave the game - thus making it a self-correcting problem.

I'll comment more later on.

Quote from: Old Geezer;306791Why not both?

(And even though you don't, there are plenty of those who state that there is no room for killing things and taking their stuff if you want interesting stories and characterization.)

Indeed! One of my most intense characterizations was a wizard in a typical D&D adventure game.

He was Neutral Good, an Elven Wizard, liked architecture...And had a cold, cruel side and was noticably racist towards culturally-disliked races. One of the scenes (Spontaneous, I might add), involved mental torture of a captured goblin on the off chance he had information.

And yes, enemies were there to be killed and looted and combat was half (Or more) of the game.

I don't pop over RPG.net too often these days so I'm curious: what the hell do RPG.netters say Exalted is like?
What about other games, for that matter?

Well, there were so many Exalted threads that disolved in flames, they had to institute rules that you couldn't do that in appropriately-marked threads.

I didn't pay attention to the arguments, however, finding flame-threads either amusing, boring, innane and/or repetitious. Three to one means I rarely even glance at them.
So, I couldn't tell you what that was about. You can always ask Pundit; you're sure to get an opinion. Generally an interesting one, amusingly-phrased. Wether it'll be correct is a matter of much debate, it seems.

You want to know?  Hit up Google for "Jon Chung"; he's the guy that's most notorious for breaking the game, and then showing how he did it- and then explaining why this is a bad thing in terms of setting logic.

Tried Google - Stuff that wasn't about RPGs and stuff about Jon Chung. Link, please?

Narf, BC explained the basic thrust of Jon Chung quite well so looking up individual threads is not necessary. The typical counterresponse however needs to be mentioned. Essentially, it's "LOL, it doesn't matter!" Seeing how I believe that rules should support the setting, I find the respondants (which includes various freelancers who were paid for fucking up) very irritating.

Anyway, the majority of the D&D campaigns I have experienced were along these lines...

A) A low-magic picaresque like The Adventures of A Simpleton
B) A multi-book fantasy epic like The Wheel of Time
C) The first part of Clockwork Orange in fantasy drag

The various campaigns where elements were derived solely from the logical consequences of the rulesets were the tiniest minority but I found them the most fun.

*Sigh* I cannot evaluate the effectiveness of Jon Chungs' evaluations without seeing them. I did not find them on google, so I asked for a link.

If I had thought Bradfords' explanation sufficient, I would not have asked for source.