Quote from: Benoist;402343What happened to the stuff outside game mechanics? Actual role playing isn't nice enough? Doing actual tactical stuff by using your brains isn't nice enough? Solving problems isn't nice enough? Does your GM suck that bad that the game is the rules, and the rules are the game?

I really don't get this obsession over "getting nice things", meaning, "getting perks in the rules is all that matters. If I don't get a character mechanically just as powerful as the next guy, this game sucks."

I just don't get it. Are you playing role playing games? :confused:

Okay Benoist...here's the thing:

It's not as though I completely disagree with you...there is a reason that I play tabletop RPG's rather than videogames. The human elements, such as those you pointed out in your 1st paragraph cannot be replaced by a computer...and these things will inevitably be present in any game that is run by a human gamemaster. This may be anecdotal, but I have yet to encounter a single DM who is so slavishly devoted to the rules that they cannot improvise when needed.

On the otherside however, having mechanical quirks that differentiate my character from others is important to me and a lot of players out there. The thing is that having a greater number of character options on paper doesn't necessarily preclude creative problem solving...I've seen it happen in many games, from WHFRP to D&D 3/4E, to Shadowrun.

Say that you and your friends play some generic fantasy game...call it "Realms of Peril" or something. All it offers is a half dozen basic classes and a few races but other than that everything is bare bones...no skill system, no feats or edges or talents, no kits...just straight swinging a sword for 20 levels. Now you and your friends think that this game is the best thing since TiVO not for what it includes, but for what it doesn't, precisely because you are free to houserule or make impromptu rulings on anything that comes up...so the game offers, to you, limitless potential.

Now take me...your average gamer looking for something new at his FLGS. I look through the exact same game text, without the benefit of knowing your groups houserules or playstyle. All I have to go on is what is written in the book, so from my perspective the game is seriously lacking in compelling content. And afterall, I'm just as capable of roleplaying an interesting character with a detailed backstory and a bunch of idiosyncratic quirks in GURPS or Hero as I am in OD&D, so naturally I'm going to go for the game that offers me the level of character options that I want.

Quote from: Benoist;402354I agree too, by the way. Thematically speaking, a steampunk game using WFRP2 rules could be cool.

Personally I would rather see a steampunk re-skin of Shadowrun.

Awww shit...now I'm remember Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura...

And now the wheels have started spinning and they will not be satisfied unless I write : (

Quote from: Shazbot79;402601On the otherside however, having mechanical quirks that differentiate my character from others is important to me and a lot of players out there. The thing is that having a greater number of character options on paper doesn't necessarily preclude creative problem solving...I've seen it happen in many games, from WHFRP to D&D 3/4E, to Shadowrun.

I've seen it happen too. I've seen the reverse happen as well, though: where more and more rules for some reason, in the minds of its players, precludes thinking too far outside the box. When you have less rules, it'll be somehow expected to improvise and formulate creative outside-the-box solutions to problems showing up in the games, while this will be seen as weird or "unfair" or "not proper playing/GMing" to think along these lines when the rules are extensive. I've seen it happen. I'm sure you have too.

Now, I'm alright with people who want character options. Really, I'm okay with it. I'd play Pathfinder, Rolemaster, Mythus happily too. I'm not especially pro-rules light. I like all sorts of game systems in different ways.

What I'm really disputing here is the idea that "fighting types in WFRP don't have anything to do" because they don't have perks in the rules. Look. I've played decades before 3rd ed started coming up with that kind of bullshit through its whole "game balance" crap. I've seen hundreds of people playing fighter types in AD&D and guess what? I've never, ever seen people bitch that they couldn't do anything, or that the guy next to them could do so much more because they played a wizard.

This is a bunch of whining bullshit. This is pure MYTH which, when you come down to it, comes from a bunch of pussies who just were never happy at their game tables, the kind of players we referred to at the time as WHINERS. Guys like you know. Skip Williams. (Ask Old Geezer about it)

Quote from: Benoist;402343I really don't get this obsession over "getting nice things", meaning, "getting perks in the rules is all that matters. If I don't get a character mechanically just as powerful as the next guy, this game sucks."

I just don't get it. Are you playing role playing games? :confused:

This is modern RPGing for most people.  Its not who your character IS, but WHAT THEY CAN DO MECHANICALLY.

Its always been there to a degree, but 3.0 D&D made it the defacto way to play.

Quote from: Captain Rufus;402623This is modern RPGing for most people.  Its not who your character IS, but WHAT THEY CAN DO MECHANICALLY.

Its always been there to a degree, but 3.0 D&D made it the defacto way to play.

Certainly looks like it. *nod*

Quote from: Captain Rufus;402623This is modern RPGing for most people.  Its not who your character IS, but WHAT THEY CAN DO MECHANICALLY.

Its always been there to a degree, but 3.0 D&D made it the defacto way to play.

Unfortunately I tend to agree... I'm tempted to blame CCGs and video games... but won't bother.

Quote from: Captain Rufus;402623This is modern RPGing for most people.  Its not who your character IS, but WHAT THEY CAN DO MECHANICALLY.

Its always been there to a degree, but 3.0 D&D made it the defacto way to play.

Agreed.

Quote from: B.T.;402497Yes, I am.  But combat for non-casters is really boring.

Casting spells takes a dump all over melees.  When a spellcaster can literally throw 10 fireballs in one round, there's a problem.  Yes, it comes with a risk, but the chances of getting a really bad Tzeentch's curse are pretty low.

And the reason that I say that WFRP 2e sucks is because of how shitty characters are and how shitty they remain unless you drastically improve their chances of success.  Starting with a 30% chance of succeeding on something?  That's just too low.  Especially in combat.  In my experience, combat goes whiff-whiff-hit-whiff-whiff-ULRIC'S FURY-the end.

Not this stupid line of argument again. :rolleyes:

That's not how the game plays out at all, in my experience. All I can say is that you're doing it wrong.

Thing is, there's tons of stuff for melee types to do during play.  Take a look at all the combat actions there are.

Our second career warrior (Shieldbreaker to Veteran) went toe to toe with a Judicial Champion for 20+ rounds and 45 minutes of real time.  The duel was gripping with lots of feints, defensive tactics, parries, etc being thrown around.  Eventually the Veteran admitted defeat, but it was a close call.

Melee characters have plenty to do.  It might not be as flashy as spells but it's there for the taking.  And a clean sword thrust will kill a caster just a easily as anyone else.

Edit: I'm also curious as to how a caster could throw 10 fireballs a round.

Quote from: Benoist;402605I've seen it happen too. I've seen the reverse happen as well, though: where more and more rules for some reason, in the minds of its players, precludes thinking too far outside the box. When you have less rules, it'll be somehow expected to improvise and formulate creative outside-the-box solutions to problems showing up in the games, while this will be seen as weird or "unfair" or "not proper playing/GMing" to think along these lines when the rules are extensive. I've seen it happen. I'm sure you have too.

I've seen GM's shoot down clever player ideas before, but only when they are overly adversarial or trying to keep PC's on rails...never because of a reliance on printed rules.

I can't speak for most games, but everyone of them that I've read, including games like latter editions of D&D, go out of their way to promote players thinking outside of the box...I believe that this is the rationale behind the "just say 'yes" bits in the 4E DMG...not to wrest control away from DM's, but to encourage and reward player ingenuity.

Quote from: Benoist;402605Now, I'm alright with people who want character options. Really, I'm okay with it. I'd play Pathfinder, Rolemaster, Mythus happily too. I'm not especially pro-rules light. I like all sorts of game systems in different ways.

I'm a fan of rules-lite...I like most of the game to remain behind the screen. My complaint with rules that are more dense is that gameplay can sound like people reciting reams of game mechanics, which is no fun for me.

That said, I like to have at least some form of mechanical quirks to individualize my character, so Bob the sword and gladius wielding hoplite looks different on paper than Charlie, the ball and chain swinging berserker.

Quote from: Benoist;402605What I'm really disputing here is the idea that "fighting types in WFRP don't have anything to do" because they don't have perks in the rules. Look. I've played decades before 3rd ed started coming up with that kind of bullshit through its whole "game balance" crap. I've seen hundreds of people playing fighter types in AD&D and guess what? I've never, ever seen people bitch that they couldn't do anything, or that the guy next to them could do so much more because they played a wizard.

Oh yeah...there's a bunch of stuff that melee fighters can do in WHFRP. Even the printed rules encourage tactical thinking and there are plenty of talents. Warhammer actually has just the right amount of character customization that I'm looking for in a game. It's my go-to for gritty, Black Company-esque fantasy, though typically I prefer the more cartoony nature of D&D action.

I still have fond memories of the time my compatriots in a Warhammer game got blitzed on an adventure one night, and my Kithband Warrior was left alone to face a rampaging Beastmen...guerilla tactics, coupled with lots of defensive fighting and one lucky double-ulric's fury were what ultimately saved my bacon.

Quote from: Benoist;402605This is a bunch of whining bullshit. This is pure MYTH which, when you come down to it, comes from a bunch of pussies who just were never happy at their game tables, the kind of players we referred to at the time as WHINERS. Guys like you know. Skip Williams. (Ask Old Geezer about it)

People like to have new toys for their character when they level-up...I don't think that this was a product of whining so much as a natural evolution of games. I started out playing a Fighter in 2nd Edition D&D...and I remember getting really excited when the DM grafted Rules Cyclopedia weapon mastery rules onto the system...even though I was keeping pace with the Cleric and Wizard.

*nod* I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with anything you say, except maybe on the part where later editions of D&D would encourage players thinking outside the box. I too have read the "just say yes" principle, and you do have a point there. I guess that's where we're reaching that discrepency again between what the rules are (the sheer size of the "box", and the minutia that is applied to its contents (rules), and the overt goal to create rules balance as if the game was so fragile it could break at any moment because a guy got a +3 bonus instead of +1) and what the game says (you should say "yes", think outside the box, and promote inventive problem solving).

If you're saying "yes", then you're rewarding indeed player ingenuity. Naturally, players are not as ingenuous as each other. They think differently. They are different persons. Ergo, some people at the game table will be able to think more outside the box than others. So the careful nitpicky balance of the rules in practice goes out the window, by which I mean, it's still there, but all mechanical things being equal, *actual* game balance isn't achieved, since creative players will have the edge.

There's a sort of bipolar disorder going on here. You see what I mean?

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;402658Not this stupid line of argument again. :rolleyes:

That's not how the game plays out at all, in my experience. All I can say is that you're doing it wrong.

So your rebuttal is UR DUMB

QuoteThing is, there's tons of stuff for melee types to do during play. Take a look at all the combat actions there are.

Our second career warrior (Shieldbreaker to Veteran) went toe to toe with a Judicial Champion for 20+ rounds and 45 minutes of real time. The duel was gripping with lots of feints, defensive tactics, parries, etc being thrown around. Eventually the Veteran admitted defeat, but it was a close call.

Melee characters have plenty to do. It might not be as flashy as spells but it's there for the taking. And a clean sword thrust will kill a caster just a easily as anyone else.

Going 20+ rounds in a duel sounds really boring, no offense.  If it was fun for your group, that's nice, but spending almost an hour watching two guys attempt to stab each other is not my idea of a good time.

QuoteEdit: I'm also curious as to how a caster could throw 10 fireballs a round

Fiery blast.

Quote from: B.T.;402856So your rebuttal is UR DUMB

Only as bricks!

Yeah normally spending the better part of an hour in combat is boring, but it was one example of all the option firing at once and getting some good description going.  Main point was that there are plenty of options.

What sort of stuff are you talking about non-casters doing?

If all the current combat options aren't enough then what is?

QuoteIf all the current combat options aren't enough then what is?

A lot of the stuff is just poorly done.  Aiming, for instance, is a poor choice for a combat option.  Melee combat turns into aim + attack at low XP and nothing interesting happens.  Likewise, the way movement works (spending a half action) discourages characters from moving around.  It's almost always better to swift attack or attack + parrying stance.

The other options are pretty boring and they don't allow meaningful choices.  Guarded attacks and all out attacks are just pushing numbers around.  Maneuvering is very "meh"; the ability to move an opponent one square is pretty lame.  Feinting is okay.  Swift attacks are ridiculous and annoying because they fall into the same trap of D&D 3e: nobody moves and they just trade swift attacks back and forth.