Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931613Elucidate please.

It's difficult to explain to you in greater detail what is my guess about how you play games that aren't D&D based on brief statements and no examples. But I'll give it a shot.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931505Look at the source material.  In 4 color superhero Comics Code comics, which is what I think of when I say "comic book superheroes," basically you have everybody ganging up on Ultron or Doctor Doom or something, OR you have a series of one-on-one duels between super types.

A genre savvy character would not follow the convention of each PC having a unique one-on-one duels. Instead a genre savvy group would take advantage of the villains being spread out individually to combine forces or concentrate their efforts to outnumber, overwhelm, and defeat each villain sequentially and in detail. So what happens if you are playing supers and the PCs try to do that?

QuoteStar Wars is closer to superheroes than D&D; the PCs kick ass until they run into the tough villian.

Its sounds like you are suggesting a style of play where (Stormtroopers or other villain minions) << PC Heroes << The Big Bad Villain where "X << Y" means X is significantly weaker than Y. So each individual hero easily defeats multiple villain minions, but the Big Bad can easily defeat any one hero.

How is that different than Chainmail where a Hero can easily defeat multiple normal figures and a Superhero can (relatively) easily defeat one Hero?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931505Star Wars is closer to superheroes than D&D; the PCs kick ass until they run into the tough villian.

Star Wars describes the way I have always experienced D&D. A small band of heroes kicking the asses of faceless goons until they hit the Big Bad. With some scenes where problems are solved by talking or judicious use of magic (the Force).

We never really played with parties large enough for proper unit tactics. If we hit ten in a party including hirelings that was huge. We usually averaged around five.

Quote from: Bren;931622It's difficult to explain to you in greater detail what is my guess about how you play games that aren't D&D based on brief statements and no examples. But I'll give it a shot.

A genre savvy character would not follow the convention of each PC having a unique one-on-one duels. Instead a genre savvy group would take advantage of the villains being spread out individually to combine forces or concentrate their efforts to outnumber, overwhelm, and defeat each villain sequentially and in detail. So what happens if you are playing supers and the PCs try to do that?

Its sounds like you are suggesting a style of play where (Stormtroopers or other villain minions) << PC Heroes << The Big Bad Villain where "X << Y" means X is significantly weaker than Y. So each individual hero easily defeats multiple villain minions, but the Big Bad can easily defeat any one hero.

How is that different than Chainmail where a Hero can easily defeat multiple normal figures and a Superhero can (relatively) easily defeat one Hero?

I once saw a wizard in Chainmail killed by three ordinary halberdiers. Four men with greatswords have a good chance of taking down a Hero.

On the other hand, put the hero in with a unit of troops and together they are far tougher than individually.

And I personally would be delighted to see PCs in a comic book or any other game play smart.  I'm so sick of "We're the player characters! CHARGE!" that I could puke so hard blood squirts out my ass.


I'd be delighted if players tried playing smarter than the genre.  I'm sick of players being stupid.

Quote from: DavetheLost;931638Star Wars describes the way I have always experienced D&D. A small band of heroes kicking the asses of faceless goons until they hit the Big Bad. With some scenes where problems are solved by talking or judicious use of magic (the Force).

We never really played with parties large enough for proper unit tactics. If we hit ten in a party including hirelings that was huge. We usually averaged around five.

Playing sandbox rather than module is a very different experience.  You can be surprised by four Balrogs in the wilderness.

Four Balrogs in the wilderness is when you talk or RUN!

I have played very few modules. We rolled our own long ago as we didn't have access to modules, and once we got in that habit modules just felt kind of unfulfilling.

I should also say that if you can be surprised by four Balrogs in the wilderness your game world is probably quite different to mine. In my worlds if there are four creatures anything like as powerful as Balrogs anywhere in the region you probably know about them. In fact it is probably an event of some significance. Very few apex level creatures in my game worlds, be they monsters or NPCs.

Or maybe this is how mdules are set up? I really wouldn't know. I played a couple of Call of Cthulhu modules at a convention a year or two ago and wasn't impressed. Before that I think I have to go back to 1980 or so.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931647And I personally would be delighted to see PCs in a comic book or any other game play smart.  I'm so sick of "We're the player characters! CHARGE!" that I could puke so hard blood squirts out my ass.


I'd be delighted if players tried playing smarter than the genre.  I'm sick of players being stupid.

This sounds like the same style of play as Chainmail. Now I'm not seeing how you see play as different in different genres or settings. Can you think of an example of play for similar situations from the three settings you listed, i.e. (i) Chainmail/OD&D, (ii) 4 Color Supers, and (iii) Star Wars?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931648Playing sandbox rather than module is a very different experience.  You can be surprised by four Balrogs in the wilderness.

Who want to sell you some magic items because you lucked out on the reaction roll. (Test the items for curses once they are gone... just to be sure...)

One of the funniest was being surprised in BX by a dragon out in the wilderness. Dragon promptly turned tail and fled. Wha??? All we could figure was that we'd surprised it as well and/or it failed a morale check and thought we were some more powerful party.

Hehe. The article states things that are true since ever as if it were some new big revelation. I think he never heard about Griffin Mountain, Wilderlands of High Fantasy or the bazillion new player-driven games out there like Apocalypse World or Mutant Year Zero.

Where this guy live ? In an island ?

Quote from: Black VulmeaWere you now? The adventure was better simply because you set it in a giant fucking tree?

I was going to try to give a nuanced and detailed explanation of how things play out at my particular table, but you know what, screw it, you'd just twist it up again and use it to bludgeon me some more.

Quote from: Black VulmeaGROW. THE FUCK. UP.

Hilarious coming from the internet tough guy who keeps coming back to a forum he loudly proclaims to be beneath him, then pointlessly restarts a two-year-old feud in this very thread.

You do realize it's possible to make your points or even deliver a firm rebuke without being an asshole, right? Or do you really think we are so benighted that only brutal putdowns can reach us? In which case, why even waste your time?

But hey, like I said in the other thread, I'll dance with you like this as long as you want to. You want it to stop, just put me on the ignore list and don't bring up ancient shit.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931647I once saw a wizard in Chainmail killed by three ordinary halberdiers. Four men with greatswords have a good chance of taking down a Hero.

On the other hand, put the hero in with a unit of troops and together they are far tougher than individually.

And I personally would be delighted to see PCs in a comic book or any other game play smart.  I'm so sick of "We're the player characters! CHARGE!" that I could puke so hard blood squirts out my ass.


I'd be delighted if players tried playing smarter than the genre.  I'm sick of players being stupid.

You could try running some TFT. Stupid PCs soon are the ones with the blood squirting out...

Quote from: Itachi;931719Where this guy live ? In an island ?

Yeah. Griffon Island.

Quote from: Bren;931669This sounds like the same style of play as Chainmail.

I'm sorry, I am genuinely unable to understand this.

Quote from: Bren;931669Now I'm not seeing how you see play as different in different genres or settings. Can you think of an example of play for similar situations from the three settings you listed, i.e. (i) Chainmail/OD&D, (ii) 4 Color Supers, and (iii) Star Wars?

I can't imagine anything in a CHAINMAIL battle being anything like a superhero comic.  But part of it is "In melee close up; in the face of missile fire,  or area effect, spread out."

I see people playing OD&D like a superhero game much more than vice versa. I run my OD&D games so that tactics are real.

I don't know, maybe you'd have to be there so I could point and screech "SEE?  SEE?  STUPIDITY!!  KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!"

Maybe it boils down to "I don't see stupidity being punished enough in fantasy medieval RPGs."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931793Maybe it boils down to "I don't see stupidity being punished enough in fantasy medieval RPGs."

Had you added "depending on system and GM", I'd have said that truer words haven't been spoken in this thread;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931505Look at the source material.  In 4 color superhero Comics Code comics, which is what I think of when I say "comic book superheroes," basically you have everybody ganging up on Ultron or Doctor Doom or something, OR you have a series of one-on-one duels between super types.
.

That's a pretty accurate observation. I've noticed that their tends to be more team work in super rpgs than in the source material at least beyond the basic "cover each other's backs level". There are exceptions (and different styles of comics) and teams that coordinate get reputations for being dangerous but clustered duels is usually the rule.