I'm just sick of characters being limited to one minigame. The healer can't do damage. The damage guy can't parlay. The parlay guy hogs the spotlight but is useless elsewhere. And if you can't do damage, you don't get xp/rewards/acclaim.
I'm totally okay with characters together being voltron. And I think that after alot of work, Warcraft has made having different minigames not totally suck, it's true - after many revisions. But it's a trap you have to constantly work not to fall into with every little thing you add.
-Crissa
RPG mechanics you are done with. And why.
Moderator: Moderators
FWIW I usually arrange things so level gains happen when an adventure is completed (not necessarily successfully; a failed adventure still makes for good story, and can be used to complicate things for next time). Tier gains usually happen at the end of a story arc -- about four adventures on average, though a long arc may break this. A tier gain kicks you into the next higher set of abilities (you used to just be able to ride across broken ground without impediment, now you can trot your horse across the river...).hogarth wrote:I would say something like "once per adventure, maybe twice for a really big adventure", and then give guidelines as to how many encounters are in a typical adventure.Thymos wrote:You could also just give a default amount of sessions to level up after.
Personally I just think the DM should level players up to match what needs to happen for his adventure.
Keith
I'm sick of games doing role protection by letting a character only do a single thing.
Instead they should let characters do many things and develop roles by giving characters unique skills.
Don't make striker a role by saying no one else can do damage. That's retarded.
Instead make teleportation a role by letting one guy have the unique schtick of teleportation. Let the necromancer have the unique schtick of raising the dead. Don't tell the teleporter or necromancer that they can't swing a sword because they aren't a warrior.
Instead they should let characters do many things and develop roles by giving characters unique skills.
Don't make striker a role by saying no one else can do damage. That's retarded.
Instead make teleportation a role by letting one guy have the unique schtick of teleportation. Let the necromancer have the unique schtick of raising the dead. Don't tell the teleporter or necromancer that they can't swing a sword because they aren't a warrior.
I am really tired of a lot of things. First and formost I am tired of games that don't work or are harder to play for either the players or the dm than the fun they generate (I like to call this Alternaty Syndrome)
Anyway, I am done with games that try and pretend that combat is no more important than any of adventuring situation. Designers who write that crap need a kick in the nuts. Not the smallest reason being that its always a LIE. Look at every white wolf game ever. Supposedly about storytelling and interactions. Bullshit. 90%+ of the games "powers" are laid out in a fashion to tell you exactly how combat ready that ability is. If your game is not more fun to play than descent its not worth my time.
So the new rule should be, before your rpg gets any real consideration you better have your combat chapter flushed out enough that my friends who have been playing rpgs for two decades cannot break your whole game on their first try at characters. Also if you list a bunch of foes and say that one is kick ass it better actually be kick ass and not a waste of my time to DM.
I am willing to give a game the chance to correct or add any other minigames or subsystems it wants. Your rpgs spell system hardly works. Fine, I will at least read your "magic book" and see if you have it fixed but if your combat blows there is no hope for your game. Hell at least 50% of everything non combat is dependant on how good your DM.
Anyway, I am done with games that try and pretend that combat is no more important than any of adventuring situation. Designers who write that crap need a kick in the nuts. Not the smallest reason being that its always a LIE. Look at every white wolf game ever. Supposedly about storytelling and interactions. Bullshit. 90%+ of the games "powers" are laid out in a fashion to tell you exactly how combat ready that ability is. If your game is not more fun to play than descent its not worth my time.
So the new rule should be, before your rpg gets any real consideration you better have your combat chapter flushed out enough that my friends who have been playing rpgs for two decades cannot break your whole game on their first try at characters. Also if you list a bunch of foes and say that one is kick ass it better actually be kick ass and not a waste of my time to DM.
I am willing to give a game the chance to correct or add any other minigames or subsystems it wants. Your rpgs spell system hardly works. Fine, I will at least read your "magic book" and see if you have it fixed but if your combat blows there is no hope for your game. Hell at least 50% of everything non combat is dependant on how good your DM.
Last edited by souran on Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yeh, I am pretty tired of not wanting to run adventures because statting out stuff takes ten times as long as actually thinking up ideas and writing them down.souran wrote:I am really tired of a lot of things. First and formost I am tired of games that don't work or are harder to play for either the players or the dm than the fun they generate (I like to call this Alternaty Syndrome)
That's, to me, the main selling point of nWoD. You just pick a few integers less than 10 and the enemy has that in however many categories. I'd love to run any number of fantasy games instead of just 3e, but I have no sense of how strong monsters and foes in other systems should be so I can't just pull bullshit values out of my ass and have it work out so it usually means that I have to setup a lot of stuff or just run a module. Earthdawn, ADnD2e, I'm looking at you guys.souran wrote:I am really tired of a lot of things. First and formost I am tired of games that don't work or are harder to play for either the players or the dm than the fun they generate (I like to call this Alternaty Syndrome)
This is the main anti-selling point of nWoD.souran wrote:Anyway, I am done with games that try and pretend that combat is no more important than any of adventuring situation. Designers who write that crap need a kick in the nuts. Not the smallest reason being that its always a LIE. Look at every white wolf game ever. Supposedly about storytelling and interactions. Bullshit. 90%+ of the games "powers" are laid out in a fashion to tell you exactly how combat ready that ability is. If your game is not more fun to play than descent its not worth my time.
I am sick of RPG's that require substantially more than one book. I will take Spirit of the Century, Feng Shui, Diaspora, StarBlazer Adventures or even Shadow Run over most other published RPGs, especially 4E. One or maybe three core books should be the max.
I am sick of mechanics with mathematical flaws so obvious, that anyone who was paying attention in high school math can see them, yet the designers are either oblivious, in denial, or both.
I am sick of games that aren't actually edited, especially when someone is credited with editing them.
I am sick of published games that ignore what their playtesters tell them.
I am sick of games that are promoted in such a way as to explicitly disadvantage players who do not have access to the latest published volumes (I'm talking about you, D&D Encounters).
I am sick of games that require software to maintain.
I am sick of tracking multiple conditions which expire under various situations.
I am sick of games that depend on endless lists of numerous specific instances while obscuring their general underlying principles.
I vastly prefer game systems that are essentially complete in a single volume, and that use a manageable number of robust and broadly applicable mechanics, that can be explained in a relatively short amount of time.
Smeelbo
I am sick of mechanics with mathematical flaws so obvious, that anyone who was paying attention in high school math can see them, yet the designers are either oblivious, in denial, or both.
I am sick of games that aren't actually edited, especially when someone is credited with editing them.
I am sick of published games that ignore what their playtesters tell them.
I am sick of games that are promoted in such a way as to explicitly disadvantage players who do not have access to the latest published volumes (I'm talking about you, D&D Encounters).
I am sick of games that require software to maintain.
I am sick of tracking multiple conditions which expire under various situations.
I am sick of games that depend on endless lists of numerous specific instances while obscuring their general underlying principles.
I vastly prefer game systems that are essentially complete in a single volume, and that use a manageable number of robust and broadly applicable mechanics, that can be explained in a relatively short amount of time.
Smeelbo