|
Werewhale posted:For this to work, you'd need a lot more spells for every school every level. Right now, for instance, the only 2nd level abjuration spell is Arcane Lock. My plan for right now was going to be: "One out of your Two spells each level have to be in your School, if any are available. You can't learn spells from an opposed school." I might even relax the second one if they want to spend checks/gp to find and scribe cross-aligned spells.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Hubis posted:My plan for right now was going to be: "One out of your Two spells each level have to be in your School, if any are available. You can't learn spells from an opposed school." I might even relax the second one if they want to spend checks/gp to find and scribe cross-aligned spells. The other major hurdle is that the quadratic problem goes in two dimensions. You've eliminated (or diminished ) the diversity of abilities problem but still have to tackle the problem of depth, eg, the entire problem where a handful spells still end or bypass encounters entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
WiredNavi posted:One of my PCs wants to play a kind of spooky vengeful warlock that's all about ghosts. I've seen similar ones elsewhere and I've modified some ideas, but they didn't grab me for whatever reason.I know a lot of people in this thread aren't super fond of 5E, but I'd like some feedback on a couple of homebrew system bits and there's no other good place to ask. They're it's not catching anyone's eye on ENWorld and frankly I'd like someone to take a more critical eye to 'em than most. The archetype is a bit big to look through, but on the race: I like the concept and the past life bit is cool. Past life can just refer to a race though, since some don't have subraces and base races all have ability score increases and languages already. The two dying abilities are similar and extra wordy, you could simplify Undying to return your soul to your body with 1 hit point after being dead for 24 hours if your body is intact, and combine it with Feel No Pain. Sleeping isn't necessary for long rests, and elves' trance doesn't actually shorten the long rest length, so you could just say that they don't need to sleep and leave it at that. Unhallowed Existence can just say that you're "undead", that's fine to do. Wording it an extra complicated way is just setting yourself up for confusion. Here's how I'd word em: Undying. You are undead. If you are reduced to 0 hit points but not killed, you do not fall unconscious until you suffer one death roll failure. Additionally, if you die, you might not stay dead. After 24 hours, if your body is still intact, you may return to life with 1 hit point. Unliving. You do not need eat, drink, or sleep. You have resistance to necrotic damage, and suffer no penalties from a single level of exhaustion. Specifying between failing from a death roll or taking damage is needlessly complicated, you can consider a monster tearing them up to be destroying the body though. Make sure you're balancing the race and archetype against existing content. It's also a good idea to find official content with wording that you can mimic so that there's nothing confusing about how your homebrew is worded. It can be better to go quality over quantity with this kind of stuff, since it'll take your players a long time to get through it anyway. Good luck!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Oddly enough, I was reading a 2e module (return to keep on the borderlands) and came across these two passages. I'd never read it before but I'm betting I've seen similar text somewhere that informed my arguments over the last two pages:  The other thing I was thinking about from universal mechanics perspective was overbearing - our party has never used it but considered doing so when fighting a werewolf at low level. More pertinent, when fighting against a swarm of goblins, we summoned in monsters (orcs or lizardmen I think) to cover our retreat and they did well until getting swarmed/overborn. In this ruleset, the PCs could've been overborn just as easily, hence doing that - if that wasn't an option for the goblins then we likely could've stood and fought them in place until they routed. I probably should read some 3e/4e modules to figure out when the game changed so significantly in concept at the turn of the century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
BashfulBanana posted:Make sure you're balancing the race and archetype against existing content. It's also a good idea to find official content with wording that you can mimic so that there's nothing confusing about how your homebrew is worded. It can be better to go quality over quantity with this kind of stuff, since it'll take your players a long time to get through it anyway. Good luck! Thanks for the advice! I'm not gonna reply in-depth here but you brought up a lot of good points and I'll take another whack at it soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
That whole concept of "the rules must apply to everyone" I know was repeatedly invoked against critical hits in pre-3e D&D: if you give the players the ability to crit, then you must allow the monsters to be able to crit as well, and if you let them crit, you'll quickly find that it's going to suck for the players far more than it will for the monsters. As for when there was a paradigm shift, I know 3e applied it fairly consistently, but by the time 4e was being developed, you'd get this: (emphasis mine) quote:It might sound crazy, but most of the monsters designed for 3rd Edition D&D are designed with only a hazy understanding of what numbers are appropriate. Monster design is dictated by the math and rules of design, rather than the math and rules serving a fun play experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Being able to cast a spell once or twice in an adventure, and mostly just being really smart about the world itself (but not always, Doors of Durin lol) and then also being an ok sneak and a not terrible fighter would be cool. But we can't have a wizard who doesn't cast spells at everything all the time any more than we can have fighters who can do anything but hit things. I mean, what if a wizard cast spells as often as a cleric could turn undead? This reminds me, in Earthdawn, everyone could do something magical, not only the caster-classes. Especially the equivalents of fighters, like the Wind Dancers (warning name memory may be hazy), had their spell-like abilities. Even the entire usage of magic items was linked to using thread magic, as it was called. And casters where entirely different then wizards or clerics in D&D: You had three different way of casting magic and all three ways were mechanically the same across the different classes. Only the accessable spells changed from class to class. 1. You could prepare a certain number of spells for use in your mental matrixes. Those things you had to learn like feats to use them and you could even, with a few turns, change the spells in the matrixes in battle. Essentially, you could cast those spells over and over again without rest. 2. Thread magic. In this case a caster would just cast a spell they knew by twirling magical threads. Good chance at failure and generally it took longer to cast them, but also either faster or more powerful then matrix-spells. Using magic raw like this was bad for casters, though. 3. Like the first, but with using magic books directly. Drawback: Higher chance at failure, especially if you're using a foreign book. Also obviously you can't cast spells this way without having the right book. It's basically matrix magic without matrixes. Essentially, casters could choose between playing it safe by casting mental daggers from one of their matrixes over and over again, or they could just cast any spell in their magic book and risk getting their dick ripped off by a horror from beyond space and time. A good fighter however would have armor and weapons attuned to him and be basically immune to simple spells anyway. I've never seen a system balancing casters and fighters to be almost equals like that. D&D could learn from that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Libluini posted:This reminds me, in Earthdawn, everyone could do something magical, not only the caster-classes. Especially the equivalents of fighters, like the Wind Dancers (warning name memory may be hazy), had their spell-like abilities. Even the entire usage of magic items was linked to using thread magic, as it was called. There still was a bit of caster supremacy at least in early editions if I recall. I specifically remember when my group at the time collectively decided to upgrade editions (this was umm 2002?) and we had a big group discussion in 2 of our players' dorm room about the caster's spells. It seemed in the new edition they actually had to spend XP on spells when previously they didn't have to (where every other thing in the system from skills to abilities required them). I distinctly remember the GM's argument being that if spells cost XP then nobody would get the mundane spells like shoe repair or whatever. Our obvious response was, give him all the drat shoe repair spells he wants, just don't let him get a cool new fire spell for free every time there's "downtime" (so basically at least once every other session) while we are scraping together XP to upgrade a skill by a single step. In the end we decided to grandfather in his existing spell list, but he had to pay moving forward (of course since every other character was basically rebuilding their character in the new system, he still got a ton of free poo poo). But yeah Earthdawn was still insanely cool and had some ideas that blew my mind at the time, although they might be outdated now: basically everyone's abilities were supernatural, so there was no dumb "a fighter shouldn't be able to leap that far!" nonsense; you bought all of your stats with XP like in white wolf/shadowrun and other similar systems but they still had a type of "leveling up" when you reached a certain number in each of your abilities; instead of using a d20 or a fistful of d6/10 everything had a "step" where the number represented a new set of dice (this could have been annoying but we had a math savant in our group who could tell you the dice required without a chart instantaneously). Lots of other stuff that I am remembering but it is hard to remember details for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:There still was a bit of caster supremacy at least in early editions if I recall. I specifically remember when my group at the time collectively decided to upgrade editions (this was umm 2002?) and we had a big group discussion in 2 of our players' dorm room about the caster's spells. It seemed in the new edition they actually had to spend XP on spells when previously they didn't have to (where every other thing in the system from skills to abilities required them). I distinctly remember the GM's argument being that if spells cost XP then nobody would get the mundane spells like shoe repair or whatever. Our obvious response was, give him all the drat shoe repair spells he wants, just don't let him get a cool new fire spell for free every time there's "downtime" (so basically at least once every other session) while we are scraping together XP to upgrade a skill by a single step. In the end we decided to grandfather in his existing spell list, but he had to pay moving forward (of course since every other character was basically rebuilding their character in the new system, he still got a ton of free poo poo). Another cool thing in Earthdawn (which has a relaunched 3rd Edition since ca. 2013 and a new 4th Edition since 2014, but that one only in Germany) is that there is no metagame: XP is Karma, which is part of the game world and spell matrixes and threads are all things which physically exist in it. So if you put spells in your matrix, your character literally does just that. Compare this to the divide between a D&D wizard's spell slots and what he is actually doing in the game, for example. Earthdawn never forces you to follow the cognitive dissonance rabbit hole into the same depths D&D is willing to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Since we've talked about all Wizard/all spellcaster parties being a thing, has anyone had experience with all-martial parties? A party of all Fighters was a thing that was mentioned as a campaign hook all the way back in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook, but how about something like a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Fighter and a Paladin/Ranger (or any of the more esoteric 3.x classes)? I have done this in BECMI/Rules Compendium, where it is more workable - all fighty party except for my single wizard, who was a ponce and completely refused to take combat spells. He only had utility stuff and was a doofus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Since we've talked about all Wizard/all spellcaster parties being a thing, has anyone had experience with all-martial parties? A party of all Fighters was a thing that was mentioned as a campaign hook all the way back in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook, but how about something like a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Fighter and a Paladin/Ranger (or any of the more esoteric 3.x classes)? 5E explicitly tells you this is a bad idea in the beginning of the book, it's completely doable in 4E, and 3E I guess is possible if you squint real hard at some classes, or get some of the more esoteric core classes involved without expecting them to offer as effective support as a caster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:all-martial parties? I mean, ~4th Edition~ is basically cheating for this question. Anyway, the 4e game I ran for about a year didn't see much in the way of spellcasters at all; notably our only healers were each different flavours of Bard and Warlord. It was sort of a revolving door as far as players went, but here are the classes that saw some use: Characters that were around for most/all of the campaign:
Characters who were around for the 1st half (or less) of the campaign:
Characters who were around for the 2nd half of the campaign:
Characters who appeared in like, one session +/- "orientation day":
DMPCs:
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I mean, ~4th Edition~ is basically cheating for this question. Well yeah that's sort of the game we're playing in right now 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Well yeah that's sort of the game we're playing in right now Martial Defender: Fighter Martial Controller: Fighter Again Martial Striker: Ranger or Rogue and Fighter if you squint Martial Healer: Warlord
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Martial Defender: Fighter gradenko is talking about this game, for reference: Slayer Monk Fighter (brawler) ... Actually on-topic: How much would it break if you did AC in 5e this way:
Edit: Actually to keep the same ranges, half-prof probably makes more sense. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That whole concept of "the rules must apply to everyone" I know was repeatedly invoked against critical hits in pre-3e D&D: if you give the players the ability to crit, then you must allow the monsters to be able to crit as well, and if you let them crit, you'll quickly find that it's going to suck for the players far more than it will for the monsters. I can attest to this. I played with a group for years where the rule was "Anything you can do, so can the monsters." and let me tell you; I have never seen ANYTHING so rapidly quash players being invested and interested in doing or trying cool things, than having the DM immediately turn around and go "Every enemy in this encounter is now doing the same thing you just did. Hope you can survive it!" This effect is increased quadratically when you have the wizard, cleric, and druid just saying "This happens." and that's not a club used to cudgel them back into line; but the rogue, the barbarian, and the fighter go "I'd like to lift this guy over my head, and throw him off the bridge" now not only has to make an opposed strength check to grapple them, a dex check to lift an unwilling individual over their head, and an opposed dex check to throw an uncooperative creature over the side of the bridge; but also now has the problem that the remaining fifteen enemies in the encounter now have one action, and one action only on their minds, and that's hurling that player over the edge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:I can attest to this. I played with a group for years where the rule was "Anything you can do, so can the monsters." and let me tell you; I have never seen ANYTHING so rapidly quash players being invested and interested in doing or trying cool things, than having the DM immediately turn around and go "Every enemy in this encounter is now doing the same thing you just did. Hope you can survive it!" Taking repeated checks is stupid , but why shouldn't monsters that are say, smart enough to wield a weapon not try to push adventurers off a cliff? can they drop rocks from above? Set traps? Hell, the keep in the borderlands module explicitly says if monsters see the pcs using flammable oil to burn enemies they should do the same if said monsters are able to procure the resources This is crazy to where you end up saying monsters can only do what's on their stat block and never deviate , but let's ignore why they have certain abilities, such as the intelligence or society to support weapons and armor. You're pretty much answering a question of why do kobolds and gnolls do fake retreats and ambushes, and orcs don't, by saying it's on their stat block. When the real answer should be about the monster society and culture and all that because it can get a lot more interesting overall And yes, it's fair to hit pcs with whatever they use (crit hits). PCs have access to vastly more healing powers, either from a character or from society, than monsters do. mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
PCs have an expected lifespan of a campaign, plus or minus. Monsters have a lifespan of an encounter. Pushing someone off of a cliff is essentially a save or die. For a monster, this is no big deal, their life expectancy was exactly as long as expected, for a PC, this drastically changes it and takes control out of the PCs hands. There are some games set up for this high lethality meat grinder, D&D is not one of them. If you take action economy into consideration it gets even worse. If you are facing off against a horde of lower level goblins, and all of them are trying to push you off of a cliff, one of them is going to get lucky enough to succeed eventually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
So don't fight goblins at the edge of a cliff. I mean I guess if you don't want lethality in your game it makes a lot more sense to be frustrated with low level characters that can't just stomp their way through all opposition and get resurrected if something goes awry. Apparently scouting, tactics and planning before encounters isn't a thing in 21st century dnd? Or maybe since you're worried about control out of the pc hands you should get rid of the dm and just have the pcs play everything
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
To summarize the above, it should take a player less time to create and have ready a new character than it should for the GM to permakill their character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Just looking at the melee weapons list to see if i can boil things down a bit and  Spear - Simple melee - 1gp - 1d6 piercing - 3lb - thrown (20/60), versatile (1d8) Trident - Martial melee - 5gp - 1d6 piercing - 4lb - thrown (20/60), versatile (1d8) Glaive - Martial melee - 20gp - 1d10 slashing - 6lb - heavy, reach, two-handed Halberd - Martial melee - 20gp - 1d10 slashing - 6lb - heavy, reach, two-handed Battleaxe - 10gp - 1d8 slashing - 4lb - versatile (1d10) Warhammer - 15gp - 1d8 bludgeoning - 2lb - versatile (1d10) Flail - Martial melee - 10gp - 1d8 bludgeoning - 2lb - (no properties) Morningstar - Martial melee - 15gp - 1d8 piercing - 4lb - (no properties) War pick - Martial melee - 5gp - 1d8 piercing - 2lb - (no properties) ... Like, they seem to put somewhat of a premium on Bludgeoning damage, for that Once Per Campaign skeleton-fight   Anyways, you can basically boil simple weapons down like so:
Dagger is basically the only one that doesn't fit into the mold (d4 but light and thrown, also Finesse) martial weapons:
You can change heavy to 1d12 if you're half-  and/or possibly Savage Attacker, but otherwise  Versatile = "one-handed or reach damage without actual reach" Finesse = "light or one-handed" but can't do Bludgeoning, fwiw Outliers:
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:58
|
|
)
|
mastershakeman posted:This is crazy to where you end up saying monsters can only do what's on their stat block and never deviate , but let's ignore why they have certain abilities, such as the intelligence or society to support weapons and armor. You don't need a particular intelligence score to represent that, since INT is just an abstraction for characters to figure out skills and spells. The monsters don't need the granularity, since most of it is going to be irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So don't fight goblins at the edge of a cliff. Maybe you should quit responding to everyone's posts with the most hyperbolic strawman arguments you can and go back to pondering the benefits of ritual abortion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Hell, the keep in the borderlands module explicitly says if monsters see the pcs using flammable oil to burn enemies they should do the same if said monsters are able to procure the resources I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. 16 years ago the co-editor of 3rd Edition gave his opinion on game mechanics in a forgettable adventure module. We're not exactly talking The Holy Writ here. He didn't give any reasons for this advice, either. He just said "yo you should do this." Ok, noted. Who cares? You're being given a lot of reasons why you shouldn't from people who might have learned a few things in the literal decade-and-a-half since this module came out. Maybe you should listen to them. Edit: mastershakeman posted:Apparently scouting, tactics and planning before encounters isn't a thing in 21st century dnd? You want to play Cowardly Lion Dungeon Delve and, unconsciously or not, you keep inventing mechanics to reinforce this. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
I agree that feats shouldn't exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Apparently scouting, tactics and planning before encounters isn't a thing in 21st century dnd? No, this poo poo happens all the time in 5e (wherever possible) because it's the best way to win at rocket tag. The problem is the further you go in this direction, the less you're actually interacting with the mechanics of the game (such as Hit Points and poo poo like that) All anyone's telling you here is that your bullshit ideas don't gel with the mechanical framework. But I guess since we're talking about 5th Edition, ignoring the mechanical framework is the game's biggest feature! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
What mastershakeman's dumb idea for a simulationist game does is essentially a) punish the players long-term, both mechanically and narratively, for coming up with something cool by unlocking it for every foe they ever face from that moment forward b) mechanically raise the monsters power level toward whatever the players just came up with, which means there's no reason for a martial foe to say anything other than "I attack" against a physically powerful monster, since the minute he tries to execute a stunt it will just be turned right around on him with bonuses c) create a mechanical nightmare if you want to maintain any semblance of balance between martial stunts - the logical outcome of this is what happened with 3e's grappling rules i.e. a stupid-rear end loving mess of garbage conditionals and weird rolls d) make the optimum course of a fantasy game full of monsters, traps, and treasure into maximum murderhobo shenanigans involving a bunch of "heroes" who spend their time piss-scared, skulking around and ambushing foes aka Cowardly Lion Dungeon Delve And what do you gain for introducing all these negatives into your game? You can nod your head in satisfaction because you're an anal-retentive dorkwad who made sure the rules are consistent between the actual, real people at the table who the game is built around and the DM's constructs. Hooray for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So don't fight goblins at the edge of a cliff. Oh! Scouting tactics! You mean that thing that Splits the Party, and sends one of them off, alone, unsupported, into enemy territory, to make dozens of opposed stealth checks. Oops! You triggered a perimeter trap! Your trapsense didn't go off, because it's a pit filled with sharpened branches, so it would be a knowledge (Nature) check to find it. You are likely to die, since the entire camp heard that. Do the rest of you charge into the trapped woods to try to save your companion (And almost certainly die to the force bearing down on him and you?) Or do you flee, leaving them to die, and letting the tales of your cowardice spread throughout the land! That poo poo? That poo poo right there? I want explicit loving rules that say "DM's cannot do this." And I want them chiseled in stone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:Oh! Scouting tactics! You mean that thing that Splits the Party, and sends one of them off, alone, unsupported, into enemy territory, to make dozens of opposed stealth checks. Oops! You triggered a perimeter trap! Your trapsense didn't go off, because it's a pit filled with sharpened branches, so it would be a knowledge (Nature) check to find it. You are likely to die, since the entire camp heard that. Do the rest of you charge into the trapped woods to try to save your companion (And almost certainly die to the force bearing down on him and you?) Or do you flee, leaving them to die, and letting the tales of your cowardice spread throughout the land! Wow, this is eerie. Almost the same thing happened to me except I was captured 10 minutes into the adventure session and got to watch the rest of the group play the game for 4 hours until they rescued me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:When the real answer should be about the monster society and culture and all that because it can get a lot more interesting overall Um ... what? Why? You know this is a game, right? You make mechanics to make it fun, not to run some sort of simulation of a universe. If your players want to be in a deadly simulation ... sure, go nuts. More people don't give a poo poo about the backstory of hobgoblin society, they just want to kill the three assholes that are guarding the temple.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
You should check out Runequest, it's a lot better than D&D at this sort of low-fantasy small scale combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:You should check out Runequest, it's a lot better than D&D at this sort of low-fantasy small scale combat. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:Um ... what? Why? You know this is a game, right? You make mechanics to make it fun, not to run some sort of simulation of a universe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Ugh, PC culture strikes again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:You're pretty much answering a question of why do kobolds and gnolls do fake retreats and ambushes, and orcs don't, by saying it's on their stat block. When the real answer should be about the monster society and culture and all that because it can get a lot more interesting overall It only seems interesting when you're the one who wants to write it. Nobody else in the group will care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
And yet you will all roll your eyes when I state that simulationism is legitimately Bad Gaming if not an outright disease in the hobby 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:That poo poo? That poo poo right there? I want explicit loving rules that say "DM's cannot do this." And I want them chiseled in stone. This can go either one of a few ways. You come up with a set of iron-clad rules that: 1) Are hilariously complex and situational, and still manage to run short of the situations you will run into in an adventure if you're trying to do anything remotely interesting, 2) Discourage creative play because it's only designed to deal with a very limited set of outcomes, or 3) Need to be so vague and general so as to cover all possible experiences that it becomes very hard to connect the environment and player choices to the outcome directly. Relying on rules to 'fix' bad DMs works about as well as it does to 'fix' bad players. To me it sounds like you want a system designed to be played with people I wouldn't want to be playing games with. Hubis fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:And yet you will all roll your eyes when I state that simulationism is legitimately Bad Gaming if not an outright disease in the hobby Not me! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Hubis posted:2) Discourage creative play because it's only designed to deal with a very limited set of outcomes, or More sacred cows for the BBQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:And yet you will all roll your eyes when I state that simulationism is legitimately Bad Gaming if not an outright disease in the hobby It can work well if used in a well thought out system. Spell creation in Ars Magica comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 23:10
|
|