|
Obligatum VII posted:it sacrificed a non-negligible amount of tactical depth in favor of speed when it came to combat. The more I play 4E the more that I feel that this is a sacrifice I am willing to make, especially because I have come to feel like the tactical depth of particularly crunchy 4E is deceptively shallow. There's a few certain dominant strategies that are so effective that they end up removing a lot of that depth and so a lot of the time it just ends up feeling like rocket tag, where the results of the fights depend more on the initiative roll than anything else. And while I enjoy 4E, I honestly find myself looking forward to days where there are no combat encounters, just because of how much time it takes to get through a fight. I love 4E, but I am really loving tired of spending multiple hours on one single fight.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Khizan posted:The more I play 4E the more that I feel that this is a sacrifice I am willing to make, especially because I have come to feel like the tactical depth of particularly crunchy 4E is deceptively shallow. There's a few certain dominant strategies that are so effective that they end up removing a lot of that depth and so a lot of the time it just ends up feeling like rocket tag, where the results of the fights depend more on the initiative roll than anything else. One thing I really liked going from 4E to Strike was that you didn't need to have multiple fights in a row to wear down the party's supply of daily powers and healing surges. The "You took some strikes during the combat so you're winded next time" rules are there if I want a series of attritional combats, but I can just run one combat with long rests at either side of it and I don't have to specifically compensate for the party dumping all their dailies and surges during it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Actually it is a good game with many similarities to the only good edition of dungeons and dragons. Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:You're also Arivia so you're not exactly a source of sound opinions. Autism Sneaks posted:"fine" Splicer posted:Wait hang on, are you seriously saying a game system is trash entirely because it doesn't have enough fluff? That's it? That's your entire problem with it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Wait hang on, are you seriously saying a game system is trash entirely because it doesn't have enough fluff? That's it? That's your entire problem with it? You obviously didn't read my post. Strike is badly written, is just another heartbreaker in terms of rules, and is creatively bankrupt. It's not fun to read. It's not fun to play. It's not inspiring. (The only other part of an RPG book that I can think about being meaningful is the art, and that's passable I guess.) There is literally no reason to play it. If you're calling narrative in an RPG "fluff", with all the dismissive tone that connotes, then the lack of any actual creative content in Strike might not be so apparent to you. You might not care. That's fine. If you're happy playing knockoff Avatar in a bad system then great. Have fun. All the more power to you. However, when critically examining a game, narrative does matter and is significant, contrary to what you're suggesting. Strike doesn't have a narrative. It's happy to just steal unexamined nerd culture references and paste them in to cover itself. Better writers and better designers can get away with references like that, but they're also not stupid and won't do it uncritically (see Feng Shui 2 for an example.) Here's a way to think about it. Strike is the TVTropes of RPGs. It doesn't do anything itself. It's very dedicated to collecting cool things from other systems and stories and putting that together. There's nothing new, there's nothing creative, there's just a patchwork of ideas. It's pleasing and unchallenging. And again, if you're having fun with that, that's great. But you can do so much more if you want to. And critically? Theoretically? There's so much better out there, so much more to offer. I'm not interested in settling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
It's just stupid to criticize Strike for not having a setting, for the same reason that it's stupid to criticize Fate or d20 or whatever for not having settings. Some RPGs are about letting you play in a particular setting, but others are about letting you play with a particular story structure (which, in like all three of thoses cases, is something like "group of people have a cooperative action-adventure"). Like, as poo poo as Pathfinder is, the fact that I don't find setting information when I go to http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ is not the problem with it, and if I tried to pretend that was the problem with it that'd just make clear to you I had no actual substantive criticisms to make. Which you don't, since you haven't said a single thing about the writing or rules - you just keep mentioning they're bad, as asides, after spending 90% of a post telling us that the real problem with a take-out place is that they've got no wait staff to speak of. What does "just another heartbreaker" mean? Why is it bad? Hey, where'd you go? Does anyone else hear a car peeling out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's just stupid to criticize Strike for not having a setting, for the same reason that it's stupid to criticize Fate or d20 or whatever for not having settings. Some RPGs are about letting you play in a particular setting, but others are about letting you play with a particular story structure (which, in like all three of thoses cases, is something like "group of people have a cooperative action-adventure"). It's not about a setting. Sure, there's RPGs without settings. It's about having any creative narrative, characterization, or anything at all. I've never read FATE Core but I'm sure it has sample characters or whatever with something going for them. d20 Modern had plenty of ideas in there, even if it was d20 Modern and not great. Strike doesn't have any of that. There's a monster section? Maybe? Otherwise it's just lists of characters stolen from other games and media and suggestions for putting them together. Strike has no creative content in it, period. quote:Like, as poo poo as Pathfinder is, the fact that I don't find setting information when I go to http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ is not the problem with it, and if I tried to pretend that was the problem with it that'd just make clear to you I had no actual substantive criticisms to make. I'm criticizing the actual Strike core rulebook and not a third-party fansite. Keep up. FYI, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook has plenty of narrative elements to get it going - they reused artwork and iconic images from the Adventure Paths so far, and included specific content (like the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class) to build it even further. quote:Which you don't, since you haven't said a single thing about the writing or rules - you just keep mentioning they're bad, as asides, after spending 90% of a post telling us that the real problem with a take-out place is that they've got no wait staff to speak of. What does "just another heartbreaker" mean? Why is it bad? Hey, where'd you go? Does anyone else hear a car peeling out? Yeah dude, sorry I come to the 4e thread to talk about 4e and not your lovely knockoff. That's what I was trying to tell you in the first place. Go away. You have your own thread for your heartbreaker (and that term is common knowledge, don't be an idiot.) I've talked plenty about the writing, you just seem to be blind to see it. It's unclear. It's badly organized (there's an index, but even that's a pain to work with). Jimbozig littered the text with pointless whining to the reader about whatever he doesn't like. It's worse than the natural language of most RPGs because it has a really lovely authorial voice of a guy who is as dull as wallpaper paste and he won't shut the gently caress up. The rules are bland and boring and just things taken from other games Jimbozig likes. (Classic heartbreaker, that.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You obviously didn't read my post. Strike is badly written, is just another heartbreaker in terms of rules, and is creatively bankrupt. It's not fun to read. It's not fun to play. It's not inspiring. (The only other part of an RPG book that I can think about being meaningful is the art, and that's passable I guess.) There is literally no reason to play it. I think setting* agnostic systems are just fine and think the system is pretty neat! I have no comment on the quality of the writing because excessive FFG exposure has rendered me incapable of judging such things. *setting, not genre
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Wait hang on, are you seriously saying a game system is trash entirely because it doesn't have enough fluff? That's it? That's your entire problem with it? But yes. They seriously did go off on Jimbozig - hard - in another thread over that nested Bender reference. I think there wasn't enough Elminster porn and Forgettable Realms references. e: And really, whatever its merits or flaws, there's no sense in which Strike! is any kind of a fantasy heartbreaker or bereft of creativity. dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Arivia's arguments against Strike are so terrible it makes me want to argue with him. Arivia is not a guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Arivia is not a guy. My apologies to Arivia. It was an honest mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
"Narrative" is a lot more than just "setting." It's one of those "what is your game about" type questions. Whenever you play through a "campaign" in a game, however long that is and whatever part of the setting you play it in if there is one, the rules will guide you into a common narrative. In 4e you start out as heroes with certain strengths and skills, then become more and more superhuman (stats go up), learn new techniques representative of your archetype (class powers), fight more powerful monsters and loot their more powerful magical items, and use what you've gained to attempt ever more daring deeds (your bonuses come from levels/experience, items, powers, feats, and whatever else you can glean). You become paragons of your race/class/whatever a third of the way through, and then in the final third you reach epic power and fight gods and such as near immortal demigods yourselves. That's what the game is "about." The voice of the author and their artists and premade settings populated with things and items and people that reinforce that narrative help the game a lot. Even cringy stuff like Elminster and Drizzt. It's like having music that fits in a movie or video game, well-done it elevates it, but if there is dissonance between these things the game, movie, or book sound parodic or amateurish. FATE has examples of play that convey how it works to play these pulpy, action-packed games, so even if it doesn't have an established setting it has a narrative. Bad games aren't necessarily a waste of time to play. Players can hack it in and out of play in such a way that makes it complete and really fun, but if all that doesn't come from the game itself then it's a bad game elevated by good players. That's why Rule 0 is a cop-out and bad: telling the players to ignore the rules if they hurt the fun, that means the game has no confidence in itself and wants you the players to make up for its badness without owning that it is bad and fixing it before release. That's why housecats and making fighters and rogues BMX bandits unless you break the treasure tables or homebrew them magic items in 3.x is bad: the game is supposed to feature a party of adventurers working together, not just the angel summoners. It's why the Escalation Die in 13th Age is bad: it says eventually the PCs always win no matter what, eventually the tactics and luck that are supposed to be the difference between victory and defeat just cease to matter. Maybe Strike doesn't combine rules in a new or clever way or offer anything new to the D&D narrative or loses some of what made that game good without making up for it somewhere else, I don't know. But that would make it a bad game. Obligatum VII posted:Has anyone every considered making equivalents for the two frost feats in the PHB for other, lesser-used, elements? Loel posted:So I have a character concept but Im unsure where to go with it. In 3e I was a battlefield control wizard moving everyone like chess, whats similar? I was looking at tiefling bard mc warlord, maybe with mc paladin for the Wrath of the Crimson Legion. I wouldn't MC for Wrath of the Crimson Legion unless you wanted to be an off-defender, because Paladin's Wrath replaces your Infernal Wrath and you usually don't want to be tanking the encounter for any period of time unless you're built for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Khizan posted:The more I play 4E the more that I feel that this is a sacrifice I am willing to make, especially because I have come to feel like the tactical depth of particularly crunchy 4E is deceptively shallow. There's a few certain dominant strategies that are so effective that they end up removing a lot of that depth and so a lot of the time it just ends up feeling like rocket tag, where the results of the fights depend more on the initiative roll than anything else. 4E is far from a perfect game, but Strike still went in the direction of removing the potential for a lot of complexity to address the issues rather than trying to resolve them while maintaining a degree of complexity. I'd love to see a take on 4E's basic structure that sat down and had a real long brainstorm on how to address the issue of alpha strikes. Perhaps borrowing 13th ages notion of the escalation die but ramping it up further such that you get a fraction of the possible damage if you use it all right at turn 1. Encourage set-up and maneuvering, and have the ramp up such that, if you arranged everything right, you get that same sort of "I win now" on turn 4-5 or so that you previously got on turn 1, but you had to work for it because the enemy actually had time to react and attempt to maneuver. Also, a lot of 4E's issues with combat length come down to choice paralysis, but that's a player psychology thing. The only way, mechanically, that you can prevent choice paralysis is to remove choice, but I consider that a lot less fun. I think a lot of 4E games would benefit from the DM bringing one of those chess timers and giving each person a minute to decide a turn (including themself for each NPC of course). Put a hard limit on how long anyone can waffle on what they want to do. People will get better/more comfortable with making snap tactical judgements in time and things will flow much faster. Edit: slydingdoor posted:That would be a good nerf to that combo–vulnerability is really overpowered– and I don't see why that combo should be limited to cold damage. And here I thought everyone was going to ignore that post. I think the ongoing fits necrotic thematically pretty nicely. Vuln doesn't feel like it thematically fits cold though. I wonder if there would be a good alternative to swap cold to? Obligatum VII fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Arivia posted:It's not about a setting. Sure, there's RPGs without settings. It's about having any creative narrative, characterization, or anything at all. I've never read FATE Core but I'm sure it has sample characters or whatever with something going for them. d20 Modern had plenty of ideas in there, even if it was d20 Modern and not great. Strike doesn't have any of that. There's a monster section? Maybe? Otherwise it's just lists of characters stolen from other games and media and suggestions for putting them together. Strike has no creative content in it, period. No, that's false. quote:I'm criticizing the actual Strike core rulebook and not a third-party fansite. Keep up. FYI, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook has plenty of narrative elements to get it going - they reused artwork and iconic images from the Adventure Paths so far, and included specific content (like the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class) to build it even further. The Strike corebook also has artwork and specific content. I guess you just haven't read it and have been complaining about the original beta document that used to be hosted on Jimbozig's blog or something? quote:Yeah dude, sorry I come to the 4e thread to talk about 4e and not your lovely knockoff. That's what I was trying to tell you in the first place. Go away. You have your own thread for your heartbreaker (and that term is common knowledge, don't be an idiot.) I've talked plenty about the writing, you just seem to be blind to see it. It's unclear. It's badly organized (there's an index, but even that's a pain to work with). Jimbozig littered the text with pointless whining to the reader about whatever he doesn't like. It's worse than the natural language of most RPGs because it has a really lovely authorial voice of a guy who is as dull as wallpaper paste and he won't shut the gently caress up. The rules are bland and boring and just things taken from other games Jimbozig likes. (Classic heartbreaker, that.) No, you've just mentioned the writing and rules repeatedly; you cannot name actual problems. At least in the case of the writing you've managed to give some indication of your personal taste (you don't like it when a book takes a familiar tone) even in the course of failing to cite objective problems or provide examples - whenever you even enter the orbit of the game's rules there's just this howling void. Of course, it is precisely the rules that are most relevant and deserving of discussion here because it's Strike's rules that make it similar to 4E and relevant to someone who likes 4E but wants something with less busywork, or wants ideas for mechanics or house rules to introduce to 4E, or wants a game to try on their friends that might prepare those friends for 4E, or...
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The Strike corebook also has artwork and specific content. I guess you just haven't read it and have been complaining about the original beta document that used to be hosted on Jimbozig's blog or something? Never saw whatever beta document you're referring to. I read a PDF copy of the final release after a friend tried to run a game using it. quote:No, you've just mentioned the writing and rules repeatedly; you cannot name actual problems. At least in the case of the writing you've managed to give some indication of your personal taste (you don't like it when a book takes a familiar tone) even in the course of failing to cite objective problems or provide examples - whenever you even enter the orbit of the game's rules there's just this howling void. Dude I'm not gonna read the lovely RPG that was pretty unreadable in the first place AGAIN for an Internet argument. It's two weeks to Christmas, I have way better things to do right now. I hope you do too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Never saw whatever beta document you're referring to. I read a PDF copy of the final release after a friend tried to run a game using it. No, of course you're not going to read it. Inexplicably, though, you're going to post as though you've read and understood it. Strike is a good game. The hosed up thing about the discussion we're having is that your primary complaint is also my primary complaint about Strike - I prefer systems that try to represent, with as much fidelity as is practical, the specific details of a particular fiction setting to systems that are setting-agnostic. My favorite tabletop games are things like Mage and Exalted because their lore and mechanics are so tightly intertwined, and I'm pretty cool on games like Fate precisely because I'm not that excited at the prospect of doing the work of adapting a system to a setting myself. But... that's not really a good vector for me to attack Strike or Fate on, because neither of those systems is trying to represent a specific setting in the first place. They are, baldly, setting-agnostic constellations of rules designed first and foremost to deliver a kind of tactical challenge and/or table dynamic. If there's something wrong with them, rather than something that's simply not to your taste, it's got to be something to do with the way the rules work or fail to work, not something to do with the fact that there is no official Fate setting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
I do get frustrated "setting agnostic" systems at this point, and I think books with built-in setting are more fun to read and play, and therefore more likely to even get played. In the interest of full disclosure, I am working on releasing something on drivethrurpg that is effectively setting-agnostic, though it has a strong creative flavor to it. Like, you know what it's about, it's not just a toolset. More on that later I guess. I have Strike! on my shelf, haven't really perused it fully yet. I was hoping for something that was a lighter read. However, my group is sick of 4E and we're starting to fully move on to other systems, so Strike! may be around the corner. FWIW I like the cover art. That's about as far as I'm willing to commit to this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:I do get frustrated "setting agnostic" systems at this point, and I think books with built-in setting are more fun to read and play, and therefore more likely to even get played. In the interest of full disclosure, I am working on releasing something on drivethrurpg that is effectively setting-agnostic, though it has a strong creative flavor to it. Like, you know what it's about, it's not just a toolset. More on that later I guess. You should try Savage Worlds. It's setting agnostic but there are heaps of good setting books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
The worst thing about Strike! along this axis is actually the exact opposite; it presents as setting-agnostic and then has a ton of classes whose mechanics really clearly map to narrative concepts like "necromancer" or "guy who turns into a giant squid" and then goes "sure you can reskin these to whatever."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
I think Strike would be significantly worse if it had the Attacker Through Remote Proxies rather than the Summoner or whatever, and not just because the latter kind of class name makes it much easier to think of powers. Though there's not an official Strike setting its classes do suggest a default one, which I guess is a kind of Final Fantasy-ish tech-friendly fantasy world in which you've got both wizards casting spells and engineers laying mines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I think Strike would be significantly worse if it had the Attacker Through Remote Proxies rather than the Summoner or whatever, and not just because the latter kind of class name makes it much easier to think of powers. Though there's not an official Strike setting its classes do suggest a default one, which I guess is a kind of Final Fantasy-ish tech-friendly fantasy world in which you've got both wizards casting spells and engineers laying mines. But can you have wizard engineers laying down spell mines?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Please stop feeding the troll. Your troll-dar is broken, a cursory view of their rap-sheet demonstrates Arivia is the genuine kind of thick, argumentative grognard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I think Strike would be significantly worse if it had the Attacker Through Remote Proxies rather than the Summoner or whatever, and not just because the latter kind of class name makes it much easier to think of powers. Though there's not an official Strike setting its classes do suggest a default one, which I guess is a kind of Final Fantasy-ish tech-friendly fantasy world in which you've got both wizards casting spells and engineers laying mines. Yeah it's not really something with an easy solution, it's just there's this suggested world that isn't elaborated on and I can understand how that would nag at someone. I'm running my Strike! campaign as a Live-a-Live style "every genre of cheap paperback fiction exists in the same multiverse" kind of deal and it's working pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:But can you have wizard engineers laying down spell mines? Mines is the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Obligatum VII posted:4E is far from a perfect game, but Strike still went in the direction of removing the potential for a lot of complexity to address the issues rather than trying to resolve them while maintaining a degree of complexity. To speed up fights, at the end of each turn a non-minion, non-"spirit" creature takes damage that ignores resistance equal to the level of the highest level creature on the other side. So monsters take the PC's level damage, and the PCs take whatever is the highest level monster's, which may change if they take out the higher level monsters. I already said why I don't like the Escalation die but I'll repeat it here: it says eventually the PCs always win no matter what, eventually the tactics and luck that are supposed to be the difference between victory and defeat just cease to matter, its existence is an admission that the focus of that game isn't really all that fun and will become tiresome for the players. This hack conveys that combat is tiring and stressful for the characters, that even in the very first round they know what they're up against and the stakes and only winning or fleeing can bring that stress to an end. Also, hiding invisible or flinging spells and arrows from 20 squares away from the melee isn't safe anymore. I don't think alpha striking as a problem nor do I know how to "solve" it: players should be rewarded for being lucky and for layering their powers well, and fights' being too long is a more pressing issue with the gameplay, and it would be hard to reduce alpha striking without making fights longer. Also, the longest most tiresome fights I've been part of have been the results of playing poorly and especially too conservatively in the opening rounds. The combat stress hack makes it more obvious that liberally using powers to shorten combat is the best strategy. For choice paralysis and to speed up fights, I really don't think chess timers is the answer. It's kind of gate-keepy, what if a player is having a bad day or is new? They shouldn't be pressured or railroaded or anything, and it makes "just listen to the armchair general without discussion" more attractive, which I think is bad, because it divorces the character's success or failure from their player's skill. My dumb hack is to change all non-daily standard action attack powers to work like Power Strike, so they're applied retroactively. Basically this changes all your at-will and encounter attack powers into free actions triggered on hitting such and such defense. In play on your turn you choose your target first–maybe just the first one, either way it shouldn't be too tough a choice–then you just roll your attack. The GM tells you whether and what you hit (you hit AC, you hit all defenses, you hit ref and fort but not will or AC, etc.) then you choose which of your powers to use, sometimes you'll roll more attacks after this due to the nature of the power. This will always make fights finish faster by making the PCs able to choose the most damaging powers on a crit and never waste their encounter powers on a miss (unless it's one of the rarer DOAM or Effect powers that they might want to pop with or without getting the Hit line). In theory this reduces choice paralysis by breaking up the decision making into smaller chunks and giving players momentum. When they roll a hit it is their "moment," instead of gating the bulk of their turn behind committing to an encounter power or at-will to use, then feeling bad if they miss with the cool power they called out. Other than that, I don't think that complexity that isn't solved by the CBuilder really matters outside some degenerate combinations. Penalties should be typed so they don't all stack. Vulnerability-inflicting should be much rarer/smaller since it is a usually powerful "type" of damage bonus. The most powerful multiple attack granting powers probably shouldn't reapply static damage mods on the same target. Obligatum VII posted:And here I thought everyone was going to ignore that post. I think the ongoing fits necrotic thematically pretty nicely. Vuln doesn't feel like it thematically fits cold though. I wonder if there would be a good alternative to swap cold to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Yeah, it shows off how creatively bankrupt the whole thing is. There's no actual content to it, nothing to grab onto. The sample campaigns are even just Star Wars and Avatar the Last Airbender with the names filed off. It's just terribly written. And if it's terribly written, the rules are just another heartbreaker, and there's no actual creativity in it, then it's not worth playing. Strike is the kind of game people would laugh at for fun in Fatal & Friends, except it's not even interesting enough to be covered there. It's a generic rules set. The rules are the key thing, and as far as I can see they're good. They're not a replacement for 4e but they're good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Sure do like talking pages about Not-4e in the 4e thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Sure do like talking pages about Not-4e in the 4e thread. Yeah, this is why I was trying to tell them to not even start it. Strike's a bad game and a terrible replacement for 4e. It has no point in this thread and its devotees need to let it go and not turn everything into a discussion about their pet game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Strike is a good replacement for 4E, because it's gameplay strongly, strongly resembles 4E's while its overhead is much lower. You know this as well as I do and that's why you haven't said a thing about the mechanics of either game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Sure do like talking pages about Not-4e in the 4e thread. The Strike derail would have been short-lived if not for the fact that Arivia is compelled to bring up their incredibly tenuously reasoned grudge against Strike in every thread where it even gets a mention. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
At this point I would rather listen to that gimmick poster that says you should play Dungeon World but tell everyone at the table that it's D&D so that "their brains aren't ruined."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:At this point I would rather listen to that gimmick poster that says you should play Dungeon World but tell everyone at the table that it's D&D so that "their brains aren't ruined." Hey, why'd you get a name change 1K Monkeys? (just curious)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:Hey, why'd you get a name change 1K Monkeys? (just curious) Asked for a random one in a GBS thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:At this point I would rather listen to that gimmick poster that says you should play Dungeon World but tell everyone at the table that it's D&D so that "their brains aren't ruined." Yeah, pretty much. I'm just tired of Strike fans bringing up their lovely game in every thread. We get it, you think it's good, it doesn't replace everything else or other conversations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Yeah, pretty much. I'm just tired of FR fans bringing up their lovely setting in every thread. We get it, you think it's good, it doesn't replace everything else or other conversations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Amazingly, I have enough self-control to not aggressively push people to play a game in the FR instead of Eberron or their other setting of choice. The Strike people don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Yeah, pretty much. I'm just tired of Strike fans bringing up their lovely game in every thread. We get it, you think it's good, it doesn't replace everything else or other conversations. 4e D&D clone in 4e D&D thread oh no
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
starkebn posted:4e D&D clone in 4e D&D thread Yeah, if it was anyone else's lovely heartbreaker it would have been laughed out ages ago. Unfortunately this one is made by goons who can't seem to stick to their own thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Honestly is there even another 4e clone out there that isn't Strike? We aren't exactly swimming in the OGL's pool of plenty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Honestly is there even another 4e clone out there that isn't Strike? A whole bunch: http://taxidermicowlbear.weebly.com/dd-retroclones.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
I like 4e and strike and 4e clones
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:38
|
|
