4 ms·

> Alas, that's not how games work. Plenty of games work this way thankfully. What you describe after is hell. That’s exactly what I hate about RPG. You don’t

> Alas, that's not how games work. Plenty of games work this way thankfully. What you describe after is hell. That’s exactly what I hate about RPG. You don’t have to care about balancing power level and people “bullshiting“ their powers if your game simply doesn’t have these mechanics. I don’t want to have to play through a detailed combats ever especially in a heroic fantasy setting. That’s as far removed from fun a situation as I can imagine. It’s interesting because our discussion makes it obvious that there are entirely orthogonal way of enjoying RPG with next to no overlap.

the_af 4y ago
To give my perspective, I fully agree with you and I'm not an "improv" kind of gamer. I want combat, but I also want simple rules and a fast flow to the gameplay, not tedium. D&D is not only tedious to me, it's also a "mechanicist" (for lack of a better word) approach to fantasy. It's rules-based rather than fun-based. It doesn't tell a story, it tells how spell X interacts with weapon Y and how to read charts and stats. A fight in movies doesn't happen like that, the flow and thrill is entirely different. I'm ok rolling dice, it's fun! But give me a result fast and make it narratively meaningful, nothing breaks immersion like arguing whether a level 35 Pastamancer can cast Fireball against a level 5 shield of enchanted wood.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > A fight in movies doesn't happen like that, the flow and thrill is entirely different. If we look at real life games, such as Fencing... and less "combat" like games, like Football or Baseball, we end up with huge rule systems to fairly resolve conflicts. One can say "I just want to throw a ball and have fun". But there is no _GAME_ here. If you want to play "Basketball", and get good at "Basketball", it becomes very important to define a foul. Same thing in the D&D world. You may not necessarily have to define what is or isn't a foul in your games, but should combat grow intense and adversarial, then it becomes a necessity. -------- But as I said before: if you want to just roleplay, Dread is there for that. There's a reason why other games systems exist. But I bust out D&D when I want to (and when my players want to) have a complex system of magical spells interact with each other, in a well defined manner. That's still flexible enough for story to be pulled out of it.
  - the_af 4y ago
    No, Dread is no good, I'm not interested in role-playing with any rules as a bare-bones excuse. Dread seems barely a game at all. I disagree about your sports analogy. D&D is the worst possible engine to simulate the fast paced flow of a sports game. Or a fight. It's a mechanistic simulation, way too emphasis on interactions between low level rules. It's like attempting to design a good soccer game by writing lots of rules about the physics of the ball, how each bristle of the grass interacts with the ball, how the materials of the shoe affect the kick -- and all of this must be consulted in several charts every time there is a kick! A wargame designer I know once put it like this: if your rules take an hour of play to simulate something that in real life only takes a few minutes, you are doing something wrong.

the_af 4y ago

To give my perspective, I fully agree with you and I'm not an "improv" kind of gamer. I want combat, but I also want simple rules and a fast flow to the gameplay, not tedium. D&D is not only tedious to me, it's also a "mechanicist" (for lack of a better word) approach to fantasy. It's rules-based rather than fun-based. It doesn't tell a story, it tells how spell X interacts with weapon Y and how to read charts and stats. A fight in movies doesn't happen like that, the flow and thrill is entirely different. I'm ok rolling dice, it's fun! But give me a result fast and make it narratively meaningful, nothing breaks immersion like arguing whether a level 35 Pastamancer can cast Fireball against a level 5 shield of enchanted wood.

dragontamer 4y ago
> A fight in movies doesn't happen like that, the flow and thrill is entirely different. If we look at real life games, such as Fencing... and less "combat" like games, like Football or Baseball, we end up with huge rule systems to fairly resolve conflicts. One can say "I just want to throw a ball and have fun". But there is no _GAME_ here. If you want to play "Basketball", and get good at "Basketball", it becomes very important to define a foul. Same thing in the D&D world. You may not necessarily have to define what is or isn't a foul in your games, but should combat grow intense and adversarial, then it becomes a necessity. -------- But as I said before: if you want to just roleplay, Dread is there for that. There's a reason why other games systems exist. But I bust out D&D when I want to (and when my players want to) have a complex system of magical spells interact with each other, in a well defined manner. That's still flexible enough for story to be pulled out of it.
- the_af 4y ago
  No, Dread is no good, I'm not interested in role-playing with any rules as a bare-bones excuse. Dread seems barely a game at all. I disagree about your sports analogy. D&D is the worst possible engine to simulate the fast paced flow of a sports game. Or a fight. It's a mechanistic simulation, way too emphasis on interactions between low level rules. It's like attempting to design a good soccer game by writing lots of rules about the physics of the ball, how each bristle of the grass interacts with the ball, how the materials of the shoe affect the kick -- and all of this must be consulted in several charts every time there is a kick! A wargame designer I know once put it like this: if your rules take an hour of play to simulate something that in real life only takes a few minutes, you are doing something wrong.