[S&W] Keep on Borderlands- Oldschool experiment
Callan S.:
Well, this is just me but when I see that much focus on mods/houserules, to me it seems like that IS the gameplay at the table. Modding has become or always was the gameplay itself. All the stuff like having little PC's moving around the game world (as figures or fiction) is just an opportunity to see where a new mod is 'needed'.
To me it never seems very fun because it's never actually tries to settle down and enjoy a set of rules, like one might enjoy the rules of chess or connect four. It's always pursuing something that isn't currently there to be had. To me, perhaps unaware of pertinent details, it seems like constant grass is greener activity. I might be way off, but I'd ask them to describe in concrete terms what they actually enjoy - and they wont be able to tell you. It'll always slip out of the concrete and into broad generalisations.
Indeed I guess I'd put it this way - if they're certain they're working out some really good mods, what is their track history? How long have they been modding things to get it 'just right' and what have they made in that time that they can point at and say they enjoy? If it's years and nothing, then that's a fair bit of evidence this constant modding of stuff is going absolutely nowhere.
Roger:
Quote from: AzaLiN on January 06, 2010, 11:52:32 PM
they felt that S&W is just a long series of misses followed by instant death
What monsters were they up against? The characters' bonuses to attack rolls was almost certainly +0 or maybe +1 if they were lucky enough to have a high Strength.
Lots of monsters are AC6: ghouls,kobolds, orcs.
Some are AC7: goblins, human bandits and soldiers, giant rats, skeletons and zombies (if they have shields).
AC6 is hit on a roll of 13 or better; AC7 on a roll of 12 or better.
So they should have been hitting at least a third of the time, and maybe as often as almost half the time. Of course, every party has been known to hit a streak of really bad rolls on occasion.
FredGarber:
1. Might I suggest a different change on the to-hit percentages? A house rule I used once was "For every turn you stay attacking on the same monster, you get a +1 to hit." I did not apply this rule to the monsters. It turned the game a little "softer" - Players won the combats more often, but often the bonus applied to a roll that would have hit anyways. But players FELT safer, and so they attacked more.
2. I also would suggest a change to how you might handle failed rolls. Instead of just saying "You need a 13 -> you rolled a 12. You miss." Have each player describe in-fiction HOW they missed: "At the last moment, the goblin ducks under my sword." -> This might get them more invested with the failed rolls. Changing hitpoints usually means a lot of math.
3. The fact that you take for granted that with six players, there's only going to be three of them involved at any given moment is worrysome to me. What is keeping the other three away from the game?
4. It seems like you took a mix of D&D1e and D&D4e, and are combining them into something closer to AD&D 1e.
Whenever I start messing with a simple system in as much detail as you seem to be planning, I tend to spend more time on the SYSTEM, and less on the actual playing of the game. Be careful to not end up like me :)
-Fred
contracycle:
Quote from: AzaLiN on January 04, 2010, 02:52:34 AM
Now, since the combat rules are simple, as far as adventuring goes, 6 players actually turned out to be really entertaining. I've gotten fairly competent at keeping big fights running quickly from trying to have huge fights in 4e [ugh], and I think everyone was happy with the fights, though we used miniatures and I was a little hesitant about that. I think that without the miniatures the fights would be faster and more imaginative. Thoughts? I'm very unsure about where I stand here. For exploring and fighting though, 6 players didn't hurt the pace much at all, I think it helped it in ways.
It's certainly my experience that platying with mini's entails a sort of sewitch-out from RPG mode into boardgame mode, which I dislike. Therefore I certainly agree that this sort of action will become more "imaginative"; mini's and maps absolve you of the need to keep an imaginary situation imagined. They can have a role as tokens, on a map that is not cleanly measured and where moving them is representational rather than governed by rules, just to keep order.
AzaLiN:
Quote
Well, this is just me but when I see that much focus on mods/houserules, to me it seems like that IS the gameplay at the table.
Currently. I'm going to try to wrap it up soon and get some actual gaming started.
Quote
What monsters were they up against?
bandits and lizardmen- two players missed every roll but 1 or 2 each all night. I think that's fine, but combat wasn't moving fast enough to make up for it, which is another reason I want no minis when we fight.
Quote
It's certainly my experience that platying with mini's entails a sort of sewitch-out from RPG mode into boardgame mode, which I dislike.
agreed. That's why I think of 4e as a sort of board game. By the way, have you heard of the houserule where you don't let the players know their PC's hp? you just tell them 'bloodied,' staggered, near-death, or unconscious/dead. More bookkeeping, but I want to try it out- it undoes some of the gamism/board game mode thinking, and forces the players into a more imaginative situation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page