|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 5:43PM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
I only played GURPS a little. It just didnt click with me( not saying it was bad). Now I have a hatred for werewolf that makes it hard for me too care about any of their other products.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 6:30PM
#122
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2003
|
My least favorite non-D&D game out there is Pathfinder
[giorgio tsoukalos]Now I'm not saying that's shameless edition warring but...[/giorgio tsoukalos]
I can't really see how any of the various D&D OGL progeny could realistically (outside of just going for pure polemics) be included in a discussion of non-D&D games.
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 6:34PM
#123
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
My least favorite non-D&D game out there is Pathfinder
[giorgio tsoukalos]Now I'm not saying that's shameless edition warring but...[/giorgio tsoukalos]
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 6:40PM
#124
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Actually, since Pathfinder isn't a D&D edition, it isn't edition warring at all. The fact that it's a spinoff is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 4:04AM
#125
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Actually, since Pathfinder isn't a D&D edition, it isn't edition warring at all. The fact that it's a spinoff is irrelevant.
This is gonna end well.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 7:49AM
#126
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
This is like saying D&D sucks because you think magic spells and elves are stupid.
And I'm sure there are people who do, in fact, have that opinion.
I hated the story and setting of WoD. If I want a depressing, hopeless suckfest where I'm stuck in a downward spiral and can't do a damn thing to stop it ... I'll go outside.
This post was good, and you should feel good. :D
Srsly, though, +1. That whole "imagine a world that's so gritty, it's worst than the real world, even the crappy parts of the real world" thing can die in a fire, AFAIC.
Same reason I'm not a huge fan of Joel Abercrombie and to a lesser extent George RR Martin. I can dig gritty realism. To me, grittier than realism is just as stupid as rose colored glasses optimism.
You folks complaining about the ultra-gritty feel of the WoD know that that is for all intents and purposes limited to the old World of Darkness, right? And that the new World of Darkness isn't nearly as gritty or "gothic punk," or at the very least as a toolbox game can be adjusted to make the setting whatever you like?
Just curious.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 8:07AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
Actually, since Pathfinder isn't a D&D edition, it isn't edition warring at all. The fact that it's a spinoff is irrelevant.
Well, it is edition warring, because this is about "game system". Pathfinder uses the same system (D20 system) that 3E does.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 10:26AM
#128
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Well, it is edition warring, because this is about "game system". Pathfinder uses the same system (D20 system) that 3E does.
It's only edition-warring if you assume that someone likes or doesn't like Pathfinder based on its 3E-like qualities. Plenty of people hate Pathfinder because they view it as an immoral business practice, which is not edition-warring (even though it is completely unfair to the system to judge it based on out-of-game circumstances). Regardless of how you feel about the company, the game should be judged on its own merits.
Personally, I enjoy 3E and dislike Pathfinder because of the changes it has over 3.5 - I view them as hurting the system much more than they help.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 11:49AM
#129
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
Personally, I enjoy 3E and dislike Pathfinder because of the changes it has over 3.5 - I view them as hurting the system much more than they help.
Well okay, if you wanted to talk about the differences, then that's fine.
I guess I'm just biased becasue I think of the two of them as basically the same game.
Which makes me curious, what parts of PF do you think 3E did better?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 12:06PM
#130
|
|
|
This is a good thread. Because of this post. I can read this post and know, even if I hadn't before, that we will agree on very little.
Just the fact that you somehow find GURPS inelegant
For what it's worth, the last time I played GURPS was in 1997 or so, so I'm talking about whatever edition was out then.
But I agree it's a great thread though, now I know I should check out Edge of the Empire 
Ah, that would have been 3rd. IIRC, it's more obstructively complex, with some strange ad hoc rules additions. 4th made things work much more smoothly, amongst other tweaks.
Edge of The Empire really feels like a game that shouldn't have had a class like structure, but the designers insisted on having it anyway.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
