Re: "It's about adventuring"? (was Re: Playtest Reports: Prophecy of the Priestess, Part 2)



On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, No 33 Secretary wrote:

[snip]
In all seriousness, one of the most fun campaigns we ever had (C&S)
saw PCs on both sides of the great conflict between good and evil.
PC paladin running an order devoted to tracking down and killing
the evil Brothers Necormancer (also PCs). The entire family of a
count who were all PCs, and all more evil than the Necromancers,
but with a strong vested interest in the The Way Things Are, and
weren't about to tolerate competition. There were literally more
sides than there were players, since we all had multiple
characters. I think we probably had examples of just about every
form of evil you could possibly think of in a fantasy world, from
world-conquering wizards with an army of orcs to nihilistic world
destroyers to drooling incompetence to, and I *** you not, a
necromancer who gave up magic to run for mayor of a town _because
it paid better_.
[snip]

I like your gaming group. They sound a lot like (some of) mine.

Players often enjoy a range of "adventuring" that goes well outside of the combat mechanics.


I think you missed the real point, actually. Killing monsters and
taking their treasure isn't a goal, it's a tool. Irrelvant, in and
of itself. (Unless, of course, that's what everyone enjoys.)

I've run games where the core goal was bodycount. I don't enjoy GMing those. (Or playing in them either.)

I accept that it's a legitimate playstyle though.

I liked 3.x because it strongly supported customizing a character into areas *not* *related* to "battle crunchyness".

I've had players who wanted the Leadership feat so that they could make a better run for Mayor... And never, *ever* allowed the flunkies or followers that resulted follow him out to the dungeon when it was necessary because they might get hurt.

A precious Feat "wasted" on "flavor"...

I've had players *want* to take levels of "Expert", just to develop a "career" outside of the "Hero" business.

So I suppose I have an optimized fit for the 3.5 rules.

4.0 scares me. It's "change"... when I didn't think major change was needed. (The "I didn't think" phrasing of the prior sentence is a *CLUE* that I am expressing an opinion here, rather than trying to declare an inviolate fact of some sort.)

Anyway...

It's been a fun conversation.

Gene P.
Slidell LA



.

Quantcast