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

Alcore <alcore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0710301226310.25941@xxxxxxxxx:



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.

In those days, we had at least a dozen weekly regulars and as many
as 20 or more with dilletantes most weeks. With that many twisted
minds, we had our moments.

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

In our D&D days, oh so long ago, at least half the adventures that
were run were actually set up by player characters, rather than
something the DM created. Mostly, it was high power characters
hiring low level characters to go mess with other high level
characters. I'll hafta tell you about the army of wheat stalks that
stormed the walls of a castle and planted their flag on top of the
owner's keep sometime.


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.)

They're fun, once in a while, but usually only once or twice.

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".

We get mostly out of D&D a long time ago, in favor of game systems
that made that easier.

I've had players who wanted the Leadership feat so that they
could make a better run for Mayor...

In this particular instance, leadership had *nothing* to do with
being elected 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"...

Heh. All leaders need minions they can send to certain death.

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.)

If 3.5 works, why bother with anything new?

Anyway...

It's been a fun conversation.

That's not allowed on Usenet. We've had two exchanges on topic, we
are now legally required to degenerate in to namecalling and
subject changing.

--
Terry Austin

"I'm in the trenches and replaced the rose covered glasses with
fluid safe splash guards." - tom c


.

Quantcast