Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 4366-4370 (Oct 5th to Oct 9th 2020)
sitnspin:
All of the WoD franchises were designed to be kept separate, they very much are not intended for cross play. They each have their own internal scaling. They are also each entire different in scope, theme, tone, and perspective. Nary the twain should meet. I mean, sure you can do it, but it definitely runs counter to the way the games are designed to be played.
Pathfinder has always been and continues to be bloated and inelegant, but some people are into that. It definitely isn't for me.
I am a bigger fan of smaller indie games like Monsterhearts, Apocalypse World, and similar simpler narrative focused, more thematically narrow games.
hedgie:
Oh, yeah, they're fine internally, and the base system is nice and clean. I also kinda want to try out the fan-made "Genius: The Transgression". And yes, Pathfinder is, to both its benefit and detriment explicitly designed to give players as many options as possible, and even if a refinement on D&D 3.x in so many ways, inherits some of that system's flaws.
oddtail:
D&D is not the best-designed game I've played by any stretch, but I kinda regard it as the game equivalent of a burger from a big franchise.
There are people who can't stand McDonald's (and I used to be one of those people, actually), but it does a lot of things passably well, is comfortably predictable, and if you want to go out with a bunch of friends, it's a safe option that you can reasonably hope most will agree to.
Great food that's for a more specific palate? Not always, not necessarily.
Are there much better burgers than McDonald's? Boy, are there. But it's McDonald's, y'know? It's popular, it's not that bad, and it's accessible. And if you ask a person who's not a burger afficionado if they've heard of McDonald's, they certainly have. D&D is exactly the same for tabletop gaming. You'd be hard-pressed to find a person who is vaguely aware tabletop games exist and hasn't heard of D&D. And almost every tabletop RPG player has played D&D, which is FAR from true for any other game, even the most popular ones.
(seriously, before the pandemic if I suggested to my RPG friends a new game, and it was D&D or Pathfinder? I always had more than enough people. I ran a frickin' four-year campaign in PF and even when some people dropped out, there was never a shortage of new players. When I try to run a different, more focused game? I'm lucky if I can get a team together in the first place)
hedgie:
And given at the rate that even groups that do successfully start end up exploding within a few months at the best of times, most people only are going to be willing to learn a couple of systems. In that case, I'd say "run Paranoia, the players aren't supposed to know the rules anyway", but half the fun of that game is getting *away* with knowing the rules and exploiting them.
oddtail:
--- Quote from: hedgie on 10 Oct 2020, 05:34 ---And given at the rate that even groups that do successfully start end up exploding within a few months at the best of times, most people only are going to be willing to learn a couple of systems. In that case, I'd say "run Paranoia, the players aren't supposed to know the rules anyway", but half the fun of that game is getting *away* with knowing the rules and exploiting them.
--- End quote ---
Plus, not everyone will dig Paranoia. It's a game that will not appeal to people with a certain gaming philosophy. And I think it'll turn off a lot of relatively casual RPG players.
(and not just casual ones - I'm *really* into RPG, been for 20+ years, and I *loathe* Paranoia. I'd rather play just about ANYthing else - I can think of only one professionally made game that I like even less.
And on GMing side, I think I'd rather run *no* game than a Paranoia game)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version