Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 4366-4370 (Oct 5th to Oct 9th 2020)
BenRG:
FWIW, the dev team behind the last released version of Paranoia (v.4 or 'XP') seems to have accepted a lot of the criticisms of the intrinsic problems of Paraoia, introducing the 'Paranoia but not' 'Straight' game form that encourages reduced lethality, greater player engagement, more complex game environments and allowing the running of campaigns with multiple different player classes including retail staff, vid stars, researchers and rescue workers, all in a complex sci-fi satire of modern media-dominated society.
Personally, it is a hobby of mine to attempt to adapt the extremely streamlined WEG d20 RPG system (intended to encourage rapid and easy play free of complex statistics and rule-juggling) to other environments. My current project is an attempt to adapt it to the Fallout and XCom universes.
oddtail:
@BenRG: the version of Paranoia I primarily played *was* XP. It didn't win me over. I think I'm just not the target audience for the game.
sitnspin:
Personally, most of the time, if the choice is between playing D&D and not playing anything, I'd rather not play anything. In general, it's just not a game that appeals to me on any level. Same with Pathfinder, which is basically the same thing.
I am fortunate to have a group of people to play with that like mixing it up with different systems.
Interesting side note: I've never actually eaten at McDonald's.
--- Quote from: hedgie on 10 Oct 2020, 03:25 ---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.
--- End quote ---
From a design perspective, I find that if you want to maximise player options, your best course is to reduce the amount of rules rather than increase them. Streamline the system to as few types of rolls as possible and just flavour the narrative to fit what you want to do. PF tries to make a rule for every possible circumstance and it just makes the system a mess and bogs down play.
hedgie:
A problem that comes out of the wargaming roots that D&D first started out with. The first-end DMG was insanely thick, and had tables for everything, including matrices of modifiers for certain weapon types against certain armour types/AC values that were largely ignored by the people who didn't keep a dog-eared copy of the Necronomicon in their bag for casual reading. Others were quite useful, especially in the pre-internet days for generating npcs/dungeons on the quick.
I'd say that out of anything I've played, "Mage" had fairly streamlined hard rules, and basically infinite possibility, but it was really hard to find a group that could do it properly.
WRT to fast food, the closest I get even remotely sober is one of the local taquerias (not either of the good ones, but a chain with varying quality).
Dock Braun:
--- Quote from: sitnspin on 10 Oct 2020, 09:12 ---to maximise player options, your best course is to reduce the amount of rules rather than increase them.
--- End quote ---
My favorite had the game-master laying out some simple principles, from which the rest are uniquely inferred, calling it CSARPN (read sharpen; I recall A, N meaning abstract nonsense and C meaning concrete, but RP not meaning role-playing). I'm drafting an outline for playing obsessions vying for their host mind's focus.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version