You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 06:27:47 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?  (Read 5190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #75 on: October 13, 2012, 03:55:33 PM »
You missed the point. It's up to the GM to balance the campaign and NOT put players into that sort of situation. That's what bad GM's do.  Balance isn't about having people be able to counter everyone else or everyone being able to do the same DPS. That's MMORPG thinking.

Thank you for invalidating 27 years of learning how to GM, by effectively, and probably totally unintentionally, called me a bad GM.  I'd also like to point out that among 'gaming circles' what you just used is what's called the 'Oberoni Fallacy' which goes like this:  No game is broken as long and the GM can fix it.

That line of thinking is what made World of Darkness games so popular, White Wolf doesn't have to think it's mechanics through, giving you half-done products and you'll be happy with them, because you do all the heavy lifting.

That aside.  The term balance is part mechanic and part what has been referred to (by people better than me) as 'Star Power'.  Like an 'ensemble' TV (like say, Leverage, is that still on?) where the cast all have complimentary skill sets, but has a specialty, they all contribute to the job at hand.

Whereas in certain editions of D&D, namely (FOR ME) 3.x (and that includes 3.0), you have situations where you, the rogue player, have to compete for the same job slot that the wizard suddenly fills.  For example you're both Level 7, you (the Rogue) have decent infiltration skills, you climb, pick locks, disable traps, stealth and so on.  The Wizard can load up on Knock, Fly and Invisibility, and still have at least 3 more level one spells to fill, 2 more level two, at least one level 3, and a level 4 slot untouched as of yet.  In other words, the Wizard can do YOUR job but better, because in D&D (pre 4e) magic, especially on self or inanimate objects never fails (well, it never does anyway) or gets resisted (which is the only magic fails.)  And any skills at charming the opponents fail, because Charm Person is so much better.  And that's ignoring the fact that he can scribe the scrolls he needs with those spells, and still have ALL his slots for other things, to make another Player Class invalid.

So YOU Ms. Rogue are officially useless, because everything you can do, the Wizard can do better and more reliably, because unlike skills, magic never fails at the task.  This is not balance, this is often not fun for most players.

Balance does not mean everyone does the same job equally well, it means everyone can do their little area of expertise well enough to shine for a moment, to feel 'useful' to the team to their friends.  In Palladium, often there was no point in picking certain O.C.C.'s because some R.C.C.s could do the same job but better, and still be good at their own niche anyway.  The issue with Rifts was to find out which classes you could completely ignore (protip: Any skill based classes) and which would allow you to have fun with the session without feeling like a fifth wheel.  Which leads to cherry picking certain classes for the everything goes type of games.  In North America, for example, which has the biggest selection of OCC and RCCs available.

I live Palladium's writing, Mr. Siembeida is an excellent story teller (no matter what the covers say, he rewrites every single book in the entire line, it's why they come out so slowly, and no, this is not hyperbole in any way, he's admitted to doing this, and a few of his Freelancers that he's pissed off by his bombastic ways and personality, have all said the same thing) and he's very engaging.  But the system is still a mishmash of AD&D 2e, shoeghorned into the 21st century, often badly and mechanically broken from the get go.  Still is sadly.

But hey, if you're having fun with the game system, that's fine.  Often players find ways to make it work.  But the moment I feel it becomes more work that fun to do so, I step away from it.

Then again, a game I don't house rule, is a game I don't play...

I think i found an analogy to make my point more clear, or maybe more unclear we'll see.

Think of Gygax as KarlBenz, the inventor of the automobile.

Now Benz invented the automobile, a handy little transport machine
Gygax invent RPG's as a way to collectively tell stories.

Automobiles can be used to race, but that's not why they were invented.
RPG's can introduce a level playing field, but that's not why they were invented.

Eventually certain drivers started racing their cars, others didn't
Eventually some players used mechanical balancing, others didn't

Certain drivers started building cars specific for racing, others kept building merely for the transportation of goods and people
Certain developers began creating mechanically balanced games, Others kept creating games purely for telling stories without concern for balance

Eventually extremes let to formula 1's and dragcars on one end, and trucks and buses on the other end
Rollplaying games on one end, Dice free systems on the other end.

In the end a ferrari is a car some people like, while a minivan is liked by others, both are cars and neither are a bad one.
but the fact that feraris exist doesnt mean that all cars are supposed to be ferarris

In the same way, just because their are balanced games out there, does not mean that RPG's are meant to be or need to be balanced.


Djeez i hope that makes sense to people.
That's also totally and completely incorrect.

Mr. Gygax was originally a table top war gamer, and Chainmail (the first iteration of D&D) was a fantasy wargame with fictional armies vying to victory at the table.  He didn't 'reenact' battles, it was sort of like Warhammer was in '83, and like Warhammer, balance between the various factions was mandatory.  You couldn't give one faction a better army or clear advantage over another player, because the loser will complain and not have fun, and Mr. Gygax (at the time) was all about fun for everyone.  D&D moved that from army and squad level to single 'hero' units.  And every time some came up with an overpowered concept (there are tales of a Vampire PC that was utterly dominating the game and other groups) he would make a counter for it (which is what the Cleric turned out to be, very loosely based on the still famous Van Helsing vampire hunter character.)

So no, balance has ALWAYS been in D&D.  Like Benz, who made cars, it's everyone ELSE that turned HIS idea into what THEY thought it should be like.  He may not have thought up of racing cars, but SOMEONE ELSE did, and THEY made changes to the vehicles so that they and the cars CAN race.

And once more, Balance does NOT equal Sameness.  This is a strawman argument that people wave around to dismiss any argument to their favourite archetypes over powered status.


And damn if I don't miss Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0  Ah the good times we had with that game.  And even the some classes were severely broken...  Still loved it though.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #76 on: October 13, 2012, 05:49:46 PM »
Cyberpunk 2020 is always going to be one of my faves.. (which is the ONLY reason I won't kick Mike Poundsmith in the junk if I ever meet him), that being said Cyberpunk v3 irritates me to the point I want to pull out my Cybergen books and do a real 'Old Edgerunners' game where you got players planting the Corp agents coming for THEIR kids, digging up their gear from some backyard and vanishing back into the urban jungle after 10 to 20 years of 'retirment'.

Offline Moraline

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #77 on: October 13, 2012, 06:43:15 PM »
Huge long winded post mostly on the subject of GM/DM'ing and RIFTS
It's like this. I'm a story teller. The story that the player characters live and breath in, is the role play. All of the rest of the core rule stuff in the books(or add ons) are just fluff.

Rules are NEVER perfect and the rules and the stats that go with them are tools (nothing more.) If the tools don't fit or make no sense then you as a GM/DM make the changes. I have never seen a game without a flaw or always making perfect sense. There are always imbalances and poorly thought out skills etc... (in every game.)  Flaws, however, aren't always what you think they are, things like imbalance are not a flaw if you use it as a story telling device.


This is the analogy that I live by: 

If your character is a normal human and someone walks up to your face and pulls the trigger of a shotgun. Your dead. I don't give a damn what the rules say.

That's an analogy because the human and the shotgun represent how often times the rules don't cover or incorrectly cover certain aspects of skills or the mechanics of everyday life.

An example is when a professional thief character walks up to a door and it has a poorly made lock. I don't make characters roll for that - I just let them open the damn door. In a lot of books they don't distinguish the difference between a well made lock and a door that's easy to open. Subtle nuances are often overlooked.

Another example of often poorly done skills: If your character doesn't pick swimming - they can't swim. If your character doesn't pick driving they can't drive.  That's just silliness.

While it maybe true that some people are completely incompetent in those fields the reality is that almost anyone can learn the very fundamental aspects of those things in about 10 min's worth of lessons. Most people do and if your character can't for some reason then it's a personality quirk because it's incredibly abnormal. Most people get the opportunity to learn those things in their lives.  The skill for it is really meant as representing a sort of heightened proficiency at it.

It's not saying they can swim the English channel or race in NASCAR but they can certainly swim across a 10 foot pool (even if it's a doggy paddle), or drive a car down the street a couple blocks.

..and if a magician can do everything a thief can do and they can do it better, then it's up to the GM/DM to fix that.

What makes a good GM/DM is the ability to spin a tale and create an adventure that everyone enjoys and if it takes a mechanically & skill balanced game for the GM/DM to do that then the GM/DM is flawed. It's not a commentary on the game.



Back to the subject of RIFTS - A good Game gives you a world of possibilities with a superior background story. The reason why people "think" that RIFTS is flawed or imbalanced is because they don't take the time to realize how huge the world is and work within the setting to create balanced campaigns.


Here's a TIP for creating campaigns/adventuring in the world of RIFTS:

Don't have a mixed group of players. Since we know there are 100's of classes all over the place in balance then choose from core groups of classes.

You want a group of skilled based characters then there are dozens of skill based classes to choose from - work from there.

You want a group of ultra super powered mutants then there are dozens of classes to choose from within that set of classes as well.

The beauty of RIFTS though, is that you have the ability to use imbalanced classes as well and create balance by imposing restrictions on them through creative story telling. If your characters are uber powerful psychic characters or magic users then force them into areas where they have to hide their abilities or they get stalked by the NPC's that the Palladium books provide for that purpose. Have them have to risk death if they want to use their powers.

Those types of scenarios are where you get your diversity and exciting play from.



Note: On the subject of the "Oberoni Fallacy." The Oberoni Fallacy means that something isn't broken if it can be fixed. Which of course is silly. If it needs to be fixed then of course it's broken.

To repeat myself with another set of examples:

What I have been saying all along is that every system is broken but the imbalance that you feel exists, isn't always what you think it is. It also doesn't mean it's broken.

RIFTS imbalance is only an imbalance if the GM/DM doesn't control it through story telling/campaign design.

It's like putting a soldier into a battlefield with a TANK. Of course there is imbalance here. Your the GM/DM put a TANK with a TANK and put a soldier with a soldier, but don't try to put the tank in the shopping mall.

You as the GM can give the soldier balance if you really want to by letting the soldier have the opportunity to run to cover and find himself a Light Anti-Tank Weapon. Now the playfield is even/balanced.

That tank and that soldier can just as easily be a regular human skill based class in RIFTS and the TANK could be a Demi-God character or a ROBOT. Of course it's imbalanced but a good GM/DM will find a way to give it balance. Restrict the powers of one through story telling. Pull the ROBOT pilot out of the suit. Make the Demi-God have to hide their powers or risk death. Give the soldier access to a ROBOT.

A good GM/DM works with the systems (flaws/broken mechanics and all) but doesn't rely on them to create the campaign/adventure.

The Campaign/adventure is created through character development and story telling. The mechanics of a role playing game are only guidelines - The GM/DM is the real rule book.

If your GM/DM isn't good enough to create an amazing campaign/adventure regardless of the rule system in place then you need a new one.

So in some ways, I guess I agreed with what you said in places but I just see it more as a limitation of an uncreative GM/DM. In what I stated in the quote you used - I stand by it 100%.

... of course that's just my opinion. Some people live for the rules and the dice rolling. I'm just different - I'm all about the story telling. Rules just get in my way sometimes.



To directly respond to this because I've seen this used a couple times as an argument about imbalance.

Before I begin, first off I'd like to say that I agree there is an imbalance here but that shouldn't be an obstacle for a good(read creative) Game Master. Imbalance and poor mechanics exist in every game at some level or other.
.. <situation>...  the rogue player, have to compete for the same job slot that the wizard suddenly fills.  For example you're both Level 7, you (the Rogue) have decent infiltration skills, you climb, pick locks, disable traps, stealth and so on. 
<Thanks for this example by the way - I always play rogues/thieves when I do get a chance to play!>

I'm with you so far.

Although I'd like to point out that again, role playing is about playing the role of the character. There is a significant difference between the way a wizard and a rogue have lived their lives or are living them.

They are both unique individuals with unique stories and backgrounds. The whole story of how they got to be what they are and who they are is a major part of the role playing.

If we look at these two characters already we have potential for interesting stories before any dice/skills/spells are needed for anything. Where are they coming from, how do they get together? I could have multiple play sessions on just those things alone before any of the other stuff even mattered.

Role playing shouldn't just be about the dice rolling things.
...The Wizard can load up on Knock, Fly and Invisibility, and still have at least 3 more level one spells to fill, 2 more level two, at least one level 3, and a level 4 slot untouched as of yet.  In other words, the Wizard can do YOUR job but better, because in D&D (pre 4e) magic, especially on self or inanimate objects never fails (well, it never does anyway) or gets resisted (which is the only magic fails.) 
Alright, well a couple of things.

Why doesn't the GM control the magic in someway? (controlling the game is what the GM is there for)
- The wizard could be hunted by someone that is looking/sensing magic use?
- The wizard could be cursed in some way to prevent the use of the magic. It's a world full of strange magic there's not reason a GM can't simple add a possibility of failure or horrible crazy results to the magic use? It's all up to your imagination.
- Magic can be protected against - I'm pretty sure there are even spells/wards in the books to prevent magic from being used in many circumstances
- GM's are well within their rights to restrict the types of spells that a Wizard has access to. I'm pretty sure there's a whole slew of spells out there that the GM can force the player to work with.
- Extreme alternative - why did the GM let a thief and a wizard be in the same party in the first place? If the GM knows there's an imbalance here then it was up to them to prevent it from happening int eh first place. Options: make an all non-magic game, make an all magic game, let the non-magic users be a higher level (and vice verse), etc..

GM's are supposed to read over and approve of characters before play begins. It's not just meant to be a tool to make sure that players don't cheat - it's also how a GM can guide players to creating characters that "suit" the campaign/adventure that your creating.

I'm not saying it isn't broken or flawed in some way but that doesn't mean it can't be "worked with," to make sure that it's more playable by everyone. I just gave a handful of examples off the top of my head - given some time I'm sure you can create some really interesting stories to go with those points and create entirely new ones to go along with it.
And any skills at charming the opponents fail, because Charm Person is so much better.  And that's ignoring the fact that he can scribe the scrolls he needs with those spells, and still have ALL his slots for other things, to make another Player Class invalid.
Well, I'm going to have to pass on most of this.

But again.. most of this can again be controlled by the GM. It is the GM's job to control the world at large. Same issues as above with same types of solutions and creative play.

So YOU Ms. Rogue are officially useless, because everything you can do, the Wizard can do better and more reliably, because unlike skills, magic never fails at the task.  This is not balance, this is often not fun for most players.
If you follow the above examples that I gave you can easily make it fun for everyone. Restrict a few things with creative story telling and allow others. Always keep in mind ways to keep players in the game and active as you go. It's really not that hard.

I guarantee you can engage that rogue easily enough and make things fun for the wizard too.

Plopping down a map and whipping out your miniatures and rolling dice is only a small portion of what table top gaming is all about.

Admittedly my method isn't for everyone and some people just like to roll dice... I prefer the story of adventure over that.

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #78 on: October 13, 2012, 06:54:22 PM »
Huge long winded post mostly on the subject of GM/DM'ing and RIFTS
It's like this. I'm a story teller. The story that the player characters live and breath in, is the role play. All of the rest of the core rule stuff in the books(or add ons) are just fluff.

Rules are NEVER perfect and the rules and the stats that go with them are tools (nothing more.) If the tools don't fit or make no sense then you as a GM/DM make the changes. I have never seen a game without a flaw or always making perfect sense. There are always imbalances and poorly thought out skills etc... (in every game.)  Flaws, however, aren't always what you think they are, things like imbalance are not a flaw if you use it as a story telling device.


This is the analogy that I live by: 

If your character is a normal human and someone walks up to your face and pulls the trigger of a shotgun. Your dead. I don't give a damn what the rules say.

That's an analogy because the human and the shotgun represent how often times the rules don't cover or incorrectly cover certain aspects of skills or the mechanics of everyday life.

An example is when a professional thief character walks up to a door and it has a poorly made lock. I don't make characters roll for that - I just let them open the damn door. In a lot of books they don't distinguish the difference between a well made lock and a door that's easy to open. Subtle nuances are often overlooked.

Another example of often poorly done skills: If your character doesn't pick swimming - they can't swim. If your character doesn't pick driving they can't drive.  That's just silliness.

While it maybe true that some people are completely incompetent in those fields the reality is that almost anyone can learn the very fundamental aspects of those things in about 10 min's worth of lessons. Most people do and if your character can't for some reason then it's a personality quirk because it's incredibly abnormal. Most people get the opportunity to learn those things in their lives.  The skill for it is really meant as representing a sort of heightened proficiency at it.

It's not saying they can swim the English channel or race in NASCAR but they can certainly swim across a 10 foot pool (even if it's a doggy paddle), or drive a car down the street a couple blocks.

..and if a magician can do everything a thief can do and they can do it better, then it's up to the GM/DM to fix that.

What makes a good GM/DM is the ability to spin a tale and create an adventure that everyone enjoys and if it takes a mechanically & skill balanced game for the GM/DM to do that then the GM/DM is flawed. It's not a commentary on the game.



Back to the subject of RIFTS - A good Game gives you a world of possibilities with a superior background story. The reason why people "think" that RIFTS is flawed or imbalanced is because they don't take the time to realize how huge the world is and work within the setting to create balanced campaigns.


Here's a TIP for creating campaigns/adventuring in the world of RIFTS:

Don't have a mixed group of players. Since we know there are 100's of classes all over the place in balance then choose from core groups of classes.

You want a group of skilled based characters then there are dozens of skill based classes to choose from - work from there.

You want a group of ultra super powered mutants then there are dozens of classes to choose from within that set of classes as well.

The beauty of RIFTS though, is that you have the ability to use imbalanced classes as well and create balance by imposing restrictions on them through creative story telling. If your characters are uber powerful psychic characters or magic users then force them into areas where they have to hide their abilities or they get stalked by the NPC's that the Palladium books provide for that purpose. Have them have to risk death if they want to use their powers.

Those types of scenarios are where you get your diversity and exciting play from.



Note: On the subject of the "Oberoni Fallacy." The Oberoni Fallacy means that something isn't broken if it can be fixed. Which of course is silly. If it needs to be fixed then of course it's broken.

To repeat myself with another set of examples:

What I have been saying all along is that every system is broken but the imbalance that you feel exists, isn't always what you think it is. It also doesn't mean it's broken.

RIFTS imbalance is only an imbalance if the GM/DM doesn't control it through story telling/campaign design.

It's like putting a soldier into a battlefield with a TANK. Of course there is imbalance here. Your the GM/DM put a TANK with a TANK and put a soldier with a soldier, but don't try to put the tank in the shopping mall.

You as the GM can give the soldier balance if you really want to by letting the soldier have the opportunity to run to cover and find himself a Light Anti-Tank Weapon. Now the playfield is even/balanced.

That tank and that soldier can just as easily be a regular human skill based class in RIFTS and the TANK could be a Demi-God character or a ROBOT. Of course it's imbalanced but a good GM/DM will find a way to give it balance. Restrict the powers of one through story telling. Pull the ROBOT pilot out of the suit. Make the Demi-God have to hide their powers or risk death. Give the soldier access to a ROBOT.

A good GM/DM works with the systems (flaws/broken mechanics and all) but doesn't rely on them to create the campaign/adventure.

The Campaign/adventure is created through character development and story telling. The mechanics of a role playing game are only guidelines - The GM/DM is the real rule book.

If your GM/DM isn't good enough to create an amazing campaign/adventure regardless of the rule system in place then you need a new one.

So in some ways, I guess I agreed with what you said in places but I just see it more as a limitation of an uncreative GM/DM. In what I stated in the quote you used - I stand by it 100%.

... of course that's just my opinion. Some people live for the rules and the dice rolling. I'm just different - I'm all about the story telling. Rules just get in my way sometimes.



To directly respond to this because I've seen this used a couple times as an argument about imbalance.

Before I begin, first off I'd like to say that I agree there is an imbalance here but that shouldn't be an obstacle for a good(read creative) Game Master. Imbalance and poor mechanics exist in every game at some level or other.<Thanks for this example by the way - I always play rogues/thieves when I do get a chance to play!>

I'm with you so far.

Although I'd like to point out that again, role playing is about playing the role of the character. There is a significant difference between the way a wizard and a rogue have lived their lives or are living them.

They are both unique individuals with unique stories and backgrounds. The whole story of how they got to be what they are and who they are is a major part of the role playing.

If we look at these two characters already we have potential for interesting stories before any dice/skills/spells are needed for anything. Where are they coming from, how do they get together? I could have multiple play sessions on just those things alone before any of the other stuff even mattered.

Role playing shouldn't just be about the dice rolling things.Alright, well a couple of things.

Why doesn't the GM control the magic in someway? (controlling the game is what the GM is there for)
- The wizard could be hunted by someone that is looking/sensing magic use?
- The wizard could be cursed in some way to prevent the use of the magic. It's a world full of strange magic there's not reason a GM can't simple add a possibility of failure or horrible crazy results to the magic use? It's all up to your imagination.
- Magic can be protected against - I'm pretty sure there are even spells/wards in the books to prevent magic from being used in many circumstances
- GM's are well within their rights to restrict the types of spells that a Wizard has access to. I'm pretty sure there's a whole slew of spells out there that the GM can force the player to work with.
- Extreme alternative - why did the GM let a thief and a wizard be in the same party in the first place? If the GM knows there's an imbalance here then it was up to them to prevent it from happening int eh first place. Options: make an all non-magic game, make an all magic game, let the non-magic users be a higher level (and vice verse), etc..

GM's are supposed to read over and approve of characters before play begins. It's not just meant to be a tool to make sure that players don't cheat - it's also how a GM can guide players to creating characters that "suit" the campaign/adventure that your creating.

I'm not saying it isn't broken or flawed in some way but that doesn't mean it can't be "worked with," to make sure that it's more playable by everyone. I just gave a handful of examples off the top of my head - given some time I'm sure you can create some really interesting stories to go with those points and create entirely new ones to go along with it.Well, I'm going to have to pass on most of this.

But again.. most of this can again be controlled by the GM. It is the GM's job to control the world at large. Same issues as above with same types of solutions and creative play.
If you follow the above examples that I gave you can easily make it fun for everyone. Restrict a few things with creative story telling and allow others. Always keep in mind ways to keep players in the game and active as you go. It's really not that hard.

I guarantee you can engage that rogue easily enough and make things fun for the wizard too.

Plopping down a map and whipping out your miniatures and rolling dice is only a small portion of what table top gaming is all about.

Admittedly my method isn't for everyone and some people just like to roll dice... I prefer the story of adventure over that.

+5.
can't really agree more

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #79 on: October 13, 2012, 07:10:44 PM »
Thank you for invalidating 27 years of learning how to GM, by effectively, and probably totally unintentionally, called me a bad GM.  I'd also like to point out that among 'gaming circles' what you just used is what's called the 'Oberoni Fallacy' which goes like this:  No game is broken as long and the GM can fix it.

That line of thinking is what made World of Darkness games so popular, White Wolf doesn't have to think it's mechanics through, giving you half-done products and you'll be happy with them, because you do all the heavy lifting.

That aside.  The term balance is part mechanic and part what has been referred to (by people better than me) as 'Star Power'.  Like an 'ensemble' TV (like say, Leverage, is that still on?) where the cast all have complimentary skill sets, but has a specialty, they all contribute to the job at hand.

Whereas in certain editions of D&D, namely (FOR ME) 3.x (and that includes 3.0), you have situations where you, the rogue player, have to compete for the same job slot that the wizard suddenly fills.  For example you're both Level 7, you (the Rogue) have decent infiltration skills, you climb, pick locks, disable traps, stealth and so on.  The Wizard can load up on Knock, Fly and Invisibility, and still have at least 3 more level one spells to fill, 2 more level two, at least one level 3, and a level 4 slot untouched as of yet.  In other words, the Wizard can do YOUR job but better, because in D&D (pre 4e) magic, especially on self or inanimate objects never fails (well, it never does anyway) or gets resisted (which is the only magic fails.)  And any skills at charming the opponents fail, because Charm Person is so much better.  And that's ignoring the fact that he can scribe the scrolls he needs with those spells, and still have ALL his slots for other things, to make another Player Class invalid.

So YOU Ms. Rogue are officially useless, because everything you can do, the Wizard can do better and more reliably, because unlike skills, magic never fails at the task.  This is not balance, this is often not fun for most players.

Balance does not mean everyone does the same job equally well, it means everyone can do their little area of expertise well enough to shine for a moment, to feel 'useful' to the team to their friends.  In Palladium, often there was no point in picking certain O.C.C.'s because some R.C.C.s could do the same job but better, and still be good at their own niche anyway.  The issue with Rifts was to find out which classes you could completely ignore (protip: Any skill based classes) and which would allow you to have fun with the session without feeling like a fifth wheel.  Which leads to cherry picking certain classes for the everything goes type of games.  In North America, for example, which has the biggest selection of OCC and RCCs available.

I live Palladium's writing, Mr. Siembeida is an excellent story teller (no matter what the covers say, he rewrites every single book in the entire line, it's why they come out so slowly, and no, this is not hyperbole in any way, he's admitted to doing this, and a few of his Freelancers that he's pissed off by his bombastic ways and personality, have all said the same thing) and he's very engaging.  But the system is still a mishmash of AD&D 2e, shoeghorned into the 21st century, often badly and mechanically broken from the get go.  Still is sadly.

But hey, if you're having fun with the game system, that's fine.  Often players find ways to make it work.  But the moment I feel it becomes more work that fun to do so, I step away from it.

Then again, a game I don't house rule, is a game I don't play...
That's also totally and completely incorrect.

Mr. Gygax was originally a table top war gamer, and Chainmail (the first iteration of D&D) was a fantasy wargame with fictional armies vying to victory at the table.  He didn't 'reenact' battles, it was sort of like Warhammer was in '83, and like Warhammer, balance between the various factions was mandatory.  You couldn't give one faction a better army or clear advantage over another player, because the loser will complain and not have fun, and Mr. Gygax (at the time) was all about fun for everyone.  D&D moved that from army and squad level to single 'hero' units.  And every time some came up with an overpowered concept (there are tales of a Vampire PC that was utterly dominating the game and other groups) he would make a counter for it (which is what the Cleric turned out to be, very loosely based on the still famous Van Helsing vampire hunter character.)

So no, balance has ALWAYS been in D&D.  Like Benz, who made cars, it's everyone ELSE that turned HIS idea into what THEY thought it should be like.  He may not have thought up of racing cars, but SOMEONE ELSE did, and THEY made changes to the vehicles so that they and the cars CAN race.

And once more, Balance does NOT equal Sameness.  This is a strawman argument that people wave around to dismiss any argument to their favourite archetypes over powered status.


And damn if I don't miss Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0  Ah the good times we had with that game.  And even the some classes were severely broken...  Still loved it though.

Sorry to be blunt here, but that is the most blatant misreading I've ever encountered.

yes Gygax was a wargamer, and yes balance has always existed just like cars had always had the ability to race each other
However Balance has never been the focus of D&D only a means to help tell the story. Where a choice had to be made between balance and story, balance always lost out. Not my words or opinion, but Gary's

Just because your gaming circle calls something a falacy doesn't make it so, Millions of people share my view, and just because you do not agree and think using the word falacy will give you the right to bash it doesnt make you right.

Most importantly i never ever called you a bad GM or in any way implied you are a bad GM, that is yet another way of trying to invalidate my argument by attacking me personally.

If you believe balance is a necessity for YOU to tell your stories than that's okay. After all if it makes a good story it's good gamesmastering, which ever way you do it

My point is that balance is not a necesity to tell good stories, and because telling stories is the main focus of RPG's (again Gygax's words not mine) any system that let's you tell good stories is a good system, and needs no fix balanced or imbalanced

As for fixing. Every player can find something in any system they don't like. If a GM doesn't like somethimng in a certain system they can change it. That, and that alone is the one and only reason for the golden rule.

So please, next time please actually read, and at least try to comprehend before trying to win arguments with personal attack and symphatybreeding.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #80 on: October 13, 2012, 10:24:27 PM »
Katataban, D&D didn't have a 'story', not at the beginning, that came later during the 2e era, when other writers and players got their hands on it, those who didn't have a war gamer background.  In the original D&D days, your stats only matter when combat was rolled, it was the PLAYER who thought up of solution.  And let me tell you, Save or Die(suck) effects are LOUSY for story telling.

And I have to focus on this from Mora.

Why doesn't the GM control the magic in someway? (controlling the game is what the GM is there for)
- The wizard could be hunted by someone that is looking/sensing magic use?
- The wizard could be cursed in some way to prevent the use of the magic. It's a world full of strange magic there's not reason a GM can't simple add a possibility of failure or horrible crazy results to the magic use? It's all up to your imagination.
- Magic can be protected against - I'm pretty sure there are even spells/wards in the books to prevent magic from being used in many circumstances
- GM's are well within their rights to restrict the types of spells that a Wizard has access to. I'm pretty sure there's a whole slew of spells out there that the GM can force the player to work with.
- Extreme alternative - why did the GM let a thief and a wizard be in the same party in the first place? If the GM knows there's an imbalance here then it was up to them to prevent it from happening int eh first place. Options: make an all non-magic game, make an all magic game, let the non-magic users be a higher level (and vice verse), etc..

GM's are supposed to read over and approve of characters before play begins. It's not just meant to be a tool to make sure that players don't cheat - it's also how a GM can guide players to creating characters that "suit" the campaign/adventure that your creating.

Why?  Because I'm not a dick GM.

Not to mention that it's the setting that would dictate that sort of scenario, if at all.

I refuse to make up rules or setting assumptions to curtail other player's fun, because the game system goes out of it's way to overpower one side of the mechanics.  It's not like the Wizard Player goes out of his way to screw with the Rogue.  He wants to help the team.  Sadly, in 3.x definitely, after level 7, he CAN be the team.  Not to mention that if they're in a bind, the Rogue has a single skill that can allow them to use the scrolls, but in doing so proves that the game's skill set and mechanics is inferior to the magic system.

And Palladium works the same way, all the magic and psychic spells automatically go off, and quite a few don't have saving throws, nor ways to resist.  For non-caster types, that can suck big black donkey balls, when everyone has to wait while the 'true heroes' go and solve the issue for the rest of the team.  Even worse, a lot of them are awfully cheap and easy to cast every combat.

Also, I feel the need to point out, that those five or so suggestions of yours?  Those are ways to 'balance' the game.  So obviously balance does in fact matter to you and Katataban after all.

Offline Moraline

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #81 on: October 14, 2012, 06:52:11 AM »
It doesn't make a person a dick GM to create story and challenges for players to overcome that adds to plot, or to create a balance where one might otherwise not exist. It means your creative and interesting. There's a big difference between picking on players and creating story. I never had any complaints - ever. It's all in how you implement it.

As for balance... I never said I didn't care about balance. I just don't see balance as an issue when it can be utilized as part of the story and adds more depth to the play and plot. It reminds me of a super hero team like the avengers where sometimes some of them are more useful then others but everyone on the team proves to be useful as the story goes along. I just take it a step further to find more and better ways for my super heroes(players) to get a chance to be useful and have fun.

...And what you seem to desire is a very rigid set of guidelines like what's in a miniatures game with lots of dice rolling. I think that's why we don't see things the same way. Whereas I usually involve my players in hours of story, dialogue, problem solving, and character building. I can play whole sessions with hardly a dice being rolled.

We just do things differently. Your a dice slinger and I'm a story teller. For you the dice and numbers mean more then the story, but to me the story means a lot more then the dice and numbers.

It's all good, just different ways of looking at role playing.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 06:53:53 AM by Moraline »

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #82 on: October 14, 2012, 08:28:19 AM »
Katataban, D&D didn't have a 'story', not at the beginning, that came later during the 2e era, when other writers and players got their hands on it, those who didn't have a war gamer background.  In the original D&D days, your stats only matter when combat was rolled, it was the PLAYER who thought up of solution.  And let me tell you, Save or Die(suck) effects are LOUSY for story telling.


*facepalm* Of course the first D&D didn't have a story. Because Gygax and companions figured people could actually do that themselves. Unfortunately they were proven wrong in a lot of casses as well as right in many many more. They just gave you the tools to create your own stories and worlds. However some people lacked the skill or interest to create their own worlds, thus enter the setting books and those godawful prewritten adventures.

Now if your focus in RPG's is just that. So basically roll playing, then that doesn't make you a bad gamer or gamesmaster, merely makes you a certain type of RPG er
Other RPG ers couldn't give a crap about mechanical balance because they don't need it to tell a story. Does that make it better Role players, no not neccesarily, just different.

The point is that a game that isn't balanced isn't a bad gamr. And that if you feel a system isn't balanced the way you'd like it you have two very valid options rule 0 covers that. Either you can adapt the system to your liking, or choose a different game.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 09:52:16 AM by Katataban »

Offline Vanity EvolvedTopic starter

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #83 on: October 14, 2012, 01:10:13 PM »

Although I'd like to point out that again, role playing is about playing the role of the character. There is a significant difference between the way a wizard and a rogue have lived their lives or are living them.

They are both unique individuals with unique stories and backgrounds. The whole story of how they got to be what they are and who they are is a major part of the role playing.

If we look at these two characters already we have potential for interesting stories before any dice/skills/spells are needed for anything. Where are they coming from, how do they get together? I could have multiple play sessions on just those things alone before any of the other stuff even mattered.

Role playing shouldn't just be about the dice rolling things.Alright, well a couple of things.

Why doesn't the GM control the magic in someway? (controlling the game is what the GM is there for)
- The wizard could be hunted by someone that is looking/sensing magic use?
- The wizard could be cursed in some way to prevent the use of the magic. It's a world full of strange magic there's not reason a GM can't simple add a possibility of failure or horrible crazy results to the magic use? It's all up to your imagination.
- Magic can be protected against - I'm pretty sure there are even spells/wards in the books to prevent magic from being used in many circumstances
- GM's are well within their rights to restrict the types of spells that a Wizard has access to. I'm pretty sure there's a whole slew of spells out there that the GM can force the player to work with.
- Extreme alternative - why did the GM let a thief and a wizard be in the same party in the first place? If the GM knows there's an imbalance here then it was up to them to prevent it from happening int eh first place. Options: make an all non-magic game, make an all magic game, let the non-magic users be a higher level (and vice verse), etc..

GM's are supposed to read over and approve of characters before play begins. It's not just meant to be a tool to make sure that players don't cheat - it's also how a GM can guide players to creating characters that "suit" the campaign/adventure that your creating.

I'm not saying it isn't broken or flawed in some way but that doesn't mean it can't be "worked with," to make sure that it's more playable by everyone. I just gave a handful of examples off the top of my head - given some time I'm sure you can create some really interesting stories to go with those points and create entirely new ones to go along with it.Well, I'm going to have to pass on most of this.

But again.. most of this can again be controlled by the GM. It is the GM's job to control the world at large. Same issues as above with same types of solutions and creative play.
If you follow the above examples that I gave you can easily make it fun for everyone. Restrict a few things with creative story telling and allow others. Always keep in mind ways to keep players in the game and active as you go. It's really not that hard.

I guarantee you can engage that rogue easily enough and make things fun for the wizard too.

Plopping down a map and whipping out your miniatures and rolling dice is only a small portion of what table top gaming is all about.

Admittedly my method isn't for everyone and some people just like to roll dice... I prefer the story of adventure over that.

I have to agree with Chris; this right here is some very terrible advice, in my opinion, as a GM.

The first part doesn't make any sense to me. Backstory for characters, when regarding mechical components of a character, is moot; a Wizard can be just as much a treasure hunting, backstabbing, sneaky little guy who goes around conning people. As Chris pointed out, with their spell selection, they actually fill this niche better than the Rogue.

This advice, however, isn't 'how to challenge your players'. It's called 'dicking your player over because you don't know how to challenge their abilities'.

Arguing that storyline creates balance for mechanics is a hugely flawed premise. "What if they were looking for a magic user?" Yeah, what if? Doesn't change the fact the Rogue is still inferior to the Wizard at his job. Unless you're somehow trying to ride 'they're looking for a magic user' throughout the whole game, and find every way you can to stop the Wizard doing the Rogue's shtick.

Your DM could have cursed you and stopped you using your magic. Great idea. Now the d4 HD, unable to hit anything in combat Wizard can sit in the back and do nothing in your game because you arbitarily decided he's not allowed to do anything because his class is too good at what he does. "This class is good at something, therefore to challenge him, I'll make him on par with the Commoner NPC class" is not challenging people. It's dicking someone over to the Nth degree, like letting someone play a Rogue who focuses on sneak attack without telling them the majority of the game is based around hunting the undead.

Magic can be protected against, but magic is also great balancer (lol) in D&D. Mundane classes get screwed over by magic defenses just as much magic classes; no magic means no magic weapons, no healing, no magic items or scrolls to boost them. And in D&D, protecting against magic is much harder to pull off logically than protecting against a Rogue. A good lock on a chest costs you about 300GP. The ability to stop a Wizard floating into your place invisible, touching your chest and just Tenser's floating disk all your possessions out the window? Far, far more expensive, and generally assumes you have some knowledge of this stuff. "It takes a Wizard to beat a Wizard" is already what most people see in D&D.

GMs can restrict their spell selections, but then again, the GM can do a lot of things. What if I -want- to play my Wizard asa a Rogue? There's enough classes which let you do that. In example for the Rogue once again, I 'can' fix the game if the Rogue is doing too well with sneak attack by just saying 'No, sneak attack doesn't work anymore'. But that's not a challenge. Challenge is testing the tools in your players toolbox. Challenge isn't 'Here's a nail to hammer, and I'm taking away your hammer. Find a way to use a wrench on it'.

And you let a Wizard play alongside a Rogue because they're built on the assumption that every class brings something unique to the table - The Fighter is tough and strong, and can protect people while being the hero. The Wizard can debuff, he can buff the party, he can prevent the enemy doing what they want. The Rogue can sneak around, pick locks and stab people in the back. Sure, you can play an no-magic game, but as I mentioned earier, as Katataban was mentioning earlier, this is -not- the default assumption of the game. The game assumes
  • amount of GP per level, it assumes what can challenge your party at what level and how many combats you should be able to take in a day. No magic means no healing for the party, non-magic means no magic gear for everyone in the party, magic means no magic to help stop the enemy or buff the party. Mundane needs magic far more than magic needs mundane in D&D. Also, starting off mundane as higher doesn't help; remember, XP scales to level, so the lower level characters earn more XP than the higher level characters until they're caught up. Playing with a vast gap just means lower level characters level faster, and are more likely to get one-shotted, meaning they're going to avoid every combat they can until they're a level.


Pretty much every suggestion here, I've seen people walk away from games from. This might be just me, but if the DM's I played with said "Yeah, I think Wizards are too good, so you're getting no spells, you start a lower level than everyone else and you begin with a curse which stops you casting magic", I know my first instict is "Well, Wizards are worthless. I'll play a Barbarian", and not "Man, this is such good roleplaying opportunity!". If I'd seen that he'd done this to other players too, I wouldn't be sitting down at that table.

Also, a lack of story doesn't impact mechanics or roleplaying whatsoever, so if we're discussing the need for balance, can people please stop refering to things like Stormwind Fallacy? A roleplaying game doesn't need a good story, it doesn't need a story full stop. It needs something the players enjoy. You can games where the entirity is 'You're in a dungeon, take the stuff'. You can play a game with nearly all dice rolling. You can play a game with Lord of the Rings sweeping epics. None of these ideas are superior, and none of them are inferior. Some people want heavy story out of their RPGs, and some don't. Once again, the mechanics have nothing to do with this.

Playing powerful characters with few flaws mechanically does -not- make you a bad roleplayer. "I can't cast magic" doesn't make for good roleplaying, but playing up a flaw which doesn't impact you mechanically, such as your blatent alcoholism after your children was killed can. Playing someone who's completely gimped ("I'm a magic user, who can't use magic because of a curse!") does not make you a good roleplayer. Mechanics doesn't dictate your roleplaying, outside of a few systems (Wushu, where there's very little crunch and all the system is boils down to 'Roleplay and roll a dice. This'll say if you succeed or fail.')

 a step further to find more and better ways for my super heroes(players) to get a chance to be useful and have fun.


As for balance... I never said I didn't care about balance. I just don't see balance as an issue when it can be utilized as part of the story and adds more depth to the play and plot. It reminds me of a super hero team like the avengers where sometimes some of them are more useful then others but everyone on the team proves to be useful as the story goes along. I just take it a step further to find more and better ways for my super heroes(players) to get a chance to be useful and have fun.

...And what you seem to desire is a very rigid set of guidelines like what's in a miniatures game with lots of dice rolling. I think that's why we don't see things the same way. Whereas I usually involve my players in hours of story, dialogue, problem solving, and character building. I can play whole sessions with hardly a dice being rolled.


Because games which make this set-up mandatory usually blow. Have you ever played FASERIP? The game where you can roll up a party, as standard, and have one character come out as Thor with all the power of the cosmos and the ability to change reality, while another character ends up as Aqua Boy, with the amazing power to breath underwater? In a lot of RPGs, people expect to be the driving force of the plot. They want to be the main cast. I know I do. When I play an RPG, I want to be part of the driving force of the story, not a faceless, useless Robin standin while the rest of the party plays Batman.

Imbalance in a game doesn't make it bad (see Exalted, one of the most raved about and loved settings I've seen), but it does make it horribly hard to play. Scion was even worse, an awesome setting with a game which was near unplayable due to copy-pasted Exalted rules by amataur writers. Not to mention, imbalance (and some of the examples of balance, like 'curse the Wizard so he can never cast') can actively make a story or characters act out of character, if you're going for heavy story or heavy immersion - for example, assume the standard party who 'got together in a tavern to hunt for treasure'. Why would they travel alongside a Wizard who can't cast magic, and contributes nothing to the party? In game, they don't know the Wizard is played by someone. In setting, they're a bunch of people who's lives could be ended if someone screws up. So, why would a bunch of adventurers bring on dead weight, logically, knowing they can't do their job? They wouldn't. But you have to metagame 'em in and stick with it, because that person who can't cast magic is a real person, and most likely your friend just across the table from you.

It still doesn't change the mechanics. If you're playing a game where a lot of the mechanical side sees no use? Yeah, balance isn't as huge a priority for ya. But when a game does have rigid guidelines and rules (which unless you're playing heavily light crunch games - even Amber diceless has quite a few rules and crunch to it), then those rules are going to be there, and when they come around, it's generally preferable that they don't suck and make a characters mechanical choices suck. As pointed out, a Wizard can do a Rogue's job easier, and better, which isn't fun to play for a lot of players when the Rogue wants to be the sneaky, backstabbing assassin, but he can't legitimately do that because the Wizard is constantly outperforming him in that regard. It's not fun to have mechanics destroy your concept and what you want you character to be able to do.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 01:26:17 PM by Vanity Evolved »

Offline Skynet

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #84 on: October 14, 2012, 01:55:01 PM »
As to the above discussion on flaws in RPGs, I'll just quickly say that there's some flaws in RPGs which Rule 0 may not always fix, and that DM Fiat is only as effective as the DM is.  Granted, some RPG rules are just that bad, and there is a point where the group just gives up and finds another RPG to play if the system can't hold up.  And if the DM is not consistent or fair in his fixes, it can generate resentment.

However, Rule 0 is a highly effective tool for taking care of minor problems and moving the game forward when the group just can't agree on or find a certain obscure rule.

It all really depends on player and DM trust as much as the quality of the rules themselves.

As for favorite RPGs?

Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition: It was the first RPG I ever played, and it was so full of options!  From feats to prestige classes to 3rd Party supplements, it felt like it had everything!

Eclipse Phase:  An original and highly intriguing game full of adventure ideas and gonzo plots.  I don't think I could describe it in any way to do it justice, but here goes: it's a futuristic transhuman RPG of conspiracies and horror.  You play as covert intelligence operatives thwarting existential risks to humanity.
Despite its apocalyptic premise, it's surprisingly versatile and manages to hold up character concepts which would be silly in any other RPG.  You could totally have a PC group consist of a sapient Octopus gangster, a Social Darwinist ascetic warrior, and an Anarchist technician without breaking suspension of disbelief or the theme of the game.

New World of Darkness: Given that Classic World of Darkness was wrapping up its meta-plot when I hit the tabletop scene, and Requiem books were prominently displayed on the bookshelves of my Friendly Local Gaming Store, I picked the newer version up instead.  The dice pool mechanic and rules aspects are wonky, but the setting, themes, and ideas in the books more than make up for it.  I particularly enjoy Vampire the Requiem and Mage the Awakening.  The society of the Kindred, the themes of inner struggle, and the contrast of the old world (Elders) with the modern (neonates) made a fresh and intriguing setting.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 02:38:15 PM by Skynet »

Offline Moraline

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #85 on: October 14, 2012, 04:11:25 PM »
I loved Palladium's Beyond the Supernatural.



Some of the best games we ever played were in that world. Ordinary people living in the middle of a horror movie styled scenario.

I love the humanity of it, the flaws, the weaknesses, and terror. It made for some of the most in depth character driven stories ever. Just like reading a great book.

Offline Vanity EvolvedTopic starter

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #86 on: October 14, 2012, 04:48:50 PM »
I loved Palladium's Beyond the Supernatural.



Some of the best games we ever played were in that world. Ordinary people living in the middle of a horror movie styled scenario.

I love the humanity of it, the flaws, the weaknesses, and terror. It made for some of the most in depth character driven stories ever. Just like reading a great book.

Can't say I've played it, but the title alone won me. It's one of those awesome titles, like Darker than Black.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #87 on: October 14, 2012, 09:12:18 PM »
Can't say I've played it, but the title alone won me. It's one of those awesome titles, like Darker than Black.
If you can somehow score the original edition, I recommend it.  It's the better written of them.

Also, I did/DO like Palladium's 1st Edition Fantasy game.  That was just oozing with flavour and generally interesting bits of information.

Man, I wish I could find a copy.

Offline Jillabelle

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #88 on: October 14, 2012, 09:54:31 PM »
Hi, just wanted to A. test to see if I can post here and B. say how I'm finding the discussion of game balance (and in particular the rogue vs wizard discussion, since it is relevant to my interests due to a game I'm in elsewhere...) very interesting and helpful!

My favorite tabletop RPG to play for any length of time is ... one with a good group of players and a good GM. A good group can make Spawn of Fashan fun! A bad group and it doesn't matter what system it is, you might as well go home and watch TV. (IMHO)

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #89 on: October 14, 2012, 10:13:17 PM »
I'd LOVE to play Eclipse Phase.. I've always wanted to.

Offline Beorning

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #90 on: October 15, 2012, 01:02:54 AM »
My personal favourites are NWoD (especially Changeling, but Hunter is nice, too), GURPS and Mutants & Masterminds 2E. If only I could find some to play these games with...  :P

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #91 on: October 15, 2012, 01:21:57 PM »
Hi, just wanted to A. test to see if I can post here and B. say how I'm finding the discussion of game balance (and in particular the rogue vs wizard discussion, since it is relevant to my interests due to a game I'm in elsewhere...) very interesting and helpful!

My favorite tabletop RPG to play for any length of time is ... one with a good group of players and a good GM. A good group can make Spawn of Fashan fun! A bad group and it doesn't matter what system it is, you might as well go home and watch TV. (IMHO)

For the record, this is just personal perceptions and experiences.  Some people have problems, others, as you can see don't.  And although it got pretty heated, I personally took no offence to what was said.  We just have strong experiences, nothing more.

Offline LaCroix

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #92 on: October 15, 2012, 02:14:17 PM »
For me, it was Birthright, it was an amazing 3rd Edition setting that I wished I'd have had a chance to dig further into than a few sessions. It basically took place in a world after a war between armies of humans led by Gods on the mortal realms, I'm simplifying the backstory a lot. One of them, the God that started the war and one or two others I think were killed at the end of the battle and when that happened their power was released in an explosion that spread through the mortal armies and left them imbued with powers from the Gods to a greater or lesser degree depending upon how close they were to where the God had died.

This lead to some of the people becoming super infused with power, changing in different radical ways, the most powerful founded kingdoms around them. And then you can create your characters, they can be just adventurers like in most compaigns or you can create you own small kingdom, each player potentially controlling different aspects of governing the kingdom which lent this whole strategy game layer ontop of the traditional adventuring with your group.

It was really just amazingly fun, wish I'd had more time to enjoy it. It helped that we had amazing DM as well.

Offline Moraline

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #93 on: October 15, 2012, 02:35:48 PM »
Hi, just wanted to A. test to see if I can post here and B. say how I'm finding the discussion of game balance (and in particular the rogue vs wizard discussion, since it is relevant to my interests due to a game I'm in elsewhere...) very interesting and helpful!

My favorite tabletop RPG to play for any length of time is ... one with a good group of players and a good GM. A good group can make Spawn of Fashan fun! A bad group and it doesn't matter what system it is, you might as well go home and watch TV. (IMHO)
I agree greatly with your last sentence. All of my most enjoyable memories of table top role playing involved a good group of friends, days filled with laughter, great conversations, and maybe the occasional drink. *winks*

It never really mattered the game or system - It was always about the people that I played with.

I hope some of our thoughts helped or brought insight for you, Jillabelle.


Offline LunarSage

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #94 on: October 20, 2012, 01:11:51 PM »
Pretty much anything OWoD (except Changeling), Shadowrun and the old TSR Marvel Super Heroes RPG.

Champions is alright, but I much prefer Classic Marvel.

EDIT:  Oh, and Pathfinder!
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 01:13:01 PM by LunarSage »

Offline WindVoyager

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #95 on: October 22, 2012, 12:22:20 PM »

AD&D - 3.5 and 3rd ed. Tried 4th, didn't like it at all.

Ravenloft D20

Speljammer with 3rd upgrades

Battle-tech-Merceneries- We had so much fun. Our merc group ended up with competition with another group who started OT take all the good jobs from us. To make a long story short, we sent them on a wild goose chase and ransacked their base of operations. We took everything and I mean everything. Their spare mechs, spare parts, the generators, the kitchen skin, the light fixtures.....some one even stole their toilet

Offline Skynet

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #96 on: October 22, 2012, 04:17:32 PM »
AD&D - 3.5 and 3rd ed. Tried 4th, didn't like it at all.

Ravenloft D20

Speljammer with 3rd upgrades

Battle-tech-Merceneries- We had so much fun. Our merc group ended up with competition with another group who started OT take all the good jobs from us. To make a long story short, we sent them on a wild goose chase and ransacked their base of operations. We took everything and I mean everything. Their spare mechs, spare parts, the generators, the kitchen skin, the light fixtures.....some one even stole their toilet

I was first exposed to White Wolf through their handling of Ravenloft.  It was excellent, and helped me get into their World of Darkness game through earning my trust and approval.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #97 on: October 22, 2012, 09:53:05 PM »
Ravenloft is one of those settings that shouldn't be attached to D&D's system, any edition.

Oh!  Which reminds me, I had the COOLEST Ravenloft adventure using the redone Dragon Warriors game.  They guy rewrote the entire adventure (I forget the name) using 'high level' Dragon Warrior characters, and man was it awesome.  Had us on the edge of our seats the entire time...  Out of five, only two of us made it.  And I was going to be a Vampire by the next night.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 09:55:31 PM by Chris Brady »

Offline Vanity EvolvedTopic starter

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #98 on: October 23, 2012, 05:58:08 AM »
Ravenloft is one of those settings that shouldn't be attached to D&D's system, any edition.

Oh!  Which reminds me, I had the COOLEST Ravenloft adventure using the redone Dragon Warriors game.  They guy rewrote the entire adventure (I forget the name) using 'high level' Dragon Warrior characters, and man was it awesome.  Had us on the edge of our seats the entire time...  Out of five, only two of us made it.  And I was going to be a Vampire by the next night.

I've always meant to try out Dragon Warriors - always thought the way they handled playing alternate races was a bit odd, but I did love the fact that different classes had different priorities in attributes. And the Assassin just made me laugh in awesomeness. "Doesn't need to eat or sleep as long as he's after his target."

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Your favourite tabletop RPGs?
« Reply #99 on: October 23, 2012, 12:31:52 PM »
The issue with Dragon Warriors is the set up of the classes, you can tell that the Knight and Barbarian were first because they load up all the 'good stuff' in the later levels, while the rest of the classes (especially the Assassin, which was the last, among the last) gets a more spread out ascension of 'power'.

It's pretty fun, and dark and gritty, though.