234 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would argue 3.0 is one of the more broken systems out there, but what it did well was make us more in control of the content presented. It is why I like Pathfinder a lot more, it actually fixed most of the issues with 3.0 and 3.5, although I think it does need to change a lot of the power creep that keeps coming up.

I'll always have a soft-spot for first edition AD&D, but in many respects I prefer 2nd edition (not 2.5 - Skills&Powers was terrible). Particularly because of the flexibility offered by the splat books. The Complete Book of Humanoids and The Complete Book of Necromancers were especially good.

[UniformGreyColor]

Of course I'm playing as Wynne.  That's how I can control her in combat even when the Warden is unconscious.

 

I play the whole party.  I always have.  I always will.  Restrictions that prevent that will do nothing but annoy me.

We don't get to choose her class either; she has some pre-written aspects.

Personally, I'd like more control over the companions. I'd particularly like to be able to use them as party spokesperson. In real life, I bring other people with me so they can do the talking - but I can no longer design my PC in this way (though I used to).

If it's a party-based game, then I play the whole party.

 

This strikes me as a bit of a contradiction given that within the confines of the game we don't always know or choose what the non PC characters motives are. Is this another "But its not like BG!" arguments?

 

It has nothing to do with realism. It's about internal consistency.

 

Agreed. Though lore is very important to some people and needs to be justified within the games universe.

 

Different rules = different world.

 

 Not necessarily. I don't want an exact carbon copy of the same game with only a different story.

[Rawgrim]

The problem is, most of the worlds do. In tabletop games this is a major annoyance, which ironically the only game that tried to reign that in out of the many high fantasy games I played was 4th Edition DnD, especially in how they cut back on the magical powers characters have, that break storytelling. 

 

They did implement the reason for it into the lore, though. Allthough very very poorly.

[Rawgrim]

But dying of old age isn't due to your 'time running out' or something.  When we say 'died of old age' what we mean is they died of a disease that their body, if younger, could've coped with better.  'Dying in one's sleep' isn't because your body checks an internal clock and goes '****, better pop off'.  So, theoretically, if one was rezzed, cured of diseases, then one would at least survive the next couple of hours.  During which time you can be stabbed and rezzed and cured again.  

 

I mean, you'd be bed bound, and it'd be like living on life support, and eventually a major organ or two would shut down and you'd be fucked.  But you could quite easily push yourself over a hundred this way.  

 

You lose 2 points of Con when ressurected. You also lose Con, Dex and Str due to old age. Once your Con reaches zero, for any reason, you are dead.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

You lose 2 points of Con when ressurected. You also lose Con, Dex and Str due to old age. Once your Con reaches zero, for any reason, you are dead.

Right, so you make sure to be a wizard - because frankly who wouldn't - and use one of the easy rule exploits to get infinite Constitution.  Boom.  You're set.  

[Super Drone]

Right, so you make sure to be a wizard - because frankly who wouldn't - and use one of the easy rule exploits to get infinite Constitution.  Boom.  You're set.  

 

Most of those exploits didn't exist in 2nd Ed. I can't actually think of one. 3rd ed gave negative character levels instead of Con drain.

 

4th ed actually explained that Resurrection doesn't actually work on everyone. Only "destined" people can be raised (i.e. PCs and important NPCs).

[Sylvius the Mad]

This strikes me as a bit of a contradiction given that within the confines of the game we don't always know or choose what the non PC characters motives are. Is this another "But its not like BG!" arguments?

If we're choosing anything for her, then I would argue that we do know her motives. We have to; it informs the choice.

Of course, we invent those motives.

Agreed. Though lore is very important to some people and needs to be justified within the games universe.

Granted.

Not necessarily. I don't want an exact carbon copy of the same game with only a different story.

If I enjoyed the first game, that's often exactly what I want.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right, so you make sure to be a wizard - because frankly who wouldn't - and use one of the easy rule exploits to get infinite Constitution. Boom. You're set.

What rule exploits? Stats were fixed in 1st and 2nd edition (unless you cast Wish, but even its abilities were limited when altering stats). And Con went down as you aged (3E eliminated aging effects).

[Rawgrim]

Right, so you make sure to be a wizard - because frankly who wouldn't - and use one of the easy rule exploits to get infinite Constitution.  Boom.  You're set.  

 

How exactly do you get infinate constitution?

[UniformGreyColor]

If we're choosing anything for her, then I would argue that we do know her motives. We have to; it informs the choice.

Of course, we invent those motives.
Granted.
If I enjoyed the first game, that's often exactly what I want.

 

That doesn't make any sense to me. You can choose one thing of an aspects game so you have to know their motives too? You know there is an option for auto lve up, I know you do. We were talking about internal consistency and the game gave you and option for that but you choose to ignore it? Is that what I'm hearing?

 

I think the game is a lot better if we don't always know the motives of all the characters we can play so really it just becomes "I like this and you like that" and the DEv determine the outcome of that argument.

 

I don't want to same mechanics in the game because for me (and a hell of a lot of other people), I get bored playing the same way mechanically every time.

 

Glad we agree on something at least.

 

Edit: further more I think it is actually really important to be a ble to work within the framework of a game because it shows that you have diversified yourself enough to "keep up" with the of diversely different gameplay and the evolution of games as a whole.