Post by Falconer on Feb 17, 2009 2:51:54 GMT -5
I’m a old-school, rules-lite kind of guy. OD&D is my main game of choice. I like archetypes (classes), the six classic ability scores, and hit points. I figure the game rules should be bare bones and board-game-like. I don't need “game mechanics” to cover every thing that could possibly happen or every aspect of my character.
That said, SS holds a lot of appeal for me in the way this sense: the characters are interesting! The game forces you to think about ways your character may be special and flawed right off the bat. Despite how we would like to think we don't need game mechanics to aid our imaginations, just a few characteristics named on the character sheet go a long way.
I don't like d20’s focus on being able to “build” your character the way they implemented it. Now, I am usually the GM. I want the players to view adventure as the GOAL of the evening, not a necessary evil in order to improve their powers. And when they're on an adventure, I want their faces out of the books and character sheet, and I want to see the lightbulbs go on in their heads as they tackle puzzles and tactics. I want to see creativity in roleplay. I want to see their delight when they acquire magical items and spells that allow them to do things they would have no way of “buying” as skills.
But there must be a balance. Players genuinely enjoy the feel of developing strengths (and weaknesses) through their own choices, and the idea that their character is completely unique. In OD&D, this is not really possible. In SS it is.
I find the combat in SS awkward. What's great about it is the number and quantity of dice you get to roll. What I don't like is:
1) Simultaneous combat. I hate how, if your opponent’s attack is greater than yours, you must sacrifice your attack and defend, or you’ll most likely be killed. I prefer OD&D here. Oh, you hit me? I’ll hit you back!
2) Stun/wounds. Hit points is just fine.
Overall, I think many of OD&D’s core mechanics are very intuitive, and not just because I am accustomed to them. Some mechanics (like the 3-18 range for the 6 iconic attributes) are just cool because they are so universally recognized—so you tell your buddy you have an “18” in something and they know it’s amazing. So what I will be doing in my home games is using OD&D as the base of the game and trying to find ways to add the really good innovations of SS on top of it where possible.
Incidentally, the theme of my next campaign will be Battlestar Galactica—but it will be more based on the old show than the new show, with elements of John Carter mixed in. Most of the adventuring will take place on planets. (There will be some kind of board/war game to handle space stuff like fleet deployment and movement and battles and resources.) So definitely a very strong fantasy character, not so much sci-fi/modernistic. I don’t think I will even look at the Battlestar Galactica RPG. It is compatible with SS, but from what I have read about it, I think I will be better off with SS and improvising it from there. Regards.
That said, SS holds a lot of appeal for me in the way this sense: the characters are interesting! The game forces you to think about ways your character may be special and flawed right off the bat. Despite how we would like to think we don't need game mechanics to aid our imaginations, just a few characteristics named on the character sheet go a long way.
I don't like d20’s focus on being able to “build” your character the way they implemented it. Now, I am usually the GM. I want the players to view adventure as the GOAL of the evening, not a necessary evil in order to improve their powers. And when they're on an adventure, I want their faces out of the books and character sheet, and I want to see the lightbulbs go on in their heads as they tackle puzzles and tactics. I want to see creativity in roleplay. I want to see their delight when they acquire magical items and spells that allow them to do things they would have no way of “buying” as skills.
But there must be a balance. Players genuinely enjoy the feel of developing strengths (and weaknesses) through their own choices, and the idea that their character is completely unique. In OD&D, this is not really possible. In SS it is.
I find the combat in SS awkward. What's great about it is the number and quantity of dice you get to roll. What I don't like is:
1) Simultaneous combat. I hate how, if your opponent’s attack is greater than yours, you must sacrifice your attack and defend, or you’ll most likely be killed. I prefer OD&D here. Oh, you hit me? I’ll hit you back!
2) Stun/wounds. Hit points is just fine.
Overall, I think many of OD&D’s core mechanics are very intuitive, and not just because I am accustomed to them. Some mechanics (like the 3-18 range for the 6 iconic attributes) are just cool because they are so universally recognized—so you tell your buddy you have an “18” in something and they know it’s amazing. So what I will be doing in my home games is using OD&D as the base of the game and trying to find ways to add the really good innovations of SS on top of it where possible.
Incidentally, the theme of my next campaign will be Battlestar Galactica—but it will be more based on the old show than the new show, with elements of John Carter mixed in. Most of the adventuring will take place on planets. (There will be some kind of board/war game to handle space stuff like fleet deployment and movement and battles and resources.) So definitely a very strong fantasy character, not so much sci-fi/modernistic. I don’t think I will even look at the Battlestar Galactica RPG. It is compatible with SS, but from what I have read about it, I think I will be better off with SS and improvising it from there. Regards.