What if Conan leaves d20 for anotehr system?

[LilithsThrall]

You say:

I have little to no respect for psychology as an academic study. I base this on my own experience

And further up the thread you referred to:

subjective opinion

By the way, I'm not a student of psychology, nor am I an anthropologist.

Yes,..and?
Did I ever say that my opinion of psychology isn't subjective? Or that the theory of psychology is objectively inferior to the theory of anthropology?
I guess I don't see your point.

 

[flatscan]

Yes,..and?
Did I ever say that my opinion of psychology isn't subjective? Or that the theory of psychology is objectively inferior to the theory of anthropology?
I guess I don't see your point.

Ooohhh and LillithsThall once again uses the "dodge the question" approach. This should come as no surprise as it did put the most ranks in that particular skill. :roll:

Anyhow, this is going nowhere fast. Let's get back to the original poster's topic, whether or not Conan should switch to another game system. I still stick to my vote that the maths heavy 3.5 modded game that is the current Conan RPG is perfectly suited for role-playing in the Hyborian Age. Perhaps some tweaks and revisions are necessary in the future, but abandoning the entire product line in favor of a new system would be a mistake IMHO.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Ooohhh and LillithsThall once again uses the "dodge the question" approach. This should come as no surprise as it did put the most ranks in that particular skill. :roll:

Before you post, you should -read- what you are replying to.
There was no question posed. So there was nothing to dodge. Now, can we get off of your attempt to make this thread about me?

 

[flatscan]

Now, can we get off of your attempt to make this thread about me?

Maybe you should -read- the rest of my last post as I already had, but here we are again mr. ego.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Now, can we get off of your attempt to make this thread about me?

Maybe you should -read- the rest of my last post as I already had, but here we are again mr. ego.

Apparently not, as you feel the need to continue flaming me from behind the shelter of the Internet.

 

[rabindranath72]

The concern is over how much the person actually is "acting the part of a character" rather than being influenced (knowingly or unknowingly) by the mechanics of the game.

It's a GAME, not theater! If one wants to ACT, he would be better served by taking acting lessons. :roll:
And yes, I suppose when one shows a campaign journal, it means he HAS roleplayed, regardless of the definition of roleplaying (the same ACT of DEFINING a campaign journal means the guy grasps the basics of roleplaying)
EDIT: even the people over at the Forge (which are quite "strict" about roleplaying) frown upon what they call Actor Stance.

 

[Hervé]

It's a GAME, not theater!

Hello there! I dare intercede in your fight, risking to take the aggro...
Of course it's a game, but it's called a ROLE playing game, that surely must mean something else than Tactical Tabletop Wargaming...

RPGs are a more adult version of our childhood make believe games (I wish I was a Barbarian...). It's all about impersonating a character and watch him evolve in a good story.

Rules are supposed to be a support for handling situations whe couldn't handle as kids (Bang! you're dead! No, I'm not! Yes you are!...). They are not meant to be the main focus of the game. I know the first RPG rules were an evolution of tabletop miniature games, but that was the only available reference at the time.

Unfortunately, real life doesn't let you maximize your character, crunching numbers to get the best of your abilities (and often bending the rules or using gaps in them to get best results). Role Playing games are supposed to be immersive, at least to my point of view, and you can't control anything in your life, that's why I'm not a fan of heavily controled character build.

I want my characters to be 'believable', even if they live in a fantasy world. I don't want to play a Terminator, but a living being with his own strengths and weaknesses...

Some rules engines like the D20 system (or DD4 which is about the same for me) are more tactical wargaming rules than 'make believe' rules.
They don't lead to 'believable' characters for me, even if, as it has been stated many times on this forum, you can 'roleplay' with almost any kind of rules or games.

The approach isn't worse or better, but simply different. Video games have changed a bit the definition of what a RPG is, hence what D&D has become with 3rd Edition and beyond.

 

[rabindranath72]

It's a GAME, not theater!

Hello there! I dare intercede in your fight, risking to take the aggro...
Of course it's a game, but it's called a ROLE playing game, that surely must mean something else than Tactical Tabletop Wargaming...

Definitely! The point is that ROLE playing is not ACTing. You can definitely roleplay without acting at all; there are some nice examples in the Sorcerer & Sword book by Ron Edwards.
The point has been raised here many times that how a game works in terms of rules defines the "quality" of roleplaying. The roleplaying is an essential but adjunct part to define the object RPG.
Now I can understand the point that more complex rules systems perforce require an higher degree of commitment on the part of the player, ruleswise (and I agree with it).
But raising the point that d20 Conan or 3.x are BETTER roleplaying games than 4e is quite ludicrous, considering the sheer amount of rules of both.
And it's not even a matter of having a system which "helps better describe the character", like it has been said of d20 Conan/3.x vs. 4e, since this reasoning would automatically disqualify simpler systems which ARE roleplaying games. One could argue that to roleplay a character no rules are needed to accurately DEFINE said character, but only to make it INTERACT with the setting.

So, I guess if we want to discuss the topic fruitfully, we should separate the two things.

In the end:
1) if we use the amount of rules to define the quality of an RPG, then both d20 Conan/3.x and 4e either fall both short, or are both excellent exemplars (depending whether you like lots or few rules).

2) if we use the level of detail provided by a system in defining a character, we could automatically disqualify about 25 years of roleplaying history, and many current examples of games where characters are not defined with the exactness of d20 Conan/3.x. In this respect, 4e falls more in the same camp of older versions of D&D.

Can we leave all of this discussion to IT'S A MATTER OF TASTES?

 

[LilithsThrall]

It's a GAME, not theater!

Hello there! I dare intercede in your fight, risking to take the aggro...
Of course it's a game, but it's called a ROLE playing game, that surely must mean something else than Tactical Tabletop Wargaming...

Definitely! The point is that ROLE playing is not ACTing. You can definitely roleplay without acting at all; there are some nice examples in the Sorcerer & Sword book by Ron Edwards.
The point has been raised here many times that how a game works in terms of rules defines the "quality" of roleplaying. The roleplaying is an essential but adjunct part to define the object RPG.
Now I can understand the point that more complex rules systems perforce require an higher degree of commitment on the part of the player, ruleswise (and I agree with it).
But raising the point that d20 Conan or 3.x are BETTER roleplaying games than 4e is quite ludicrous, considering the sheer amount of rules of both.
And it's not even a matter of having a system which "helps better describe the character", like it has been said of d20 Conan/3.x vs. 4e, since this reasoning would automatically disqualify simpler systems which ARE roleplaying games. One could argue that to roleplay a character no rules are needed to accurately DEFINE said character, but only to make it INTERACT with the setting.

So, I guess if we want to discuss the topic fruitfully, we should separate the two things.

In the end:
1) if we use the amount of rules to define the quality of an RPG, then both d20 Conan/3.x and 4e either fall both short, or are both excellent exemplars (depending whether you like lots or few rules).

2) if we use the level of detail provided by a system in defining a character, we could automatically disqualify about 25 years of roleplaying history, and many current examples of games where characters are not defined with the exactness of d20 Conan/3.x. In this respect, 4e falls more in the same camp of older versions of D&D.

Can we leave all of this discussion to IT'S A MATTER OF TASTES?

Are you asserting that the rules in the 3.5 PHB 1 constrain player freedom to the same extent as the rules in the 4.0 PHB 1? Once again, I point you to the fact that there are at least 15 different kinds of actions players can take to move a character one hex.

 

[rabindranath72]

Are you asserting that the rules in the 3.5 PHB 1 constrain player freedom to the same extent as the rules in the 4.0 PHB 1? Once again, I point you to the fact that there are at least 15 different kinds of actions players can take to move a character one hex.

:shock:
I see my point is completely lost...
Honestly? I do not give a bent silver piece for how a character is supposed to move in X rules system.
In fact, that would beg the question: what THIS has to do with ROLE playing at all? Of all the rules, those about movement are the most distant from RPGing that I can imagine.
But you know what? I, as DM, can adjudicate 1e6 different kinds of actions without any rule.
And now I am going back to prepare my Castles & Crusades session for next saturday...

 

[flatscan]

I see my point is completely lost...
Honestly? I do not give a bent silver piece for how a character is supposed to move in X rules system.
In fact, that would beg the question: what THIS has to do with ROLE playing at all? Of all the rules, those about movement are the most distant from RPGing that I can imagine.
But you know what? I, as DM, can adjudicate 1e6 different kinds of actions without any rule.
And now I am going back to prepare my Castles & Crusades session for next saturday...

Save yourself the headache man. There's nothing that can be said or proof offered to those that have made up their minds, are unwilling to look at proof offered, and are intellectually dishonest to begin with. Your time is better spent working on your campaign. The arguments will stand, the proof, and lack thereof on both sides will remain and we should all just walk away from this as further pages of back and forth will not lead anywhere fruitful.

Now, after having spent so much time and effort defending it, I'm jonesing for a 4e game. :lol:

 

[LilithsThrall]

Are you asserting that the rules in the 3.5 PHB 1 constrain player freedom to the same extent as the rules in the 4.0 PHB 1? Once again, I point you to the fact that there are at least 15 different kinds of actions players can take to move a character one hex.

:shock:
I see my point is completely lost...
Honestly? I do not give a bent silver piece for how a character is supposed to move in X rules system.
In fact, that would beg the question: what THIS has to do with ROLE playing at all? Of all the rules, those about movement are the most distant from RPGing that I can imagine.
But you know what? I, as DM, can adjudicate 1e6 different kinds of actions without any rule.
And now I am going back to prepare my Castles & Crusades session for next saturday...

The only way rules about movement and taking actions can be seperated from roleplaying is if you feel that how your character acts has nothing to do with roleplaying.
Which begs the question, then what does have to do with roleplaying?

 

[flatscan]

Which begs the question, then what does have to do with roleplaying?

Here I go, not taking my own advice. From wikipedia:

A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Ah well, at least I didn't have to repeat myself, well, except for this next part. Can we move on now?

 

[Demetrio]

Definitely! The point is that ROLE playing is not ACTing. You can definitely roleplay without acting at all; there are some nice examples in the Sorcerer & Sword book by Ron Edwards.
The point has been raised here many times that how a game works in terms of rules defines the "quality" of roleplaying. The roleplaying is an essential but adjunct part to define the object RPG.
Now I can understand the point that more complex rules systems perforce require an higher degree of commitment on the part of the player, ruleswise (and I agree with it).
But raising the point that d20 Conan or 3.x are BETTER roleplaying games than 4e is quite ludicrous, considering the sheer amount of rules of both.
And it's not even a matter of having a system which "helps better describe the character", like it has been said of d20 Conan/3.x vs. 4e, since this reasoning would automatically disqualify simpler systems which ARE roleplaying games. One could argue that to roleplay a character no rules are needed to accurately DEFINE said character, but only to make it INTERACT with the setting.

So, I guess if we want to discuss the topic fruitfully, we should separate the two things.

In the end:
1) if we use the amount of rules to define the quality of an RPG, then both d20 Conan/3.x and 4e either fall both short, or are both excellent exemplars (depending whether you like lots or few rules).

2) if we use the level of detail provided by a system in defining a character, we could automatically disqualify about 25 years of roleplaying history, and many current examples of games where characters are not defined with the exactness of d20 Conan/3.x. In this respect, 4e falls more in the same camp of older versions of D&D.

Is well put.

 

[LilithsThrall]

A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Says that roleplaying means portraying how a character acts. 15 different ways to move a character 1 hex is part of how a character acts.
Which is my point.

 

[Demetrio]

A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

The bolded bits being key.

4th ed movement may be more governed by rules than 3.X but essentially that just means you have to master more rules to get to your 'freeflowing' stage. But 3.X has more rules governing movement that some other systems. It doesn't mean those other systems are better, or that they promote better roleplaying. One could argue that vague rules or simple rules hinder roleplaying because they do not sufficiently cater for potential character actions.

 

[LilithsThrall]

actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules,.

The bolded bits being key.

Remind me again who it was, exactly, who argued that roleplaying game should have -no- formal system of rules and guidelines.

I mean, what, exactly, is the relevance of your post to this discussion?

 

[flatscan]

Demetrio, we MUST stop feeding this troll. It isn't interested in discussion and will only be satisfied if we abandon logic and reason and accept its absurd premise that roleplaying is impossible with D&D 4e. It does not like D&D 4e, which is a matter of taste and is fine. However, we will not allow it to dictate to us what we can and can't do with the games we play. The best option is to simply ignore it or risk taking a SAN loss with every post. :wink:

 

[LucaCherstich]

I cannot believed that I started this 32-pages topic!!!

 

[Demetrio]

Remind me again who it was, exactly, who argued that roleplaying game should have -no- formal system of rules and guidelines.

I don't know, it wasn't me. Was it you? Because all roleplaying games have rules. Some very simple, some complex. Some in between.

Regardless, rabindranath72's recent posts are ones I wholeheartedly agree with.

or risk taking a SAN loss with every post.

Ai! Ai! Shub-Niggurath!