I like Firefly. It was a very good show and there is so much there that would make it an excellent rpg...but I don't like the Cortex system. I have a version of Cortex but I just couldn't get into it. For me it was too "fiddly" rules-wise.
In the unseen war between DC and Marvel Comics, I am a Marvel guy. I just prefer their universe building over DC. Thus I have all of the Marvel rpgs that have been made...except the one that came out recently using much of the Cortex system in it. Also, to me it seemed like the ability to create your own characters over being "stuck" playing the established Marvel characters seemed an afterthought to the designers. I revolt against rpg systems that don't let me create my own characters.
FATE. I have Fudge (the base game from which it derived) and the Dresden books, but I don't think it's my type of game. I am more for the DM being in charge with the DM setting the universe and the players...playing in it. But I really like some of the ideas for games using the Fate system. Dresden for one and Base Raiders for another.
Conan. This has been seen in 3 different systems; one by TSR, one for GURPS and one for d20 by Mongoose Publishing.I don't own the TSR version and the system itself was widely panned by people. GURPS is not my favorite system despite attempting to run it in the past. d20 is too bloated for my tastes. But playing in the Conan universe sounds like a lot of fun.
GURPS. Talk about having a bunch of cool and interesting books, but not liking the system! I've tried to run their Riverworld book but couldn't get past the system. More fascinating books are Illuminati, Swashbucklers, Hellboy, Horseclans, Wildcards all games I'd like to play but held back by a system that is not to my taste.
I could go on with games such as West End Games d6 Star Wars, Dungeon World, Earthdawn, Elric by Chaosium and more. All games/genres that I like but tied to systems I do not. Basically these have all been games I would like to play/run but the systems keep putting me off from doing so.
Now, I know I could convert these games to systems I do like (despite the many systems I do not like, there are more that I do like), but honestly, that is a lot of work and I'm not sure the payoff is there. Usually if I am buying a setting book it is because I don't want to do the work required in creating a version that fits my favorite game systems. I am looking for something I can use off the rack.
I do however, own a bunch of these games despite the fact I won't be running them with their systems. Often I get them just to read them for fun. Sometimes I get them with the notion of actually doing the conversion work, or at least looking for ideas for creating my own version. Or sometimes I get a crazy notion of running with their chosen system...but that never seems to work out for the best.
Do you have something similar; games/settings you really like but that use a game system you do not like?
August 19, 2014
August 15, 2014
5E Friday - Monsters
This week saw the online release of the free Dungeon Master's D&D Basic Rules v1 (the printer friendly version is here). Basically this is about 50 pages of monsters, some guidelines on building balanced encounters and some background on monster design (enough so a person can design/convert monsters for 5E). This was then followed up with some sample monsters and the Table of Contents for the upcoming Monster Manual being released.
-The DM Basic Rules is very bare bones. Sure, there a bunch of monsters a group can use to create their own adventures. That seems to be the purpose of the document, to let groups run their own adventures...it is not a true preview of the MM.
-The formatting of the DM Basic Rules is weird Monsters are listed completely alphabetical...Adult Red Dragon is listed under A for Adult, not under D for Dragon. However, looking at the MM samples it looks like they are listed in the "usual" manner...Dragons go under D with different types of dragons also being listed under Dragon. Likely the formatting for DM Basic Rules was done for speed and ease.
-The DM Basic Rules really only give stat blocks and then a sentence or two for a description. The sample monsters from the MM show much more detail. Again the sparseness of the DM Basic Rule entries was likely done for speed, ease and space.
-Looking over the list of monsters to be in the MM, it looks like they included all the "mainstays" of monsters. There was no iconic monster I was looking for that was not included. There were very few "oddball" or "new" monsters (except for a maybe a couple like the Flumph). I like this. For a first MM, people want to see their favorite monsters given stats. People don't want to look for their favorites and not be able to find them...it gives a sense of the book being short. Instead I feel the book looks like it will be "full".
-The Table of Contents has 25 pages of Miscellaneous Monsters. No detail is given but I am assuming this is animals, dire animals, dinosaurs and such. Seems like a lot of pages for these which I like. Again, I suspect the animal and similar categories will be covered fairly completely.
-9 pages of NPCs. If it's like the ones in the DM Basic Rules this should be sample of generic NPCs (Thug, Acolyte, Mage, etc) which can be readily inserted into an adventure. Again useful.
-I didn't see anything in the Table of Contents that showed there would lists showing monster CR. Maybe that was on another page...or they won't be included. If not included that would be a shame. I wouldn't want to have to be forced to flip through the book looking for the monsters that fall within the encounter levels I am building an adventure around.
-Overall, the Monster Manual looks strong...and the DM Basic Rules is an excellent (and free) aid to adventure design until the MM and DMG come out later.
-The DM Basic Rules is very bare bones. Sure, there a bunch of monsters a group can use to create their own adventures. That seems to be the purpose of the document, to let groups run their own adventures...it is not a true preview of the MM.
-The formatting of the DM Basic Rules is weird Monsters are listed completely alphabetical...Adult Red Dragon is listed under A for Adult, not under D for Dragon. However, looking at the MM samples it looks like they are listed in the "usual" manner...Dragons go under D with different types of dragons also being listed under Dragon. Likely the formatting for DM Basic Rules was done for speed and ease.
-The DM Basic Rules really only give stat blocks and then a sentence or two for a description. The sample monsters from the MM show much more detail. Again the sparseness of the DM Basic Rule entries was likely done for speed, ease and space.
-Looking over the list of monsters to be in the MM, it looks like they included all the "mainstays" of monsters. There was no iconic monster I was looking for that was not included. There were very few "oddball" or "new" monsters (except for a maybe a couple like the Flumph). I like this. For a first MM, people want to see their favorite monsters given stats. People don't want to look for their favorites and not be able to find them...it gives a sense of the book being short. Instead I feel the book looks like it will be "full".
-The Table of Contents has 25 pages of Miscellaneous Monsters. No detail is given but I am assuming this is animals, dire animals, dinosaurs and such. Seems like a lot of pages for these which I like. Again, I suspect the animal and similar categories will be covered fairly completely.
-9 pages of NPCs. If it's like the ones in the DM Basic Rules this should be sample of generic NPCs (Thug, Acolyte, Mage, etc) which can be readily inserted into an adventure. Again useful.
-I didn't see anything in the Table of Contents that showed there would lists showing monster CR. Maybe that was on another page...or they won't be included. If not included that would be a shame. I wouldn't want to have to be forced to flip through the book looking for the monsters that fall within the encounter levels I am building an adventure around.
-Overall, the Monster Manual looks strong...and the DM Basic Rules is an excellent (and free) aid to adventure design until the MM and DMG come out later.
August 8, 2014
5E Friday - Morningstar
Morningstar is the codename (stand-in name) of the software suite for 5E...because despite the fact that 5E has already released they still don't have a name for the software yet. Here are some of my questions/thoughts on Morningstar...
-Sounds like they will have all the books online. If you like running games with a computer at your side this should be useful. I prefer paper and dead trees but I know a lot of people like being able to use a pdf during play to look stuff up. Hopefully they will be bookmarked.
-The test beta is currently ongoing (I signed up but haven't gotten in yet). I know some, if not a lot, are in the beta, testing the product out. Maybe there is a strict NDA on this but other than a few people saying they are in the beta, I haven't heard any first hand info on the product yet. I suspect the product is not close to ready yet.
-Will a delay in the product hurt it? There really hasn't been a lot of info on it yet, not a lot of blogs/sites are talking about it. Is this because there is nothing to work with or that no one cares?
-There is not a lot of hype about Morningstar. Even the company producing it hasn't been real aggressive on hyping it. I suspect part of this is that the software promised for 4E (and 3E) were over-hyped and then never delivered on. Seems like this time they are holding the product close to the vest so that anticipation doesn't run amok. You can't be disappointed if you're never told what to expect.
-Custom magic items, monsters, treasure will be customizable. This will help bring 3rd party publishers into the fold more readily. However, character races/classes are not currently on the table for the software. They say they are working on it but there are "obstacles". I can see this from a programming side, but I really hope they can work it in. Allowing it to be fully customizable will be very important for 3PP buy-in.
-Seems to me from their FAQ they are still a long way from completion; a lot of "we hope to", "we're working on". This is a bad thing as they will miss the initial 5E hype.
-And they need a better name.
-Sounds like they will have all the books online. If you like running games with a computer at your side this should be useful. I prefer paper and dead trees but I know a lot of people like being able to use a pdf during play to look stuff up. Hopefully they will be bookmarked.
-The test beta is currently ongoing (I signed up but haven't gotten in yet). I know some, if not a lot, are in the beta, testing the product out. Maybe there is a strict NDA on this but other than a few people saying they are in the beta, I haven't heard any first hand info on the product yet. I suspect the product is not close to ready yet.
-Will a delay in the product hurt it? There really hasn't been a lot of info on it yet, not a lot of blogs/sites are talking about it. Is this because there is nothing to work with or that no one cares?
-There is not a lot of hype about Morningstar. Even the company producing it hasn't been real aggressive on hyping it. I suspect part of this is that the software promised for 4E (and 3E) were over-hyped and then never delivered on. Seems like this time they are holding the product close to the vest so that anticipation doesn't run amok. You can't be disappointed if you're never told what to expect.
-Custom magic items, monsters, treasure will be customizable. This will help bring 3rd party publishers into the fold more readily. However, character races/classes are not currently on the table for the software. They say they are working on it but there are "obstacles". I can see this from a programming side, but I really hope they can work it in. Allowing it to be fully customizable will be very important for 3PP buy-in.
-Seems to me from their FAQ they are still a long way from completion; a lot of "we hope to", "we're working on". This is a bad thing as they will miss the initial 5E hype.
-And they need a better name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)