And folks, just as a general rule of thumb, tis often unwise to try and determine 'tone' on a message board that has such an eclectic range of people on it.
We have a variety of cultures and languages on this board, and so do several other places. How a person phrases something can be interpreted widely and it isn't always, in fact seldom, is the apparent tone of a post actually what the post intends to convey.
Might bear that in mind those who are hair triggers and are quick to assume the worst in a posters intent.
Read, think, get up and walk around, then reply.
It saves a lot of useless going back and forth about who said what.
I find it a good rule of thumb to not automatically assume someone is trying to be offensive. Saves time, keeps the blood pressure down and generally promotes a more friendly atmosphere. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
Sell me (or don't) on including 3.5 Feats in my C&C game
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Heh. Its me. I'm the one who says that feats are a heresy, because they are an abomination of player control. They take the DMs decision-making away, by feeding the rules lawyer a stylistic display of "no matter what you say, this rule here says otherwise." RPGs are games of the imagination... not games of lists of stackable rule sequences culminating in a mathematical series of one-upmanship. If you wish it to be a game where your abacus is a more important tool than your brain, I suggest a computer game, since it at least keeps it behind the screen, as it were.
The concept of "feats" are neat, but they should be derived from in-game actions... usable in dramatic situations only, where life-and-death are needed, like dropping a chandelier on a group of bad guys, or gaining the strength, suddenly, to lift a pilla that crushed your ally so you can get him raised... not: I can use my Charisma bonus to hit and damage.
But, play as you like. If it improves your game, it can only be good. But... any time I am asked if I think "feats" should be used, my answer will remain the same.
The concept of "feats" are neat, but they should be derived from in-game actions... usable in dramatic situations only, where life-and-death are needed, like dropping a chandelier on a group of bad guys, or gaining the strength, suddenly, to lift a pilla that crushed your ally so you can get him raised... not: I can use my Charisma bonus to hit and damage.
But, play as you like. If it improves your game, it can only be good. But... any time I am asked if I think "feats" should be used, my answer will remain the same.
Nelzie wrote:
Are you, perhaps, affiliated with the $3 PDF you suggest people look at? Seriously, if people want/need to add Feats to their C&C game, why wouldn't they just go to the freely available d20 SRD and put together something that works for their campaign?
My comments were meant to be rather tongue-in-cheeks, but my mastery of the English language is not good enough to practice irony with it. Likewise of typing fast and not ponder a post before posting it. Sorry if I offended anyone.
-
Scurvy_Platypus
- Ungern
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:00 am
Perhaps Turanil was a bit...unwise... in his choice of words, but ease up people. He does have a point, in that folks around here seem to be strongly against the idea.
Turanil has made a number of posts about C&C over the past couple of years over on EnWorld, although the reception of C&C over there seemed to be rather chilly.
As for whether or not Feats should be included in the game, either taken from 3.x or other sources, it really depends on how important rules are.
Some people really like rules (what basically makes a "game" a "game") to be more prominent. Other folks prefer the rules to fade into the background and not really be obvious. And some folks like to straddle the line, emphasizing certain aspects of the game. For example, have you noticed how people like to have a bunch of rules for combat, and then anything that's "social" (as in negotiation, fast-talking, etc) is all just hand-waved aside with the vague admonition "You just roleplay it." That works for plenty of people, and has for decades. But I happen to belive that the rules say what's important in a game (or at least suggest it), and having pages and pages of rules concerning how to hit someone with a weapon, and nothing other than an explanation under a skill for any kind of social stuff, means that combat is more important in the game. Importance being defined/suggested by what is explicitly encoded as a rule.
Can someone shift the emphasis, and make social/political/romance a focus of a game? Of course. But the rules, which _many_ people do _not_ see as a "suggestion" but the way it's _supposed_ to be played, don't inherently support that style of play. You get X XP for killing stuff, maybe Y for loot, and you spend Z to make magic stuff. And for social conflicts? Ummm... yeah, you can have some random amount for "good roleplay". Personally I'd say it's a "heresy" to suggest using the same rules to resolve social interactions as it is to resolve combat. People start complaining and making trite statements about "Now you're 'roll-playing' not 'role-playing'" and start acting like you just tried to shave their cat. That basically tells me that folks are more interested in having the rules be more prominent for combat, and very much in the background regarding social stuff.
So what feats exactly are you thinking of adding to the game? If it's combat stuff, are you looking to shift the focus of your game in a more combat oriented direction? What is it about feats that you can't get, other than some sort of mechanical differentiation? Are you just looking to spice things up a bit in terms of the combat, or are you looking for something to sort of replace the lack of a detailed skill system?
How about doing something like Treebore (?) does, with that skill check for doing a Feat-like action? Maybe you could lift some of the ideas that have been floated around before for non-weapon proficiency slots like AD&D has. Maybe you can give a Special Focus every X number of levels, that provides a base +2 to +5 bonus to trying to do certain explict things.
You can even mess around with trying to blend ideas in from other games like The Shadow of Yesterday (Keys being used as the source of XP instead of killing creatures) or play around with blending Aspects in from Fate (game by Evil Hat).
Also keep in mind that when you look for advice about what you should/shouldn't do in your C&C game, you're going to be getting a variety of answers based on people's inherent biases. Around rpg.net for example, C&C discussions usually just devolve into stupid edition wars (after the most recent thread, I don't plan on participating in C&C "discussions" anymore). Around here, a large portion of people seem rather focused on remaking AD&D fixed to meet their particular needs. I personally like C&C as a rules-light approach to being able to use anything from AD&D up through 3rd party d20 stuff. I've got a book to handle mecha, other books that will let me do Shadowrun type stuff, another one for doing psionics, I've redone the magic system, and I simply made my own class-building system based on another product.
Turanil has made a number of posts about C&C over the past couple of years over on EnWorld, although the reception of C&C over there seemed to be rather chilly.
As for whether or not Feats should be included in the game, either taken from 3.x or other sources, it really depends on how important rules are.
Some people really like rules (what basically makes a "game" a "game") to be more prominent. Other folks prefer the rules to fade into the background and not really be obvious. And some folks like to straddle the line, emphasizing certain aspects of the game. For example, have you noticed how people like to have a bunch of rules for combat, and then anything that's "social" (as in negotiation, fast-talking, etc) is all just hand-waved aside with the vague admonition "You just roleplay it." That works for plenty of people, and has for decades. But I happen to belive that the rules say what's important in a game (or at least suggest it), and having pages and pages of rules concerning how to hit someone with a weapon, and nothing other than an explanation under a skill for any kind of social stuff, means that combat is more important in the game. Importance being defined/suggested by what is explicitly encoded as a rule.
Can someone shift the emphasis, and make social/political/romance a focus of a game? Of course. But the rules, which _many_ people do _not_ see as a "suggestion" but the way it's _supposed_ to be played, don't inherently support that style of play. You get X XP for killing stuff, maybe Y for loot, and you spend Z to make magic stuff. And for social conflicts? Ummm... yeah, you can have some random amount for "good roleplay". Personally I'd say it's a "heresy" to suggest using the same rules to resolve social interactions as it is to resolve combat. People start complaining and making trite statements about "Now you're 'roll-playing' not 'role-playing'" and start acting like you just tried to shave their cat. That basically tells me that folks are more interested in having the rules be more prominent for combat, and very much in the background regarding social stuff.
So what feats exactly are you thinking of adding to the game? If it's combat stuff, are you looking to shift the focus of your game in a more combat oriented direction? What is it about feats that you can't get, other than some sort of mechanical differentiation? Are you just looking to spice things up a bit in terms of the combat, or are you looking for something to sort of replace the lack of a detailed skill system?
How about doing something like Treebore (?) does, with that skill check for doing a Feat-like action? Maybe you could lift some of the ideas that have been floated around before for non-weapon proficiency slots like AD&D has. Maybe you can give a Special Focus every X number of levels, that provides a base +2 to +5 bonus to trying to do certain explict things.
You can even mess around with trying to blend ideas in from other games like The Shadow of Yesterday (Keys being used as the source of XP instead of killing creatures) or play around with blending Aspects in from Fate (game by Evil Hat).
Also keep in mind that when you look for advice about what you should/shouldn't do in your C&C game, you're going to be getting a variety of answers based on people's inherent biases. Around rpg.net for example, C&C discussions usually just devolve into stupid edition wars (after the most recent thread, I don't plan on participating in C&C "discussions" anymore). Around here, a large portion of people seem rather focused on remaking AD&D fixed to meet their particular needs. I personally like C&C as a rules-light approach to being able to use anything from AD&D up through 3rd party d20 stuff. I've got a book to handle mecha, other books that will let me do Shadowrun type stuff, another one for doing psionics, I've redone the magic system, and I simply made my own class-building system based on another product.
I find Turanil's advice very sounding, some people prefer some rules instead of Gm's call, there is nothing wrong with it, and it is not against the system as well. In defence of his post and against Nelzie's post on go to SRD and make your own thing, I would like to say I have little time to spare for such things and that paying 3 bucks for something I can spend considerably less time is cheap enough.
Some people need rules, others prefer GMs to make the call. I think both are entitled to their opinions, and preference.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
Some people need rules, others prefer GMs to make the call. I think both are entitled to their opinions, and preference.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
The problem with feats is that they cover wildly different things. Some are background options, some are what the Hero system calls 'perks' (wealthy, well-connected, owed a favor...), some are talents (innate abilities which border on superpowers), some are the infamous +2/+2 skill adders, some are skills (weapon and armor proficiencies, martial arts), some are combat maneuvers, some are spell 'changers', some allow for the making of magic items (and therefore should be skills, probably), some are extra class abilities (extra turning, smiting...) etc. Moreover, as there are several thousand of them now (just for D&D 3.5!), their range has become bewildering.
So the 'anti-feats' sentiment could possibly be 'fine-tuned' a bit. Combat maneuvers are largely handled by the SIEGE engine's possibilities. Spell- modifying feats could also be handled in this way. But some of the 'background flavour' feats, or the more exotic abilities, possibly couldn't be. Or the skill adder feats (Acrobatic, athletic etc.) could probably be codified in permanent bonuses to SIEGE checks, as C&C doesn't use skills as such.
Of course, trudging through the feats jungle to find those couple of dozen which are not SIEGE-able is an insane amount of work and probably not worth the effort.
Nevertheless, a better way of 'filling in' those feats should exist, and could be a part of character creation: a simple system of backgrounds and abilities which define your character - not in a restrictive way, as feats are meant to do now, but in a descriptive way, in which they are part of the overall character concept. For instance, a PC who would select Acrobatic as a basic character trait/ability would be better at swinging on chandeliers or flipping across furniture than someone who didn't - yet the other character is just as free to attempt these things. Only they have a somewhat smaller chance to succeed.
Sometimes I feel that the time is ripe for 'AC&C' , which provides a more extensive framework of options which often recur in almost every C&C discussion on several messageboards. Of course, we'll just wait for the CKG to see what options and possibilities the trolls have already decided on for us, before taking such a drastic step...
So the 'anti-feats' sentiment could possibly be 'fine-tuned' a bit. Combat maneuvers are largely handled by the SIEGE engine's possibilities. Spell- modifying feats could also be handled in this way. But some of the 'background flavour' feats, or the more exotic abilities, possibly couldn't be. Or the skill adder feats (Acrobatic, athletic etc.) could probably be codified in permanent bonuses to SIEGE checks, as C&C doesn't use skills as such.
Of course, trudging through the feats jungle to find those couple of dozen which are not SIEGE-able is an insane amount of work and probably not worth the effort.
Nevertheless, a better way of 'filling in' those feats should exist, and could be a part of character creation: a simple system of backgrounds and abilities which define your character - not in a restrictive way, as feats are meant to do now, but in a descriptive way, in which they are part of the overall character concept. For instance, a PC who would select Acrobatic as a basic character trait/ability would be better at swinging on chandeliers or flipping across furniture than someone who didn't - yet the other character is just as free to attempt these things. Only they have a somewhat smaller chance to succeed.
Sometimes I feel that the time is ripe for 'AC&C' , which provides a more extensive framework of options which often recur in almost every C&C discussion on several messageboards. Of course, we'll just wait for the CKG to see what options and possibilities the trolls have already decided on for us, before taking such a drastic step...
While the SIEGE engine can certainly handle actions like tripping, power attack, etc. What it can't do is help out a player who wants to be 'extra good' at something, like "I want to be specialized in disarming my opponent" or "a master tripper" or "a particularly good negotiator"... some little mechanical bonus to the character that makes them a little unique and gives them a slight mechanical bump in a specific situation.
I think a 'knack' list a la LA, where a player could pick once (or once every several levels depending on preference) from a list that offers slight mechanical bonuses to specific situations (for instance a knack that grants a +2 bonus to trip attempts or a +2 bonus to charisma rolls dealing with negotiating or haggling) might be a fine addition to the game. You still wouldn't be defining what everyone can and can't do but you allow someone to shine a little in an area where they want. That would be the type of thing I would work toward if I were going to include a Feat-like system.
_________________
----------------
Moorcrys
I think a 'knack' list a la LA, where a player could pick once (or once every several levels depending on preference) from a list that offers slight mechanical bonuses to specific situations (for instance a knack that grants a +2 bonus to trip attempts or a +2 bonus to charisma rolls dealing with negotiating or haggling) might be a fine addition to the game. You still wouldn't be defining what everyone can and can't do but you allow someone to shine a little in an area where they want. That would be the type of thing I would work toward if I were going to include a Feat-like system.
_________________
----------------
Moorcrys
serleran wrote:
RPGs are games of the imagination... not games of lists of stackable rule sequences culminating in a mathematical series of one-upmanship. If you wish it to be a game where your abacus is a more important tool than your brain, I suggest a computer game, since it at least keeps it behind the screen, as it were.
Regarding my unimaginative player, I understand, and I agree 100% with the above-quoted statement.
Yet if I were to say that to my player, I'd likely have only 2 players instead of 3--and possibly lose a friend. I can't afford to alienate anyone.
Meh, they'll get used to using their imagination instead of having feats just as I will, or they'll steal ideas from each other on how to do cool stuff. It'll all work out. As you say, it's merely a game.
Scurvy_Platypus wrote:
So what feats exactly are you thinking of adding to the game? If it's combat stuff, are you looking to shift the focus of your game in a more combat oriented direction? What is it about feats that you can't get, other than some sort of mechanical differentiation? Are you just looking to spice things up a bit in terms of the combat, or are you looking for something to sort of replace the lack of a detailed skill system?
Heh heh. I find it amusing that people keep bringing up combat-related feats. I, personally, never asked for feats related to combat. I'm much more the kind of DM/CK and player that enjoys the social skills/feats in 3.5.
I wasn't asking about feats because I plan on adding them, as you might see in my original post. One of my players was concerned that I was intending to discard feats, so I decided to get advice whether to include them or not--directly from the game designers and players who have been using C&C. I'm new to this engine, you're not. I'd rather hear directly from you all than to try to arbitrarily make a decision having never read the books.
I have concluded that, despite it taking more "work" (a/k/a "imagination") that feats are not needed--which is what I intended right from the start. Now, when my players say, "...But what about Feats?" I can say with conviction that they're 'integrated' directly into C&C and unnecessary.
I think a great follow-up question is this: Of the feats available, which ones would SIEGE have difficulty emulating? And why? EDIT: I didn't see mrswing's comment, about 3 postst up. D'OH!
None. There is nothing that C&C cannot do, with the proper leverage. 
However, that said, the feats that add bonuses to skills can't be used, since C&C doesn't have skills, either.. so, a bit more tweaking it would be needed. All the feats involving AoOs would have to be really mangled to get them to work in C&C, or, you'd just drop the d20 combat system in (but then, why play C&C?) Item creation feats would be too powerful, but they could work... just make sure the players don't have the money to use them on an everyday basis, and make damn sure you use the item save rules. Some feats are just useless anyway, like extra turning (C&C clerics are only restricted by the number of undead they encounter, and whether they fail a roll or not, but then, only against that particular encounter...) and on and on. Social feats, of which there are few, could work, but in a different way... basically the saem with all the feats, really. They can all work, but need severe modification. Almost not worth it.
However, that said, the feats that add bonuses to skills can't be used, since C&C doesn't have skills, either.. so, a bit more tweaking it would be needed. All the feats involving AoOs would have to be really mangled to get them to work in C&C, or, you'd just drop the d20 combat system in (but then, why play C&C?) Item creation feats would be too powerful, but they could work... just make sure the players don't have the money to use them on an everyday basis, and make damn sure you use the item save rules. Some feats are just useless anyway, like extra turning (C&C clerics are only restricted by the number of undead they encounter, and whether they fail a roll or not, but then, only against that particular encounter...) and on and on. Social feats, of which there are few, could work, but in a different way... basically the saem with all the feats, really. They can all work, but need severe modification. Almost not worth it.-
Philotomy Jurament
- Ulthal
- Posts: 428
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Naw, it gives +1 HP. Like I said, all you have to do is whack the bonuses, or change the way it works... its not a difficult thing, but its an annoying thing, since the two games are not equal. The first thing I'd do, if I wanted to do this, would be to make a list of the feats that are likely to be used, and then only "convert" those.
Turanil wrote:
My comments were meant to be rather tongue-in-cheeks, but my mastery of the English language is not good enough to practice irony with it. Likewise of typing fast and not ponder a post before posting it. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Turanil, I am sorry.
I belong to a number of forums and on more than a few of those "shills" have tended to raise their heads, posting similarly to how you posted. I reacted far stronger than I should have.
OgrePuppy,
I had to add feats for several of my friends to give C&C a go. Here's the link to my post where I showed Treebore what I did.
He wasn't impressed! http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... ames#15142
I've fiddled with it a bit since I posted it, but it has worked well for me (An example is I changed Toughness to giving the character a +1 to his hit dice. So a fighter would git a d10+1 hit points per level). In short, I give each character one feat at first level, but after that the player must buy a feat with xp. Only one feat per level mind you.
I had to add feats for several of my friends to give C&C a go. Here's the link to my post where I showed Treebore what I did.
He wasn't impressed! http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... ames#15142
I've fiddled with it a bit since I posted it, but it has worked well for me (An example is I changed Toughness to giving the character a +1 to his hit dice. So a fighter would git a d10+1 hit points per level). In short, I give each character one feat at first level, but after that the player must buy a feat with xp. Only one feat per level mind you.
In the words of my good friend Trevor, "Hey, put an arrow in that flying mummy! What could possibly happen?"
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
DangerDwarf wrote:
I know I do.
Pantless!!!!!!!!!!!!
*scrubs out the inside of his brain with a steel brush*
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
gideon_thorne wrote:
*scrubs out the inside of his brain with a steel brush*
You know, this must be a "dwarf" thing. Scary, DD. Just scary.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.
"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"
"I shun him."
-----
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
-- E. Gary Gygax
Psalm 73:26
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
Moorcrys wrote:
While the SIEGE engine can certainly handle actions like tripping, power attack, etc. What it can't do is help out a player who wants to be 'extra good' at something, like "I want to be specialized in disarming my opponent" or "a master tripper" or "a particularly good negotiator"... some little mechanical bonus to the character that makes them a little unique and gives them a slight mechanical bump in a specific situation.
I think a 'knack' list a la LA, where a player could pick once (or once every several levels depending on preference) from a list that offers slight mechanical bonuses to specific situations (for instance a knack that grants a +2 bonus to trip attempts or a +2 bonus to charisma rolls dealing with negotiating or haggling) might be a fine addition to the game. You still wouldn't be defining what everyone can and can't do but you allow someone to shine a little in an area where they want. That would be the type of thing I would work toward if I were going to include a Feat-like system.
See, I like the knack idea, but not how its implemented. I much prefer watching how the player plays their character. They tend to do certain things often, make certain kind of SIEGE chacks often. When I see this I wait until they do it a certain number of times successfully, then give them a permanent bonus/ability based on that so they no long have to make a check.
So I don't like the "choosing" aspect, I would much prefer it being a reward from me for how they actually have their character do things in play.
Like I recently rewarded my players the "Cleave" and "extra attack" feats, because they rolled so many SIEGE checks to do those over the course of play (they were 9th level when they finally succeeded enough times for me to award them). So now their Ranger and Paladin automatically have two attacks around, and a 3rd if one of their opponents goes down and another is in easy reach.
Now the Runemark/Druid is making more attempts to change the energy type of her spells so she can do it without having to make a check. She only has to succeed another 24 times before I will let her do it without a SIEGE check.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Treebore wrote:
See, I like the knack idea, but not how its implemented. I much prefer watching how the player plays their character. They tend to do certain things often, make certain kind of SIEGE chacks often. When I see this I wait until they do it a certain number of times successfully, then give them a permanent bonus/ability based on that so they no long have to make a check.
So I don't like the "choosing" aspect, I would much prefer it being a reward from me for how they actually have their character do things in play.
This is how I view the use of the CZ background skills. Hence a 'role play' and 'often use' rule in effect for those who want to develop a given character emphasis.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
Ogrepuppy wrote:
Having seen Tree's posts on other forums, that comes as no real shock...
Yeah, apparently I am a very condenscending jerk wad. Oh well.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
JediOre wrote:
OgrePuppy,
I had to add feats for several of my friends to give C&C a go. Here's the link to my post where I showed Treebore what I did.
He wasn't impressed! http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... ames#15142
I've fiddled with it a bit since I posted it, but it has worked well for me (An example is I changed Toughness to giving the character a +1 to his hit dice. So a fighter would git a d10+1 hit points per level). In short, I give each character one feat at first level, but after that the player must buy a feat with xp. Only one feat per level mind you.
It wasn't not being impressed. You are just going in a different direction then I am. Your happy with what your doing and I've been happy with what I have been doing. So if we are both happy with our different paths how can I give you useful feedback?
Thats why I wasn't responding.
Plus I am a condescending, judgemental, etc..., etc.... jerk wad.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Time to tone this down real fast or this thread is gonna fade off the page. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
gideon_thorne wrote:
Time to tone this down real fast or this thread is gonna fade off the page. ^_~`
For the record I am not upset or anything. If I was upset about such things I would have quit posting long ago on many boards.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Treebore wrote:
See, I like the knack idea, but not how its implemented. I much prefer watching how the player plays their character. They tend to do certain things often, make certain kind of SIEGE chacks often. When I see this I wait until they do it a certain number of times successfully, then give them a permanent bonus/ability based on that so they no long have to make a check.
Sounds like a great idea to me! And you have other mechanics houseruled into your games that players take advantage of and you can reward them for continual use. Sounds like a good way to go all around.
_________________
----------------
Moorcrys
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas
Treebore wrote:
For the record I am not upset or anything. If I was upset about such things I would have quit posting long ago on many boards.
Well, ENWorld has now joined WOTC as a board I will no longer go to. Oh well. I 'm sure they won't miss me.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.