Search results

I'm baffled. But hey, if it works for you.

What if you can't cook?

Setting has nothing to do with it. The rules of BitD are built specifically around its intended, limited playstyle. D&D is more "generic" simply because it tries to cover more ground than BitD by a wide margin.

The 5E rules cover more playstyle ground than BitD is all I am saying. That can't be controversial. The whole point of the existence of BitD was do do a single thing really well.

I don't disagree overall (although I think people make too much of 5E being melee focused and "not working" with ranged or guns, but anyway). I just think it is pretty obvious that D&D specifices less about how it is supposed to be played and what that play looks like than BitD. I mean, the...

I think BitD has a significantly more narrow and opinionated design than 5E. I don't think 5E is a generic game, though, just that on the continuum it is more generic than BitD.

Cool. For anyone (like me) interested, here is a good article on the subject: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-did-ancient-bugs-get-so-big-prevailing-theory-may-be-wrong

Like all great 90s games, it really embraced world building. Those rules were often more complex than they needed to be, but they also had a lot of charm. The math was usually wonky, too. My favorite was Earthdawn.

I walked a player through inputing their character last night (because none of the rest of the group was free). It is a little opaque at times, and not everything is explicit or coded. So take care when building a character and definitely test things before play. One thing that was new to me but...

Yep, and thank goodness. Imagine if SW maintained the dice-nonsense of DL Classic.

There will never be a time when the defenders don't rush out at even the hint of criticism, will there?

I think the most important difference is that with an intentionally generic or universal game, people don't have to tease out the system and eliminate the bits they don't need while replacing them with the ones they do. Instead, all the bits are there and you apply them, turn dials, etc to use...

yeah, there is definitely a "Shadowdark" version of Star Wars to be made -- not danger wise, but simplicity and thematic focus wise.

To answer for myself now that I have a spare minute: My "perfect session" is probably an in-person (possibly convention) game of either Shadowdark, Daggerheart or Savage Worlds with 4 or 5 players(I have a list but I won't go into it). The actual adventure is off the cuff but built on a solid...

The most pressing current question: watch Maul: Shadow Lord as it drops, or wait until it is complete and binge...

The core of DH could certainly make for a great Star Wars game, although i would try and open it up from its sort of rigid class based design (by letting people choose any 2 domains, for a start).

I am not sure FitD fits the idea of a universal system much. Can you explain how you think it does?

Here is another thread where I was trying to drill down on core rules: Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

Oh but there is one.

If you imagine your perfect session of an RPG, what does it look like to you? What game? What campaign? How many participants? How long is the session? What is the "breakdown" between time spent in combat, exploring, roleplaying with NPCs, PCs interacting, players fooling around, wtc..? And...