Steve and I have a 'disagreement' of sorts. My position on a sword and sorcery game is that the rules have to support or encourage that type of play. Steve agrees to some extent but he says, far more important than the rules are how one runs a game.
The reality is somewhere in there. One must run a game witt the themes, plots and feel of the s&s genre for there to be any sword and sorcery role playing game. On the other hand, as a game certain types of actions should be mechanically rewarded, at least more so than others.
For example, let's say training rules were introduced into a game whereby training allowed for an increase in skill, whether it be sword swinging, lock a-pickin, or spell slanging. We all know that training is invaluable to increasing skills. Tat is why the military trains all of the freakin time. Its why sports teams train all of the freakin time. Training will increase one's skill at something.
Well in an s&s game, we want the characters to take action. So maybe they can train and gain skills but could they do this forever or for a long time and then go fight something.
No, there would have to a mechanical limitation to stop them from doing this or, even better, a reward for doing otherwise. Steve points out, quite correctly I might add, that C&C as well as most other iterations of the game do this. There is no training xp gain, only xp gained trough treasure an killing.
So yeah, there is support for that type of play. And it becomes a back and forth. I readily admit things I want to change would not have to be changed and Steve admits there would have to be some restrictions.
So in putting together a Sword and Sorcery game I am left with the thought that rather than create a new just tool Castles and Crusades a bit. But I like rules. I just don't like them to show up in the game.
Davis
The reality is somewhere in there. One must run a game witt the themes, plots and feel of the s&s genre for there to be any sword and sorcery role playing game. On the other hand, as a game certain types of actions should be mechanically rewarded, at least more so than others.
For example, let's say training rules were introduced into a game whereby training allowed for an increase in skill, whether it be sword swinging, lock a-pickin, or spell slanging. We all know that training is invaluable to increasing skills. Tat is why the military trains all of the freakin time. Its why sports teams train all of the freakin time. Training will increase one's skill at something.
Well in an s&s game, we want the characters to take action. So maybe they can train and gain skills but could they do this forever or for a long time and then go fight something.
No, there would have to a mechanical limitation to stop them from doing this or, even better, a reward for doing otherwise. Steve points out, quite correctly I might add, that C&C as well as most other iterations of the game do this. There is no training xp gain, only xp gained trough treasure an killing.
So yeah, there is support for that type of play. And it becomes a back and forth. I readily admit things I want to change would not have to be changed and Steve admits there would have to be some restrictions.
So in putting together a Sword and Sorcery game I am left with the thought that rather than create a new just tool Castles and Crusades a bit. But I like rules. I just don't like them to show up in the game.
Davis
1 comment:
The game I'm currently running dates back from well before C&C. There are rules for training, but the limitation is you can only gain +5% (+1 in C&C terms) before you have to go out in the world and try what you've learned. Successfully using your skill in the field then allows you to also increase by +5%. Some more limiting factors on training is that almost all skills can only be increased to 75% by training. Anything higher must be done through use. Training also cost money, which limits how much a character can train and also removes extra wealth.
WRT to some of your previous comments, these rules also make shields quite useful. For comparison, plate armor can absorb 6 points of damage, but a medium shield can absorb 12. You could parry with your weapon, but then have a chance of it breaking, whereas a shield generally only breaks if you roll badly on a fumble.
Fighting with two weapons and actually using both to attack is rare as you'd be giving up your chance to parry an incoming attack.
There probably are more dice rolls though than what you want. Attacker would roll to hit, roll location, roll damage. Defender rolls to parry.
Post a Comment