Reply re: Richard Devlyn, proper names, dice in games

From: Rodney Smith <remster_at_interport.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:35:09 -0400


I stand by my points in regard to my conversation with Richard Devlyn, however, I do believe that I was rude and made an uncalled for comment. The CCG comment was out of line on my behalf, and I do apologize, Richard.

Also, my name is Chris Bell, not Rodney Smith. Rod is my room mate, and I forgot to reset the indentity section on my Netscape messenger before sending out the post.

I agree with Nick H that dice are tools, and they can throw some interesting randomization in to spur previously unthought of plot elements. Also, I'm really not that much of a dictator when I run, really :) But I find that players provide all the randomization that I need. Sure, dice for combat and the like are still useful, but I eyeball for my story needs and fudge when essential, although I keep it down to a minimum. However, I do feel it's more appropriate for characters to fail from bad decisions made by players, as opposed to bad die rolls. I really dig descriptive character stat systems, like from Castle Falkenstein, as oppoed to number systems. I *really* want to learn more about Everyway.

I'm also really enjoying the Resurrection debate. It seems that we're trying to rationalise out the D&Dism of easy Resurrection from RQ2 and RQ3, a worthy effort. I would personally delete the Resurrection "spell", and make it a major HQ kind of thing. However, source material does tell us that it's not unheard of... Didn't Kallyr come back from the dead three times or so?

Best,
Chris Bell
remster_at_interport.net
sartar18_at_hotmail.com


Powered by hypermail