your dm should have let you die for making foolish decisions. Join a more realistic group.Quote:
Originally Posted by StratOcastle
Printable View
your dm should have let you die for making foolish decisions. Join a more realistic group.Quote:
Originally Posted by StratOcastle
what's the big deal? I mean he tells you if you hit him he will hit you into your war.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetley
Gives you 2 choices:
a) don't hit him
b) kill him
c) watch him keep his word and hit into your war.
Solo provinces are so handicapped in competing they should be hitting into your war.
I'm not even saying there's a huge problem with it, just that I wouldn't describe his methods as strong :P
If we're borrowing from D+D, outplayerz is not the warrior, but the thief.
There's plenty of examples in our world that realism supports.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodz
Every party needs a thief. ;)
There is no rule that says I can't take my land back through war.
A thief who steals his gold back isn't a thief but a reconciler.
I think you will find that there are not many examples where you can take from those in a position of strength without consequences... Show me these real world examples!Quote:
Originally Posted by StratOcastle
Look up Lachhiman Gurung, a Ghurka recipient of The Victoria Cross.
Henry the 5th at the Battle of Agincourt.
Look up wolverine vs bear.
Appalachian State vs Michigan 2007.
Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn.
http://listverse.com/2013/07/15/10-a...rdogs-who-won/
Nothing is permanent, but we have enough evidence to enjoy an underdog position in Utopia. ~ You're doing well btw goodz. I notice your taking on all comers ;-)
I didn't say that underdogs don't win, and come on Agincourt? The british were favorites they still had longbows vs French calvary.Quote:
Originally Posted by StratOcastle
But if you were consistently going up against foes stronger then you and gambling your life presumably you would not live long. That was more my point. Although half the fun of dnd may have been making character sheets.
A few strategies in RPG and strategy games translate to Utopia. In D&D we had a solid team. The game has become more tactical now which I enjoy. Other games that were pure strategy translate well like Squad Leader.
Going up against stronger foes is in essence my motivation. It's not dislike, more testing and proving things. It's also fun.
I never played Dungeons and Dragons. I always wanted to try, but it seemed like a lot of effort to set it all up and sit down and do it. It was easier to just play Magic: The Gathering. What's D+D's closest sibling in video game form? The Elder Scrolls series games?
Baldurs gate / icewindale use the dnd system of like dice rolls for your stats etc. Think its basically identical stats wise. Baldurs gate 2 I found somewhat playable like 5 years ago, the graphics are pretty offensive though..Quote:
Originally Posted by tetley
You have a quite large selection of games that has the DnD system, Baldurs gate 1 + 2 + expansions (are out in enhanced versions now ie better graphic) Icewindale 1+2, Neverwinter nights 1+2 ehm, there is more DDO online.. Planescape Tornament. I would suggest checking out Neverwinter Nights.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetley
ah nwn was good I couldn't think of it, definitely the one you should try as the rest imo mostly have nostalgic appeal.
One thing doesnt exclude the other, you are just narrowminded and go against the established norm. Freeform or not usually there have to be some kind of system to establish ability to do things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kita
I must say, as a role-player, since the system doesn't matter it shouldn't reflect poorly on it's benefits elsewhere. I mean if we accept that roleplaying involves taking on the personality of your character, and the system is simply a symptom of the genre, then we can discuss the matter with little relation other than the root of some strategic parallels.
Roleplaying is what the game is by definition, but the appeal to the masses is a comprehensive and balanced system. Since D&D includes wide strategic variables me and my friends decided on a conservative approach by only allowing options available from D&D( not FR or any Dragon mag, etc )hardbound releases. We've been a team since the early 80s; with wisdom comes an understanding of restraint. A game is only as good as the GM is content. We bow to the noble effort of a fellow player running the game, by setting obstacles to make it interesting. Running around like gods is boring for lack of challenge.
My position here is simply that some games relate to others strategically. It's ok if some people don't get the roleplaying aspect, or care to participate. If anything, the enlightened should be the most understanding.
He deleted - he was "annoyed" with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukharistan