Pen & Paper - Spielsysteme > D&D - Dungeons & Dragons

Meine RPG-Probleme mit D20

<< < (22/22)

Glgnfz:

--- Zitat von: Dirk Remmecke am  1.03.2011 | 20:05 ---Du verweigerst sie in dem Sinne, dass du sie nicht ausgibst, auch wenn sie dir (als Spieler) zustehen?
Oer sagst du (als SL) den Spielern: "Schmier dir den Gummipunkt sonstwohin - save or die!"?

--- Ende Zitat ---

Letzteres!

Feuersänger:
Weil's hier grade vage reinpasst, ich hab eben im GitP-Forum einen recht neutralen Beitrag gefunden zum Thema 3.5/4E:

(Klicke zum Anzeigen/Verstecken)4e was designed to be played in a very specific way. Each character plays a Hero (capitalisation intended) who joins up with a party that contains at least one each of the four roles. The party then travels around and kills monsters (assembled in level-appropriate groups). Combat is the main focus of the game, the way you fight combats is by reducing monster HP, and most of what PCs can do revolves around either taking off monster HP or helping to take off monster HP. In between fights you have occasional skill challenges, which are basically a way of organising every encounter that's not a combat so that it follows the same basic structure/XP format as a combat.

This is what 4e does, and it's good at it. If the above paragraph appeals to you, you'll like 4e: there's a lot of content, it's reasonably simple to learn, and it's fairly well balanced.

The drawbacks of 4e are all mirror-images of its good points. 4e works great as long as you play it the way the designers want, but it quickly starts running into problems when you try something different. If you decide you don't want to organise a party in terms of roles or don't want to play a character who does HP damage or don't want to play a game that revolves around killing small groups of monsters, 4e isn't going to work very well.

Dann erklärt die Urheberin noch ein wenig dazu, warum ihre Gruppe nach 1 Jahr wieder von 4E auf 3.5 zurückgewechselt ist. Unter anderem, und das hat mich an diesen Thread hier erinnert:

* Very limited mechanics for noncombat activities. (The 4e approach to things like crafts and trades basically comes down to "We don't have any rules for it, so make it all up, it doesn't matter anyway".)

Kurz, sie beschwert sich über mangelnden rollenspielerischen Tiefgang, wenn _nicht_ alles bis ins kleinste verregelt ist. Womit mal wieder gezeigt wäre (in Hinsicht auf den Threadersteller): Was dem een sin Uul, is dem andern sin Nachtigall.

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[*] Vorherige Sete