Greatest RPG's of all time?

[Luckymoose]

It's unrelated to your point that pen and paper apparently must use material to display tactical combat, and how that has been the case forever.

The last pen and paper group I formed consists of 5 other people in their 30s who hadn’t played since their teens. We formed the group off the internet; not a single one of us knew each others from before. So all of their experience playing D&D or other RPGs were from different groups in their respective cities independent from each others 15 years ago. Now they had just recently bought 4e books and wanted to get back into pen and paper. When I told them we’d be using minis and a grid map: all of them, every single individual in that café was surprised (not in a bad way). But none of them used it in their individual groups of AD&D and Vampire and whatnot back then. Also the only other comment we have in this thread on this subject is PrinceScamp saying he also played without visual representation of fights. This guy lives across the country for me, he’s just a random guy (hi PrinceScamp!).

I’m not saying visual representation is wrong, I’m saying you seem to have a skewed perception of how prevalent it is in the grand world of pen and paper games.

Anyway, if you’re so convinced, maybe you should go to the Wikipedia article “Role-playing game (pen and paper)” and edit in the part about them most of the time requiring grids, maps and whatnot, because right now I don’t see it. Also change the picture of the people playing with a picture of your group with the full visual setup, because right now the pic might give the wrong impression since there is none of it.

Just because people play it incorrectly doesn't mean that is how it should be played. The entire pen and paper genre is based on miniature war games with battle maps. Sure you could play it without representation, and no one uses representation except in a combat situation or for maps of other things. No I don't use visuals for everything, and yes any visuals I use are all drawn by myself, so this whole "You have to buy minis OMG DND IS WOW" bullcrap is ridiculous. Pen and PAPER. You use paper to represent the battlefield and a pen to draw. Everyone I know that has ever played a tabletop RPG, which is a few dozen peoples from all over, have used visual maps for combat. Because 10 people at a table can't keep up with a complex battle scenario entirely in their head.

Roll for initiative bro.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I just use the word "minis" as a shortcut for "visual representation of any kind".

You are just wrong in thinking that these games are incorrectly played without visual representation.

I've played with just grid paper and monopoly figurines in the past and stuff like that. We usually whipped them out when a specific situation required it. Most combat situations didn't back in the days, if taking out the grid to fight 3 orcs extended the fight from 15 minutes to 45, we didn't see the point, and none of the AD&D rules made it necessary. They would if your game of D&D becomes heavily focused on combat. If you play it more like a war game well so be it. But that's just one type of play and no rule book ever stated that this was the correct way (although as said multiple times yes D&D 4e pretty much does at this point)

I don't even know what you're arguing about. You're like "whee my way is the way" when apparently you are oblivious and will not consider the fact that a huge percentage of people don't play it your way, then you even pretend that they are wrong as stated in rules and whatnot.

Yes I know it evolved from war game, exactly, it evolved from it and the grids weren't necessary anymore. You could keep it fine, and many people kept playing like that indeed.

I don't even feel personally attacked by your view because I play it your way too half the time and I like it. I just can't stand the fallacy and pretentiousness of going "oh you have seen wrong, people don't actually play without visual representation, and if they do, they should reread the books and they will realize they are wrong". No. It's not even an opinion in this case it's just a lie. Unless you're playing D20, 3,5 or 4 or a certain amount of games, but certainly not a majority of them, and definitely not D&D1 and AD&D, which you have stated earlier that they suck. Obviously you have a preference for one type of game over the other, and you're extending your preference to a universal truth, which is where you fall off the cliff

I've repeated the same thing 4 times now; that you have a skewed perception of how the game is played around the world and that you are in the wrong if you think the rules of most pen and paper games mean that the correct way to play is your way. I don't know what else to add.

EDIT: of course if you're gonna play with 10 people around the table AND make combat a focus of the game, you had to use visual representation even back then, anyone would have done it. But that,s a situation. Not many groups were bigger than 4 or 5 players, monsters were more powerful back then and less of them were on the field. Stuff like that.

 

[Yeekim]

Games prominently involving Poland are objectively bad.

Also, the engine, especially the combat engine, sucked, from what I understand.

Really? I couldn't find (m)any flaws in The Witcher's combat, if I wanted (only played Enhances Edition though). There was enough depth (different styles and sword types for different enemies + oils/bombs/potions) and you had to time your clicks right. I think it compared rather favorably to other similar games I've played.
EDIT: What made the game great was the story and realistic, gritty environments, though.

This. I liked witcher, but the combat was just so repetitive and boring it made me stop playing it.

As for Drakensang, i thought The Dark Eye was better.

I only played RoT...and I only learned about the game from one of your screenshots in this forum, so kudos for you.

 

[Rub'Rum]

The combat in The Witcher was ... Alright. At least it felt different.

There was something else I couldn't point out that I didn't like about it though. It felt very... "brown", and I can't say I remember much of the story. Towards the end, frankly, I have the clear memory that I was looking forward for the end to come. It also felt like one of those fake open game, where there are a few different paths, but at the end I didn't feel like playing the other paths because I sort of already knew exactly how it would play out.

I think it's a little overrated personally. It's probably held up by the story, which a lot of people liked. I didn't but it's just personal

 

[Luckymoose]

EDIT: of course if you're gonna play with 10 people around the table AND make combat a focus of the game, you had to use visual representation even back then, anyone would have done it. But that,s a situation. Not many groups were bigger than 4 or 5 players, monsters were more powerful back then and less of them were on the field. Stuff like that.

My problem with that system is that the players can lie to the DM about their location. If say a dragon is breathing fire at some ranged fighters the player will, if he isn't bound by a set location, try to weasel his way out of dying. I'm not saying combat is the focus of my campaigns, just that it's a major part of every campaign because you normally are playing a group of warriors fighting monsters on a quest. I've played games like Risus without visual representation and it worked, but only because the players allowed it to work and were forced to roll at the same time as the enemy. Honestly playing without a representation can confuse people and of all the places I've been I've never seen it not used in a serious campaign, even by people playing AD&D. This includes conventions. I'm not combat focused, but there has to be combat in a situation where the players have swords and want blood.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I'm not saying combat is the focus of my campaigns

Well I'd question that seeing what your experience seems to be. And often events like D&D encounters and conventions, you do focus on combat because there is only a limited amount of time and interaction that's going to happen with strangers.

Well, anyway, there isn't much I can disagree with in your post at this point. In an old-school AD&D game, my players wouldn't have weaseled out of a dragon breath that easy just because we aren't on grid paper

 

[Dachs]

Really? I couldn't find (m)any flaws in The Witcher's combat, if I wanted (only played Enhances Edition though). There was enough depth (different styles and sword types for different enemies + oils/bombs/potions) and you had to time your clicks right. I think it compared rather favorably to other similar games I've played.
EDIT: What made the game great was the story and realistic, gritty environments, though.

I am hobbled for my general contempt for fantasy settings unless space is prominently involved.

 

[Luckymoose]

I am hobbled for my general contempt for fantasy settings unless space is prominently involved.

What's wrong with fantasy settings?

 

[Dachs]

I just don't like or enjoy them. We've been over this before.

...many, many times.

 

[SKILORD]

Oblivion had its problems (I hated the leveling system) but I give it extra credit because it allowed such a degree of customization. You can build your own magic items, create your own spells, even design your own character class. That alone made the game noteworthy in my mind.

OBLIVION!!! You decide to mention on of the RPG's out of the Elder Scrolls series and you mention the super crappy one?

Ummm.... Morrowind. That's the answer for the thread question, best RPG ever. Massive, immersive, highly customizable.

 

[Luckymoose]

OBLIVION!!! You decide to mention on of the RPG's out of the Elder Scrolls series and you mention the super crappy one?

Ummm.... Morrowind. That's the answer for the thread question, best RPG ever. Massive, immersive, highly customizable.

Morrowind was smaller than Oblivion. Fast travel made the size seem smaller.

 

[SKILORD]

EXACTLY! What a brilliant maneuver! (or rather, what folly to add stupid instant fast travel from anywhere. The world and decision making processes were massive when compared to stupid fast travel one plot Oblivion, there's not even a back door win scenario in Oblivion! And you can't do Vampire quests or join a Vampire House, or even turn into a werewolf!

In video games perceived distance and size are the only relevant factors to the size of the game, not how big the space you'll never use is.

 

[Luckymoose]

EXACTLY! What a brilliant maneuver! (or rather, what folly to add stupid instant fast travel from anywhere. The world and decision making processes were massive when compared to stupid fast travel one plot Oblivion, there's not even a back door win scenario in Oblivion! And you can't do Vampire quests or join a Vampire House, or even turn into a werewolf!

In video games perceived distance and size are the only relevant factors to the size of the game, not how big the space you'll never use is.

Oblivion and Morrowind are boring if you have to walk around all the time. You aren't doing anything of value but killing crabs on the beach.

 

[SKILORD]

Minor Skills:

Athletics
Alchemy

I'm pretty sure Crab meat has a place in an electric shock poison, though it's been a while. Past that, endgame Morrowind, when walking around and picking up flowers is not enough to level you, you can get the werewolf ring and run like a damn fool wherever you need to go. And there are so many more quests in Morrowind than there are in Oblivion (especially with some of the user added content that's out there) that if you're just running around killing crabs then you aren't looking around very hard.

 

[Maniacal]

My problem with that system is that the players can lie to the DM about their location.

That doesn't mean they will, and its the DM's job to keep track of them. If he can't do that without grid paper then yeah go ahead and use it, but you can play with out it.

I've been I've never seen it not used in a serious campaign, even by people playing AD&D. This includes conventions.

So? Most people probably aren't playing at conventions and thuper thereal campaigns.

Just because people play it incorrectly doesn't mean that is how it should be played.

We never said that is how it should be played, we said it CAN be played without grids. Just because its not the most exact way of playing and not the way you play doesn't make it incorrect.

"You have to buy minis OMG DND IS WOW" bullcrap is ridiculous.

We never said you had to buy minis... and in this discussion minis and graphs were getting interchanged anyway

Pen and PAPER. You use paper to represent the battlefield and a pen to draw.

Yeah you can and I'm sure thats how it is often done, but you don't need to. And character sheets are paper too. So are the rulebooks.

Because 10 people at a table can't keep up with a complex battle scenario entirely in their head.

Well if you have like 10 people then better organization will definitely help, but DnD can be play with much smaller groups (like 4 people). 10 people is quite the group to get together.

 

[NickyJ]

I am hobbled for my general contempt for fantasy settings unless space is prominently involved.

Except for the space part, I am with you on this. For some reason monsters and stuff like that don't appeal to me. I prefer more.... historical games.

But for what I think is best: Mount and Blade: Warband. I have no questions about its superiority. It is the definition of excellence. The combat is realistic and easy to handle, plus it is easily modded.

 

[Luckymoose]

So? Most people probably aren't playing at conventions and thuper thereal campaigns.

.

A serious campaign is anything that isn't "LULZ DRAGONS". As in, 99% of all campaigns started. Where you are playing a serious story and not a running joke. Believe me if any of you were to be in a campaign ran by me you would never think twice about my system and question how you played without it.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Is there still that DnD game being played on the forums/IRC?

 

[Luckymoose]

Is there still that DnD game being played on the forums/IRC?

Not anymore, the group got disorganized and we lost the normal nights to college!!!! COLLEGE!!!!

 

[Rub'Rum]

A serious campaign is anything that isn't "LULZ DRAGONS". As in, 99% of all campaigns started. Where you are playing a serious story and not a running joke. Believe me if any of you were to be in a campaign ran by me you would never think twice about my system and question how you played without it.

There we go putting 99% of people in a lowly category under yourself and talking about "seriousness" and how things are supposed to be proper. I see what I've been discussing with all this time. All this pedant certainty and obliviousness to the spirit of pen and paper games all summed up in 2-3 lines. I've played with convention rules and game masters of all kinds and have been a game master myself. The fun is always there in what you consider diluted baby games, OR in what you consider "super hardcore real game". But the fun stops the moment someone starts talking like you about pen and paper games.