Subject:
|
Re: The Duel Release: CastleQuest and Uldeseen!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:59:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
841 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Alex Polimeni wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> > > Now, for CQ...
> > > http://webrain.homeip.net/castlequest/
> > > As i said its the origional set of rules. more is going to come to it as we add
> > > the town section, the story section, the creatures, and lands section, the
> > > character section etc. it will be a pretty complicated site!
> > > Credits to: Myself for origional idea, Matt Hein for contributing to the rules,
> > > Joe Finnel for providing spells etc, Yaron Dori for dispersing messages and
> > > doing the web desigining and several other people who my thanks got to for
> > > looking at the rules etc in development.
> >
> > Hey Alex,
> > long time no see.
> >
> > I just finished reading over the rules, and to be honest, it sounds like you're
> > trying to recreate the wheel. The rules are very complicated, and I don't quite
> > understand how each rule interacts with other rules.
>
> Eh, did you read? That was the first draft script, not the finished product. its
> going to have to be tested alot too.
yes i read all the way through the rules. and im not really game to read them
again, like matt (or should i say aaron?) suggested to point out specifically
which rules i didn't care for.
and i guess i should point out that i wasn't expecting a finished product. just
pointing out certain trends in the rules that i personally didn't care for.
you mention in the introduction that this is meant to be apart of the .castle
revival. it seems to me a revival should appeal to the greatest number of people
possible, and the game should be shaped that way. right now it seems very
D&Dish, so if anyone doesn't care for D&D, they probably won't care for CQ.
Perhaps there might be a way to integrate different playing types within CQ so
that different people can do things they like to do.
> But what I really don't
> > get is the purpose behind some of the rules. For example, you state that once a
> > character founds a town, that character can never leave.
>
> That would simplyfy things up, yeah. I was thinking that if you stil wanted to
> use that character..,
i don't understand your responce.
>
> Why not? Just one
> > example, but many places have rules like this - seemingly arbitary. My point is
> > this, one of the things I liked about IOM was that it left ALOT (as in, almost
> > all) of freedom to the individual players to decide what to do and how to do it.
>
> Yeah, and only good things happened and you had total control over everything.
> the total control prospect is SUPPOST to be eliminated. sure you have control
> somewhat but the main point is is that you cant just deside how everything will
> happen.
the word is "supposed".
and not ONLY good things happened. i should direct your attention to this:
http://www.brickfrenzy.com/castle_iom_5.html , where Kobayashi's men are
attacked by strange demon things.
well, you're right I can't decide how everything will happen. someone else
decides that. why should a GM have complete control and not me? sure, my
characters shouldn't have complete control over their environment, or over any
bad guys they should encounter.
My point is this: a GM and a player can serve the same function. I keep using
IOM as an example, because that was a 'game' that I would have enjoyed
participating in. I don't have any fear that some GM could just say, "your
party encounters a dragon, dragon torches your entire party, they are all dead."
and that's it. But at the same time, I don't allow my characters super-human
abilities, if they do something stupid they could die, etc. I can use my own
good judgement without having to rely on someone else's sense of fairplay.
> As i said, that is a first draft script. its SUPPOST to be a story/game. What do
> you propose? Ditch CQ and start over? thats pretty similer to re-inventing the
> wheel too. We have CQ to modify on etc, so why start a new thing? and i never
> said this was suppost to be totally simple-minded.
Okay, this passage seems pretty bitter. I'm not bitter. I'm not angry. I'm
not trying to be mean or say you should throw this all away. I'm trying to
offer constructive criticism, that is, ideas that could help. I wasn't even
suggesting ditching CQ, and I don't think that was implied in any of my
comments.
TO be honest, with what CQ looks like right now, I wouldn't be that interested
in participating. It seems to dominated by D&D-esque rules that might squalsh
the type of freedom of creativity that was present in IOM.
Maybe you should look at the Starship website. http://www.valyance.com/starship/
. What strikes me about Starship is how really simple the beginning rules are,
and the possibility for more complicated rules if one desires. It sets up a
good ratio of GM-to-player balance, and offers an easy way to get involved
without getting deeper than you want to be. This was the basis of my 'dragon's
archipelago' SUGGESTION http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=15806 , which you
accused of being a "near exact duplicate."
> > I'm sorry to be a downer, and to be critical. However, I do believe this
> > concept can be improved into something that looks like it would be fun.
>
> Eh, thats the point. THIS IS JUST A BEGGINING POINT!
and yes, i understand that. no need for yelling.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Duel Release: CastleQuest and Uldeseen!
|
| (...) Eh, did you read? That was the first draft script, not the finished product. its going to have to be tested alot too. But what I really don't (...) That would simplyfy things up, yeah. I was thinking that if you stil wanted to use that (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jul-03, to lugnet.castle)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
