 | | Re: Lego RPG DraK'en. —Matt Hein
|
| | | (...) Okay...I didn't intend for the definition of said RPG to flare into debate, however, I've received little if, no comments or suggestions besides the problem with the classification system of my game. (otherwise, I wouldn't have posted this to (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego RPG DraK'en. —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) I wasn't really trying to spark a huge debate, though the discussion has been interesting. (...) I looked over your game briefly, but honestly I haven't had the time to look at it carefully. My actual gaming preference is towards RPGs (which (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego RPG DraK'en. —John P. Henderson
|
| | | | (...) Sorry Matt, I for one have been enjoying the discussion on classification and haven't thought of it as a debate so much as an intellectual digression. (...) Like Frank, I've gotten a bit distracted with the side conversation, and also have (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego RPG DraK'en. —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) One thing I've really missed from my college days is the time spent discussing rules and such. I think it really does help the game play to have such discussions, though not at the same time you're trying to actually play the game, and not (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego RPG DraK'en. —Matt Hein
|
| | | | (...) Well, not techincally debate. (although this discussion has given me some interesting ideas already, so I guess that counts as viable imput.) (...) Well, as long as someone appreciates it. If you do get a chance to review the rules (or anyone (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
