Subject:
|
Re: Lego RPG DraK'en.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:59:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1690 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John P. Henderson writes:
> 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.
Well, not techincally debate. (although this discussion has
given me some interesting ideas already, so I guess that
counts as viable imput.)
> Like Frank, I've gotten a bit distracted with the side conversation, and
> also have honestly not looked at all the details of your game. I do
> appreciate your work. It just takes time to really sit down and look
> through a set or rules for problems, balance, and playability. With the
> holiday this week, I cannot promise to look at it right away, but I'd be
> happy to look through it more closely at some point.
Well, as long as someone appreciates it. If you do get a chance
to review the rules (or anyone else interested in test
playing for that matter), by all means, go right ahead.
> I also agree with Frank that getting together with other friends to playtest
> the rules is a must. This is what happened with my BrickSiege game: I
> invited some non-AFOL-serious-gamer friends over to play test. They enjoyed
> the layout I have built, but then we started to read through the rules.
> They helped me analyze the rulebook page-by-page, and did identify a few
> problems. We actually spent an entire evening (until 1:am) just discussing
> the rules, and we never actually played! We do hope to actually playtest
> the game at some point. But nothing was more valuable then just hearing
> these two gamers debating the rules of the game right in front of me.
Not entirely surprising...(although discussion is quite
important, just this discussion alone gave me a really
good idea earlier.)
I'm considering having an arbitrary entity or third party
player, who can make a ruling if there are game
discrepencies, propose scenerios and deal additional
units (like siege vehicles and horses), when a
character captures funds.
> As for Frank's questioning why do we need yet another game system, I agree
> there can be too many, and that makes it hard for any one to attract a
> following. I designed BrickSiege (and a few other games) because I needed a
> creative outlet, and also because I saw something lacking in the other games
> offered. Technically, BrikWars is a very in-depth and well accepted PBB
> that could be used to play the kind of scenario I wanted for BrickSiege.
> However, BrikWars also has a *ton* of rules and far too much math for my
> brain to handle in a single game session. So, in short, I develop new games
> for myself. If other people like the results and start playing on their
> own, that is great. But if they don't, if they think BrikWars or some other
> game is better or more familiar, then I won't be offended at all. The
> important thing is that we all Play Well. :)
Yeah, one feature of my game, was the exemption of all of
those imposing formulae. (it gets overwhelmingly tedious
over time.)
> Gotta run for a holiday!
> -Hendo
Peace out,
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Fellow lego enthusiast
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego RPG DraK'en.
|
| (...) 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)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
