SHINAN'S PROFILE

I eat loads of sweets.

I don't exercise.

I like to have something to chew on ost of the time. So I snack a lot of unhealthy stuff. But that's just because good ununhealthy snacks are difficult. Fruits tend to be okay. And I really like to chew on carrots while I take a walk. But mostly it's just chocolate and... chocolate.

For food... I tend to eat most things.

I have no idea of my weight. I haven't weighed myself since I was in the army five years ago.

Basically I'm really unhealthy. There has been days I haven't eaten anything just because I couldn't be bothered. And then there's days I eat loads and then days I eat mostly sweets. My diet is irregular enough to take many years off my life expectancy.

I just think Conan is a bit like Tarzan and... I don't know... Sherlock Holmes. So ingrained in popular culture that people just don't care where they originally came from.

And since it's all in that lovely pulp 30s era. (With all that other awesomeness like Lovecraft and John Carter of Mars and... Well Tarzan and Flash Gordon I guess)

I guess there's also a bit of the whole thing that Conan have evolved beyond Howard. Tolkien never did that. But Conan has had stories by other authors, comic books, movies the lot. While Tolkien have mostly been very... small. So that with Conan we associate Conan while with Lord of the Rings we associate Tolkien.

The creation outlasted the creator. Early Conan is public domain now isn't it? I've only ever read Conan in its really sucky translation by Äventyrsspel from some time in the 80s.

author=brandonabley link=topic=1076.msg15404#msg15404 date=1210258119

author=Shinan link=topic=1076.msg15380#msg15380 date=1210233556
I don't know what could possibly keep me playing more than an hour though. It'd have to be something really spectacular.

This attitude is troubling. While most homebrew games probably aren't very good and maybe you *shouldn't* play them for very long, approaching games with the attitude well gosh there's no way I'll play THIS for more than an hour means that you probably won't be offering very many people your advice and support.

I'm not so sure what's so troubling about it. I come in expecting nearly any game to suck. If it's good I get a pleasant surprise. I find it a lot more pleasant than being disappointed all the time. (It's also true that this is the attitude I have towards most RPGmaker games because I just don't like the default JRPG gameplay)


Dwarf Fortress though. Dwarf Fortress was spectacular.

One system I don't think has been mentioned is the Background check system. I haven't seen it in very many games but I remember that Ogre Battle and Jagged Alliance 2 had it. Background check is a system where you answer a bunch of questions and the character is modified depending on your answers.

Another related way is a way found in certain tabletop RPGs. Where you create the character from the ground up. Rolling on(or choosing from) various tables with different background events that shape the character as he/she grows up. Opening up certain skill choices at different times of the game.

Advantages:

• Simple while also making the player think about the personality of the character.

Disadvantages:

• Has unpredictable results at times. Forcing a character that you don't really want. (most games counter this by making it possible to modify the character after the questions)
• If the game is replayed some of those questions might feel a bit repetitive. There's also the possibilty that the questions just are downright stupid.

For me I am a tabletop RPGer so I always prefer the point buy (I prefer point buy over random roll) with loads of skills to choose from. Games like Arcanum and Fallout are favorites. But also Vampire Bloodlines had a really good system. I also prefer games where the original approach isn't the most important and that if you made some bad choices in the beginning it isn't impossible to turn around. (like in Vampire Bloodlines where you had a very limited amount of points to use at the start, but got loads of them during gameplay)

I'm also a big fan of Skill-based versus class-based. And in tabletop I prefer experience-based to levelbased. Skillbased is where the skills aren't restricted to a certain class and that any classes you make are entirely your own. The you can actually be a proper jack-of-all-trades. But you will suck at most things. And it's all up to you what you suck at. The problem with these kinds of systems is to balance the skills out. There's usually a couple of skills that are completely useless.

experience-based vs levelbased is where you get better at things through experience rather than getting a certain amount of experience points and suddenly you have a levelup. It can be done in different ways. In Vampire BLoodlines you got experience points throughout the game that could be used to buy points in skills and abilities. There's also the approach of Silent Storm where you get better at skills as you use them. I prefer some kind of combination where you can get points in something you use but you also get "free" points that you can use on skills you'd like to have but don't (or just buff up those you use all the time even more)

Of course these last two pragraphs weren't about character generation but character development. But those two go together a lot. You can't have an experience system that is completely different from the generation system. If you do it'll probably suck.

Crimson Tears.

This is really simple. Though I've cropped it to make it remotely harder.