| Welcome to Legend of the Emblem. We hope you burn in hell. You're currently viewing our unnecessarily awesome forum as a worthless Click here to destroy your hope of ever being successful in life! If you're already a member please log in to your account to not face the wrath of  .Spoiler: click to toggle |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Fire Emblem | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 1 2009, 05:58:32 PM (303 Views) | |
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 1 2009, 05:58:32 PM Post #1 |
Because now is only now.
|
Edited by Phoenix_Kensai, Nov 1 2009, 05:58:40 PM.
|
  ?
| |
 |
 
|
| The Protagonist | Nov 1 2009, 06:25:17 PM Post #2 |
Wild Card
|
Hmm indeed. |
 Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 1 2009, 06:32:30 PM Post #3 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
But standard D&D, or a custom system? And would the game be set in one of the Fire Emblem worlds, or a homebrew setting? And... Ah, I suppose I'll have to go into one of my rants later. I can't stay long. Quick question: Would the d20 system fit Fire Emblem well, or some other system? I'm currently thinking d20 would work fine, what with the heights of power Fire Emblem characters can reach, but I'm not familiar with many systems other than the dice pool Storyteller system, which I don't think would be as good for maintaining the feel of the game... |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 2 2009, 06:14:02 AM Post #4 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
Okay, so. I can think of three ways to do this. 1) Use the standard D&D rules and stick it in a Fire Emblem setting. Would work, but probably wouldn't feel as much like Fire Emblem as could be hoped. Too many monsters and magics, lack of recognizable classes... but, eh. Nobody said this had to be a Fire Emblem game, just a game based on Fire Emblem. 2) http://fed20.wikidot.com/ I think it's a tabletop strategy-ish thingy, but...3) A homebrew system based (probably heavily, to save time) on the d20 rules. I've been giving this some thought over the course of the day, and I think it could work well if we put a bit of effort into it. I mean, we can keep the D&D basics; we'll probably need to rework magic a bit, and maybe switch some things in combat around, but the framework is good. My first thought was on how to handle classes. I thought that we could go the d20 Modern route and separate classes into tiers, kind of, and only give them 10 levels each; while characters in Fire Emblem can reach level 20 in one class, I think 10 levels would better represent their power level at each tier. The first tier is for the basic classes like Pegasus Knight and Myrmidon, being about the power level of (possibly very skilled but ordinary enough) soldiers and mercenaries. The second would obviously be advanced classes like Sage and Swordmaster, the characters being about the level of famous and highly skilled but still relatively human characters like Pent and Greil. The third tier, naturally, would be epic-level heroes such as... well, mostly the villains, I guess. And maybe characters like Athos, if you can ignore him not standing out too much compared to the other heroes. I mean, he's good, but not that good. Though he'd probably be low-epic anyway... But I'm not sure why I wrote all that. You all probably know the Fire Emblem games well enough anyway. I was thinking that rather than having promotion items, the advanced classes would be handled in much the same fashion as prestige classes, only that you'd probably only be able to take them at or near level 10 (or 20, for the third tier). I was also thinking that, while we shouldn't ban multiclassing, we should take steps to prevent it from almost always being the best strategy like in 3.5. Somehow a Thief/Myrmidon/Knight/Monk just doesn't seem... Fire Emblem. I figured that the best way to handle this was just to make sure classes actually get worthwhile abilities at higher levels; you could still play a Pegasus Knight/Thief (actually, that sounds fun...), certainly, as long as you don't mind trading the higher level abilities for a proper mix of skills from both classes. And prestige classes would likely be harder to qualify for, too, though I don't want it to be too restricted... But speaking of classes, I was thinking that maybe having a Lord class wouldn't be a good idea. I mean, they work fine as a hero unit in the games, and I know D&D has a noble class, but... somehow it just seems odd for the player to have their class define something like that about their character. I was thinking that maybe characters could have something other than a class, relating to, well, what they do outside of combat, maybe. Tentatively called an Archetype for the sake of having a name, though it's late and maybe I'm using the word wrong. But anyway, I was thinking that each character picks an Archetype at the beginning of the game, which gives them abilities as they advance in level regardless of which class they choose. There could be, say, Lord, which gains influence, money, and soldiers, or Nomad, which would give ranger-like abilities, or Scholar or... something like that. I need to think up a good name that isn't a class already. Which would get non-combat magic abilities. Which brings me to the subject of magic. Now, the problem here is that we don't really see much of magic in Fire Emblem, beyond what's used in combat. Oh, it's there all the time; villains teleport constantly like only villains can, support conversations discuss such things as long-distance communication, and always magic artifacts were forged and ancient evils sealed away in the distant past. But we never learn much about what magic can really do, or how widespread it is, or how much a typical Fire tome-wielding mage can actually accomplish when he's not killing someone. Which leads me to believe that utility magic isn't all that common in Fire Emblem compared to the kind that kills stuff. Maybe it takes a really powerful magic user and/or a lot of time to craft a teleporter or something of that sort, so it just isn't practical most of the time? Or maybe, in most cases, only mages can use magic items? A support conversation in Sacred Stones said that mages had a method of long-distance communication, but ordinary people apparently couldn't use it. I suppose we'll have to look into this more and decide how to handle magic in the setting. But, I thought that maybe we should separate combat magic from utility magic. I thought that maybe the Mage class and the others would mostly get abilities that are useful in combat, though I don't think we want either the Vancian system or the it's-basically-a-weapon system from the games themselves. Tomes could and possibly should play a part, but I don't think we want magic users to have to stick with magic being treated like a normal attack, since that's boring (and I know fighters are traditionally stuck with that too, but hopefully we can fix that). I was thinking of having something like that fire mage class from the Tome, which learns a bunch of at-will magic powers that do various things, possibly with some kind of Vitality system. One that replenishes relatively quickly; I don't think it would be fitting to limit mages to a couple of spells per encounter, but I think it would be an interesting mechanic if magic was draining and magic-users would have to strain themselves to use their full power, but can set off a bunch of minor spells without breaking a sweat. But I think I'm too tired to explain this properly. But speaking of that, are there any records of magic being tiring in the Fire Emblem universe? Or any other negative effects of its use? I was thinking that maybe non-combat-ish magic could be part of an Archetype... Magic Student or something, though that sounds too low-level to fit the character throughout all levels. Magic Scholar? It would, essentially, give you knowledge of magic and the ability to enchant items, and various things. But... the problem is that we probably don't want low-level characters doing too much with it, or it would make the other Archetypes seem boring, not to mention strain the low-magic setting. Maybe you could start off with various trinkets and low-magic abilities at low levels, such as knowledge of the details of magic rather than the ability to use it for much, and/or simple spells such as light? Later levels would lead to more, possibly tying in with class... maybe the fighter classes would be able to forge weapons or something like that. I don't know. Maybe all Archetypes should tie in with class? But that would be a lot of work. But that brings me to another point. Are Archetypes a good idea? I like the idea, but... do we really want to restrict a character like that, that a Nomad would get tracking skills and such, but could never learn the details of magic? Maybe allowing feats to gain abilities from other Archetypes would be a good idea, and/or some way to change or multiclass them. Or something. But it's late. I'm running out of things to ramble about, and I'm tired enough from this spoony time change that I'll start making even less sense if I continue. I'll think about this more tomorrow. |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| CATZ | Nov 2 2009, 07:00:54 AM Post #5 |
|
I call Rutger, Percival, Ephidel or Bartre. |
|
|
|
| BlackKnight1239, eh? | Nov 2 2009, 07:18:27 AM Post #6 |
Ace Attorney
|
Okay, here's what I'm thinking. Instead of d20, we use/mod D&D 4th ed. Why? Well, with making magic Tome based, you're turning everybody into 3e fighters; ie: I full attack. Next round, I full attack. Next, I full attack. And then I... You see? Not many options. A minor thing, but 4th ed. already has tiers built into the system. Heroic, Paragon and Epic. Each really feels like a promotion, as you choice a path and gain special features due to that path. The powers almost seem out of place, but since I really see no reason to make it much more than a modified way of playing more like FE, all they really need is a re-full and we're good. Fire Mage? All wizard powers gain the fire keyword. Light mage? Same thing. Either that, or we make our own system. But. |
 [size0]By Nipples, nubs.
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 2 2009, 03:20:23 PM Post #7 |
 
|
Or just pick fire spells in the first place, it's not like there's a shortage. Lots of what you're asking for from the magic and advancement system is achieved most simply by just switching from 3.5 to 4e. As for too many monsters/magics/classes, just don't use the ones that don't fit. Don't fight goblins, fight humans, like in FE. There are no Druids. etc. If you're set on 3.5, I'd suggest looking into non-core caster classes instead of the Wizard and those. Warmage, the invocations users, that kind of stuff. There's even a Healer class in the Miniatures Handbook, IIRC. If you want tomes in, that'd be fairly simple to homebrew something up about. I don't think you want to go very far to emulate the mechanics of FE. They're designed for a strategy video game, not pen and paper roleplaying. For the most part simply restricting things (and some amount of houseruling) should suffice to get it both playable and FE-like. Just because it doesn't have the exact same gameplay effects (fortunately! there is very little other than simple damage in FE) doesn't mean it doesn't it. |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 3 2009, 07:50:45 AM Post #8 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
I call Florina.
Yeah, that problem occurred to me as well... that's why I suggested giving mages special abilities instead of treating magic like a weapon or using the standard slot system, like the fire mage in the Tome. The fire mage doesn't learn any standard magic, but instead gains various combat abilities as he reaches higher levels, starting with the ability to shoot bolts of fire and create bursts of flame and eventually moving on to things such as walls of fire and... even larger explosions. And other things. All as at-will abilities. The only problem with this is that it raises the possibility of the mage's options going from "I full attack" to "I cast my best attack spell"... the fire mage seems to do a decent job of preventing this by giving the abilities various uses and advantages, but still, it got me thinking. What about customizing the battle system a bit to have a resource called, say, Vigor or Stamina, which represents your character's reserves of strength and energy? It could replenish quickly, but if spells drained that resource, it would give the player an interesting decision between going all-out and trying to end the battle at the risk of becoming weakened, and conserving strength at the cost of holding back. It could be that how fast a character regains stamina depends on how much they've spent, so that a wizard who just poured all his strength into a massive explosion to annihilate the enemy would be gasping for breath and rather vulnerable for some time afterward. This system could also apply to physical combatants as well, if we could give them abilities and maneuvers to use. Possibly skills like Astra and such, as well as standard techniques like disarming, and various attack styles, such as aggressive and defensive. Though we don't want to make this too complicated. I also had the idea of altering the flow of combat a bit, and going from the format of rounds and initiative to the dynamic form of Exalted, where each action pushes the character back by a certain amount in initiative, and they can't act again until their turn comes up. I... have no idea what benefit this offers, but it somehow seemed to work better with that Stamina thing at the time.
...Well, okay, you have a point. Enough of what I'm talking about is in 4e already that I'm not sure why I'm thinking of this as 3.5. 4e may well be the better choice if we don't want to do too much work, though... well, if we just want to play a Fire Emblem campaign and don't care much how close it is to the games, I guess there's not much to worry about no matter what system we use. The only problem I have with using 4e for a Fire Emblem game is that it doesn't really offer the opportunity to play as a more or less ordinary person; everyone in 4e edition starts out as a hero, not as the ordinary soldiers and mercenaries we tend to see in the beginning of Fire Emblem. But, eh.
...If you think that's a bad idea, you should probably stop me soon. You know how I am, and it looks like I'm already taking the first steps... |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 3 2009, 08:03:45 PM Post #9 |
|
Well, that's not really true. The difference power-wise between a starting 4e character and a starting 3.5 character is pretty slight. 3.5 ones are heroes as well. You just tend to die more to random chance. Well, and casters aren't useless for all but one round of combat. Not that most FE characters start out as ordinary, either... |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 3 2009, 08:50:00 PM Post #10 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
...Well, okay, come to think of it it is kind of hard to compare 3e characters to 4e characters, since the monsters are stronger too. I guess the main thing is that 4e characters are a lot more durable at first, and have more options available at any time, which you already mentioned. But, in 3e, how much more powerful is a typical level 1 PC than an NPC? Fighters get a bonus feat and two HP over warriors (though, wait, do NPCs get max HP at first level?), and wizards get... actually nothing over adepts that matters at that level, save for a much larger spell list, though wizards start with three level 1 spells and adepts have seventeen (or, well, eleven if you ignore the duplicate protection from and detect spells). The only other difference that comes to mind is that a typical character is made with the 4d6/drop lowest method, while an ordinary NPC would probably be 3d6. So, the PCs stand out from the beginning, but I don't think they're particularly extraordinary compared to your average soldier and whatnot. Though speaking of all this, are there rules for creating NPCs in 4e? I never actually read the Dungeon Master's Guide. But I'm not sure what my point is here in the first place. |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 3 2009, 09:19:27 PM Post #11 |
|
Yeah, there are. NPCs/monsters/companion characters (last from DMG2) are statted differently than PCs, though. If you want something capable of putting up a fight on its own, you'd probably make it like a regular monster, maybe elites or so if they're supposed to be extra tough. For the equivalent of mass murdering commoners, minions would be the logical way to go. Both go down in one hit anyway, so yeah. In the end, it really just depends on how strong you draw up the NPCs to be, doesn't it? Regular human soldier enemies aren't first level minions in the MM either, as far as I remember... 3.5 NPC classes? Well, the non-commoners are supposed to be comparatively competent. Most everything goes down in one or two good hits regardless, though. |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 4 2009, 05:15:08 AM Post #12 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
So... should I sketch up some classes and rules? |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 4 2009, 08:54:25 AM Post #13 |
|
You do as you wish, of course. But I doubt this will ever get off the ground if the system has to be built from scratch first. That shit takes time. Still, if you do come up with something it'd be interesting to see. |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 4 2009, 06:59:35 PM Post #14 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
Well, I'm not planning to build an entire system from scratch. I was going to mostly stick with the standard 3.5 D&D rules, I think, and just introduce entirely new classes and maybe alter the combat system a bit. New systems don't necessarily take a long time to make, though, if they're simple. |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 4 2009, 08:34:56 PM Post #15 |
|
They're also rarely very good. And that simple won't really cut it if you want for the ruleset to feel FE. I still recommend taking a look at other base classes around, like the Warlock and whatever that other invocation user from... Races of the Dragon, was it? Unless you're desperate for using up weapons, for some reason, the invocation system should be fairly good to adapt to make things more FE-like. Certainly closer than spell slots, anyway. Messing with the combat system... It's pretty much a clusterflower, but good luck. There's certainly room for improvement there. |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 4 2009, 09:06:10 PM Post #16 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
...Invocation user in Races of the Dragon? I'll have to take a look at it. I thought warlocks were the only ones. Though I just realized I don't actually know how invocations work... *Goes to find the books* EDIT: Wait, where is the warlock again? I thought it was in Complete Mage. Edited by Phoenix_Kensai, Nov 4 2009, 09:10:22 PM.
|
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 4 2009, 11:34:14 PM Post #17 |
|
Complete Arcane. Invocations are magic at will stuff. A bunch of the Warlock ones either alter the shape of the Eldritch Blast, or add some effect to it (you can use one of each). Then there's a bunch of non-Eldritch Blast related ones. |
|
|
|
| CATZ | Nov 5 2009, 05:04:55 AM Post #18 |
|
I think I'd rather do a FE Fluffy. |
|
|
|
| rn7 | Nov 5 2009, 05:07:12 AM Post #19 |
General
  ![]](http://209.85.122.89/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Seeing as this is a site with its origins in Fire Emblem, I can't quite recall if there ever was a Fluffy based on Fire Emblem. The battle system certainly was though. |
 Savior will destroy everyone in 2009... there's still a month or two left. | |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 5 2009, 05:16:24 AM Post #20 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
I'd certainly be up for a Fire Emblem Fluffy, as well.
...Wait, there's Complete Mage and Complete Arcane? Well, that explains all the things I could never find...
Oh, yeah. I was thinking of going for something essentially like that with the mages, though I should probably look at the invocations themselves for ideas... |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| BlackKnight1239, eh? | Nov 5 2009, 05:25:00 AM Post #21 |
|
Ace Attorney
|
Elladan's Adventurer's. It took place near the Crimean-Daein Boarder. |
|
[size0]By Nipples, nubs.
| |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 5 2009, 05:36:08 AM Post #22 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
But that was an R.P, not a Fluffy. I demand a Fluffy. |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| APman | Nov 5 2009, 05:49:45 AM Post #23 |
zozo's (unwilling) sex slave
|
Did someone say storm the castle? Because I think someone just s--Okay, I'll stop. |
|
Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
|
|
|
| rn7 | Nov 5 2009, 06:31:12 AM Post #24 |
|
General
|
Good thing that one went somewhere. |
|
Savior will destroy everyone in 2009... there's still a month or two left. | |
|
|
|
| BlackKnight1239, eh? | Nov 5 2009, 06:35:47 AM Post #25 |
|
Ace Attorney
|
It always does. |
|
[size0]By Nipples, nubs.
| |
|
|
|
| rn7 | Nov 5 2009, 06:39:24 AM Post #26 |
|
General
|
I remember one reincarnation, I think the second, we actually got to the point that we were ready to actually storm the castle. Or a castle, not sure which. It was the one with Reikken's archer person. The fast one, I think. |
|
Savior will destroy everyone in 2009... there's still a month or two left. | |
|
|
|
| BlackKnight1239, eh? | Nov 5 2009, 06:52:15 AM Post #27 |
|
Ace Attorney
|
The one with Batman? |
|
[size0]By Nipples, nubs.
| |
|
|
|
| rn7 | Nov 5 2009, 07:08:08 AM Post #28 |
|
General
|
I don't really remember. It's probably in the archives somewhere. |
|
Savior will destroy everyone in 2009... there's still a month or two left. | |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 5 2009, 08:59:48 AM Post #29 |
|
... Fluffy? This sounds unethical. |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 5 2009, 06:12:53 PM Post #30 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
For some reason I kind of like the idea of a Fluffy set in Elibe. |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 5 2009, 08:10:25 PM Post #31 |
|
... What's a Fluffy? |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 5 2009, 08:26:59 PM Post #32 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
A miserable pile of secrets! But enough of this! Have at you! ...Also, an R.P. |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| rn7 | Nov 5 2009, 11:13:18 PM Post #33 |
|
General
|
it's a fliter for that role-playing thingy |
|
Savior will destroy everyone in 2009... there's still a month or two left. | |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 5 2009, 11:21:20 PM Post #34 |
|
But... You were differentiating between Fluffy and Fluffy just a few posts ago! bloody freeformers |
|
|
|
| rn7 | Nov 5 2009, 11:27:47 PM Post #35 |
|
General
|
Wait, Fluffy or Fluffy? |
|
Savior will destroy everyone in 2009... there's still a month or two left. | |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 6 2009, 12:22:38 AM Post #36 |
|
Oh gee a double post how droll
Edited by Waddacku, Nov 6 2009, 12:24:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 6 2009, 12:23:10 AM Post #37 |
|
You tell me. I do see the fliter bypass, though. |
|
|
|
| The Protagonist | Nov 6 2009, 12:34:54 AM Post #38 |
|
Wild Card
|
That'd be the Dragonfire Adept, I believe. Pretty similar to Warlocks in a lot of ways, really, just trading the fiendish/fae theme for a draconic theme. They get a breath attack that can be altered with various invocations (much like how a Warlock can alter their Eldritch Blast) and stuff like natural armour similar to a Warlock's DR and fast healing ability. Also, totally up for a FE Fluffy. |
|
Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
|
|
|
| BlackKnight1239, eh? | Nov 6 2009, 02:44:33 AM Post #39 |
|
Ace Attorney
|
I think it's got enough to make it seem real. What about a campaign where you're playing as the 12 fancy guys or whatever? Fightan Dragons all over the place. |
|
[size0]By Nipples, nubs.
| |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 6 2009, 05:00:31 AM Post #40 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
Well, of course. Just because R.P fliters to Fluffy doesn't mean they're the same thing. A Fluffy is an Fluffy that's fluffy, as opposed to being smooth or rough or something like that. And fluffy things tend to be cute, so more often than not, they're superior.
I like this idea too, freeform or D&D. ...One of them is a Pegasus Knight, right? I don't want my character idea to go to waste. |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 6 2009, 06:57:33 AM Post #41 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
http://fireemblem.wikia.com/wiki/Eight_Legends If we go D&D, I claim Elmine. Since, you know, cleric. Freeform, I'd prefer Brammimond. But chances are I'm not the only one... And I still want to play a Pegasus Knight. |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 6 2009, 01:07:16 PM Post #42 |
|
If anything, Clerics are Healers (Miniatures Handbook). Bishops... Well, they could be Clerics, I guess. Neither that nor Favored Soul really fits. DnD divine magic comes with an entirely different set of assumptions than it does in FE... Monks = unarmored magical offense oriented Favored Souls? Pegasus Knight, huh... Special mount would be nice and all, of course, but Paladin doesn't really fit it at all. Probably some kind of martial PrC preferable for it. EDIT: Dammit, Cavalier's only special mount feature is it stacking with Paladin levels for Paladin's Mount. Also requires 8 BAB, but the other prereqs are good. Edited by Waddacku, Nov 6 2009, 01:18:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 7 2009, 05:59:20 AM Post #43 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
...Well, yeah, (FE) Clerics would be better as a different class. But, mostly I was just referring to my preference for healer-type characters in general. If I played a Pegasus Knight, I... wait, isn't there some class that gets a flying mount? I was going to say I'd make my own, but that may work... |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 7 2009, 09:43:52 AM Post #44 |
|
I think there's a griffon rider PrC. |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 7 2009, 06:56:50 PM Post #45 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
Gah. What's the name of that... 3.0 book on druids and rangers? From the same line as Song and Silence, and Sword and Fist, I mean. I swear I remember something of that sort in there, and I have every single book in the series sitting beside me apart from that one. A 3.5 version of the class would be fine too, of course, I just don't think there was ever an updated version of that book... EDIT: Heh, never mind. Wikipedia never ceases to surprise me... EDIT EDIT: So, the three classes I found: Windrider (Masters of the Wild): Despite the name, a generic class that simply specializes in unusual mounts. Learns a small number of divine spells as well. Not particularly Pegasus Knighty, but seems like an okay class. Aglarondan Griffonrider (Unapproachable East): Essentially a fighter class that specializes in mounted aerial combat. Would probably work well if we switched the mount and maybe removed the alignment and code of honor restrictions. Skylord (Book of Exalted Deeds): Kind of like an updated version of the windrider, with spellcasting advancement every other level instead of a new spell list. Edited by Phoenix_Kensai, Nov 7 2009, 09:57:22 PM.
|
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 9 2009, 10:04:06 AM Post #46 |
|
Aglarondan Griffonrider seems just about ideal. |
|
|
|
| CATZ | Nov 9 2009, 02:46:07 PM Post #47 |
|
So who's up for an FE Fluffy? Not that I wouldn't go along with an FE DnD, it's just that we don't have the greatest track record with those types of things. |
|
|
|
| Nova | Nov 9 2009, 06:09:16 PM Post #48 |
|
Administrator
|
@ "new systems are hard to make": yeah, sure, but if they're not new they're less worth making, as well. If it feels like a quickly rehashed version of regular DnD, then I certainly wouldn't give it any interest. I'd be down for the FEDnD, but not for the arr pee. I think I've seen enough "grounded in canon" stuff in Pokemon. |
|
|
|
| Waddacku | Nov 9 2009, 07:08:20 PM Post #49 |
|
Didn't say they're hard to make. They take a lot of time (and work). Deciding you want to play something, then designing a system for it from scratch takes too long for people to keep interested. Either you get it off the ground as soon as possible, or nothing will happen until the next wave of interest rolls around. |
|
|
|
| Phoenix_Kensai | Nov 9 2009, 09:22:39 PM Post #50 |
|
Because now is only now.
|
I'm up for either one. At the moment I kind of prefer the D&D idea, but... yeah. That never seems to work out here. Not that Fluffies do either, but they seem to have slightly better luck...
What I had in mind was more along the lines of a mod for D&D than a new system rehashed from its parts, though I don't know if there's much of a difference anyway... |
|
?
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · D&D Campaigns · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:54 PM Nov 25
