Difference between revisions of "User talk:Mqs/Next"
From Drinking and Dragons
Wizardoest (talk | contribs) (New page: Fear not, for my playing Dragonstar has more to do with Doug running it than the fact that it's Dragonstar. --~~~~) |
>Mqs m (User talk:Robhim/Next moved to User talk:Mqs/Next) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Fear not, for my playing Dragonstar has more to do with Doug running it than the fact that it's Dragonstar. --[[User:Wizardoest|Wizardoest]] 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | Fear not, for my playing Dragonstar has more to do with Doug running it than the fact that it's Dragonstar. --[[User:Wizardoest|Wizardoest]] 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
'''My vote goes towards Planescape or Ecumenopolis, followed by a dual world or a frontier game.''' I have no problem with frontier games that are miserly, provided character advancement happens fairly rapidly (3-5 sessions) so that the characters don't get boring. (I've been wanting to run a New World [Maztica] game for some time.) I will abstain from nond20 systems. --[[User:Wizardoest|Wizardoest]] 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
*I'm more thematically inclined and would vote for '''exploration'''. Building wouldn't be my vote but others enthusiasm could cover for me. Also sometimes the line between the two can get runny. Ex: Exploration mission for a future colonization/repatriation. | |||
*Back-drop doesn't matter so much to me though I'll give them rankings. ''Planescape'' (It is a world city), ''IK'', and a 'hell no' to Etherscope (Too victorian). | |||
*A short IK-wrap would be a good idea but I think all the characters goals are too divergent.--[[User:Arz|Arz]] 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Note, I wouldn't actually PLAY with Etherscope, but it's a setting of "two worlds". I guess you could also call it The Matrix. You'd basically have two characters, one for when you're in one reality, another character for the other reality. --[[User:Robhim|Robhim]] 21:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
I'd perfer a Planescape campaign. It's on of my favorite settings. Continuing IK wouldn't be bad either. --[[User:Askewnotion|Askewnotion]] 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:44, 5 January 2009
Fear not, for my playing Dragonstar has more to do with Doug running it than the fact that it's Dragonstar. --Wizardoest 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
My vote goes towards Planescape or Ecumenopolis, followed by a dual world or a frontier game. I have no problem with frontier games that are miserly, provided character advancement happens fairly rapidly (3-5 sessions) so that the characters don't get boring. (I've been wanting to run a New World [Maztica] game for some time.) I will abstain from nond20 systems. --Wizardoest 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm more thematically inclined and would vote for exploration. Building wouldn't be my vote but others enthusiasm could cover for me. Also sometimes the line between the two can get runny. Ex: Exploration mission for a future colonization/repatriation.
- Back-drop doesn't matter so much to me though I'll give them rankings. Planescape (It is a world city), IK, and a 'hell no' to Etherscope (Too victorian).
- A short IK-wrap would be a good idea but I think all the characters goals are too divergent.--Arz 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note, I wouldn't actually PLAY with Etherscope, but it's a setting of "two worlds". I guess you could also call it The Matrix. You'd basically have two characters, one for when you're in one reality, another character for the other reality. --Robhim 21:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd perfer a Planescape campaign. It's on of my favorite settings. Continuing IK wouldn't be bad either. --Askewnotion 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
