Questing Queens Consider Another Castle

We want to do this blog. Unfortunately, BlogSpot is making things difficult, and so we feel it's best to find a new host.

Here's the problem, neither Tea Weasel nor my self have any ranks in Blogging skill. So we're not sure where to find a host, and what software to use. It'll be a bit before we figure it out, but hopefully not too long.

When we do find a new home, we'll move the posts there and start anew.

It'll be sexy.

Small chat on 4e.

Just a little chat about 4e. Note that neither one of us have fully read and played the damn thing.

Karizma: =/ I wanna try 4e.
Karizma: But first, brb~
Tea Weasel: :/
Karizma: back
Karizma: WHAT?
Karizma: What have we heard inherently BAD about 4e?
Tea Weasel: Too. Damned. Restrictive.
Karizma: Restrictive in what sense?
Tea Weasel: Everything feels the same with a slightly different flavor.
Tea Weasel: Erm.
Tea Weasel: Well, look at 3.5.
Tea Weasel: They were coming from a game where your character could spiral off in whatever direction you chose.
Tea Weasel: Then it's not THIS IS YOUR CLASS AND ONLY YOUR CLASS AND EVEN MULTICLASSING DOES LITTLE.
Karizma: But think about the WAY it restricts you. It restricts you in the sense of combat functionality. But 4e is built on team-based combat. Look at every other combat system and you get a feeling of individuals in combat. With 4e, the entire rule structure is set up in the assumption of party-based combat. And it works well.
Tea Weasel: Yes, but you're going from something utterly free to something utterly restrictive. And some of it feels quite... lame in how they fixed it.
Tea Weasel: The fighter fix basically became "Look, we have spells, but not!" same with the rogue. And everything else, really.
Tea Weasel: Spellcasters had the spotlight, so rather than balancing everything, they made that the new standard of power.
Karizma: Spellcasters had the spotlight because they had a variety of tools to choose from to affect combat. Fighters have golf-clubs of weapons, as you said.
Tea Weasel: Spellcasters had the spotlight because the tail-end of 3.5 gave them game breaking casting loops. X3
Tea Weasel: But really, why have a "I can only swing my sword this way, stab that way, or shoot an arrow like this once per day" thing?
Karizma: I'm not saying D&D is for me, or that I think it's the best roleplaying game (or even a good one), but I'm VERY curious to see how well it works, given that all accounts of 4e combats that I've read are simple enough for children to understand, quick enough to be interesting, and producing a tactical-based environment that I think most games leave purely up to the GM to replicate.
Tea Weasel: The classes have minor, minor schticks now in the "I do more damage, I tank better, etc etc" roles. But. They're not distinct enough.
Tea Weasel: They went from nigh-infinitely wide to painfully narrow.
Karizma: But what was the USE of wide? The "anyone can do anything" leaves the players in a kind of "fend for thyself" position. By cornering people into limited combat roles, you give the party the understanding that cooperation is A Good Thing (TM).
Tea Weasel: Yes, but then you're falling into the "You All Play The Same Character" problem. Which I utterly despise, since it puts the cuffs on what used to be a lot of creativity.
Karizma: Does it? By taking away the mechanical detail, you leave even more room for in-character aesthetic detail. Furthermore, is mechanical individuality that important? You will be different enough from your fellow party members. That's all that matters.

HARP is a wonderfully flexible system where anyone can be anything, but in combat because anyone can do anything, I'm seeing everyone being TOO similar. If I forced people into roles, I would see more unique combat.
Karizma: By allowing everyone access to everything, you get a party of only slightly different individuals.
Tea Weasel: Of course. You get the RP stuff. But you can only go so far before the rules say "no". No elemental mages, no life-and-death clerics. Fighter-mages have no distinct flavor.
Karizma: Those are things that I feel can easily be created by additional content. Elemental mages simply need to replace their spells with more elemental spells. Cleric spells could also be further expanded. But the mechanics themselves offer--from what I have read--a good basis for fun party-based combat. In the end, the combat system SHOULD be strong for the thrill and fear of death to be fun. It's the one problem I've been running into in HARP, unfortunately.
Karizma: Don't get me wrong, I do have some issues with 4e. "Warlord"? Tieflings?! But from all the research I have done so far, I see more good things of 4e's strongpoint--its combat--than I see negative things about what it's done to the more "roleplaying" side of the game, which I think is fine, since--given a grognardian standpoint--I don't need rules to roleplay.
Tea Weasel: SW maintains smooth, versatile combat and creation without this recipe-card ability nonsense. It's just an unneeded compromise. XP
Karizma: It can be smooth, but isn't it still based on the fundamental principle that combat rules are a resolution for attacking and dealing damage? 4e seems to be the first game system to take into account the fact that a party should work together, and by making certain roles have functions that--when cooperating--become strong parts rewards players for teamwork, and makes combat slightly more tactical and fun.
Tea Weasel: I don't like what it did, so there. :v
Karizma: XP You don't have to. I don't like it that much either. However, I want to see what it did right, because I think it's something that most other RPGs could learn from.
Karizma: Hell, if I can, I'd LOVE to impliment things into HARP.
Tea Weasel: Oh, everything has the ability to do something right. It's just that I don't like how vanilla the classes feel in comparison to each other.
Karizma: In what way exactly? Like two Fighters are the same, or are you saying that there's really no difference between a Fighter and a Mage?
Karizma: --Sorry, Wizard x3
Tea Weasel: Well, there are some essentials. But mechanically, a lot of it boils down to "You have X at will abilities, X per encounter, X daily." For all classes. There is nearly no reason to "just attack."
Tea Weasel: The problem there too is that if everyone just chains "Special Moves" again and again, they become not-so-special.
Karizma: Looking at the Fighter At-Will abilities, These are sort of options for replacing "Just Attack". Sure Strike makes it easy to hit, but it does absolutely minimal damage. Useful if you need to just make contact. Cleave is a kind of attack if you are up against two adjacent opponents. I think this is better than saying "A Fighter sits there and repeatedly Attacks until the mob falls down." It offers variable options for a Fighter to perform.
Tea Weasel: They took one book from 3.5 and turned it into an entire system.
Karizma: And this doesn't look like that bad of a system :p.
Tea Weasel: The Book of Nine Swords. Trumped most classes by giving melee kind of what 4e has now.
Tea Weasel: Eh.
Tea Weasel: I don't like the changes. I really don't.
Karizma: And that's fine x3. I have a desire to play it myself, as it looks like a decent system that could be fun.

Where I've Come From, Where I'm Going

While I'm not one to be totally tied to a system- I've tried a fair share, including freebie offerings here and there- I do have to say that my current preferences lie quite strongly in the realm of Savage Worlds.

My own entry into the world of tabletop started, not too surprisingly, with Dungeons and Dragons. I passed from 2nd edition to 3rd to 3.5 without much fuss, learning the ins and outs of what d20 had to offer. As time went on, though, I began to glance more and more into other systems, dabbling into more rulesets than I'd care, or could, remember. Come the release of 4e, my loyalty to D&D was waning; the variety I'd experienced, coupled with my own gaming experiences, led me to believe that there was a system out there that'd be right for me.

I stumbled onto Savage Worlds based on a suggestion, which I actually believe came from Karizma here. It tickled my fancy after a read-through, and I've stuck with it since.

See, my gaming desires are rather... paradoxical. Given my writing habits, I tend to put a lot of weight on story (which would put me in the N of GNS, for those of you who follow that model). However, I like to have a set skill list rather than freeform creation, as I've had a number of experiences with players shooting for too-powerful skills when given free reign. On yet another hand, I don't like overly dense systems because my players tend to get bogged down when the calculations come into play (combat is infamous for this).

Savage Worlds works for me, because it fits what I was asking for. Is it a perfect system? For me, perhaps. I suppose you could call me a bad reviewer for this reason; I'm impartial. What works for me isn't guaranteed to work for other people. Hell, look at Karizma again. Apologies, but HARP and Rolemaster don't work for me. While I can respect both systems, they just don't fit my chosen style.

Well, it looks like I've come full circle and said barely anything. But I wasn't intending to rate systems from the start, readers. If anything, I hope this gives you the idea to look around a bit rather than squatting stubbornly under the banner of your One True System of choice. At the least, you can pilfer a few neat ideas here and there from elsewheres, even if all you grab is fluff.

Anyway, that's that for now. Pardon me while I live up to my title and grab myself a cup of chai.

Obligatory FAQ Post

Ah, the obligatory first post. The one ugly, dreaded post. Lets get on with the FAQ, which is not really a true FAQ as these questions have never been asked--much less FREQUENTLY. But this is a way to introduce the blog in both ideology and tone. And a way to make a first post that is not too terribly awkward.

Questing Queens? What the hell?
Questing Queens is a blog about games. Mostly tabletop roleplaying games such as Dungeons and Dragons, but it may often include video games, or other bits of nerdiness. The name was selected due to our choice to play on the fact that the authors of this blog are homosexuals ("Queens", while "Questing" comes from our gaming habits, dur). It's a gimmick, and this was done in a light-hearted spirit.

Does this mean that you'll be talking about gay stuff all the time? Like homosexuality in RPGs?
Not at all. Well, we might discuss it in a post eventually, but it's not quite a "theme." It's simply a way for us to be "different" in name.

So, are you two in a relationship?
What? No. That's silly. We are simply good friends.

Oh. I see.
Do you?

Erm, yes.
Good. So why do you want to read this blog?

Wait, shouldn't I be asking the questions?
Oh, right, continue.

Why should I want to read this blog?
Dammit. Well, this blog is simply "just another gaming blog," but we hope that both of us will provide enough contrast that you, our esteemed reader, will have something to agree--or better yet, disagree--with and bring in your additional perspective (in the comments).