I think one problem with that model would be the supplements. How would you write an adventure (for example) which had a focus on both quick combats against a horde of enemies (a la early editions) and complicated, tactical battles against single opponents?
Publishing supplements for a small segment of your fan base has been shown to be a failing model.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a trap!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't. Best you could probably hope for is a OSR/3rd ed hybrid or 3rd ed/4E hybrid.
The way I would have done it is use 3.5 for a base so it at least looks like 3.5 with fort/ref/will but fixed the damn system by overhauling it severely. WOuld have used the 4th ed round structure and AD&D spells over some of the 3.5 ones nuking the broken ones. 4E stuff would have been included with the goal of balance being roughly the tier 3 classes from the old 3.5 rating system. Basically nerf the hell out of 3.5 spell casters and add 4E stuff.
OR
Purge 4th ed entirely and make OSR/3rd ed hybrid. Basically a retroclone with a feat and skill system.
As to attracting new players anything nice and simple+fun backed with a good marketing campaign should work. Might come at the expense of existing players though so it is a gamble.3rd ed is the fulcrum edition though as it can support the 4E playstyle or the OSR playstyle if you modified it.
What I mean is that the early editions generally had you wading through hordes of not necessarily level appropriate enemies. The encounter design in later editions moved towards fewer opponents with an expectation of "balance". I personally think that's hardwired into the games in more than just an aesthetic way.
The same is true of player supplements. Do you just write them for a narrow segment of your audience? That's fraught, from past experience.
2nd ed was kind of modular as was balance/power creep. If you allowed some options into the game though (more powerful PCs) they often found prepublished adventures to easy. Later on you could mod the monsters as well to balance it out but then you come to the conclusion you should have just stayed with RAW in that event.
I don't think it actually is possible to create a game that can cater to every existing edition. Certainly there are commonalities between editions, but even then those commonalities are subtlety different. For instance, hit points are shared in common between all editions, but the number of hit points, and the ability to regain hit points, varies.
I think a truly barebones version that focused on these commonalities would risk being simplistic and bland, and not attract an audience. If you had later chapters in your core book giving more options for each edition you wanted to emulate, it might be a more appealing a book, but would also result in a potentially overcomplicated mess that would have trouble attracting new players. Just imagine if you have a single volume with 3 or 4 versions of every character class, and a new group has to navigate which version to use plus what feats/items/spells are appropriate for each class and each version of the class.
Same issue with monsters...1E monster design is quite different from 3E, and I assume 4E. Would your monster manual need to have 3 sets of stats for every monster?
They could take the GURPS approach. Provide a core of basic rules and then release a ton of setting- and genre-specific supplements.
I think that would work well for players. I'm not so sure it would work well for Wizards' bottom line on each of those books, given the sort of figures Hasbro are going to demand they meet :(
It might be possible to do that to a degree, however. If the relative differences are kept between a smaller number of core-focused products, while the majority of supplements are targeted at wider audiences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one problem with that model would be the supplements. How would you write an adventure (for example) which had a focus on both quick combats against a horde of enemies (a la early editions) and complicated, tactical battles against single opponents?
Publishing supplements for a small segment of your fan base has been shown to be a failing model.
The supplement would be universal. It would say 3 goblin cutters, 2 goblin archers, and a goblin hexer. For 1e style games that would just be 5 goblins with funny names and a goblin leader.
The trick would be to use keywords and then define them differently based on the play style you want.
Using the same terms defined differently based on a "playstyle" would, I think, be confusing. Players going from one style of game / campaign to another would have very different expectations of the same terms. Unless the players are all familiar with however many definitions of the common terms there are and, essentially, are all as well versed as the GM in the rules...
I'd say skip the fancy terms and stick with "3 Goblins with short swords, 2 Goblin archers and one Goblin caster" (Shaman in 1E, etc.). Terminology is a barrier to understanding that RPGs have, inherently, in large quantities without adding yet more. You might have to define what type of casters Goblins have depending on your game, but everybody understands "shortsword" and "archer" regardless of "style".
d20+mods to beat a target numberOr get less than a target number, e.g. saving throws.
In terms of years 1e/2e still wins hands down in 'years played'. Actually I imagine in 'total number of people played' also.
If you count all the d20 SRD-derivatives (especially Pathfinder) together with 3.5, it might beat that on total number of people, although that's really just a guess on my part.
Those are still just keywords, they are just more familiar, whether an 'archer' in a 1E or 2E style game just shoots arrows, or if in a 3.x style game 'archer' means multiple shots with a bonus to offset melee penalties, or in a 4E style game where 'archer' means +2 to attack as well as a special rechargeable power (5-6 on 1d6) to shoot everyone in a 15' cube or in a spy game meaning a very talented killer that is clueless in every other way. Its still just a keyword.
Yes, they are keywords. And they are more familiar. Key words that are already understood and require no time to learn beyond what is already common knowledge. That's the point.
I for one hope 5e is nothing like 4e. From what i have seen 5e gives me an old school feel which has me very excited. I really hope it supports gridless combat really well. As for "playstyles" what exactly do you mean by this?
I for one hope 5e is nothing like 4e. From what i have seen 5e gives me an old school feel which has me very excited. I really hope it supports gridless combat really well. As for "playstyles" what exactly do you mean by this?
I hope I can at least grab options to give me a more 4e playstyle. Right now I see some, but I don't think they're enough. We have at-will cantrips but they're rather boring in implementation. We have HD healing, but it doesnt do enough. We have maneuvers, but they're so bland in effect and concept. We have marking, but can't he accessed until 4th level. We have interesting monster, but their math is real bad.
Basiclly I want modules and dials that a group or DM can tweak to change the playstyle. From sub-classes, to magic marts, to powers and effects there should be a way to obtain a 1e feel and a 4e feel.
Understandable and i see what you mean.
That was another thing that i didn't jive well with 4e was the balance of classes. I understand people like this but i didn't like the fact that a fighter could do as much as a wizard. To me that's what makes playing different classes unique. Fighters are tough and get in on the front lines while wizards are week and hang back. That way playing different classes presented a different feel and strategy. I also didn't like healing surges, just made it feel like the need for dedicated healer wasn't necessary. I don't know I guess I'm old school and I never got into the mmorpg games and that's what 4e felt like to me. To be fair PF has some things I don't really care for as well (gunslinger just to name one example).
I am glad that Forgotten Realms is the default setting now. I never liked the vale or what ever it was called. To be fair again I don't like Golarian (spelling?) It just seems all over the place. I hope Pazio develops more settings that will be less kitchen sink
I also didn't like healing surges, just made it feel like the need for dedicated healer wasn't necessary.
How was your party healing during a fight without a healer? All second winds?
That was another thing that i didn't jive well with 4e was the balance of classes. I understand people like this but i didn't like the fact that a fighter could do as much as a wizard. To me that's what makes playing different classes unique. Fighters are tough and get in on the front lines while wizards are week and hang back. That way playing different classes presented a different feel and strategy.
To me, balance is very important. I believe is has far more to deal with contributing at any given level rather than what they can "do". 4E Fighters, for example, fight well. They're 'role' is to be the party's tank and to absorb a lot of attacks that would otherwise drop other party members. Other editions gave Fighters this role too, but not the tools to accomplish it. Further, after a certain level the Fighters of pre-4E often became more of a hindrance instead of a contributing factor. And that's only if the DM is being nice and actually following the WBL the game put in so that non-spellcasters can contribute at high levels.
Mostly that's what I want. I don't want my 14th level Fighter (or Paladin or Ranger or Monk) to feel like he 1) MUST rely on magical items to keep up and 2) not feel like their presence is unnecessary because a spellcaster has a scroll or spell that can accomplish the same task.
I want Wizards to be fun and enjoyable, but not the harbingers of campaign doom that I felt they became at mid- to high-levels in 3E.
I also didn't like healing surges, just made it feel like the need for dedicated healer wasn't necessary.
I'm not really sure how Surges fit into this scenario though? Healers instantly made combats more manageable because you could rely on your leader to give you a heal or two per fight. Without them, you had to rely on potions and Second Wind. In pre-4E, someone had to play a healing spellcaster of some sort because adventuring without one instantly turned the game into "Nightmare Mode" difficulty. Further, I'd like the option to play a non-spellcasting healer. Yea, I want a 5E Warlord that uses inspiration to keep them fighting. I have every doubt in the world that they'll either not do it right or not do it at all. Which saddens me greatly.
I don't know I guess I'm old school and I never got into the mmorpg games and that's what 4e felt like to me. To be fair PF has some things I don't really care for as well (gunslinger just to name one example).
If you didn't get into MMORPG then how do you know 4E felt like one? I see this complaint a lot and even after 5 years I still don't get it. Perhaps it's our groups style or perhaps I just have a bias or whatever. Suffice to say that I detest MMORPGS after playing them for about a year and a half because they lacked soul and were too streamlined but I greatly enjoy 4E.
I am glad that Forgotten Realms is the default setting now. I never liked the vale or what ever it was called. To be fair again I don't like Golarian (spelling?) It just seems all over the place. I hope Pazio develops more settings that will be less kitchen sink
I don't think FR is going to be "default" like we saw in 3rd Edition with Greyhawk (at least I hope not) but I do recall hearing that the setting will be first featured as far as products go. But I find it funny that you say Paizo is treating Golarion with having everything including the kitchen sink but that's exactly some of the complains the Forgotten Realms gets. Pretty much ANYTHING can be found in some way or shape within that setting. Space ships? You got it! Animated GOlems (ala Warforged)? You got it! Asian-themed cultures and styles? Yep, they're there. Egyptian-Themed pharohs and deities? Oh sure! Over the top plots by a nation of Undead, Shadow-like beings, Dragons, and Drow? Yes, yes, oh heck yes, and more yes! Jungle-like atmosphere with serpent gods and reptillian-like beings? Sure thing!
I mean, there hasn't been one genre that I can think of that can't be fitted into the Forgotten Realms at some point in the setting's timeline or continent. And there's only one continent that's detailed! Guns? Yes! Spirit magic based off the land? Yep! Dozens upon Dozens of deities? They've got MORE! Pirates? Hellz ya, on multiple water ways to boot. How about elves? FR has 5 sub-species!
I mean, c'mon.
Scott for the most part yeah (low level) that and potions and extended rests. I was the dm not a player and these guys are casual players.
Diffan, guess I'm just really fond of FR for nostalgic reasons and over look some things you mentioned. I may have misread it somewhere but I thought I saw somewhere mentioned that FR would be the default setting. Speaking of the PF setting I saw somewhere that someone mentioned an area that had a crashed spaceship and would be featured in a new AP is this true?
I tried to like world of warcraft because my buddy begged me to play and thats what 4e kinda reminded me of, that and guild wars. I really wanted to like 4e i mean after all i spent money on it but i just coukdnt get into it and a lot of things turned me off about it. Another friend said 4e reminded him of the dnd minis game, I never played that game so I can't say one way or another. Not that that is a bad thing just more curious if there was a similarity.
Diffan, guess I'm just really fond of FR for nostalgic reasons and over look some things you mentioned. I may have misread it somewhere but I thought I saw somewhere mentioned that FR would be the default setting. Speaking of the PF setting I saw somewhere that someone mentioned an area that had a crashed spaceship and would be featured in a new AP is this true?
Oh I love the Forgotten Realms, have been an avid reader of their books (Started with the Icewind Dale trilogy and have read dozens since) as well as being pretty supportive of the last two editions where the Realms are concerned. I just don't want to see the Realms get the same treatment that Oerth and Greyhawk received with their "core" approach. Completely devoid of all lore and reason just to fill page-space. I think when they say that FR is going to be default, it means that adventures are going to be placed there and that it will be the first setting fully aligned with the mechanics of 5E. That, to me, is far different than what WotC did to Greyhawk and including everything under the sun within that setting.
As for Pathfinder's new AP, I couldn't say. We're still trying to get through the first AP made (but it was fun when we were playing it!).
I tried to like world of warcraft because my buddy begged me to play and thats what 4e kinda reminded me of, that and guild wars. I really wanted to like 4e i mean after all i spent money on it but i just coukdnt get into it and a lot of things turned me off about it. Another friend said 4e reminded him of the dnd minis game, I never played that game so I can't say one way or another. Not that that is a bad thing just more curious if there was a similarity.
I think the similarity is done with two things. The first is presentation. IN 4E, everything is color-coded and fits into these boxes like powers and spells with little to distinguish between each other besides text. This gives the impression that classes are similar in both how they play and how their effects function. The second is the terminology. Before 4E, D&D attempted to use natural language to convey game mechanics. What this resulted in was a CRAP ton of Rules Lawyering and fighting about sentence structure and definitions of certain phrases and all that garbage. 4E's attempt to make things more uniform helped in cull the bickering BUT created the problem of reading like stereo-instruction manual rather than a game product.
As for how the game play, I've played WoW and Guild Wars pretty heavily for about a year. In that time, I got bored and the game got dull. Every time I achieved something, there was ALWAYS something else that needed done. It felt like a boring treadmill. 4E, however, felt like a fresh game with different but fun mechanics that allowed to me explore character concepts from FAR earlier on in the playing process. It's not perfect by ANY means, but I feel the designers attempt to patch problems where I had serious concerns about the game. Sadly, now those concerns are coming back.
So the things that worry you about 5e are a possible unbalanced class system and a lack of tactical combat rules? So you wouldn't mind if the "powers" are dropped for a set up more similar to PF and 3e?
So the things that worry you about 5e are a possible unbalanced class system and a lack of tactical combat rules?
In part, yes. I also worry about magical items and how easily they can be obtained as well, how the multiclass system works (a Ftr 1 / Wiz 19 vs. Ftr 19 / Wiz 1), additional sub-systems like how they're going to bring in Prestige Classes|Paragon Paths, and some other things too. Basically I want to maintain the feel that adventuring should be teamwork, each playing their part both in and out of combat. This is why keeping the pillar of play equal was a good idea but something the designers completely ignored.
What I mean is that I'd like some options for Fighters to be useful in non-combative scenarios, which can tie into skills such as bonuses OR have "exploits" that are 1-shot attempts that give a quick boost but cannot be spammed over and over again. And the same thing goes for the wizard, I want to feel like I'm playing a magical class that has interesting effects. In low-level 3E, I never really got that feeling. It was more "wait.....wait.....waaiit........Ok cast spell" up until the point where each spell was completely rendering our encounters easy mop-up.
So you wouldn't mind if the "powers" are dropped for a set up more similar to PF and 3e?
I'm not married to the idea of "powers" but I would really really enjoy an option that allows me maneuvers and stances that are a bit more fantastic than "I swing my sword, I swing my sword, I swing my..." that the game has followed thus far. I don't see why we can't have both, honestly? If we have to use a 3E paradigm then the closet thing I can think of is a finely tuned Tome of Battle (v3.5). If they can use that in conjunction with the 5E rules to help create a more 4E-ish character and playstyle then I'd be really happy. I just don't want to have to wait 5 years for the book to come out.
As far as magic items and weapons go, do you want to be able to purchase them when ever you feel the need for them or would rather be rewarded with them and find them? I'm torn with this. I feel that lower level items and weapons should be available but not saturate the shops.
I can't comment on multi classing because I have never really played around with it much after 2e. I agree with you, adventuring should be a team effort.
Can you further explain what these non combat abilities would be? You have my curiosity peaked.
I would like for tactical combat to be an option but for those who enjoy shouldn't have to wait 5 years, hell you shouldn't have to wait a year really, to get these options. I just favor gridless combat simply for the fact of budget and lack of minis. After playing Axis and Allies minis have a love hate relationship with random boosters. I'm not a great painter or have the time so if someone would make sets of minis where you know what you are getting i might not be opposed to it as nuch.
As far as magic items and weapons go, do you want to be able to purchase them when ever you feel the need for them or would rather be rewarded with them and find them? I'm torn with this. I feel that lower level items and weapons should be available but not saturate the shops.
Really depends. I think part of it is the place where you go to get the item. For example your not going to find too many magical items in a hamlet or small town. A place like Waterdeep, however, should have quite a large selection of magical items to either obtain from shops or have vendors who know someone. The good thing about 5E is that there is no item dependency build into the system math. A +1 weapon instantly makes you better, not just keep you on par with monsters of X level.
Also, I think it depends on the style of campaign you want to run. A campaign like Dark Sun should have even the most basic of magical items extremely rare where as a place like Eberron might have an abundance of magical items in many various places for purchase.
I can't comment on multi classing because I have never really played around with it much after 2e. I agree with you, adventuring should be a team effort.
It's much like 3E/PF's version, except with stat-restrictions. Whether or not it'll be as borked as it is in 3e and PF? Who knows. From my experience that specific multiclass style was either a terrible trap or a min/max-er's dream.
Can you further explain what these non combat abilities would be? You have my curiosity peaked.
Sure, for example a Fighter's exploit called Mighty Leap grants a considerable +5 bonus to their next Athletics to jump. Additionally, your considered running for the purposes of deciding how far you can jump. This would be something extremely useful in any scenario where the is an enemy that needs vaulted over, terrain to maneuver around, escaping an enemy or monster, or even leaping to someone's aid.
Steely Persuasion is another. You attempt to intimidate someone and use your proficiency with your weapon in a show to greater effect.
Now do these need codified powers? I'm not sure, though I think their frequency would instantly diminish the second time you'd attempt to do it within a short time (hence, being encounter-based). Yet both of these things allow Fighters to do cool or unique things that don't necessarily deal with combat and in many ways contribute to other pillars of play.
I would like for tactical combat to be an option but for those who enjoy shouldn't have to wait 5 years, hell you shouldn't have to wait a year really, to get these options. I just favor gridless combat simply for the fact of budget and lack of minis. After playing Axis and Allies minis have a love hate relationship with random boosters. I'm not a great painter or have the time so if someone would make sets of minis where you know what you are getting i might not be opposed to it as much.
Minis, despite many people's objection, weren't required with 4E. They help a great deal at times, but not required. I think that the designers made the assumption that the greater body of D&D players used them and so tailored the game to suite that purpose. Currently D&D:Next has gone back to feet for measurements and the grid is more optional now than in perhaps 3E / PF / 4E. Further, I don't want to wait a year or more for a Tactics module but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
In what way can a new edition of D&D be designed to allow for all play styles?
Play style != rules. I've seen just about every major version of D&D played via different playstyles.
If you are talking about how you can make an adventure suit multiple playstyles, it's probably best to just write for a particular "style" and then label accordingly.
Some editions may be better suited to certain playstyles, but that's a different matter.
Yeah but what if I really really want to play said adventure or run it and it doesn't fit my play style?
I think Wizards was really hitting on something with the edition neutral adventures. No it didn't include the pretty battle maps the 4e guys get excited over but chessex makes a flip mat. If that doesn't sit well you can always buy dungeon tiles. Or wizrds can offer it in the download content.
Best way to deal with multiclassing is to remove classes. I don't understand the point of classes anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well Hitomi, no insult, but that probably means you'd rather play a non-D&D system to begin with, right?
You don't mean remove multiclassing but just classes? Are these core classes? Would you suggest putting a limit or making a table showing which classes can take on other classes? I wouldn't go as far to say DnD is defined by the ability to multiclass but its rather a perk if it suits your taste.
Yeah but what if I really really want to play said adventure or run it and it doesn't fit my play style?
I think Wizards was really hitting on something with the edition neutral adventures. No it didn't include the pretty battle maps the 4e guys get excited over but chessex makes a flip mat. If that doesn't sit well you can always buy dungeon tiles. Or wizrds can offer it in the download content.
I totally agree here. I'm not hung up on maps because I just use my dry-erase markers on plexiglass over a white grid and draw the maps on, but the idea that adventures can be done in multiple editions with PDFs to make up for the monster stat=blocks and other edition mechanics is a great idea. For example I could by the newer D&D:Next Adventures, download the 4E-version PDFs (for free) and just play it like a 4E game. Or a v3.5 game.
To me, that's a great innovation because it can still serve people who use Pathfinder (with a little bit adjustment). So long as the adventures are of quality make, I'd be happy with that.
You don't mean remove multiclassing but just classes? Are these core classes? Would you suggest putting a limit or making a table showing which classes can take on other classes? I wouldn't go as far to say DnD is defined by the ability to multiclass but its rather a perk if it suits your taste.
I think it depends on how deep one wants the multiclass system to go. Interesting character concepts can be born out of a decent multiclass system, but often times it comes with such a large price that, mechanically speaking, isn't worth it. D&D will never be a "class-less" game but the v3.5 / PF / D&D:Next model helps it become close to one. Which is something I'm not overly fond of. Call it bias but I actually enjoyed 4E's multiclass theory (of just dabbling in another for some nifty effects). The implementation could use some improving, no doubt, but the fact that multiclassing doesn't overly negatively impact your base-class effectiveness is important to me.
Further, multiclassing shouldn't be something that automatically "make sense" because you'd be silly not to grab it. For example Mages in D&D: Next do not suffer penalties for wearing armor. So a Mage takes 1 level of Fighter or Paladin or Ranger and instantly they can use any stage of armor they like. This is at very little cost to the Mage, who now doesn't need to worry about spells like Shield or Mage Armor.
And while the prerequisites are there in the form of Stats (you need a 15 in Strength to multiclass into Fighter) to reduce the min/maxing, they're not overly hard to achieve after a few levels. Personally, I'll probably enforce my v3.5 rule of no more than 1 other class can be used to multiclass with.
There is more to d20 then classes, I like most of that other stuff. Good ability scores, saves, environmental rules, etc.
Classes are pointless restrictions as far as I'm concerned. They are packages which more often then not, grant abilities I don't want, while preventing or restricting abilities I do want.
I want a character that fights with a sword but uses utility magic as support and for a day job. Classes don't support this, either I multiclass fighter and wizard which grant things outside the base concept while making me "balance" those undesired abilities by restricting the desired abilities. And any sword plus magic classes, such as magus, focus on spells and magic casting for damage and dissallowing utility magic.
This is why I don't like classes and always advocate classless systems.
Dnd can actually be classless rather easily, you basically have the lowest bab, saves, etc as a base, then allow a number of starting feats, and bab, saves, etc can be improved with feats that are starting level only (or only when you gain ab score increases) and class abilities are converted to feats.
Classless is better for playstyle versatility. Hack and slash groups can focus on combat abilities, while intrigue groups can select better choices for their games.
It is also easier for GMs to adjust what is or is not allowed in their games. Dissallowing an ability will never weaken a character because no character has a package that is short on abilities compared to other packages. Also, added abilities can be selected by any player without regard to what packages they selected.
Also, no more "tiers" no worying about whether a class is too powerful compared to other classes, no more martial vs caster arguements.
I don't know the classless option could lead to dead ends just as easily as a class if someone who casually plays may not know how to build their concept. I'm just old school but without classes it just wouldn't be dnd. I wished PF had a "as close to perfect" dual class system. I'm sure someone has come up with something but I like to stick as close to core rules as I can.
In a classless system, you can make "class packs" which basically are preselected options that follow an archtype. This allows those with trouble to spend less time but also this method allows players to change things easier. DnD talks about how GMs should allow players to alter class options, but it is really up to gm fiat, however in a classless system with class packs then modification is simple and no fiat required.
Class packs allow easier creation of npcs too, so all the benefits, none of the drawbacks.
Besides, I have never, not once played a multi-level character that was single class, never had a character that could be represented to my satisfaction with a single class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are pointless restrictions as far as I'm concerned. They are packages which more often then not, grant abilities I don't want, while preventing or restricting abilities I do want.
Classes, among like twelve other things, dramatically cut down on the time required to create a character and help to maintain some level of predictable parity between players in the same group. Did you not realize this? Or do you not care about these things?
I think that the best way to accommodate all play styles is to do exactly what they are doing now.
Start with a very light tactical game that incorporates the most iconic features of the various editions, then create modular rules and options for more character customization, tactical depth, alternate spellcasting systems and so forth.
It would be a lot more difficult to build the system the other way around.
That's sort of what happened with the 4e Essentials line. It was offered as a tactically lighter version of "core" 4e, with a nod to more traditional iconic elements, but it apparently satisfied very few people in either camp.
I can't blame Wizards for trying to get the horse before the cart this time.
Classes are pointless restrictions as far as I'm concerned. They are packages which more often then not, grant abilities I don't want, while preventing or restricting abilities I do want.Classes, among like twelve other things, dramatically cut down on the time required to create a character and help to maintain some level of predictable parity between players in the same group. Did you not realize this? Or do you not care about these things?
You bring two points,
First, time to create a character. This is only a minkr thing, as some players enjoy making characters as much as playing them, but I did mention class packs which address this without getting rid of the classless core of the game and even comes with additional benefits. Want to be a dex fighter in light armor? Trade in that heavy armor proficiency for two weapon fighting or similar completely within the rules.
Second is predictable parity. This is not only done just fine in classless systems (savage worlds anyone?) But is very easy to knock off balance with a smart player and dumb player in the same group. No matter the system, such a combo will leave players feeling like there is a disparity of power and inevitably try to fix the system though the system isn't the problem. Its how players use it. That is why a gm is so important, because they need to balance the players against each other, not the system.
The player that rushes in front without any thought is not, and should not, be as successful as the player that uses strategy and tactics, even with the same selection of abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, time to create a character. This is only a minkr thing,
No, it isn't. I have run games for literally hundreds of players, and a super majority of them appreciate a simple, straightforward character creation process that doesn't take too much time. They want to play.
Coincidentally, I want to play, too. I don't want to dedicate the first two or three sessions of a gaming group meeting to character creation.
as some players enjoy making characters as much as playing them,
Some do. Many don't.
but I did mention class packs which address this without getting rid of the classless core of the game and even comes with additional benefits. Want to be a dex fighter in light armor? Trade in that heavy armor proficiency for two weapon fighting or similar completely within the rules.
This is already supported in many systems by class feature choices and archetypes. Both Pathfinder and 4e have versions of this, but the selections are carefully managed to ensure that none completely outshine the rest.
Second is predictable parity. This is not only done just fine in classless systems (savage worlds anyone?)
Oh god.
But is very easy to knock off balance with a smart player and dumb player in the same group. No matter the system, such a combo will leave players feeling like there is a disparity of power and inevitably try to fix the system though the system isn't the problem. Its how players use it. That is why a gm is so important, because they need to balance the players against each other, not the system.
This is a very absolute perception that you have. Is it your opinion that the system is never responsible for balance issues? Or that it's impossible for the system to be responsible for balance issues? And that, therefore, balance shouldn't even be considered during system creation because "the GM can handle it"? That really seems to be the crux of what you're saying here.
And I think most of us know better than to believe that.
There is a difference between being limited to a selection of packages and freely selecting individual parts. I have yet to be happy with the selection of classes/archtypes available in 3.x/pf. 4e is even worse on this count. Games like Savage Worlds are proof that classes are not needed for balance issues, regardless of your stance on balance issues.
Addressing the points above,
1, as far as I know it takes between 5-30 minutes to make a character in dnd depending on how many supplements you include. New players should be dealing solely with the core set.
I agree that it shouldn't take multiple, or even a full session to create characters, that doesn't mean I need to include classes to achieve it though, and class packs are still an option that grants the best of both worlds.
2, you did notice I said "some" right?
3, savage worlds supports me crafting that character I desire, dnd does not. Class mean I only get the options some guy in an office on the other side of the country decides to allow, classless allows me to craft my own options and build upon my own concepts.
Classes don't prevent some characters outshineing others, the whole class tiers thing should be ample evidence of that.
4 n 5, actually I would rate the effect of system balance to depend on the players in the group. A group of similar players will find the system balance more effective then a group of disparate players, even then however I would estimate balance to be 60%gm 40% system for a well matched group of players and 85% gm 15% system for a mismatched group of players.
Obviously I don't see the point in relying on system balance when most of the time players are grouped based on who they can find to play rather then finding a well matched group. Honestly, I would love there to be enough players to pick and choose my gaming companions, but I don't even know anyone with that luxury, thus it is doubtfull that many players find a well matched group. Therefore, the system needs the flexibility and be designed with the idea that groups won't always be perfectly matched, thus 85% of the balance is on the gm which means that balance should be considered but nowhere near the priority list of considerations.
---------
The few groups that I was in that had long term games and truly enjoyed playing, didn't worry about who did the most damage (just like soldiers don't care who got the most kills as long as everyone makes it out alive.)
The groups that I was in with rules lawyers and peole complaining about balance and power gaming, were constantly starting new games and were never happy with playing.
The lesson I get from that is to forget about the system and balance issues and to just play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to spend hours of valuable gaming time creating characters. I only see a pick and choose classless system making the process even longer. The group I play with and the other group I run like to have characters ready to go before we sit down at the table. This is just me but if dnd or pf was classless I wouldn't play it.
That is why class packs are good. You can pick a pack if you want, while I don't have to, then if you want to change something, you can do so without having having to hash things out with your GM.
Seriously, why do you keep harping on the time issue. It isn't an issue. Making Savage Worlds characters are faster then DnD characters to make.
Honestly, your worry about theoretical balance issues were a lot closer to legitimate concerns then time.
I have a classless game system nearly as involved as DnD and yet characters are just as quick to make.
Did you have some sort of bad experience in the past and over react or something? Seriously, gurps could certainly be a posterboy for char gen problems including time consumtion issues, and that game uses classes.
Time is an issue to me because I don't have the time I had when I was a teenager/early twenty something. I have a kid now and other adult responsibilities. The game I dm the players are casual gamers I literally made their characters for them with their choices for race/class etc. I know that if I presented them with a classless game we would spend hours making characters.
The class pack is a solution but then I ask why not just have classes? My players aren't interested in creating some fighter/cleric/wizard hybrid that has thief abilities. That's just the angle I'm looking at it from. This all may be irrelevant to you I don't know but this is my gaming experience and groups are few and far between where I live.
"Why not just have classes?"
The answer is simple. Wider audience and larger chance of finding players of the same system. You might not care about having the extra flexibility, but the system should be designed for many more people then just you. This allows for me to have my desired flexibility, you to have your pregen packages, and both using the same unified system and able to play at the same table.
Guess what, classless with classpacks, means any player can easily create custom claspacks if they want or need as well instead of relying on the designers for supplements.
Besides, I have no idea how classless equates with hours. Dnd characters, even using my custom class maker rules takes less then an hour. Savage worlds takes about 5 minutes.
There is not a significant time difference from going classless. I am curious why you think going classless would make char gen take so much longer.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seriously doubtful regarding the wider audience element. There are a number of well received classless systems out there. Hero System for example but none of them really manage to garner as much love as the class based systems.
I think a big part of the love for class based systems is it works as a short hand for who has what party role and most groups want that built in element of co-operation in their game. In effect this insures that the players are different, are going to support each other as part of a team and are all going to be important.
This element is more difficult to achieve in a classless system. If everyone is looking at a blank slate and then starts to create their character its more difficult for the game to be about these characters co-operating to overcome challenges and its less likely that the adventure will be one that everyone has a near equal opportunity to participate in.
Now that last could be addressed by a good DM but for a game company I suspect its a hurdle - how to design an off the shelf adventure when there is no baseline for what kinds of characters are going to be playing in it? One can get D&D groups that have problems handling the adventure because they are none standard but at least they know why things are posing a problem for them. You'll here a lot of 'Some one should really have made a thief...now what guys?' and that sort of thing. In a classless system you can't really expect anything and that is hard to design for. I suspect this is one of the reasons why most of the classless systems out there are much more tied into their background material. Its classless but the game itself is about X so design characters that can do X. The premise actually focuses character creation and your players are back to building a team. In this case one meant to deal with whatever the premise of the RPG is.
Classless, especially with very a wide exponential of premises for what the RPG will be about, present a fairly high hurdle for the group to initially overcome before they can really understand the game and how to play it. Without the direction inherent in either a premise or a class based system your down to the groups making their characters and then going through the DMs adventure and all through this early part of the campaign both the players and the DM are busy essentially learning how to play in/create a functioning adventure. All of this can be overcome but it seems historically one does not really see the masses going out to find this sort of system to play in.
Hitomi, I'm not saying you can't enjoy a classless system (although, if GURPS uses classes, that system has changed a lot since I last played it) but there are certain expectations built into the D&D brand, and anyone who has is even slightly familiar with D&D (as in, played for less than 6 months 30 years ago) is going to think of classes when they think of D&D. Hell, given the popularity of the B/X edition, they might be a bit confused about the differences between classes and races, but they'll remember classes.
I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy RPGs with classless character creation, but continually posting about on a thread about D&D 5E's appeal to fans of various previous editions is about as pertinent to the topic as if I started yammering on about how much I enjoyed playing Classic Traveller, so 5E should be a space opera setting with tech levels, and anyone who wants a standard D&D game can just play on a low tech world; simpler for everyone and objectively better!
Edit: Six and a half hours go by, and I get ninja by Jeremy in the last five minutes; there's no justice.