Quote from: One Horse Town;747807To expand that example, would people prefer a Fighter class with mechanical doo-dads withing that class or say, 12 classes that might be described as 'fighty' but have their own strictly unchangeable suite of abilities.

1) Fighter with mechanical differentials baked into the class for the player to choose as he likes

versus

2) Hoplite, Gladiator, Skirmisher, Legionnaire, etc with a set suite of abilities that are specialties already baked into the class.

Good lord, #1 all the way. "Class treadmill" as a publishing philosophy makes me want to punch a unicorn.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747807To expand that example, would people prefer a Fighter class with mechanical doo-dads withing that class or say, 12 classes that might be described as 'fighty' but have their own strictly unchangeable suite of abilities.

1) Fighter with mechanical differentials baked into the class for the player to choose as he likes

versus

2) Hoplite, Gladiator, Skirmisher, Legionnaire, etc with a set suite of abilities that are specialties already baked into the class.

This is a spectrum, and you're framing it as a binary against #2. Here is more of a breakdown where people might disagree:

1) Only one "class" - i.e. skill-based system

2) Only two or three classes: OD&D (Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic User); Call of Cthulhu d20 (Offensive or Defensive); True20 (Warrior, Expert, Adept)

3) 4-8 classes: Basic D&D, many OSR games

4) 9-12 classes: AD&D1 (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Thief, Assassin, etc.), core only D&D3

5) 13+ classes: Rolemaster, D&D with various supplements, etc.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;747915Good lord, #1 all the way. "Class treadmill" as a publishing philosophy makes me want to punch a unicorn.

I am a huge ad&d fan, and loved all the classes that came out in dragon magazine back in the day.  That being said, a clean structure where you have templates instead of unique classes is the way to go, imo

Quote from: xech;747800The OP asks a question of substance: is magic tree party enough to make you happy or do you need support of mechanics.

Anyone who uses the phrase 'magic tea party' unironically is clearly incapable of satisfying a woman.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;747953Anyone who uses the phrase 'magic tea party' unironically is clearly incapable of satisfying a woman.

But he said "Magic TREE party."

Obviously he wants to satisfy an Entwife.

Quote from: Doughdee222;747844I want my character to be "better than average" in some skill set than others of the same job description. +3 to Riding and Archery skills or +4 to disarm and bare-hand attack.

Just my 2 cents.

Whereas the very idea of that makes me puke so hard blood squirts out my ass.

Quote from: xech;747837No you did not answer. You said the OP does not matter to you because you find the differentiation you like in combat mechanics.
If you said something else about what you think regarding classes please make it more clear.

HINT:  When everybody else in the thread says Sacrosanct answered the question, the problem is not in Sacrosanct's post.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747722How much flexibility is just right for you in generating characters?

Are you ok with 2 fighters being almost identical mechanically or do you prefer the option to make an almost infinite amount of different fighters?

Are mechanics important in differentiating between characters of the same sort?

What if your choice of classes is so large that in effect, your chances of playing the same character twice are next to zero even if there is little difference between members of the same class. Would that suite you if you like greater flexibility normally?

1: Varies alot. I am used to AD&D where you have restricted flexibility. Roll stats, see what classes you can select from with those stats, choose race, buy equipment and go.
Do not though like having nearly all choice taken away. 4e D&D Gamma World where you dont even choose your character.
On the other hand, for some games alot of choice can be fun. Too much choice can be minorly vexing for me.  I have never enjoyed Gurps or BESM even though I think they are interesting systems.

2: If its a class based system then I expect the class to work the same for any given player. Differentiation comes from how the players play that character and possibly gear loadouts. And possibly non-combat skills. One is going to play a fighter like a barbarian, one will play like a knight, one will play like a archer, etc. And no two barbarians are going to be quite the same personality-wise in play.

3: No.

4:Lots of class choices are ok as long as it doesnt get absurd. Keep it simple. Even Rifts with its bazillion classes and races is still pretty simple at its core and every race and class has its little niche and quirks. Some like that, some hate that.

Quote from: Old Geezer;747959Whereas the very idea of that makes me puke so hard blood squirts out my ass.

See, the trick is it just specializes you.  It actually makes you less capable by setting the standard for "competent" higher and making you competent in a narrower area.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747722How much flexibility is just right for you in generating characters?

Are you ok with 2 fighters being almost identical mechanically or do you prefer the option to make an almost infinite amount of different fighters?

Are mechanics important in differentiating between characters of the same sort?

What if your choice of classes is so large that in effect, your chances of playing the same character twice are next to zero even if there is little difference between members of the same class. Would that suite you if you like greater flexibility normally?

Okay:

1) As much as possible without bogging everything down. That is a vague statement because it varies by game, by campaign style, by my own passing mood.

2) A lot of different fighters is good, but this desire needs to be balanced against the bogging-everything-down factor, and also leaving space for a given variant of fighter to adapt. To take what is in my mind a really egregious example, a fighter who favors plate mail and a two-handed sword should also be able to fire a bow to reasonable effect in a pinch – and not just be limited to "tanking"! (ugh)

3) Mechanics can be helpful.

4) I wouldn't particularly favor that route but I wouldn't rule it out sight unseen.

Quote from: robiswrong;747976See, the trick is it just specializes you.  It actually makes you less capable by setting the standard for "competent" higher and making you competent in a narrower area.

No, I gotta disagree with this. Let me give you an example:

I was in a group that played a Hero-Fantasy game. Three of us played "Warrior" or "Fighter" characters. My guy was a martial arts specialist. He had fierce fists of doom and I could lay out an opponent pretty quick, usually one round. He could still swing his sword well, equal to the other two who had their own specialties, and his bow skill was adequate. He was certainly "competent" in three types of fighting and it was great knowing that even if he was stripped of weapons he was a formidable force.

If we had played AD&D our three characters would look pretty similar, have the same skills and certainly no special advantages. By playing Hero my character had skills and advantages he wouldn't have had in AD&D. He had a flavor that was above and beyond mere fluff like name and personality.

Quote from: Doughdee222;747844For example with fighters:
If I want to design a wild barbarian I can.
If I want to design a Roman Legionnaire I can.
Or a Mongolian horse archer.
Or a fencer who can target any body part with ease.
Or a martial artist who can disarm anyone quickly.
Etc.

I prefer the flexibility of a broad archetype that allows me to be all these things, often in the course of the same campaign!

D&D fighter FTW.