How 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?
Options are nice. But after too many chargen gatherings, taking up a whole session in ecstatic planning and then fizzling into <5 sessions total, I'm now firmly in the "shut up, roll your damn character, and let's get playing already!" camp.
Never thought I'd get there in the mid-90s, but the past 15 years has been like a desert with rare oases. I'm tempted to run my next few campaigns as single class challenges just to shut down the bullshit. I already shut down people sharing their "how my character will go nova and combo!!!" with questions like, "yeah, but what did it actually do? and how long was it played?"
I like to be able to make the kind of character I want, not one that the game forces me to. I'm fine with archetypes, but when those archetypes don't allow any variance, then that's where I have a problem.
I'm not fond of the idea of two fighters being 100% identical mechanically. If everything mechanically about the character can be completely described by "he's a 5th level fighter" then I feel that's a failure and outright abdication of responsibility of the mechanics of character creation. But I'm also pretty lenient on this point.
So yes, to me mechanics are pretty important in differentiating characters.
As for situations where there's a wide choice of classes, it depends on how many are interesting to me. I do tend to gravitate towards the same kinds of characters over and over, and that's one of the reasons why I prefer the mechanical bits of each character to be different. But if starting a new character meant playing the same exact character in all mechanical regards just at a lower level of proficiency, then I wouldn't find that interesting. If there were enough archetypes that I could switch to another one and have a decent amount of time until feeling I had to replay a previously played archetype then I suppose that would be fine as long as there was some kind of feeling of mechanical customization of the character.
Depends on what type of game it is.
Am I building a character or generating it?
I'm starting to prefer games with fewer but broader classes rather than having many extremely specialized classes. Nothing wrong with the latter, of course. But D&D 3.X has made me hate multi-classing and Feat chains tied to classes.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722How much flexibility is just right for you in generating characters?
A lot.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722Are you ok with 2 fighters being almost identical mechanically or do you prefer the option to make an almost infinite amount of different fighters?
Almost infinite amount of "fighter like" characters.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722Are mechanics important in differentiating between characters of the same sort?
Yes they are.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722What 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?
I like to have to choose between numbers of pre-made templates but not as specific/strict as D&D classes because it restricts the choices of combining them with other templates (attribute, race, skill) since only certain combinations achieve effective results.
I like tons of flexibility as long as it isn't required so If someone wants to make a vanilla fighter it is easy if someone wants to go weird, exotic etc.. they can just don't make it hard for Vanilla to play as well.
I personally prefer investing effort at character creation and making competent characters. Not into the Zero to hero thing (So much) if tons of Zeros die for that cause.
I like PC's to be the special ones by fate or whatever, The survivors.
I tend to design flexible char creation when I design/modify a game. I also like organic character growth so Classes are usually not good fits.
Just my thoughts.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722How much flexibility is just right for you in generating characters?
Lots!
QuoteAre you ok with 2 fighters being almost identical mechanically or do you prefer the option to make an almost infinite amount of different fighters?
Infinite amount of fighters would be much better. I mean, perhaps a lot fewer than infinite ( :D ) but you get the idea.
QuoteAre mechanics important in differentiating between characters of the same sort?
Rather important, I would say.
QuoteWhat 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?
I wanted to say that it would not, but then I started thinking. I think that would really depend on the presentation. For instance, the D&D 3.x model irks me for a number of reasons, but not the least of those is that you have "basic" classes like Fighter and then a kabillion of variants that kind of do the same job (but better, but that's a whole another rant). Either every PC should have a weird custom class (like say the special classes in Disgaea, Demon Prince, Mid-Boss, Prinny Instructor et al) or no one should.
I'm OK with broader archetypes because at least half of the way I play my PC is based on how I want to play him or her, and not driven by mechanics. I.e., I'm OK with one fighter being very mechanically similar to another fighter because if the first is a sword&board fighter, and the second is an archer skirmisher, they play totally differently to me regardless if the mechanics are the same.
That all being said, I'm also fond of general customization, but nothing near on the level of 3e. I think 5e is really close to the sweet spot here for me, as you choose your basic class, and just have a few points during progression where there are mechanical options that reinforce archetypes, and you don't have to worry about feat chains or multi-classing.
For example:
In 3e, every time you're presented with an option, you have a full table of feats to chose from, many of those part of a feat tree (like power attack> cleave> etc), and you have a bunch of skill points to allocate. And that's not counting multi-classing which throws a whole new layer of complexity on it.
In 5e, you pick your class and pick a specialty at level 3 or whatever. From then on, you don't have to worry about feat trees because any other mechanical abilities you get are defined by that specialty at certain pre-determined points. Even if I want extra complexity by using feats in the game, the feats are broad general groups, and not really linked in trees like 3e. I can basically choose the type of archetype I want to play, and only make one or two core choices that offer total customization from another PC of the same class, while not having to figure out feat trees or skill point allocation.
If character generation takes more than 15 minutes, I'm not interested. "Options" exist in the players' minds, not on paper. I've seen more creativity with personalities in OD&D and Fantasy Trip than in far more complex systems.
And how the character plays should be determined by the player, not the character. Want your character to be a badass? Play her like a badass and dare the risks.
I like archetypes to help define what activities will define the game and provide a default "audience" for the gm to plan to.
But within those archetypes, I like lots of mechanically significant customization. The idea bombastically proclaimed in a recent thread about "if you want two fighters to be different just play them different" is nowhere near good enough for me.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;747748I'm OK with broader archetypes because at least half of the way I play my PC is based on how I want to play him or her, and not driven by mechanics. I.e., I'm OK with one fighter being very mechanically similar to another fighter because if the first is a sword&board fighter, and the second is an archer skirmisher, they play totally differently to me regardless if the mechanics are the same.
The mechanics are still different. They may be different due to being able to use different combat mechanics as the same fighter, but still different. This is important, if you think of combat and its mechanics as part of being a fighter and this is true as combat is where the fighting class is efficient.
Quote from: Old Geezer;747776If character generation takes more than 15 minutes, I'm not interested. "Options" exist in the players' minds, not on paper. I've seen more creativity with personalities in OD&D and Fantasy Trip than in far more complex systems.
And how the character plays should be determined by the player, not the character. Want your character to be a badass? Play her like a badass and dare the risks.
What if you could somehow have character generation that takes 10 minutes but at the same time many different character options, intuitive and interesting?
Quote from: xech;747791The mechanics are still different. They may be different due to being able to use different combat mechanics as the same fighter, but still different. This is important, if you think of combat and its mechanics as part of being a fighter and this is true as combat is where the fighting class is efficient.
An AD&D fighter who fights sword&board isn't any mechanically different than an AD&D fighter who uses a bow and acts more like a skirmisher. Not from a class perspective; their class features are all the same.
However, they can still play different, depending on how you want them to play.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;747793An AD&D fighter who fights sword&board isn't any mechanically different than an AD&D fighter who uses a bow and acts more like a skirmisher. Not from a class perspective; their class features are all the same.
However, they can still play different, depending on how you want them to play.
The difference in gameplay is due to differences in combat mechanics (that the fighter class can take advantage of) and not due to the fact that you as a player can decide different character actions independently from mechanics as OG seems to be suggesting as a valid way of playing out.
Quote from: xech;747796The difference in gameplay is due to differences in combat mechanics (that the fighter class can take advantage of) and not due to the fact that you as a player can decide different character actions independently from mechanics as OG seems to be suggesting as a valid way of playing out.
That's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about general mechanics. We're talking about mechanical options within classes themselves to make them stand out from one another. And what OG and I are saying, is that you don't have to have unique mechanical options for a class to have that class be very different in how it actually plays out from another PC of the same class. That's up to you, as the player. The AD&D fighter is mechanically identical to every other AD&D fighter, but they do not play the exact same way in the game unless you play them that way.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;747799That's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about general mechanics. We're talking about mechanical options within classes themselves to make them stand out from one another. And what OG and I are saying, is that you don't have to have unique mechanical options for a class to have that class be very different in how it actually plays out from another PC of the same class. That's up to you, as the player. The AD&D fighter is mechanically identical to every other AD&D fighter, but they do not play the exact same way in the game unless you play them that way.
I do not agree. You are arguing semantics when in fact we are not. The OP asks a question of substance: is magic tree party enough to make you happy or do you need support of mechanics. It does not actually matter if different mechanics are explicitly within the class itself or a system that the class is specifically designed to excel at and take advantage of (combat for fighters).
Quote from: xech;747800I do not agree. You are arguing semantics when in fact we are not. The OP asks a question of substance: is magic tree party enough to make you happy or do you need support of mechanics. It does not actually matter if different mechanics are explicitly within the class itself or a system that the class is specifically designed to excel at and take advantage of (combat for fighters).
wait, what? I think you need to go back and read the OP, because OHT is very clear he's talking about mechanical option choices within the class itself, specifically around char gen and advancement.
I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing directly to the point of the topic. You do not, in fact
need to have unique mechanical options within a character class in order to play two PCs of the same class differently or unique. This is not subjective; it's objective as evidenced by the large number of people who have done just that.
Who gives a shit about need, want works fine.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;747801wait, what? I think you need to go back and read the OP, because OHT is very clear he's talking about mechanical option choices within the class itself, specifically around char gen and advancement.
I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing directly to the point of the topic. You do not, in fact need to have unique mechanical options within a character class in order to play two PCs of the same class differently or unique. This is not subjective; it's objective as evidenced by the large number of people who have done just that.
Ok, what is the difference if a class offers the option of different mechanics in the class itself or another system that the class is specifically tailored for it (combat in our case)?
If it were not for combat mechanics your answer would have been totally different regarding how you consider fighter class characters. This is not something you made clear in your post when in fact you should have for us to understand how and why you feel about the OP matter. The OP asks if mechanics are important to roleplaying choices and specifically the fighter archetype, the archetype that is mundane. But for you Sacrosant the mechanics are in fact in combat for fighters and by the way you answered you still need mechanic support to enjoy the fighter class.
Quote from: Sommerjon;747802Who gives a shit about need, want works fine.
I agree, which was why i started the thread.
I'll put you down as a 'want mechanical differences within class' then. ;)
Also, to be clear i mentioned fighter as an example rather than strictly focus on them solely, but they are a
good example.
To 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.
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?
Who really cares what I think? What I think is entirely immaterial to what is best for any given game except one designed by me.
-clash
Quote from: One Horse Town;7478071) 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.
I definitely prefer option 1. That way if I want a fighter who is a mix of abilities of Legionnaire and Skirmisher, then I can customize with those abilities, whereas when Legionnaire and Skirmisher are distinct classes, I'm stuck solely into one of those mechanical roles.
In regards to getting started quickly, I like pre-gens and point buy systems. It doesn't matter if PCs resemble each others or not, although what you can do in the setting shouldn't be left up to what mood the GM is in - rules matter. Having a stack of pre-gens available or quick and easy template systems to facilitate quick play is good with me.
Quote from: xech;747803Ok, what is the difference if a class offers the option of different mechanics in the class itself or another system that the class is specifically tailored for it (combat in our case)? If it were not for combat mechanics your answer would have been totally different regarding how you consider fighter class characters. This is not something you made clear in your post when in fact you should have for us to understand how and why you feel about the OP matter.
The OP asks if mechanics are important to roleplaying choices and specifically the fighter archetype, the archetype that is mundane. But for you Sacrosant the mechanics are in fact in combat for fighters and by the way you answered you still need mechanic support to enjoy the fighter class.
OHT was talking about mechanical choices within the class itself. Outside mechanics are irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep getting hung up on that. The point OG and myself were responding to was the implication that you have to have unique mechanical choices within a particular class or all of those classes play exactly the same. That statement is outright untrue, as OG and I have pointed out.
Not sure how much more clear I can be on this.
Quote from: xech;747803whargarbl!
Bwa-? Maybe in Bizarro World that's what the OP meant. But, back here in the real world, the OP is talking about no mechanical differentiation within a class, as opposed to no mechanical differentiation (e.g. everything resolved by rolling D6 without modifiers). In fact, this topic has come up many times since the advent of 3.x and Feats. Never once in that time have I heard anyone argue for no mechanical differentiation, so if that's what you're juxtaposing, who the hell are you arguing with?
Quote from: Old Geezer;747776If character generation takes more than 15 minutes, I'm not interested. "Options" exist in the players' minds, not on paper. I've seen more creativity with personalities in OD&D and Fantasy Trip than in far more complex systems.
And how the character plays should be determined by the player, not the character. Want your character to be a badass? Play her like a badass and dare the risks.
You are right, of course. But I don't know why you can't have both a mechanical badass and a psychological one.
My personal preference is options. Classless, even. I like to see players able to change ideas but keep the same character.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747807I agree, which was why i started the thread.
I'll put you down as a 'want mechanical differences within class' then. ;)
Also, to be clear i mentioned fighter as an example rather than strictly focus on them solely, but they are a good example.
To 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.
Definitely number 1. Ideally not even that. Differentiation through a robust combat system and various other templates such as attributes, equipment and skills.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;747812OHT was talking about mechanical choices within the class itself. Outside mechanics are irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep getting hung up on that. The point OG and myself were responding to was the implication that you have to have unique mechanical choices within a particular class or all of those classes play exactly the same. That statement is outright untrue, as OG and I have pointed out.
Not sure how much more clear I can be on this.
The way you answered you brought it up. What you said was that you do not need different mechanics because combat mechanics cover it up for you. Which leaves us with no clear understanding of what you think about classes.
This is why people told you the OP is not about what you think you need but about what you want.
Quote from: flyingmice;747808Who really cares what I think? What I think is entirely immaterial to what is best for any given game except one designed by me.
-clash
Well, it's something to talk about on a discussion forum mate!
With D&D, I like to keep the class archetypes but allow enough variability within them so two characters of the same class will have some genuine mechanical differences. A sub-class or specialization, and then a substantial feat every three levels or so, along with a couple skills and a race, and that's enough for me. So more than AD&D, less than 3E - D&D Next hits the customization sweet spot for me.
Quote from: xech;747816The way you answered you brought it up. What you said was that you do not need different mechanics because combat mechanics cover it up for you. Which leaves us with no clear understanding of what you think about classes.
This is why people told you the OP is not about what you think you need but about what you want.
I don't think you're having the same conversation as everyone else.
the OP was clearly talking about mechanical differences within the class itself. So when I replied talking about "mechanics", that was the context in which I was using. Seems like you're the only one who thought I was talking about mechanics in general.
Quote from: Bobloblah;747813Bwa-? Maybe in Bizarro World that's what the OP meant. But, back here in the real world, the OP is talking about no mechanical differentiation within a class, as opposed to no mechanical differentiation (e.g. everything resolved by rolling D6 without modifiers). In fact, this topic has come up many times since the advent of 3.x and Feats. Never once in that time have I heard anyone argue for no mechanical differentiation, so if that's what you're juxtaposing, who the hell are you arguing with?
Huh?
I am sorry you totally missed me. Is my english so difficult to understand or is it so complicated what I am asking Sacrosant here which is to help us understand what he really thinks about classes (does he like having classes at all, does he like the mere existence of classes with no internal differentiation thus perhaps tons of them, or if not then what?)
To the OP, prefer some mechanical differentiation within a Class. ACKS hits this sweet spot for me (it looks like Next will be in the same ballpark), even though it follows the model of more distinct Classes (as opposed to fewer broad archetypes).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;747822I don't think you're having the same conversation as everyone else.
the OP was clearly talking about mechanical differences within the class itself. So when I replied talking about "mechanics", that was the context in which I was using. .
Yup, you still have not answered the OP. This is what I am trying to parse to you.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;747822Seems like you're the only one who thought I was talking about mechanics in general
Which is in fact what you did as I still have not understood what you think about classes.
Quote from: xech;747824Huh?
I am sorry you totally missed me. Is my english so difficult to understand or is it so complicated what I am asking Sacrosant here which is to help us understand what he really thinks about classes (does he like having classes at all, does he like the mere existence of classes with no internal differentiation thus perhaps tons of them, or if not then what?)
Oh, didn't miss you, you just missed the OP. To whit:
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722How much flexibility is just right for you in generating characters?
What part of that is unclear, particularly considering the thread topic? Sacrosanct (and more or less everybody other than you) responded to that.
Quote from: xech;747803Ok, what is the difference if a class offers the option of different mechanics in the class itself or another system that the class is specifically tailored for it (combat in our case)?
Which is an interesting question in and of itself, but isn't what the OP asked.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722How much flexibility is just right for you in generating characters?
Depends on the game.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722Are you ok with 2 fighters being almost identical mechanically or do you prefer the option to make an almost infinite amount of different fighters?
I like options, but I dislike the charop that almost inevitably seems to come with detailed character building.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722Are mechanics important in differentiating between characters of the same sort?
I think the most interesting differentiation is actually in *who* the character is. If the mechanics are around those areas, then sure.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747722What 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?
For a game like older D&D, it's kind of relevant. You're playing a guy, and his specialness is based on what happens to him, not based on the character idea you had. So, sure, whatever.
For a game where it's actually more about creating a specific character, it's more about whether I can express that specific character. In some ways, few, broad classes are better for that than than many specific ones.
Quote from: Bobloblah;747829What part of that is unclear, particularly considering the thread topic? Sacrosanct (and more or less everybody other than you) responded to that.
No, not really. I am sorry but what the fuck did Sacrosanct respond? What he said is that he likes flexibility in his game irrelevantly of what classes do. So what the fuck does he think about classes? It still seems that he does not think of classes anything at all which is not a direct answer to the question of the OP, at least not in a way I can understand it.
Quote from: Bobloblah;747829What part of that is unclear, particularly considering the thread topic? Sacrosanct (and more or less everybody other than you) responded to that.
.
Pretty much. OP asked how we feel about mechanical differentiation within the class itself, and I answered.
Not sure where to go from here other to just let it drop I guess.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;747836Pretty much. OP asked how we feel about mechanical differentiation within the class itself, and I answered.
Not sure where to go from here other to just let it drop I guess.
No 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.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747817Well, it's something to talk about on a discussion forum mate!
Nothing wrong with idle curiosity, I guess. :D
-clash
To answer the OP:
I prefer a system to have the flexibility that allows me to design the character I'm in the mood to play. This is why I tend to prefer point-buy systems such as GURPS and Hero.
For 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.
Their differences aren't just psychological or a minor stat change. Their skills and special training are different. The system should support that beyond the title "Fighter/Warrior". I 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.
Quote from: One Horse Town;747807I agree, which was why i started the thread.
I'll put you down as a 'want mechanical differences within class' then. ;)
Sure! :cool:
Quote from: One Horse Town;747807Also, to be clear I mentioned fighter as an example rather than strictly focus on them solely, but they are a good example.
To 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.
Much likey 1 over 2
I like Fighter as the vague base Archetype, then through your preference of suites of abilities turn your character into Hoplite, Gladiator, Skirmisher, Legionnaire, etc.
Compared to the sword&board fighter/archer skirmisher the other peeps were talking about where all they have to do is switch weapons and armor and they function the same. I no likey that.
I have a love/hate relationship with character flexibility. It appeals to me at a visceral, fat-kid-in-a-candy-store level, but as a GM, but it can turn character creation and development into a frickin' nightmare.
I think upfront complexity in character building offers diminishing returns. I am fine with playing, say, OD&D, in which the only thing to tell Ulfric the Berserker apart from Sir Godfrey the Knight-Errant or Louis-Philippe the Duelist are arms, armor and "fluff" like appearance and personality.
Nevertheless, I like it when class-based character creation systems offer maybe one or two other choices beyond class and/or race. ACKS has Proficiencies which are essentially Feats without Feat trees or "builds" plus Secondary Skills a la AD&D. Numenera has the adjective-noun-verb thing (Learned Nano who Talks to Machines! Charming Jack who Murders! Rugged Glaive who Rages!) that feels a lot of fun. And of course, having a lot of different classes (e.g. Duelist, Knight, Berserker in the example above) is another way of doing this. All of which are fun, but like I said, the absence of these mechanical tools is no dealbreaker for me.
Quote from: Doughdee222;747844Their differences aren't just psychological or a minor stat change. Their skills and special training are different. The system should support that beyond the title "Fighter/Warrior". I 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.
This is pretty much me as well.
I can play a Fighting Man who robs people, and this will be different than a Fighting Man of another personality. Still, it's nice to have the added option of being a Thief instead - and have different abilities to the standard Fighting Man. Likewise, I can play a Fighter who likes being in the wilderness as part of his personality, and this will be different. However, if I have the Ranger option, then I can successfully track creatures and other abilities, which changes how my character comes across and feels in play.
Usually I prefer non-class-based systems, but I'm fine with class-based ones that give a bunch of options. Given options, though, I do prefer character generation to be as fast and easy as possible.
I got my start in pen-and-paper RPGs with GURPS and 2nd Edition D&D, so I have always enjoyed mechanical differeneces between characters that have the same general type or class.
As I have gotten older, I prefer for those differences to be less and less complex. I would rather have Fighter -- master of offensive melee combat -- and Guardian, master of defensive melee combat, as two different classes.
The reason is simple - I want the class to do exactly what it says on the tin. I am tired of RPGs where the best bowman isn't the Archer class but instead some bizarre arrangement that would only be arrived at from looking over a Char-Op guide.
As for differences between two Warriors nowadays I prefer the option to give them different Vocations. The Warrior Thief is much different from the Warrior Soldier who is much different from the Warrior Sage. There also is the added advantage of speeding up character creation.
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.