Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5818727" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>That doesn't make my argument a strawman. A strawman argument is a deliberately weak, insincere argument posited just for the purpose of knocking it down. Since I actually <strong>do</strong> think that's less than satisfying, it's kind of impossible for it to be a strawman. </p><p></p><p>But to your broader point, it's true, they can contribute in different ways.</p><p></p><p>However, that is still less than satisfying, for a few reasons. The one I want to talk about now involves dragging in a separate area of class design methodology: character archetype.</p><p></p><p>Any robust character archetype involves strengths and weaknesses inherent in the concept. For example, your typical "Dumb Muscle" character is very strong, but not so smart. Your typical "antihero" character is quite efficient, but not so likable. Your typical "Dapper Assassin" character is best when he only has to lift a finger if it results in someone getting a poisoned dart in the neck. One of my current characters is a gnome artificer who is great with machines, but who can't figure out people. I deliberately didn't invest a THING into her social skills, and it's great fun when I am forced into a social situation with her.</p><p></p><p>To not be able to model those weaknesses -- to be unable to make them "fun failures" -- would be a problem for a system.</p><p></p><p>So, weaknesses are <em>desirable</em>, from a character-building standpoint. </p><p></p><p>The challenge, from a game-design standpoint, is to make the weakness notable, without unintentionally crippling a character.</p><p></p><p>Which is why you assure some sort of basic level of competency -- nothing is an Always Fail or Always Succeed situation for a character. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. But what use should a druid be in an urban intrigue campaign? Personally, I'd prefer if a DM just told me right out: "This is going to be an urban intrigue campaign, don't bother to roll a druid or a ranger or a barbarian, because they will suck at what this campaign is about," rather than somehow forcing the DM to shoehorn barbarians and druids into his urban intrigue campaign, and giving druids and barbarians useful urban intrigue skills that make little to no sense as their character archetypes are really NOT in that vein. </p><p></p><p>In other words, not every character archetype is or should be valid in every kind of campaign. Though I'd prefer the "default" game should be big enough to have moments of exploration, roleplaying, and combat, I want each class to hit some minimum competency in all those areas, and I want the game to be clear about what each class is good at and what it is not so good at, DMs should also be able to take their games in one direction, featuring one or the other more prominently. And players should, too -- a DM who didn't put any limits in before character generation, and whose players all pick combat-heavy classes would be remiss if they didn't include a bunch of combat stuff for those characters to do. </p><p></p><p>I think it's pretty unsatisfying to force everyone to be equally competent at all areas of every kind of challenge.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5818727, member: 2067"] That doesn't make my argument a strawman. A strawman argument is a deliberately weak, insincere argument posited just for the purpose of knocking it down. Since I actually [B]do[/B] think that's less than satisfying, it's kind of impossible for it to be a strawman. But to your broader point, it's true, they can contribute in different ways. However, that is still less than satisfying, for a few reasons. The one I want to talk about now involves dragging in a separate area of class design methodology: character archetype. Any robust character archetype involves strengths and weaknesses inherent in the concept. For example, your typical "Dumb Muscle" character is very strong, but not so smart. Your typical "antihero" character is quite efficient, but not so likable. Your typical "Dapper Assassin" character is best when he only has to lift a finger if it results in someone getting a poisoned dart in the neck. One of my current characters is a gnome artificer who is great with machines, but who can't figure out people. I deliberately didn't invest a THING into her social skills, and it's great fun when I am forced into a social situation with her. To not be able to model those weaknesses -- to be unable to make them "fun failures" -- would be a problem for a system. So, weaknesses are [I]desirable[/I], from a character-building standpoint. The challenge, from a game-design standpoint, is to make the weakness notable, without unintentionally crippling a character. Which is why you assure some sort of basic level of competency -- nothing is an Always Fail or Always Succeed situation for a character. Sure. But what use should a druid be in an urban intrigue campaign? Personally, I'd prefer if a DM just told me right out: "This is going to be an urban intrigue campaign, don't bother to roll a druid or a ranger or a barbarian, because they will suck at what this campaign is about," rather than somehow forcing the DM to shoehorn barbarians and druids into his urban intrigue campaign, and giving druids and barbarians useful urban intrigue skills that make little to no sense as their character archetypes are really NOT in that vein. In other words, not every character archetype is or should be valid in every kind of campaign. Though I'd prefer the "default" game should be big enough to have moments of exploration, roleplaying, and combat, I want each class to hit some minimum competency in all those areas, and I want the game to be clear about what each class is good at and what it is not so good at, DMs should also be able to take their games in one direction, featuring one or the other more prominently. And players should, too -- a DM who didn't put any limits in before character generation, and whose players all pick combat-heavy classes would be remiss if they didn't include a bunch of combat stuff for those characters to do. I think it's pretty unsatisfying to force everyone to be equally competent at all areas of every kind of challenge. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
Top