Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 990031" data-attributes="member: 1106">Not if they're wise, although the temptation would be overwhelming.  Turning D&D into a skill-based melange would make it like every other RPG out there that looks better on paper than it plays.  We've currently got a hybrid of simple, fast and archetype-strong class mechanics and flexible and expandable skill-and-feat mechanics.I think it's not out of line to assume that a fair proportion of D&D's popularity is built on those archetype-strong roots, and yet, it suffered from lack of flexibility, so there was a need to take some steps towards skill-based mechanics.  However, pushing it further in the skill direction would do the following:1) Dilute class archetypes, which are arguably D&D's lifeblood.  This is a biggie that people take for granted; it outweighs most of the other points.  When you can no longer say "4th level Ranger" and have any idea of what a character can do, that's gone too far.  The Fighter and Rogue are taking steps in that direction, but quite not too far yet, IMO.2) Increase bookkeeping, system learning time and preparation time.  Some of us need computer programs mainly to keep track of skills and feats, right?  If 4E stands for good design it should reduce and streamline that overhead, not cause it to bloat further.  This is another biggie - increase preparation time and you decrease the game's popularity.  One reason why I think people return to D&D is that it's easy to write adventures for.3) Cause more balance issues.  Recombination of different skills and feats causes unforeseen consequences, and beyond the core books, it's already a bit of a lucky dip to see whether adding feats and other modular components weakens game further or not.  Probably the least compelling reason, but there nonetheless.The designer in all of us would love to reduce D&D to a minimum number of classes (say, a Magic-User class, a Skilled-Up class and a Fighting class) and just throw customisation rules (i.e. skills, feats, choices of special abilities etc.) at it.  From a mechanical design perspective, it's an elegant solution.  From an archetype and character identity perspective, it cuts part of the heart out of the game.  No longer are you a Paladin; you're just another fighty character who chose arbitrary feats and skills X, Y and Z, which if you step back and look, are intended to form a theme.  You need only look at primarily skill-based systems to see how much weaker this is than having a solid class archetype to hang a character hook from.  I can't emphasise this enough; some of D&D's greatest strengths come from what you can already assume about a Wizard, or a Ranger, and about the implied setting.  The game is powerful because that work is done for you, and you can then build upon, subtract from, or put a new twist on that material.  Modularise it and sap the identity from it, and there's no foundation for a "Wizard with a twist", because you can't assume what a wizard is any more.  Likewise, take away all the quirky fluff which builds D&D's implied setting, and you'll have to build up a setting from scratch as you would for Fudge, as opposed to build upon and subtract from a massive amount of material, from elves to dungeons to thieves guilds, as you do D&D.</blockquote>

Verification