Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anthony Terry" data-source="post: 6482116" data-attributes="member: 6776492">You are right that my poor English Comprehension is indeed prventing me from making the point i hope to make. The main 3 points im trying to make are as follows (i feel if i bullet point them it might help clarify, if i write another essay trying to explain ill probably end up confusing the issue further) :-1. What kind of pace is considered optimal for character progression, i know this is an unbelievably house ruled subject and will variary in nearlly every group but there must a norm, a benchmark that i should be looking at for example in my world currently the equivalent of a 14th level fighter in AD&D, would be a character with 24 talents in my game probably specialized in some kind of fighting style or particular weapon (10 starting, 14 gained) which from our experience works out at roughly half the power level of the AD&D equivalent. Do people feel that some would apreciate this change of pace, and does who dont can just change it, or would such a step from the now established "Rpg Norm" perhaps scare away a larger audience?2. When purchasing an RPG or setting are set classes still a requirement? Will people be willing to purchase something with just the framework for designing a character concept but suggests none? Or for people to buy into a setting, and feel like their sharing in the same world as everyone else, is some kind of set classes or possible progression tree like in LA a must? - again not stopping DM's from doing what they want, but if the internet has taught me anything its surprising how many people will take the NORM and quote it as law, especially in something that proves popular which i would obviously hope my idea would. - I feel trippy hippy is summarising my concerns perhaps better than i can. the points he makes about easy character generation concern me, as i worry in a time restricted world that RPG's do have to have some of their cousins (computer games) pick up and play element.3. Whos right? Garry or WOTC? Is a flagship campaign setting a must for any game to be truly successful? People have varying opinions on this and i by no intention mean to rehash the conversation my self but i would suggest that if not for the strength of Greyhawk for example D&D would have never proved so popular, ironic considering Gary himself often implied in his writings (imo) that setting specific material was bad for rpgs.</blockquote>

Verification