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 LIVE! 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
Are Knights and Cavaliers the same thing?
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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6558523" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Failed analogy. Chess is inflexible, sure, because it's not a RP game, but an abstract war game. RPGs in general need to be more flexible that chess. How flexible? Well, I believe we can agree that they need to be at least flexible enough to cover the needs of their genera. More flexibility wouldn't be a bad thing, but it might come with a cost in some other area.</p><p></p><p>And that's really where your analysis falls down. I don't agree that flexibility is in and of itself neutral. I think that it is a good thing all on its own. However, increased flexibility comes with costs. For example, increased flexibility in chess might comes with increased complexity, decreased focus of play, and decreased game balance. Since chess is a game that is intended to be an elegant two person competitive game, increasing flexibility at the cost of those strengths might be poor design. Chess for example has barely a page of rules. 3.X D&D on the other hand eventually reached a rule set in the 10's of thousands of pages, in part because it was prizing flexibility. 3.X gave tons of options to players to create all sorts of different archetypes. But it did so at the expense of increasing complexity, decreasing balance, and rules bloat - all of which are negatives in and of themselves. </p><p></p><p>If in fact you could achieve the same level of flexibility and freedom to play any archetype with a smaller rules set, that had more balance, this would in general be a good thing. One thousand different classes means 3000 different pages of rules all on its own. Yet a quick survey of the classes shows that the vast majority of them are very similar, and the vast majority of the PrC's in common use are even more simple. Further, a quick survey shows that many archetypes were revisited several times with slightly different mechanics often overlapping and stacking mechanics. And even if flexibility was in and of itself neutral, if that was the only way to bring it about, it would be on the net a negative.</p><p></p><p>Class systems themselves have good and bad features. If the class system becomes too costly, it's worth considering a skill based design. If your classes proliferate too much, it's worth considering taking two similar classes and merging them into a single class that can largely simulate either one through build choices. My feeling is that somewhere around 12-20 classes in your system (the exact number might depend on your other system details), you're doing it wrong and rather than keeping piling on the classes you need to revise your original classes.</p><p></p><p>In my opinion, in a system like 3.X that didn't happen for reasons that have nothing to do with good game design. First, there was the economic consideration - more pages of rules meant more books to sell and more profits. And secondly, they were in a situation where patching the system by extending it cost less than revising what was already out there to meet new standards. So while it was obvious from a very early point that the 3.X fighter had too conservative of a design, it was easier to replace or enhance the concept through extensions than revise the base class even though the later would have produced a better design.</p><p></p><p>The various reboots to 3.X (Pathfinder, 4e, 5e) all attempt to address that concern in their own way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6558523, member: 4937"] Failed analogy. Chess is inflexible, sure, because it's not a RP game, but an abstract war game. RPGs in general need to be more flexible that chess. How flexible? Well, I believe we can agree that they need to be at least flexible enough to cover the needs of their genera. More flexibility wouldn't be a bad thing, but it might come with a cost in some other area. And that's really where your analysis falls down. I don't agree that flexibility is in and of itself neutral. I think that it is a good thing all on its own. However, increased flexibility comes with costs. For example, increased flexibility in chess might comes with increased complexity, decreased focus of play, and decreased game balance. Since chess is a game that is intended to be an elegant two person competitive game, increasing flexibility at the cost of those strengths might be poor design. Chess for example has barely a page of rules. 3.X D&D on the other hand eventually reached a rule set in the 10's of thousands of pages, in part because it was prizing flexibility. 3.X gave tons of options to players to create all sorts of different archetypes. But it did so at the expense of increasing complexity, decreasing balance, and rules bloat - all of which are negatives in and of themselves. If in fact you could achieve the same level of flexibility and freedom to play any archetype with a smaller rules set, that had more balance, this would in general be a good thing. One thousand different classes means 3000 different pages of rules all on its own. Yet a quick survey of the classes shows that the vast majority of them are very similar, and the vast majority of the PrC's in common use are even more simple. Further, a quick survey shows that many archetypes were revisited several times with slightly different mechanics often overlapping and stacking mechanics. And even if flexibility was in and of itself neutral, if that was the only way to bring it about, it would be on the net a negative. Class systems themselves have good and bad features. If the class system becomes too costly, it's worth considering a skill based design. If your classes proliferate too much, it's worth considering taking two similar classes and merging them into a single class that can largely simulate either one through build choices. My feeling is that somewhere around 12-20 classes in your system (the exact number might depend on your other system details), you're doing it wrong and rather than keeping piling on the classes you need to revise your original classes. In my opinion, in a system like 3.X that didn't happen for reasons that have nothing to do with good game design. First, there was the economic consideration - more pages of rules meant more books to sell and more profits. And secondly, they were in a situation where patching the system by extending it cost less than revising what was already out there to meet new standards. So while it was obvious from a very early point that the 3.X fighter had too conservative of a design, it was easier to replace or enhance the concept through extensions than revise the base class even though the later would have produced a better design. The various reboots to 3.X (Pathfinder, 4e, 5e) all attempt to address that concern in their own way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Are Knights and Cavaliers the same thing?
Top