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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5381624" data-attributes="member: 23240">There is no reason a setting can't. There is a reason why it, IMO, should not. And the reason is threefold:1. It confuses the correspondence between the system and the game world. When you have "classes" that, in the setting, mean drastically different things, the "class" loses meaning. In effect, by trying to have options 1 and 2 together, you are left with having option 3 (classes as purely mechanical constructs). It also confuses the correspondence between classes. If there is a paladin class, can I just play a religious, honorable fighter? And if I can, what is the (in-setting) difference between such fighter and a paladin? 2. Having both archetypal and narrow classes creates a false picture of class demography. People who read your game will think that all the classes are similarly numerous - they would assume there is a lot more druids, paladins etc. that you plan in your setting. And if you specifically state that it's not like that, they will scratch their heads and ask "so why is there a single class for thousands of soldiers, knights, bandits and duelists, while a single order of twenty elven psionic paladins get their own?".3. It's very hard to balance. Narrow classes have a lot of thematic limitations. They are either as powerful as others, which makes them globally weaker because they are limited, or more powerful to offset the limitation, which makes them too powerful when they act inside their limits. In effect, you leave balancing to the GM, as he is responsible to create adventures in such a way that specialists may shine but not too much. If balance is important for the game, such situation means that the designer failed."Thematically strong" is something much different from "detailed". You don't need a lot of flavor text or rules to make something interesting. That's why I used the word "archetypes", not "generic categories". An archetype is something that our thinking naturally resonates with, something that is a common element in many stories from different times and different authors. That's why I suggested basing the classes on books that inspire you, not on existing RPG material. Archetype is not about what exactly somebody can do. Archetype is about a role in a story. The same archetype encompasses Merlin in Arthurian legends and hackers in Gibson's cyberpunk novels; the same archetype encompasses Paul Atreides and Neo. But Galahad and Conan are definitely different archetypes, despite both fighting with swords.You only create classes for distinct groups that exist in your setting. You don't need a separate class for every character.The point is: don't create a class that represents characters strongly varied in style and abilities. There is much less difference between a knight and a paladin than between a knight and a pirate or a tribal warrior. If paladin is a separate class, the other three definitely shouldn't be combined into one.</blockquote>

Verification