Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Asmor" data-source="post: 5418903" data-attributes="member: 1154">I think class-based games require a great deal more work than point-based ones, which may explain the popularity of point-based ones.Well, I think you've got it backwards; where there are levels, there are usually classes. White Wolf's system, for example, has classes but not levels.Thanks!Without wanting to derail the thread too much, I'd agree that prior to 3rd edition D&amp;D had less of an emphasis of combat, but if anything I'd say the combat focus peaked in 3e and in 4e the pendulum has ever-so-slightly started to move back the other way. YMMV.Specifically, I'm talking about the (perceived) proportion of the rules dedicated to combat as opposed to exploration and interaction.M&amp;M is a d20 derivative (and even a specific example I give of something which I consider to fall under the umbrella of D&amp;D for this discussion).I was always under the impression that Tunnels &amp; Trolls was a retroclone. I've just looked it up and see that I'm wrong about that. Not familiar with the system at all, though.Was not aware of the existence of Fantasy Hero. Presumably, as a Hero derivative, it's going to be point based, and so is different from D&amp;D in implementation if not in focus.I'd never heard of Chivalry &amp; Sorcery, and though I know the name I'm not familiar with Ars Magica.Not familiar with Rolemaster, but from some a brief look it does seem to hit a lot of D&amp;D's mechanical notes.Actually, I'd call &quot;Nosferatu&quot; or &quot;Ventrue&quot; classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Asmor, post: 5418903, member: 1154"] I think class-based games require a great deal more work than point-based ones, which may explain the popularity of point-based ones. Well, I think you've got it backwards; where there are levels, there are usually classes. White Wolf's system, for example, has classes but not levels. Thanks! Without wanting to derail the thread too much, I'd agree that prior to 3rd edition D&D had less of an emphasis of combat, but if anything I'd say the combat focus peaked in 3e and in 4e the pendulum has ever-so-slightly started to move back the other way. YMMV. Specifically, I'm talking about the (perceived) proportion of the rules dedicated to combat as opposed to exploration and interaction. M&M is a d20 derivative (and even a specific example I give of something which I consider to fall under the umbrella of D&D for this discussion). I was always under the impression that Tunnels & Trolls was a retroclone. I've just looked it up and see that I'm wrong about that. Not familiar with the system at all, though. Was not aware of the existence of Fantasy Hero. Presumably, as a Hero derivative, it's going to be point based, and so is different from D&D in implementation if not in focus. I'd never heard of Chivalry & Sorcery, and though I know the name I'm not familiar with Ars Magica. Not familiar with Rolemaster, but from some a brief look it does seem to hit a lot of D&D's mechanical notes. Actually, I'd call "Nosferatu" or "Ventrue" classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification