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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6247681" data-attributes="member: 177">Actually, I'd say that other systems make it more difficult to see the power discrepancy between its types.  D&D has levels, and in theory, everyone of a given level is supposed to be roughly on par.  Other games don't have levels, so the disparity between characters simply isn't so obvious as you don't have the level as the basis of comparison.But don't kid yourself - that you can create a character with no combat skill doesn't somehow mean that you'll have a great play experience if you do that. D&D admits what it is - a game that's going to have a lot of combat.  It takes some steps to make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot by accident, by making sure that each character has at least some relevant and useful capabilities.  Yes, someone who has system mastery can still make problems at the upper end of the scale.  But this problem also exists in other systems - I experienced it myself in White Wolf, Shadowrun, among others.Basically, since they tried to at least keep you from shooting yourself in the foot at the bottom of the scale, we then gripe that they didn't do it perfectly, so you can still shoot yourself in the foot at the top end.  Note that FIasco is not really build for campaign play, so ongoing power levels aren't an issue.  Also note, for FATE and Cortex+ (the basis of MHRP and Leverage) that they largely avoid the question of character power levels by largely avoiding character advancement.  They instead opt for character *development*, which is not the same thing - characters can change without going up much in power for rather long periods of time.</blockquote>

Verification