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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evildmguy" data-source="post: 1455968" data-attributes="member: 6092">First of all, what I bolded above is one reason why DND IS a very good system.  If I want to play a rogue, I advance in the rogue class, instead of worrying about all of the rogue skills that I might need to improve.  If I want to fight, I advance as fighter.  etc.  I find that non directed advancement does confuse new players, until they can get a handle on their character or what they want to do.  Second, I also agree that both can be done over the same time period.  What I like, though, is the incremental increases over time, to show how the skills are being improved.  Also, I like the option of increasing my character's skill in something, rather than having certain things automatically improve.  It is the old argument of the mid to high level SW Noble, never having fired a shot, that can take out a squad of stormtroopers.  I think this goes back to DNDs wargaming roots.  Wargaming is about fighting so each "level" that a squad gained increased their fighting ability, which was the point.  Now, though, we are seeing an evolution in role playing games where it isn't about fighting but the conflict and conflict can be more than fighting.  Other skills are being emphasized and are as valid as fighting skills.  Don't misunderstand me, though!  I understand the value of a good fight!  Most of the time, it is even better, and potentially more defining, when that noble can't defend herself!  In any case, I completely agree that both are valid designs.  It is up to the consumer to choose what they want to use based on what they find the most fun!  And fun is what it is all about to me!Good discussion!  Thanks!edg</blockquote>

Verification