Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8057069" data-attributes="member: 18">This was honestly the best thing about Diamond Throne. The setting was quite neat, and the art and so on were good, but the classes were brilliant. And yes, as you say, this was the result of them being designed based on how people actually want to play, what they actually like in a class, rather than pre-defined notions of what a class &quot;should&quot; be (according to who? as they say in Wikipedia), which is how most games, including 5E's actual release (playtest was more daring) tend to approach classes.I'm actually somewhat surprised we haven't seen more class-based games (including video games) approach class design this way - i.e. looking at the archetypes and playstyles players have in their minds, at what they're looking for, at what really excites them. Though when I think about it, an awful lot of PtbA classes do lean towards this - and indeed, the PtbA games which don't do this are the ones I've liked a lot less, where instead a narrow concept comes first, and strictly limits everything (unfortunately that includes most of the modern-supernatural/urban fantasy PtbA games).I'm a bit disappointed here because I have little interest in the Cypher system (I genuinely don't like it, based on Numenera - I get the concept, but I don't think it's well implemented on several levels, though again I am going on Numenera here), and it won't reflect that cool &quot;player idea/playstyle first&quot; bit of design Arcana Unearthed had, because it takes the opposite approach (with generic classes). Whereas a 5E version of AU/DT could be fantastic, if designed right and made tight rules-wise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8057069, member: 18"] This was honestly the best thing about Diamond Throne. The setting was quite neat, and the art and so on were good, but the classes were brilliant. And yes, as you say, this was the result of them being designed based on how people actually want to play, what they actually like in a class, rather than pre-defined notions of what a class "should" be (according to who? as they say in Wikipedia), which is how most games, including 5E's actual release (playtest was more daring) tend to approach classes. I'm actually somewhat surprised we haven't seen more class-based games (including video games) approach class design this way - i.e. looking at the archetypes and playstyles players have in their minds, at what they're looking for, at what really excites them. Though when I think about it, an awful lot of PtbA classes do lean towards this - and indeed, the PtbA games which don't do this are the ones I've liked a lot less, where instead a narrow concept comes first, and strictly limits everything (unfortunately that includes most of the modern-supernatural/urban fantasy PtbA games). I'm a bit disappointed here because I have little interest in the Cypher system (I genuinely don't like it, based on Numenera - I get the concept, but I don't think it's well implemented on several levels, though again I am going on Numenera here), and it won't reflect that cool "player idea/playstyle first" bit of design Arcana Unearthed had, because it takes the opposite approach (with generic classes). Whereas a 5E version of AU/DT could be fantastic, if designed right and made tight rules-wise. [/QUOTE]

Verification