Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6176812" data-attributes="member: 42582">There can be classes that are different in capabilities, and hence in archetpye, but nevertheless are comparable in effectiveness, if by that we mean something like "enabling the player of the character to impose his/her will on the shared fiction". This can be true even if we confine the scope of the fiction in question to combat: for instance, I would say it is true of the sorcerer and the fighter/cleric in my 4e game.And there can be PC build systems in which PCs are "homogenous mechanical constructs" and yet express different archetypes - this is the general tendency taken by "free descriptor" PC build systems like Over the Edge, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP (not fully free descriptor, but close to it), 13th Age (with its backgrounds), etc. 4e's skill system is not free descriptor, but also works very similarly to these systems.In these cases, the divergence in archetype is expressed not in mechanical resolution system, but in the fiction that each PC generates. For instance, in 4e one PC might engage social skill challenges using Intimidation, another using Diplomacy. If there skill bonuses are the same, then the players of each may have the same chance of getting what they want out of the skill challenge. But this doesn't mean that there is no diversity of character or of outcome. In one case, skill challenge success results in the NPC being scared. In the other case, it results in the NPC being persuaded. These are importantly different outcomes. These narrative difference are the essence of free-descriptor games and that style of play.This also relates to the idea of a player imposing his/her will upon the fiction via his/her PC. If a player is playing a barbarian, I would expect that "imposition of the will" would involve a fair bit of slaying. If a player is playing a bard, "imposition of the will" is likely to involve different things - persuading and tricking people, for instance. If a game system lets me make a PC that lends itself to pushing the fiction one way rather than another, I want the system to support me in that respect. Conversely, if a game lets me build a bard PC, but then offers me no opportunity for imposing my will upon the fiction via my PC persuading and tricking people - if, in effect, it makes me play my bard like a poor cousin to the barbarian - then it is not really a system I want to play.Also, I'm with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] (I think) and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]: in a system with levels, a "sidekick" PC, or a "weaker" PC, is simply lower level. Otherwise, what do levels even mean?That is a long long way from any sort of RPG experience I'm interested. My job - given that the game works, which the game that I play does - is to frame situations within the fiction that speak to the players through both (i) the fictional position and concerns of their PCs, and (ii) their evinced metagame concerns. The players then engage those situations via their PCs.If I frame boring situations then I'm doing a bad job. If the situations I frame consistently speak to only some of the players but not all of them, then I'm not doing my job properly. If the action resolution mechanics don't give the players the resources and capabilities that they need to engage and resolve those situations, then we're playing the wrong game.Odysseus is cunning, a great fighter, and strong: he has a bow that only he may string. In 4e, at least, he's an archer warlord (INT or WIS secondary, take your pick).</blockquote>

Verification