Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4456161" data-attributes="member: 5889">That is my opinion. When it comes down to, all mechanics in a roleplaying serve one purpose....to allow a person to play an archetype. Every character is an archetype...the holy knight, the smooth talker, the thug, etc. Now sometimes people will merge archetypes and make a tweak here or there, but archetypes is what the game is all about.The most critical requirement of every roleplaying system is the ability of the system to model archetypes. To that end, flavor first design is paramount.However, the thing about mechanics is that there are 1000's of ways to model archetypes. Some work better than others. Some work just as well as others, but also fit the flavor of the game better, etc. The evolution of the roleplaying system is a continual attempt to fit mechanics that model archetypes and that can be run smoothly at a table with a bunch of people that aren't computers.To the OP's paladin example. 3e's paladin was a holy knight with a code. That's an archetype. But the mechanics tightened the archetype more than was needed. The rules don't need to tell me who my paladin hangs out with, it needs to tell me what a holy knight can do...what ability do I have to heal the injured, fight off evil, and gave a commanding speech to rally those around me. So in 4e we have another holy knight. But they focused the mechanics on what needed to have mechanics, and let the flavor more tend to itself. Its still flavor first, its just a change in mechanics to better adapt that archetype for the players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 4456161, member: 5889"] That is my opinion. When it comes down to, all mechanics in a roleplaying serve one purpose....to allow a person to play an archetype. Every character is an archetype...the holy knight, the smooth talker, the thug, etc. Now sometimes people will merge archetypes and make a tweak here or there, but archetypes is what the game is all about. The most critical requirement of every roleplaying system is the ability of the system to model archetypes. To that end, flavor first design is paramount. However, the thing about mechanics is that there are 1000's of ways to model archetypes. Some work better than others. Some work just as well as others, but also fit the flavor of the game better, etc. The evolution of the roleplaying system is a continual attempt to fit mechanics that model archetypes and that can be run smoothly at a table with a bunch of people that aren't computers. To the OP's paladin example. 3e's paladin was a holy knight with a code. That's an archetype. But the mechanics tightened the archetype more than was needed. The rules don't need to tell me who my paladin hangs out with, it needs to tell me what a holy knight can do...what ability do I have to heal the injured, fight off evil, and gave a commanding speech to rally those around me. So in 4e we have another holy knight. But they focused the mechanics on what needed to have mechanics, and let the flavor more tend to itself. Its still flavor first, its just a change in mechanics to better adapt that archetype for the players. [/QUOTE]

Verification