Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 4461865" data-attributes="member: 55271">I don't think it really matters what you start with, as long as you end up with non-dissociated mechanics that are fun to use.Generally I design a world and then make mechanics that both (a) work and (b) describe it, because I think it's generally more interesting to start with the awesome and then make the numbers work, rather than trying to figure out ways to make numbers sound awesome.Plus, I think your thesis is kinda broken. D&amp;D started out by kitbashing a wargame -- it was hardly a &quot;flavour-first&quot; design methodology.For example, paladins were weighted down with lots of limitations because they were considered a superior class. So what you're claiming is &quot;flavour-first&quot; design was, in fact, &quot;game-first&quot; design.But, on the flip-side, all of the rogue's non-combat abilities (finding traps, opening locks, etc.) are at their most useful during a tomb raider scenario.To me this complaint about the rogue not being able to backstab everything in sight is like the arcanist complaining that some creatures have spell resistance.You can't use your bestest ability all of the time?I weep you for. They're crocodile tears, mind you. But I weep for you.Then you probably shouldn't be playing a Knight of the Chalice in that campaign. Ditto to your Ranger complaint.Similarly, if you're playing in a campaign without a lot of combat, you shouldn't play a fighter. If you're playing in a campaign set entirely with an antimagic zone, you shouldn't play a wizard. If you're playing a campaign in which the PCs are an elite team of political assassins, you shouldn't play a paladin.Yada yada yada.Some people apparently want all classes to be all things at all times. Personally, I find that lack of variety pretty boring.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 4461865, member: 55271"] I don't think it really matters what you start with, as long as you end up with non-dissociated mechanics that are fun to use. Generally I design a world and then make mechanics that both (a) work and (b) describe it, because I think it's generally more interesting to start with the awesome and then make the numbers work, rather than trying to figure out ways to make numbers sound awesome. Plus, I think your thesis is kinda broken. D&D started out by kitbashing a wargame -- it was hardly a "flavour-first" design methodology. For example, paladins were weighted down with lots of limitations because they were considered a superior class. So what you're claiming is "flavour-first" design was, in fact, "game-first" design. But, on the flip-side, all of the rogue's non-combat abilities (finding traps, opening locks, etc.) are at their most useful during a tomb raider scenario. To me this complaint about the rogue not being able to backstab everything in sight is like the arcanist complaining that some creatures have spell resistance. You can't use your bestest ability all of the time? I weep you for. They're crocodile tears, mind you. But I weep for you. Then you probably shouldn't be playing a Knight of the Chalice in that campaign. Ditto to your Ranger complaint. Similarly, if you're playing in a campaign without a lot of combat, you shouldn't play a fighter. If you're playing in a campaign set entirely with an antimagic zone, you shouldn't play a wizard. If you're playing a campaign in which the PCs are an elite team of political assassins, you shouldn't play a paladin. Yada yada yada. Some people apparently want all classes to be all things at all times. Personally, I find that lack of variety pretty boring. [/QUOTE]

Verification