Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6347841" data-attributes="member: 87792">This is a strawman.&nbsp; You can not have meaningful choice with all choices being equal.&nbsp; You certainly can't have a class based system where all choices are equal - classes are inherently dissimilar. The most you can do in an RPG is create a system where all choices are defensible&nbsp; on the power scale.&nbsp; Where picking the choice that you personally&nbsp; consider the most fun (whether this means thematic, tactically&nbsp; interesting, or just weird) is not obviously a choice that is going to&nbsp; lead to either your PC getting killed or your PC being deadweight and&nbsp; someone the rest of the party needs to make up for.&nbsp; That is what a&nbsp; balanced system is.Good.&nbsp; Because they can't.In short you want a balanced system rather than have optimisers overshadow everyone else.Agreed.That doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.You&nbsp; know, I'm not sure which of the two weapons is better.&nbsp; Neither of them&nbsp; are much use most of the time.&nbsp; And there are a lot of times when a&nbsp; knife you can hide in plain sight is more use than a bazooka.&nbsp; Balance&nbsp; doesn't say that &quot;The paperknife should be as good at penetrating tanks&nbsp; as the bazooka&quot;.&nbsp; It says that &quot;If you are going to present a paperknife as a combat weapon then&nbsp; there are frequent cases, such as being an operative the Ministry of&nbsp; Ungentlemanly Warfare, where a paperknife is superior to a bazooka.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And you don't get utterly hosed by trying to be an operative for the&nbsp; Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare because you aren't allowed to get into&nbsp; a situation where the paperknife is a very good tool for the job.I think such a game is a figment of your imagination.Define worse.One of the reasons I enjoy 4e is because after it character creation options in all&nbsp; other variants of D&amp;D feel bland to me.&nbsp; In any member of the 3.X&nbsp; family if I even think of playing a non-caster I start wanting to beat&nbsp; my head against a wall.&nbsp; It feels like wearing a straightjacket.&nbsp; And in&nbsp; AD&amp;D the thief, likewise.&nbsp; (And don't get started on the 1e Monk).My&nbsp; analogy here is the &quot;Fighter on a pogo stick&quot;.&nbsp; In theory it's possible&nbsp; to have a fighter bouncing round the dungeon on a pogo stick.&nbsp; In&nbsp; practice ... no one would.&nbsp; It would be a Darwin Award waiting to&nbsp; happen.But playing a Tier 4 or 5 class is also a Darwin&nbsp; Award waiting to happen.&nbsp; Fighter on a pogo stick is an inherently&nbsp; ridiculous concept.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with this being a poor&nbsp; option.&nbsp; And just about any game makes it obvious that in a pitched&nbsp; battle a paperknife is a worse weapon than a bazooka.&nbsp; The problem&nbsp; arises when the game signals otherwise.&nbsp; When it indicates that a rogue&nbsp; or thief is as good as a wizard (which it really isn't in any&nbsp; edition before 4th - and the 5th rogue is outstanding).&nbsp; Which makes the&nbsp; rogue not inherently different from a fighter-on-a-pogo-stick.Further,&nbsp; balance opens up options.&nbsp; How many oD&amp;D/AD&amp;D swashbucklers&nbsp; wearing doublet and hose or even light leather armour did you see?&nbsp; Not a&nbsp; lot because it was mechanically a bad choice.&nbsp; Again, this archetype&nbsp; was one of the ones thought of by the designers - but it doesn't work&nbsp; within the context of the game.So balance being samey is something I reject utterly as an idea.&nbsp; Balance is how you make effective concepts that aren't samey.That&nbsp; said, despite the range of effective character concepts being wider in a&nbsp; balanced system there was a huge mistake in 4e's design - and one&nbsp; that's almost never been done right in a class based game since 1974,&nbsp; although it was deeply enough woven into D&amp;D that it's been working&nbsp; fine almost since then.The question necessary when writing a class is not&nbsp; &quot;What would a member of this class do?&nbsp; How can we represent that?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; It's &quot;What experience would someone who wants to play this class in this&nbsp; game want?&nbsp; How can we give them that?&quot;&nbsp; And this is where almost all&nbsp; generic games (whether Fate or GURPS) have problems; in a generic game&nbsp; everyone is working off the same core rules, which channels them into&nbsp; the same play style and incentives.To illustrate I'm currently writing a <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DGwqN94t1BXhZYfNGNankrLO1UmD_Y6n1UrmHPHWkiE/edit#" target="_blank">4e Retroclone</a>,&nbsp; complete with classes that fit on a trifold.&nbsp; Some classes, like the 4e&nbsp; Warlord, really work well with the 4e basic experience, so the <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FwdLQxdfnfUn6jxPLM_S35l_IetWZFxVIZij4ar5Vtw/edit" target="_blank">Trifold Warlord</a>&nbsp; very definitely shows its roots - but when someone wants to play a&nbsp; Barbarian they normally want to play an unstoppable, hitty, smashy&nbsp; person who doesn't have to worry about things.&nbsp; Thus the <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/10M6PqKckAKFX7syx9QgGFDIAxEDxd3EL3Vpi6D77fjY/edit" target="_blank">Spirit Warrior</a> inspired by the Barbarian, Warden, and Werewolf.&nbsp; You can sandblast it and it will still&nbsp; keep coming at you, sometimes even after you've hurt it enough to kill&nbsp; it. But you've no encounter attacks to worry about, and no daily attacks&nbsp; either.&nbsp; You just keep using your basic attacks to obliterate enemies.&nbsp;&nbsp; And while conscious you can't be protected by the party Defender(s).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6347841, member: 87792"] This is a strawman. You can not have meaningful choice with all choices being equal. You [I]certainly[/I] can't have a class based system where all choices are equal - classes are inherently dissimilar. The most you can do in an RPG is create a system where all choices are [I]defensible[/I] on the power scale. Where picking the choice that you personally consider the most fun (whether this means thematic, tactically interesting, or just weird) is not obviously a choice that is going to lead to either your PC getting killed or your PC being deadweight and someone the rest of the party needs to make up for. That is what a balanced system is. Good. Because they can't. In short you want a balanced system rather than have optimisers overshadow everyone else. Agreed. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing either. You know, I'm not sure which of the two weapons is better. Neither of them are much use most of the time. And there are a lot of times when a knife you can hide in plain sight is more use than a bazooka. Balance doesn't say that "The paperknife should be as good at penetrating tanks as the bazooka". It says that "[I]If you are going to present a paperknife as a combat weapon [/I]then there are frequent cases, such as being an operative the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, where a paperknife is superior to a bazooka." And you don't get utterly hosed by trying to be an operative for the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare because you aren't allowed to get into a situation where the paperknife is a very good tool for the job. I think such a game is a figment of your imagination. Define worse. One of the reasons I enjoy 4e is because after it character creation options in all other variants of D&D feel bland to me. In any member of the 3.X family if I even think of playing a non-caster I start wanting to beat my head against a wall. It feels like wearing a straightjacket. And in AD&D the thief, likewise. (And don't get started on the 1e Monk). My analogy here is the "Fighter on a pogo stick". In theory it's possible to have a fighter bouncing round the dungeon on a pogo stick. In practice ... no one would. It would be a Darwin Award waiting to happen. But playing a Tier 4 or 5 class is [I]also[/I] a Darwin Award waiting to happen. Fighter on a pogo stick is an inherently ridiculous concept. There's nothing wrong with this being a poor option. And just about any game makes it obvious that in a pitched battle a paperknife is a worse weapon than a bazooka. The problem arises when the game signals otherwise. When it indicates that a rogue or thief is as good as a wizard (which it really [I]isn't[/I] in any edition before 4th - and the 5th rogue is outstanding). Which makes the rogue not inherently different from a fighter-on-a-pogo-stick. Further, balance opens up options. How many oD&D/AD&D swashbucklers wearing doublet and hose or even light leather armour did you see? Not a lot because it was mechanically a bad choice. Again, this archetype was one of the ones thought of by the designers - but it doesn't work within the context of the game. So balance being samey is something I reject utterly as an idea. Balance is how you make effective concepts that [I]aren't[/I] samey. That said, despite the range of effective character concepts being wider in a balanced system there was a huge mistake in 4e's design - and one that's almost never been done right in a class based game since 1974, although it was deeply enough woven into D&D that it's been working fine almost since then. The question necessary when writing a class is [I]not[/I] "What would a member of this class do? How can we represent that?" It's "What experience would someone who wants to play this class in this game want? How can we give them that?" And this is where almost all generic games (whether Fate or GURPS) have problems; in a generic game everyone is working off the same core rules, which channels them into the same play style and incentives. To illustrate I'm currently writing a [URL="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DGwqN94t1BXhZYfNGNankrLO1UmD_Y6n1UrmHPHWkiE/edit#"]4e Retroclone[/URL], complete with classes that fit on a trifold. Some classes, like the 4e Warlord, really work well with the 4e basic experience, so the [URL="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FwdLQxdfnfUn6jxPLM_S35l_IetWZFxVIZij4ar5Vtw/edit"]Trifold Warlord[/URL] very definitely shows its roots - but when someone wants to play a Barbarian they normally want to play an unstoppable, hitty, smashy person who doesn't have to worry about things. Thus the [URL="https://docs.google.com/document/d/10M6PqKckAKFX7syx9QgGFDIAxEDxd3EL3Vpi6D77fjY/edit"]Spirit Warrior[/URL] inspired by the Barbarian, Warden, and Werewolf. You can sandblast it and it will [I]still[/I] keep coming at you, sometimes even after you've hurt it enough to kill it. But you've no encounter attacks to worry about, and no daily attacks either. You just keep using your basic attacks to obliterate enemies. And while conscious you can't be protected by the party Defender(s). [/QUOTE]

Verification