Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 6347910" data-attributes="member: 6685730">I beg to differ.&nbsp; Why shouldn't all rules be equally accessible to all PCs?&nbsp; As I've mentioned before, class design is a popular concept when discussing game balance.&nbsp; Throw out classes.&nbsp; Let the players choose whatever powers they want for their characters - whatever rules they want to use.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&amp;downloadid=1068" target="_blank">My sharebrewed game does this</a>.&nbsp; Now, to my knowledge, Morrus hasn't tried it, so it might bore the heck out of him.&nbsp; But the same concept was used in <a href="http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Skyrim" target="_blank">Skyrim</a>: you get better at what you do, and you can do anything.&nbsp; Skyrim was a far cry from boring.Saying that Fate and GURPS have the same balance, or class-appeal, problems is bold.&nbsp; Two more dissimilar games have I never seen.Are you saying, then, that balanced classes each need their own rulebook?&nbsp; Or just that the magic subsystems of D&amp;D add enough interest?The two questions you pose sound to me like:1) Which of the existing rules would a member of this class use?2) What new rules to we need to write for a member of this class?(1) places class-creation in a later part of the game-writing process, and wraps up fairly neatly.&nbsp; (2) requires that classes be written early, even first, so that the rest of the rules can be written for the classes.&nbsp; And suggests that writing more classes is a god-awful headache, requiring more sourcebooks.&nbsp; Did I interpret your questions correctly?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 6347910, member: 6685730"] I beg to differ. Why shouldn't all rules be equally accessible to all PCs? As I've mentioned before, class design is a popular concept when discussing game balance. Throw out classes. Let the players choose whatever powers they want for their characters - whatever rules they want to use. [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&downloadid=1068"]My sharebrewed game does this[/URL]. Now, to my knowledge, Morrus hasn't tried it, so it might bore the heck out of him. But the same concept was used in [URL="http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Skyrim"]Skyrim[/URL]: you get better at what you do, and you can do anything. Skyrim was a far cry from boring. Saying that Fate and GURPS have the same balance, or class-appeal, problems is bold. Two more dissimilar games have I never seen. Are you saying, then, that balanced classes each need their own rulebook? Or just that the magic subsystems of D&D add enough interest? The two questions you pose sound to me like: 1) Which of the existing rules would a member of this class use? 2) What new rules to we need to write for a member of this class? (1) places class-creation in a later part of the game-writing process, and wraps up fairly neatly. (2) requires that classes be written early, even first, so that the rest of the rules can be written [I]for the classes[/I]. And suggests that writing more classes is a god-awful headache, requiring more sourcebooks. Did I interpret your questions correctly? [/QUOTE]

Verification