Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fetfreak" data-source="post: 6170393" data-attributes="member: 6715498">Well in all honesty, that is the problem of a player and GM, not of a game. If a game is written in such a way that character depth should be explored and yet GM only encourages tactics and combat, it's only natural that players will only build combat characters. The game I'm working on (class less) is more focused on the story and mystery solving, so the players aren't too keen on making powerpuff characters.As for the balance. If powers and abilities are equally powerful and with a correct price tag (it all comes down to math) than the balance is achieved. It's not a game's problem some player made a bit weak character and other player a bit better one and GM should understand this and not punish the player for his choices. I don't see nothing wrong with specializations if they only work on&nbsp; their specialized field. That's just the way of the world. The trick&nbsp; would be to have as much as you can make specializations in the game (5,&nbsp; 10, 20) and yet only have 3, 4 of 5 needed roles. So players can make unique&nbsp; specialized characters and still fill a role.In my game, when it&nbsp; comes to damage dealers, you can focus on fire magic, on evil sacrifice,&nbsp; specialized weapon masters (any kind) and sudden strikers (rogue types), so you have many different ways of dealing damage. For battle control you can use tactical warriors (talents focused on stoping and moving the opponent around) or spell casters that focus on magic that controls the battlefield. Powers are equal when it comes down to math but their flare, appearance and the way you use them is worlds apart.Packages, backgrounds and what not are awesome way to introduce the game to new players, but I would never rule them as mandatory. They are a great option for players that don't want to bother with number crunching or just want to try out the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fetfreak, post: 6170393, member: 6715498"] Well in all honesty, that is the problem of a player and GM, not of a game. If a game is written in such a way that character depth should be explored and yet GM only encourages tactics and combat, it's only natural that players will only build combat characters. The game I'm working on (class less) is more focused on the story and mystery solving, so the players aren't too keen on making powerpuff characters. As for the balance. If powers and abilities are equally powerful and with a correct price tag (it all comes down to math) than the balance is achieved. It's not a game's problem some player made a bit weak character and other player a bit better one and GM should understand this and not punish the player for his choices. I don't see nothing wrong with specializations if they only work on their specialized field. That's just the way of the world. The trick would be to have as much as you can make specializations in the game (5, 10, 20) and yet only have 3, 4 of 5 needed roles. So players can make unique specialized characters and still fill a role. In my game, when it comes to damage dealers, you can focus on fire magic, on evil sacrifice, specialized weapon masters (any kind) and sudden strikers (rogue types), so you have many different ways of dealing damage. For battle control you can use tactical warriors (talents focused on stoping and moving the opponent around) or spell casters that focus on magic that controls the battlefield. Powers are equal when it comes down to math but their flare, appearance and the way you use them is worlds apart. Packages, backgrounds and what not are awesome way to introduce the game to new players, but I would never rule them as mandatory. They are a great option for players that don't want to bother with number crunching or just want to try out the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification