Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9299003" data-attributes="member: 18">I'm confused. You're quoting the exact same bit I did, but acting like I didn't? How are you getting &quot;4 classes&quot; from this?Also I don't think he got outvoted - why would he have had a vote? He wasn't a game designer (in terms of his role at WotC) back then and he still isn't as far as I can tell! I don't think he got input because he's still saying stuff like &quot;A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch&quot;, which is trite and obvious, and fails to understand why they're not the same class.Shadowdark has 14 official classes so far, so yeah, more than D&amp;D 5E. It has fewer in the main book, but they very rapidly started adding them. So that rather runs against your argument! Particularly it goes with the &quot;narrow class design, just make more classes!&quot; approach, rather than the &quot;four broad classes, everything else is a subclass or just a way of operating within that class&quot; approach - which has continually proven relatively unpopular. DCC is OSR using race-as-class. It's got an audience, but it's not hugely popular and it's also not using the broad approach to classes, just an extreme OSR one.Even games that look like they're going to use the &quot;broad classes, specialize within them&quot; are often actually fake-outs. Like Worlds Without Number looks like it has three/four classes - but then it actually turns out to be taking a more Shadowdark-like approach with a whole bunch of classes further into the book.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9299003, member: 18"] I'm confused. You're quoting the exact same bit I did, but acting like I didn't? How are you getting "4 classes" from this? Also I don't think he got outvoted - why would he have had a vote? He wasn't a game designer (in terms of his role at WotC) back then and he still isn't as far as I can tell! I don't think he got input because he's still saying stuff like "A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch", which is trite and obvious, and fails to understand why they're not the same class. Shadowdark has [I]14[/I] official classes so far, so yeah, [I]more[/I] than D&D 5E. It has fewer in the main book, but they very rapidly started adding them. So that rather runs against your argument! Particularly it goes with the "narrow class design, just make more classes!" approach, rather than the "four broad classes, everything else is a subclass or just a way of operating within that class" approach - which has continually proven relatively unpopular. DCC is OSR using race-as-class. It's got an audience, but it's not hugely popular and it's also not using the broad approach to classes, just an extreme OSR one. Even games that look like they're going to use the "broad classes, specialize within them" are often actually fake-outs. Like Worlds Without Number looks like it has three/four classes - but then it actually turns out to be taking a more Shadowdark-like approach with a whole bunch of classes further into the book. [/QUOTE]

Verification