Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8217531" data-attributes="member: 85870">This exact kind of thing, more specifically with D&D 3.5, but identical in concept, was what precipitated my first hints of discontent with D&D as a system back in 2009.Even before I knew anything about GNS theory, Robin Laws, PbtA, or anything else, this sort of thing started brewing my discontent with the d20 "chassis."Why was it so dang hard to model characters from fiction? Why did you have to pile on 10, 11, 12 levels of mish-mashed classes and prestige classes, just so a character could even vaguely resemble how he/she is presented in their fictional universe?If the claim is that the "rules should model the physics of the world," then D&D's class-based structure fails that premise right from the start.For a long time my solution was to then try to bend the D&D 3.5 rules every which way to hold it together. It's why I bought splatbooks---I was looking for the exact perfect combination of classes/prestige classes/feats that could effectively model Specific Character Concept X.Even now, the #1 thing that holds me back from re-embracing D&D 5e (or Pathfinder 2) isn't hit points, or tactical combat, or that the assumed mode of play is "GM fiat has to cover all of the rules gaps." It's that going back into a class-based system feels like a straitjacket.Which, once again, is another in a never-ending stream of evidences that yes, system matters.*Edit: FFG Star Wars' "talent tree" system is about as far into a "class/level" based system I'm willing to journey these days. It isn't my ideal, but at least buying cross-tree talents is pretty straightforward, and the rules support it out of the gate. It's still probably more restrictive than I'd prefer, but I enjoy the narrative dice mechanic immensely, which covers a multitude of sins.</blockquote>

Verification