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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5643605" data-attributes="member: 54877">I think we have different ideas of what constituties brittle, or we are failing to communicate somehow. This would be "brittle" in the software design concept, concerned with loose coupling between discrete modules with well-defined public interfaces, or something else? Because that kind of interface is the one I mean. It's true that if you don't go with something like Hero System or GURPS (or 3E to the max) that you will make some character concepts more difficult than others, but I see that as unavoidable if you want to avoid the kind of problems that Danny has listed. Plus, I don't think Mearls means to move in that direction, whatever else he has planned. As for the labeling and fluff off conceptual concepts, I wasn't so much meaning that to be only about (bad) siloing, but about confusion on the role a particular element is intended to play. The 3E bard (at lauch) was a classic example that had nothing directly to do with siloing issues. They tried to make "bard" mean several different things, and it didn't work very well. The 3.5 version wasn't completely clean either, but by then they had tightened up the boundaries enough that it worked well enough for its intent (when useful). "We'll have a guy dabble in arcane magic, with an armor restriction while wearing armor, and doing some rogue skills with face skills thrown in, and buff mainly allies with magical music and fight with weapons ..." - that's a character concept in the right campaign, not a class! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel    :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" /></blockquote>

Verification