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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Keldryn" data-source="post: 3517225" data-attributes="member: 11999">Very true.  Or if you are adapting a setting to a game, you may need to make allowances here and there due to the fact that it is a game.  It sucks if you're playing a Star Wars game, for example, and the GM says "nope, you can't be a Jedi or have Force powers.  Luke, Vader, Yoda, and the Emperor are the *only* ones who can."Of course the SW RPG has also struggled -- in all of its incarnations -- with balancing Jedi and non-Jedi characters.  Restricting the group to only one person being allowed to play a Jedi isn't really fair to the other players who want to play one, regardless of how it is determined.  The "Knights of the Old Republic" era or prequel era settings probably make for a better game setting than does the time period depicted in the original films.  Yes, I did play Stormbringer.  My memory is a bit hazy, as this was around 1994-95.  I'm not saying that we didn't have fun with it.  But I still don't see it as a fair or balanced game design.  Paranoia was very random and not well-balanced, but it was a lot of fun.  In short bursts.I'm not arguing with that.  However, why couldn't the game just allow players to make the characters like that on their own?  Yes, spellcasting is exceedingly rare in the setting, but it's not that big of a stretch to say that the three spellcasting PCs are the only individuals in their entire country that can do so.Pretty much every RPG works like this.  Except the previously mentioned Paranoia, of course.  But that's the case whether or not character creation is mostly dictated by random die rolls or whether players are allowed to build the characters they want to play.</blockquote>

Verification