Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8942847" data-attributes="member: 71699">One thing to anticipate is increased playtesting costs, because your available combinations of abilities will be greatly increased. That's one reason D&amp;D has stuck with class packages. If you deconstruct the design, you can see how much easier it makes both initial playtesting and later additions. The latter is well-worth considering, because if you want a balanced game, anything added must be tested against everything already there. Of course, for a local game balance might not be a consideration, and in all probability players will explore only a small part of the design space.Exactly. That's one of the common approaches to designability problem I outline above. You set some rules that limit combinations. Examples include<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Prerequisites</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Exclusions (if you take X, you cannot take Y)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Recurrence (as you mention)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Classes, backgrounds, species (as you mention)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Costs (a useful balancing tool is to cost a feat at 2 ability points (just like an ASI) and price each ability in feats and half-feats using the mechanical value of ability scores as your baselines</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Uniqueness (which can also be across the players)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">World-based prerequisites (polities, titles, artifacts, seasons)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">One from A, one from B divisions (so you split the more desirable abilities into their own column, and make a pick from each column)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Escalating cost (so Y costs more if you already have Z)</li>
</ul>As others have said, you can readily find inspiration for such limits in existing game systems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8942847, member: 71699"] One thing to anticipate is increased playtesting costs, because your available combinations of abilities will be greatly increased. That's one reason D&D has stuck with class packages. If you deconstruct the design, you can see how much easier it makes both initial playtesting and later additions. The latter is well-worth considering, because if you want a balanced game, anything added must be tested against everything already there. Of course, for a local game balance might not be a consideration, and in all probability players will explore only a small part of the design space. Exactly. That's one of the common approaches to designability problem I outline above. You set some rules that limit combinations. Examples include [LIST] [*]Prerequisites [*]Exclusions (if you take X, you cannot take Y) [*]Recurrence (as you mention) [*]Classes, backgrounds, species (as you mention) [*]Costs (a useful balancing tool is to cost a feat at 2 ability points (just like an ASI) and price each ability in feats and half-feats using the mechanical value of ability scores as your baselines [*]Uniqueness (which can also be across the players) [*]World-based prerequisites (polities, titles, artifacts, [I]seasons[/I]) [*]One from A, one from B divisions (so you split the more desirable abilities into their own column, and make a pick from each column) [*]Escalating cost (so Y costs more if you already have Z) [/LIST] As others have said, you can readily find inspiration for such limits in existing game systems. [/QUOTE]

Verification