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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4544452" data-attributes="member: 32536">I think that kind of "by tier" separation would be a lot worse... It artificially reduces the kind of game a group can play, so they simply couldn't run a game for certain tiers until later books were released. Not every campaign needs to start at level 1, but this kind of method presumes that they do.As others have mentioned, this method also gets very complicated when you consider classes added after the first book (not only are these always going to exist, and they should always exist). This method probably only worked for BECMI because it started with a limited number of generic classes and didn't have a large number of optional elements added later.Finally, I think this kind of method would have really hurt the basic development of both the central rules of the game and each class individually. This method would focus design and development on a single tier at a time, without focusing as much on how the game progresses across all tiers of play. I don't think that would help at all.Anyways, I think the current model, where you buy complete pieces that you can fit together as you like, works a lot better than a model where everything is incomplete, scattered all over the place, and possibly jumbled together. Overall, this method would have been a cure worse than the disease, especially since the disease, the lack of support for some archetypes, is only temporary under the current model anyways.</blockquote>

Verification