Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack Daniel" data-source="post: 5263217" data-attributes="member: 694">I wholly ascribe to the theory that "restrictions, not options!" is fun... sometimes.  Wherever it helps set limits on characters for the purpose of setting immersion (e.g. "in my world, dwarves are never magic-users") or the simple practicality of quick character creation (e.g. "your options are fighter, mage, cleric, and thief; unless you want to be a demihuman, then you can pick elf, dwarf, or hobbit"), restrictions can be a very good thing.  I like a small, broad list of character classes.  It's traditional to go with four options: the meat-shield, the skill-monkey, the blaster-caster, and the divine duct-tape.  Personally, I favor the notion of including at least one class for every ability score (for example, Str-Fighter, Dex-Thief, Con-Monk, Int-Mage, Wis-Cleric, Cha-Bard).  But the point is, each class ought to be relatively broad in the number of fantasy archetypes it can cover.  No need for paladins, rangers, cavaliers, barbarians, swashbucklers, and gladiators.  They're all just bloody Fighters.I like a small, broad list of skills.  Ditching skills altogether seems extreme to me, and in any case, it smacks of that smug OSR ideology.  A well-designed and widely-applicable task resolution mechanic is a thing of incalculable value to the game referee who doesn't want to spend ten minutes dithering over the minutiae of trap-detection.  Conversely, skill lists which try to be all-encompassing (like Non-Weapon Proficiencies) are doomed to fail utterly.  I would argue that even 3rd edition's skill list is just a bit broad, and that's not even counting the indefinite number of sub-skills lumped under Craft, Profession, Knowledge, and Perform.  Rather, the pared-down skill lists of SWSE and 4th edition are close to ideal.  In my own games, I've got it down to a dozen skills (Athletics, Craft, Civics, Diplomacy, Entertain, Knowledge, Medicine, Outdoors, Perception, Pilot, Stealth, Trade), and I've yet to encounter a situation where I was unable to find an appropriate skill check to roll, or where a player creating his character was unable to represent the background he desired whilst picking from that skill list.I like the "race as class" paradigm for which Basic/Expert D&D is known.  In high fantasy novels (and when I play D&D, my chief concern is emulating the feel of high fantasy novels), humans are versatile.  Human heroes have warriors, thieves, priests, and magicians among them.  But the dwarves are just warriors, and the elves are somewhat magical warriors, and the halflings are reluctant warriors with a tendency to go unnoticed by Big Folk.  I want my game rules to facilitate these archetypes.  What I don't want is a game-world full of atypical weirdo-heroes, from the simple dwarven-wizard-because-it's-cool, to the good-aligned-orc/troll/drow-because-it's-cool, to the half-dragon-half-whatever.  Instead of creating a memorable character with a real personality, maybe even an "archetype with a twist" character, the players would instead be tempted to play against type at every opportunity, or to come up with the weirdest idea possible.  That's not conducive to fun.I do NOT like straightjacket rules.  When I first quit playing d20 System games and switched back to Basic D&D, I did so only after promising something to myself.  I said to myself, "Jack, you're about to quit playing 3rd edition and switch to game that doesn't even have multiclassing in it.  What if somebody wants to play a human fighting-mage, or thieving-priest?  What then, smarty-pants?"  Well, I added that skill system of mine to the game, so anybody can play a thieving-anything if they want to.  The rogue will just be better at it.  But I also had to make sure that there were no class restrictions on what weapons or armor a character could use.  If a wizard or a monk wants to clank around in plate-mail and swing a battle-axe, that's fine with me.  If a cleric wants to pick up a pointy stabby and go to town on the forces of darkness, more power to him.  It's okay; the fighter will always be better at it.Restrictions are well and good, right up until they fly in the face of logic and kill any sense of verisimilitude.  At that point, go ahead and run the option.  It'll probably me more fun.</blockquote>

Verification