Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hatmatter" data-source="post: 8089433" data-attributes="member: 75077">I love your posts, Undrave, and could read what you write all day. But, hear me out: I think there is legitimacy in a game designed around archetypes from literature, films, mythology, and so forth...and not necessarily to fill &quot;design space.&quot; I started playing in 1980 and up through the 2000s, no one that I was playing with (and I played in conventions in three or four states as I researched a book) was using terms like &quot;tank&quot; or &quot;blaster&quot; (unless it was West End's Star Wars game!), or &quot;buff flavor.&quot; I think I know what you are referring too when you use these now (especially here) common terms. But, could it be that trying to go under the hood and impose those terms does a disservice? For example,&nbsp; I think that there is nothing wrong with trying to create a class that emulates Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee is enough of a &quot;design space,&quot; I think. I have played a few different monks, in fact they are my favorite class, and I have never had my monk &quot;fall flat&quot; at the table, nor have any of my fellow players suggested as much. I played 4th edition and enjoyed it. Wizards was very forward at the time that its classes were designed to fulfill its four combat roles. From a game designer's POV, I am sure it is rewarding. But, from a player's POV, it is fun to play the monk who can do things like I see in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Ipman, and what have you. I have seen almost every class criticized for its design except the warlock. Either Wizards is completely incompetent, which I do not think is the case, or this way of looking at the game might be more trouble (= leading to dissatisfaction) than it is worth.But, maybe I am wrong, maybe I simply have been lucky with my monks or something. I sure do like monks, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hatmatter, post: 8089433, member: 75077"] I love your posts, Undrave, and could read what you write all day. But, hear me out: I think there is legitimacy in a game designed around archetypes from literature, films, mythology, and so forth...and not necessarily to fill "design space." I started playing in 1980 and up through the 2000s, no one that I was playing with (and I played in conventions in three or four states as I researched a book) was using terms like "tank" or "blaster" (unless it was West End's Star Wars game!), or "buff flavor." I think I know what you are referring too when you use these now (especially here) common terms. But, could it be that trying to go under the hood and impose those terms does a disservice? For example, I think that there is nothing wrong with trying to create a class that emulates Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee is enough of a "design space," I think. I have played a few different monks, in fact they are my favorite class, and I have never had my monk "fall flat" at the table, nor have any of my fellow players suggested as much. I played 4th edition and enjoyed it. Wizards was very forward at the time that its classes were designed to fulfill its four combat roles. From a game designer's POV, I am sure it is rewarding. But, from a player's POV, it is fun to play the monk who can do things like I see in [I]Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Ipman[/I], and what have you. I have seen almost every class criticized for its design except the warlock. Either Wizards is completely incompetent, which I do not think is the case, or this way of looking at the game might be more trouble (= leading to dissatisfaction) than it is worth. But, maybe I am wrong, maybe I simply have been lucky with my monks or something. I sure do like monks, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification