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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8998824" data-attributes="member: 82106">Hmmmm, OTOH there is a VERY VERY long history of RPGs that have tried this "separate but equal" strategy before (I mean, including D&D, which absolutely assumed a baseline of parity between its archetypes early on; though arguably without the substance). There is an equally long line of games which failed to make it work. In fact I would say its virtually 100%. Now, maybe if you shift the relevant play process firmly enough away from this stuff then it will work fine. I mean, I could imagine a 'star trek' game where 'klingons' fight literally 10x better than humans, but the nexus of play is so much on the narrative and the consequences of actions and such that its kind of not really too relevant. Or maybe a game that is 100% neo trad in its orientation will simply not care because performance is performance and the fact that you crisped 20 goblins with your fireball while I only gutted 3 with my cool knife work is just fine, we both got to do our things.But its hard to sustain such disparities, and when each type of character works on rather different rules there tends to be problems where certain game elements are overwhelmingly favorable to a certain type of character, or something like that. I have this feeling that PF2e will not long avoid that sort of problem, and in more trad games, or something like the most natural way of playing 4e, such disparity can create issues. I think a game like 4e that mechanically puts everyone on equal footing and handling and THEN gives you lots of descriptors to use to say "here's how I'm different" will always be more robust, if not perhaps always favored by some.</blockquote>

Verification