Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Vancian? Why can't we let it go?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5784249" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>No, I'm not missing the assertion. I'm disagreeing with it on practical and wide-spread audience pleasing grounds. Namely, that if you try to model the extremes with wizard and fighter specifically (i.e. fairly generic, iconic, presumably popular, early classes), then it won't work. Sure, if they embed your preferences in the game, it will work for you. And likewise, with different preferences, more or less for me and pemerton too. (We don't exactly share preferences, either. So that is two different sets.) I'm equally sure there are small but important preference differences from every person participating in this topic.</p><p> </p><p>Heck, my preferences change from game to game, as I like to model the game we are playing. That's why I like Hero a lot too. It's great for when you want something specific. But there is a middle ground between Hero and, say, the 1st ed. AD&D locked-in preferences. You know full well--better than most--that Hero and GURPS only works for some groups when you carefully set thresholds for abilities, by campaign. Heck, 4th ed. Hero explicitly discusses it, and if I remember correctly in 6th, there is even some additional mechanical support.</p><p> </p><p>Also, again, I'm asserting the principles that need to be followed. If you want to make a case for the things called "wizard" and "fighter" being built-in outliers, then I can see that, too. You'll need more starting classes than my way (speaking of bloat of options), but I'll readily grant that has its own advantages that my way doesn't. In that case, then I still assert the principles for some set of relatively general adventuring classes which need to be present--i.e. some wizard-type class and fighter-type class that meets the parameters that I have discussed--without extraneous stuff tightly bound to it, such as bardic music or ranger wilderness skills. That too has advantages and disadvantages, but any of those can be overcome depending upon how the rest of the system is put together.</p><p> </p><p>These principles would also need to be applied to skills, such as sneaking. I used the combat abilities between wizard and fighter as a good example.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5784249, member: 54877"] No, I'm not missing the assertion. I'm disagreeing with it on practical and wide-spread audience pleasing grounds. Namely, that if you try to model the extremes with wizard and fighter specifically (i.e. fairly generic, iconic, presumably popular, early classes), then it won't work. Sure, if they embed your preferences in the game, it will work for you. And likewise, with different preferences, more or less for me and pemerton too. (We don't exactly share preferences, either. So that is two different sets.) I'm equally sure there are small but important preference differences from every person participating in this topic. Heck, my preferences change from game to game, as I like to model the game we are playing. That's why I like Hero a lot too. It's great for when you want something specific. But there is a middle ground between Hero and, say, the 1st ed. AD&D locked-in preferences. You know full well--better than most--that Hero and GURPS only works for some groups when you carefully set thresholds for abilities, by campaign. Heck, 4th ed. Hero explicitly discusses it, and if I remember correctly in 6th, there is even some additional mechanical support. Also, again, I'm asserting the principles that need to be followed. If you want to make a case for the things called "wizard" and "fighter" being built-in outliers, then I can see that, too. You'll need more starting classes than my way (speaking of bloat of options), but I'll readily grant that has its own advantages that my way doesn't. In that case, then I still assert the principles for some set of relatively general adventuring classes which need to be present--i.e. some wizard-type class and fighter-type class that meets the parameters that I have discussed--without extraneous stuff tightly bound to it, such as bardic music or ranger wilderness skills. That too has advantages and disadvantages, but any of those can be overcome depending upon how the rest of the system is put together. These principles would also need to be applied to skills, such as sneaking. I used the combat abilities between wizard and fighter as a good example. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Vancian? Why can't we let it go?
Top