Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 4346218" data-attributes="member: 12332">I LIKED the classes.&nbsp; A lot.&nbsp; And I wouldn't want to lose what they brought to the table, which was infinite flexibility.&nbsp; I always loved to see people make a concept come alive with different selections from the classes.&nbsp; You might have somebody do a Strong/Fast gunfighter or a Strong/Fast swordfighter etc, and have them look very different on paper and very different in play.&nbsp; I don't like the talents, but I think that's because they were pretty raw.&nbsp; They need refining, unifying, and polishing.Some of the most controversial things in d20M are my loves.&nbsp; The classless class system (that's what it amounted to, I believe it solves both my problems with classed games AND with classless games) and the Wealth system.&nbsp; Wealth is totally awesome and I'll be sad to see it go.&nbsp; It should be refined and massaged and loved, but most people clamor for its death.One thing I wanted changed was the requirement that NPCs and PCs play on the same rulebase.&nbsp; Which, while awesome in theory, is hell on GMs.&nbsp; Underlying mathmatics should be balanced and revealed in a different way for GM utility, such that the end numbers need not be arrived through the PC creation system, but the NPC arrived at through the end numbers.&nbsp; Which is to say:&nbsp; With a PC-type NPC system, one must create the concept and then add the pieces together until the numbers begin to resolve themselves on paper.&nbsp; With an NPC-type NPC system, the concept is matched to numbers whose interaction with the PC-type system is pre-balanced.&nbsp; Not, say, 'perfect', but good enough for government work.&nbsp; Close enough, anyway, that something with game-numbers screen time measured in rounds does not take an hour to generate.--fje</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HeapThaumaturgist, post: 4346218, member: 12332"] I LIKED the classes. A lot. And I wouldn't want to lose what they brought to the table, which was infinite flexibility. I always loved to see people make a concept come alive with different selections from the classes. You might have somebody do a Strong/Fast gunfighter or a Strong/Fast swordfighter etc, and have them look very different on paper and very different in play. I don't like the talents, but I think that's because they were pretty raw. They need refining, unifying, and polishing. Some of the most controversial things in d20M are my loves. The classless class system (that's what it amounted to, I believe it solves both my problems with classed games AND with classless games) and the Wealth system. Wealth is totally awesome and I'll be sad to see it go. It should be refined and massaged and loved, but most people clamor for its death. One thing I wanted changed was the requirement that NPCs and PCs play on the same rulebase. Which, while awesome in theory, is hell on GMs. Underlying mathmatics should be balanced and revealed in a different way for GM utility, such that the end numbers need not be arrived through the PC creation system, but the NPC arrived at through the end numbers. Which is to say: With a PC-type NPC system, one must create the concept and then add the pieces together until the numbers begin to resolve themselves on paper. With an NPC-type NPC system, the concept is matched to numbers whose interaction with the PC-type system is pre-balanced. Not, say, 'perfect', but good enough for government work. Close enough, anyway, that something with game-numbers screen time measured in rounds does not take an hour to generate. --fje [/QUOTE]

Verification