Who Should Make The Next Star Wars TTRPG, And What Should It Look Like?

[TwoSix]

Sure, but a level system gives you that as far as I'm concerned.

You can have a level-based system and a tier system together. 5e has what I would call a real "tier system" (not the Tier 1-4 nomenclature commonly used in 5e discussion). The real tiers are the "1-20" tier, and then 21+ tier.

Level 20 is what an actual endgame for a tier system should look like. It feels like the end, and going to 21 is a deliberate choice to play a new kind of game, not just a continuance of the old one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but that doesn't mean you should have this level continuum that lets farm boys grow to be gods.

Why not? Don't let it go that far in your individual game, where such concerns actually matter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can have a level-based system and a tier system together. 5e has what I would call a real "tier system" (not the Tier 1-4 nomenclature commonly used in 5e discussion). The real tiers are the "1-20" tier, and then 21+ tier.

Level 20 is what an actual endgame for a tier system should look like. It feels like the end, and going to 21 is a deliberate choice to play a new kind of game, not just a continuance of the old one.

If you makes tiers 1-4 have real, strong mechanical differences, you can get around the problem you're describing.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not going to design or play a system with hard limits because some people don't like soft ones. The GM and players should, rather, just own the game they want to play. To do otherwise forces restrictions on other people.

Every game is built with restrictions inherent to it. By this logic, D&D should not stop at level 20 and should have some arbitrarily longer level progression.

 

[TwoSix]

If you makes tiers 1-4 have real, strong mechanical differences, you can get around the problem you're describing.

Yes, that's literally what I meant. But those differences have to be qualitative, not just numerical.

A system with tiers should always be presenting as moving characters into the next tier as an "opt-in", so that framing the game into a new power structure is a deliberate choice. The endpoint of progression for each tier should feel like its the expected end.

The standard presentation of classes in D&D is presented as an "opt-out", where the group has to make a decision to end here instead of continuing to progress.

A true tier system for D&D would be like having levels 1-5 as the progression for the Fighter class in the opening of the book. Later on, the book shows how some games can go the "Prestige Tier", and characters can choose a specific Prestige Class from a different list of options. The game never presents 1-20 as a cohesive path right from the start.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Every game is built with restrictions inherent to it. By this logic, D&D should not stop at level 20 and should have some arbitrarily longer level progression.

...yeah I'm in favor of mechanical progression past 20, and spend money on 3pp that supports this to prove it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, that's literally what I meant. But those differences have to be qualitative, not just numerical.

A system with tiers should always be presenting as moving characters into the next tier as an "opt-in", so that framing the game into a new power structure is a deliberate choice. The endpoint of progression for each tier should feel like its the expected end.

The standard presentation of classes in D&D is presented as an "opt-out", where the group has to make a decision to end here instead of continuing to progress.

A true tier system for D&D would be like having levels 1-5 as the progression for the Fighter class in the opening of the book. Later on, the book shows how some games can go the "Prestige Tier", and characters can choose a specific Prestige Class from a different list of options. The game never presents 1-20 as a cohesive path right from the start.

I don't really see how that makes a difference so long as the options are all there. Presentation is secondary.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't really see how that makes a difference so long as the options are all there. Presentation is secondary.

Presentation is key to how a game is understood and appreciated. The narrative consumers build around a rule set is more important than the actual contents of the rules themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Presentation is key to how a game is understood and appreciated. The narrative consumers build around a rule set is more important than the actual contents of the rules themselves.

By whom? Again, agree to disagree. The rules tell you how to play the game, and how to model the different parts of the setting, including the PCs. IMO that's what you actually need to have a product I'll spend money on, so that's what important.