Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2309357" data-attributes="member: 151">Having used GURPS as my system of choice for the fifteen years prior to 3rd edition (the same fifteen years post-AD&amp;D, for me), I definitely agree.&nbsp; GURPS is not built around the 'young man discovers his true talents and rises to become a hero' ideal nearly so much as the 'talented individual finds himself caught up in an adventure' ideal.&nbsp; The difference between a 100 pt. GURPS character and a 200 pt. GURPS character is much different than a 1st and 21st level D&amp;D character.&nbsp; The GURPS character is a little more competent at a few select things, possibly has a few more friends and maybe the backing of an organization.&nbsp; The D&amp;D hero is a farmer boy who rises to a power to rival the gods.As for the core question: I prefer classes: the perceived increase in flexibility is dramatically offset by the additional work required for all parties.&nbsp; My experience with open-ended systems like this is that it increases the character (and NPC!) creation time while only providing benefits to the 'wacky' character concepts.&nbsp; Invariably, someone ends up wanting to play the swordsman; for him, the new system doesn't really change details, except that he needs to do the legwork for his abilities.&nbsp; If he wants to create Zatoichi, this is a benefit...if he wants to create Fafhrd, much less so.&nbsp; I usually would much rather prefer to jerry-rig the existing system than to redesign the core mechanics to accomadate the outliers.&nbsp; I don't mean to imply that one approach is inherentely better, because after having tried both, I don't think either one is superior.&nbsp; I prefer the different approaches for different reasons, but on the whole prefer 3.Xs levels-with-personalization over AD&amp;D's static classes or GURPS totally open ended characters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 2309357, member: 151"] Having used GURPS as my system of choice for the fifteen years prior to 3rd edition (the same fifteen years post-AD&D, for me), I definitely agree. GURPS is not built around the 'young man discovers his true talents and rises to become a hero' ideal nearly so much as the 'talented individual finds himself caught up in an adventure' ideal. The difference between a 100 pt. GURPS character and a 200 pt. GURPS character is much different than a 1st and 21st level D&D character. The GURPS character is a little more competent at a few select things, possibly has a few more friends and maybe the backing of an organization. The D&D hero is a farmer boy who rises to a power to rival the gods. As for the core question: I prefer classes: the perceived increase in flexibility is dramatically offset by the additional work required for all parties. My experience with open-ended systems like this is that it increases the character (and NPC!) creation time while only providing benefits to the 'wacky' character concepts. Invariably, someone ends up wanting to play the swordsman; for him, the new system doesn't really change details, except that he needs to do the legwork for his abilities. If he wants to create Zatoichi, this is a benefit...if he wants to create Fafhrd, much less so. I usually would much rather prefer to jerry-rig the existing system than to redesign the core mechanics to accomadate the outliers. I don't mean to imply that one approach is inherentely better, because after having tried both, I don't think either one is superior. I prefer the different approaches for different reasons, but on the whole prefer 3.Xs levels-with-personalization over AD&D's static classes or GURPS totally open ended characters. [/QUOTE]

Verification