CRKrueger
Eläytyminatör
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2017
- Messages
- 9,102
- Reaction score
- 20,623
Endless is gonna give you the monkey for that one.Doesn't class warfare violate the no politics rule though?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Endless is gonna give you the monkey for that one.Doesn't class warfare violate the no politics rule though?
Umm... according to urban dictionary... HE IS GOING TO WHAT?Endless is gonna give you the monkey for that one.
I always liked how StarWars and 1st/2nd ed Shadowrun handled "classes" as setting archetypes that a new player could take and customize slightly so they could just jump into playing.
I don't think either of those games epitomizes "niche protection" though
Hehe, yes!I hope that was supposed to be "thread".
Ok. I was just chiming in, and trying to stay out of that argument. Not my word or theory, though I think I probably get what they're talking about in general.These are all respectable preferences which don't need to be called "dissociated" or some other word.
This loops back to my suggestion for gating things via different mechanisms, and how my players experienced that in GURPS.But I think it's still a reasonable explanation of "why can't the receivers do this every time?"
My point was that both editions were adapted into video games.
Agreed, it was a good system, and worked well. Still one of my favorites.I am quite partial to how Rolemaster did classes and levels. They basically had four functions:
This is a nice mid-point between fully class based and fully points based in my experience. It causes people to build thematic characters, rather than everyone evolving into a Jack-of-all-trades. It limits people’s propensity to buy up one skill to ridiculous levels whilst ignoring everything else. It gives the GM a bit more to work with when trying to decide how challenging a given encounter would be for their PCs.
- Your class governed which spell lists you had ready access to (and most classes had some magic in RM)
- Your class governed the cost of increasing a given skill (e.g. fighters pay 1 or 2 points to increase combat skills, more like 20 to buy spells. Mages are converse to this)
- In combination with your level, they placed a cap on your maximum skill. By default, you could only buy one level in a skill per level of class. If your class was expert at something, you could buy two or more levels of skill per class level. This meant that, for example, even if a mage chose to buy skill with a weapon every level the fighter could be buying two levels of skill for each class level and keep ahead
- Your class gave you some free bonuses to iconic skills, which could be +1 to +3 per class level.
You could still choose to be a fighter with no combat skills, a mage with no spells and so on if you really wanted to, but it certainly curbed some excess and provided a good framework for players to build within.
Clearly, that means that discussing class systems is against the rules!Doesn't class warfare violate the no politics rule though?
And no discussion about forming parties either.Doesn't class warfare violate the no politics rule though?
That's the RPG Pub tagline.Dad jokes are thick in here.
Dad jokes are thick in here.
Dad jokes are thick in here.
While I appreciate no one posting drama from other forums here, I also think calling someone out based on unrelated moderation really is a low tactic. And CKR is not at the heart of what happened here in this thread.
Multiclassing wasn’t “dipping” into anything, it was a career changer, and a big pain in the ass to do.
There's a blog post by Vincent Baker where he explains that the "one of each playbook" in Apocalypse World was to make it easier for MC's, because they would know exactly how many to bring to a new game (ie, 1). And then other designers ran with it, and playbooks took off as a thing people liked...True! In D&D, it was slow advancement back in the day (for MC). And dual classing, man...you had to want it. I don't know that that's any "better" per se, but then I've been either using systems that have inherent niche protection (DW=by RAW, one class represented in the party at any given time), or no classes (FATE).
I ran a Savage Worlds one-shot with pre-gens that all had identical stats to see if anyone noticed. Nobody did.I really felt it when I ran a short Savage Worlds spaghetti western style Star Wars session a while back. I told the party to make Han Solo types, rogues and thieves who were basically decent at heart.
We went through character creation too quickly because we were eager to get started.
It turned out we had a whole party all with basically the same skillset.
The problem is that skills aren't what differentiate characters in Savage Worlds, it's the Edges and Hindrances that do so.I really felt it when I ran a short Savage Worlds spaghetti western style Star Wars session a while back. I told the party to make Han Solo types, rogues and thieves who were basically decent at heart.
We went through character creation too quickly because we were eager to get started.
It turned out we had a whole party all with basically the same skillset.
I ran a Savage Worlds one-shot with pre-gens that all had identical stats to see if anyone noticed. Nobody did.
I think a party of all roguish types actually works better than having one guy who does it, at least in Savage Worlds.
Yeah but some of them had the same edges as well.The problem is that skills aren't what differentiate characters in Savage Worlds, it's the Edges and Hindrances that do so.
There's logic to this approach, though; in many systems, "a few" points in many skills winds up being not much use at all when you get to the game mechanics, and as a starting character you don't have enough of whatever resource gets you skills to have sensible levels in everything a person would be expected to have in the setting to do their job.Part of the issue was they fell in to the typical rpg player habit from other systems of overspecialising. So they bought Agility up to unnecessary levels and only went for a small range of skills. (I did warn them).
Yeah that’s a hard habit to get players to break in a pure skill system. Lifepath chargen helps, especially if you have various options based on species, culture, social class, etc. that don’t necessarily let them stack magic or weapon use before their character could actually learn them.There's logic to this approach, though; in many systems, "a few" points in many skills winds up being not much use at all when you get to the game mechanics, and as a starting character you don't have enough of whatever resource gets you skills to have sensible levels in everything a person would be expected to have in the setting to do their job.
So players are effectively trained to specialize; even if the system is technically classless, you'll get a "better" starting character (eg. one who is more effective at what you want them to do in the game) by focusing on what you really want and then you're basically back to classes again; the character will branch out as they advance, but they'll start reasonably limited.
Conceptually, I really like classless character gen, but I think it's a thing that should be "advanced" character gen and not the standard system.
Yes. Of course. I'm sure, as experienced role-players that's why they did it. I've done it many times. Plus it saves time on character creation too which was probably a factor (I probably should have made pre-gens for the game).There's logic to this approach, though; in many systems, "a few" points in many skills winds up being not much use at all when you get to the game mechanics, and as a starting character you don't have enough of whatever resource gets you skills to have sensible levels in everything a person would be expected to have in the setting to do their job.
So players are effectively trained to specialize; even if the system is technically classless, you'll get a "better" starting character (eg. one who is more effective at what you want them to do in the game) by focusing on what you really want and then you're basically back to classes again; the character will branch out as they advance, but they'll start reasonably limited.
Conceptually, I really like classless character gen, but I think it's a thing that should be "advanced" character gen and not the standard system.
That's, like, so far from my experience with classless systems in general and Savage Worlds in particular, I don't even know where to start for a rebuttal...There's logic to this approach, though; in many systems, "a few" points in many skills winds up being not much use at all when you get to the game mechanics, and as a starting character you don't have enough of whatever resource gets you skills to have sensible levels in everything a person would be expected to have in the setting to do their job.
So players are effectively trained to specialize; even if the system is technically classless, you'll get a "better" starting character (eg. one who is more effective at what you want them to do in the game) by focusing on what you really want and then you're basically back to classes again; the character will branch out as they advance, but they'll start reasonably limited.
Conceptually, I really like classless character gen, but I think it's a thing that should be "advanced" character gen and not the standard system.
Anecdotes are not facts. I've seen what Ladybird is talking about, it's happened quite a few times over the 30+ years of gaming I've done. It's common enough, but I wouldn't say it's 'normal' either, as I've had people play the more generalist type of characters as well with Classless systems.That's, like, so far from my experience with classless systems in general and Savage Worlds in particular, I don't even know where to start for a rebuttal...
And even then, combat provides a lot of in-game choices, not just choices about how you will fight that were made during character generation. With the same stats, one guy might be reckless and go for Wild Attacks while another relies on Tricks to set up the other players.The problem is that skills aren't what differentiate characters in Savage Worlds, it's the Edges and Hindrances that do so.
Yes, with the Wild Die factored in, you don't need to spend a lot of points for broad, basic competence. It's why it works well for setting like Star Wars, where the characters are generally capable.Yes. Of course. I'm sure, as experienced role-players that's why they did it. I've done it many times. Plus it saves time on character creation too which was probably a factor (I probably should have made pre-gens for the game).
It's just that Savage Worlds doesn't really work that way. If you want to specialise you're better of doing so by buying edges that help out where you want them and give static bonuses. Increasing your die type improves your chance of success by relatively little, but jumping from not having a skill at all and therefore rolling a D4-2 to having the D4 is a big jump (especially when the effect of the wild die is factored in).
There are certainly systems out there where you need to focus your skill points to be capable of anything. It's just that Savage Worlds isn't one of those. I think the key is for players to know what various skill ranks are actually going to mean at the table before spending points on them. A Savage Worlds character with d4 in every single skill isn't going to be great, but they wouldn't be that terrible either, especially with a couple of Edges that made them shine in a couple of areas. They'd at least be superior to an all-d6 Extra.That's, like, so far from my experience with classless systems in general and Savage Worlds in particular, I don't even know where to start for a rebuttal...