| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If D&D Next isn't identical to BESM Tri-Stat, WotC is dead to me.
GURPS isn't as U as they'd like.
Look at the number of points it takes for a Mage to get a 12d6 fireball, and compare that to how many points it takes for a dude to fire a blaster (12d6) rifle accurately.
If you stick to the same genre and don't mix it up though, it works great.
The idea that players need to be different is kinda foreign to me, and when I was learning DnD, it was a lot harder to figure out what the designers were thinking with the restrictive class structure then anything else about the game. The first, largest, and never resolved problem with DnD is the inability to create the character I want to play.
Personally, I always felt that D20 was the best system because it was at the right level of mechanics, not too complex, but not too simple either, plus all the tools with environmental effects and the other secondary info that supports doing more then just swinging a weapon every turn. The flexibility of it was also a bonus considering how easy it went from fantasy to star wars to modern.
Now Jeremy you did present a few things I hadn't thought of, but honestly, I don't understand how those could really be a problem. I have only heard of people filling in roles when playing MMOs which are inherently and fundamentally incompatible with tabletop (or rather TT can restrict itself to MMO, but MMO can never expand to TT potential)
Also I have not once ever found classes helpful, they only ever told me what I could not do. I don't need direction, I don't need some guy in an office somewhere telling me what I should or should not build into my fictional character. I don't see any hurdles with classless except that some people might want or need inspiration, which can be garnered from classpacks or example characters without the limits of classes.
What I need is something that supports whatever I want to try.
I have yet to see any reason why diversification should be required, helpful perhaps but not required. Oh a trap? A rogue might disable it, a fighter set it off from a distance, a wizard bypass it, etc. Same problem but instead of relying on having someone to perform the only solution, just have different solutions. That is the real difference between archetypes anyway, different people develop different methods of solving the same problems. Have a problem general, one person suggests a covert assassination, another suggests full frontal assault, another suggests deception, another suggests diplomacy, etc. No need for classes.
Hitdice, it is relevant to this thread as the entire point is "how can one system be designed for more playstyles?" and the answer is flexibility, but classes are the opposite of flexible. They are by their nature restrictive.
The Jeff, levels do have an advantage, discrete improvements. Particularly useful when building characters and encounters later in the game. Yeah, I like pure point based, and actually prefer it, but level based isn't that bad. Besides I figure one step at a time. Get classless first, then we can work on level-less. :)
Honestly, I like point based, but level based hasn't given me the kind of problems and frustrations that classes have. Going point based would be nice, but I wouldn't be that bothered if levels were kept. Of course that could change if I ever got to play a classless level based game, but until then.
Okay, but Next wasn't promised to deliver all play styles in the world ever. The designers said they wanted to create an edition of D&D that would allow groups to play in a similar style of any previous edition of D&D.
Look, you've mentioned Savage Worlds, and I think you'd enjoy GURPs from what you said here; it certainly sounds like you prefer systems which allow much more customization than D&D does, which is fine. Anyone playing RPGs should find a system that suits their preferences, rather than play one that doesn't.
But the title of this thread asks how a new edition could be designed to allow for all play styles, not a system. Given that it's also in the 4E (and beyond) section, we're pretty obviously talking about D&D, with all the mechanics that brings to mind, instead of why we prefer our ideal systems.
I can make almost any character I want in Pathfinder/DND. Now in a new system there will be less options so it wont be as easy, but later on it is easier.
I see your point, but at the same time, I think your way of thinking is what is limiting you. Maybe having classes along with the option to build from scratch is what you would need. How to do that and keep balance is another question altogether.
If D&D Next isn't identical to BESM Tri-Stat, WotC is dead to me.
Now, now Scott. Just because many threads are variants of:
1. Enumerate some impossible to reach goal.
2. Assert that D&D 4E/Next has failed to meet that goal.
3. Conclude that WotC sucks.
...doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously.
Oh wait...it does. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If D&D Next isn't identical to BESM Tri-Stat, WotC is dead to me.Now, now Scott. Just because many threads are variants of:
1. Enumerate some impossible to reach goal.
2. Assert that D&D 4E/Next has failed to meet that goal.
3. Conclude that WotC sucks....doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously.
Oh wait...it does. :P
Underpants gnomes confirmed for 5e Monster Manual.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
To answer the original question: the magic of Marketing!
Seriously, it can't and it shouldn't. Trying to please all people is a sure way to please none of them. Just be whatever you can be, and be the best at it.
That being said, I have no interest in the next edition of D&D. That ship sailed for me. I wish them well and hope they do well, but it's not for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that depends how much WotC tries to link play style to the mechanics of 5E. Publishing a simple and versatile set of core rules with supplements to suit various play styles seems like a pretty viable solution, but I've also got to admit that I've never found my groups play style dictated by which edition we were playing.
I've also got to admit that I've never found my groups play style dictated by which edition we were playing.
This. I find it's more a case of the average player you tend to run into when recruiting new players or visiting online communities.
A game system can be classless, but it can't be D+D. You might as well rebrand GURPS or HERO with the D+D label with that approach. And it'd maybe get 5 customers when all is said and done. For the game to be classless, it really would have to be built that way from the ground up and it would have nothing to do with the reason that the bulk of Pathfinder's core adopters, adopted the game in the first place.There is more to d20 then classes, I like most of that other stuff. Good ability scores, saves, environmental rules, etc.
Classes are pointless restrictions as far as I'm concerned. They are packages which more often then not, grant abilities I don't want, while preventing or restricting abilities I do want.
I want a character that fights with a sword but uses utility magic as support and for a day job. Classes don't support this, either I multiclass fighter and wizard which grant things outside the base concept while making me "balance" those undesired abilities by restricting the desired abilities. And any sword plus magic classes, such as magus, focus on spells and magic casting for damage and dissallowing utility magic.
This is why I don't like classes and always advocate classless systems.
Dnd can actually be classless rather easily, you basically have the lowest bab, saves, etc as a base, then allow a number of starting feats, and bab, saves, etc can be improved with feats that are starting level only (or only when you gain ab score increases) and class abilities are converted to feats.
There is a lot more to DnD then classes, though I am truly more focused on d20 but still, it isn't just classes that make a game. If it was then I'd never play DnD/PF at all.