Hello,
Brad Thompson wrote:
> > Infinite Possibilities
> >
> > Ok, what are a class based games strengths? :-)
>
> As I said before, balance and ease of play.
Sounds good, although I would probably say that balance was a reflection of how
well the game designer did his job, not necessarily a strength or weakness of a
specific style of game, although it is considered a strength or weakness for a
specific game. :-)
> In a
> pure skill system the player gets to choose that balance, but also has the
> responsibility not to screw it up. It is frighteningly easy to create a
> completely unworkable character if you go too far down the wrong path.
In theory, but hardly never in practice, as the player chooses skills that he
has found to be useful in the game.
> > I see where you are coming from, but considering that skills are
> > based on the
> > class you take, I would have to disagree and say that it is a
> > Class based system that makes good use of skills. :-)
>
> I agree it looks that way on the surface too, and we might simply have to
> 'agree to disagree' here, but in pure skill systems some skills often are
> harder to acquire than others, right?
Not really. I've always been of the opinion that all skills are created equal.
:-) It is just a matter of making them all equal to each other, so that no
matter what skill the player decides to take he will always be balanced with all
of the other characters.
> And usually you are on a relatively
> fixed rate of progression (everybody earns new skills at the about the same
> rate).
I've found that the best way to do it is to grant experience to each skill as it
is used. That way, if you never use a skill, like sword fighting in our clock
maker example, you don't go up in that skill.
> Choices have to be made to decide which paths to follow, so you can
> get all the prerequisites to get the top-level abilities.
Normally in a skill based system, there are no prerequisites. So it really isn't
an issue.
> If you look at the classes, you'll see a LOT of standardization. ........
> Class-abilities are simply skills that can synergistically be studied easily
> while also learning your chosen combat and magical skills. Those that don't
> mix well are harder to master.
Yet all of those abilities don't work without a class. There is not a convenient
way to take out the classes, without a complete rework of the character creation
method.
Don't get me wrong, it can be done. I've done it. But taking out classes and
levels from D20 is quite a bit of work. That has always been the definition of
class based for me.
> In a pure skill-based system there need to be a LOT more prerequisites than
> in a class-based one, because the classes take care of the prerequisites for
> you.
There can be as little or as many prerequisites as you want. CP I think has one,
in the math section I think, Gurps has at least one for each skill.
> There is a lot less administrative overhead in a class-based system,
> at the cost of some flexibility.
I agree with the overhead, but the cost in flexibility has never been worth it
to me. After all, what if I want to play a cat burglar. In D20 I have to have
sneak attack with that, almost as if they are forcing me to be a thug. In a
skill based system I can create my vision of the character, without the game
designers preconceptions clouding things.
> The same way he earned 190,000 xp.
Another draw back to D20, about the only way to get experience is to go out and
kill things. I always thought it would be better to set up a skill based
experience chart. Use a skill and go up in that skill, don't use it and don't go
up in that skill. You would have to make the combat bonuses into skills, but it
could be done with a minimum of work.
> You don't get that many XP for
> sitting at home making clocks, even over 30 years.
It would make a better game if you could though.
Have Fun,
Darren
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
