Which Multiclassing Power Paradigm is Best? ToB? 4E? Else?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
Knight
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am

Post by Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp »

FrankTrollman wrote: Uh... why? You're basically implicitly assuming 3e multiclassing as the standard and demanding that the game make it function. That's an achievable goal. It's difficult because you're asking characters to increase in power every level and dilute their main shtick by a variable percentage based on the number of levels they have in the old class before jumping ship. But you could do something like "build a WoF Maneuver deck every level" so that having multiple classes would always give you an equal amount of level appropriate options, but there's no reason to believe it's the only way to make a simulationist game.
In my mind there's the 1E Dual Classing, where we say that classes are distinct sets of learning and we have separate XP point totals for our levels in each class. We might design our classes to encourage people to stay in 1 or a few classes and not dip in 15 classes for quick leveling (once our main class has achieved a high level) or perhaps even add increasing XP costs in each additional class such that taking additional classes cost more per level each time.

Or, we could go the 3E route, where we have a unified character with 1 XP total. We'd design our system such that spellcaster level doesn't exist, and there's only character level. Thus a Wizard 1/Fighter 8 or a Fighter 8/Wizard 1 casts Magic Missile at 9th level rather than 8th or 1st respectively and we'd make the power or ability system such that at Character level 4, you get a 4th level power. At Character Level 7, you get a 7th level power or at whatever power gain scheme is used, a level appropriate power is granted. I don't see you diluting your schtick, you'd simply at the level you wanted, gain an alternative ability for that level, all your previous powers scale appropriately.

FFXI subjobs don't grant this ability or versatility and neither do Hybrid Classes and 1E Style Dual Classing adds unnecessary paperwork imo.
FrankTrollman wrote:Player characters start at the beginning of adulthood as 1st level Wizards and Knights, having just spent the last twelve years as apprentices or squires. So why the fucking hell would it be simulationist to expect some 22 year old Barbarian to pick up spellcraft and use it effectively in the middle of a dragon hunt? It takes a starting character their entire adolescence to get to the level of an entry level position, why wouldn't it take years of training to get a basic proficiency for someone trained in a completely unrelated field? The idea that people have to be allowed to embark upon multiclassing in the middle of their adventures is a frankly kind of weird idea. It's good for certain kinds of character growth, but you could easily decide to do things some other way.
In 1E Rangers eventually were able to cast MU spells and by RAW a 12th level ranger casted magic missile as a 12th level magic-user. Bards also learned Druid spells later on and they were never required to go away for school for an explicit significant amount of time. In real life I've met Senior High School Varsity Soccer Player who had never played Soccer in his life before his final year before college and yet his natural talent showed out amongst players who'd been at it since 1st grade. Similarly my brother after learning Tae Kwon Do has been able to gain Black belt in Karate and Jui-Jitsu quicker than it took him the first go around. So really, any training fluff in the books is simply fluff to me, I'd argue most of the time is spent due to kids not doing magic or swordfighting most of the time anyway and a lot isn't learned cause the kids are immature and not putting their whole heart in it anyway, never mention classic D&D's own examples of magic learning not taking very long anyway.

A DM can always veto a player by disallowing an option by saying it doesn't make sense, but the game system itself shouldn't make such judgements. There's no reason for the system to insist that a character is in the middle of an adventure and that they cannot learn another class or that they don't have enough time to learn a new class. And similarly, if you were to make the argument that there isn't enough time, I'd say the same thing about gaining a level in their current classes or gaining a Prestige Class.
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

BB, why is it important at all to have that level of granularity? Can you thing of a gameplay reason (that doesn't give min-maxxers a woody) or a storytelling reason where it's important to differentiate the level of skill between a level 6 wizard / level 4 fighter and a level 7 wizard / level 3 fighter?
BBII wrote:I don't see you diluting your schtick, you'd simply at the level you wanted, gain an alternative ability for that level, all your previous powers scale appropriately.
I don't approve, for several reasons.

First of all, waiting until level three before you actually start getting to play a fighter/wizard/cleric is really, really lame.

Second of all, this micromanagement doesn't actually reflect what people want to go on with their characters. When characters pick up a new schtick that's totally at odds with what their character did before, they don't do that D&D bullshit where you get one or two discrete powers at a time until they're half-and-half. They either completely immerse themselves in their new role, abandoning the old one (like Cecil transforming into a paladin) or their new schtick is about on equal level as their old one (like Aang learning more elements to bend or Luffy getting the important parts of Haki). If you're proposing this to reflect stories you'd be much better served by flat-out retraining than incremental gain.

Thirdly, that's asking for too much foresight from a character. Theoretically when you're a cleric 5 / wizard 5 it doesn't matter how you got there, but it actually does. Do you dump in 5 levels of cleric then 5 of wizard? Do you alternate cleric and wizard? And what about power breakpoints? If you want Slay Living, you can't have your 9th or tenth level be a wizard. But I also want to have Wall of Fire and Teleport! Okay okay, that means you need to take Wizard at level 8, cleric at level 9, wizard at level 10. But wait, I also wanted Fireball but I have too many wizard levels already. In order to be a wizard 5 / cleric 5 I need to spend the first three levels as cleric, the next two as wizard... FUCK!

It's just better to partition classes in the beginning. That kind of advanced planning is just a boring and convoluted waste of time that only appeals to min-maxxers. As a casual D&D gamer all I know that as a cleric 5 / wizard 5 I want Slay Living, Teleport, Fireball, Wall of Fire, Sunbeam, and Imbue With Spell Ability. But I also want to be equal parts wizard and cleric.

Fourthly, numerically scaling low-level powers to 'work' at high level just plain doesn't work. D&D doesn't just grow in numbers, it also grows in effect. Yes, due to how lopsided the spellcasting system is Suggestion pretty much never goes out of style, but we want to avoid that. When Magic Missile is relevant at level 15 that leads to 4E-style bullshit where epic does not feel like epic.

Even if you fixed it so that powers you selected at low levels got backloaded (Magic Missile digi-volves into Magic Salvo), That makes for a boatload of extra writing and/or power repetition -- even so why not just mandate multiclassing from the start? It prevents people from having to do crap like plan out their character ten levels in advance so they don't have to worry about missing out on getting Wall of Fire or accidentally becoming only 50% rogue.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:In my mind there's the 1E Dual Classing, where we say that classes are distinct sets of learning and we have separate XP point totals for our levels in each class. We might design our classes to encourage people to stay in 1 or a few classes and not dip in 15 classes for quick leveling (once our main class has achieved a high level) or perhaps even add increasing XP costs in each additional class such that taking additional classes cost more per level each time.
Are you smoking a lot of meth? Did you have an aneurysm? Are you an amateur boxer?

What I'm getting at is that the thing you just said is functionally retarded and I want to diagnose whether your brain problems are potentially progressing to more serious stages. Because 1E Dual Classing is a perfect storm of every single thing that a multiclassing ruleset could have that is shitty. It has power now/power later tradeoffs. It requires people to grind XP in order to get things they want. It reserves low level concepts for very late in the game. It gives out low level abilities to high level characters. It gives people XP debt. It puts people in a position where they can permanently hammer their dick in order to spend XP on getting a boost in the immediate. It is the worst possible system for a table top roleplaying game. Dual Classing out of AD&D is literally the worst system for multiclassing that anyone could devise. Even the RIFTS system where the more adjectives you can figure out how to layer on your character concept the more power you get and the more you get for going up levels is a better system. At least that one lets people play their concept from level 1.
Or, we could go the 3E route, where we have a unified character with 1 XP total. We'd design our system such that spellcaster level doesn't exist, and there's only character level. Thus a Wizard 1/Fighter 8 or a Fighter 8/Wizard 1 casts Magic Missile at 9th level rather than 8th or 1st respectively and we'd make the power or ability system such that at Character level 4, you get a 4th level power. At Character Level 7, you get a 7th level power or at whatever power gain scheme is used, a level appropriate power is granted. I don't see you diluting your schtick, you'd simply at the level you wanted, gain an alternative ability for that level, all your previous powers scale appropriately.
See this is at least defensible. However, can you actually tell me what such granularity is for? I mean, from the character standpoint, what is the difference between a Fighter 2/Wizard 7 and a Fighter 3/Wizard 6? Can you honestly tell me that you can tell me the difference between a character who is 22.2% Warrior and a character who is 1/3 Warrior? Even granting that such a partition is possible, and that you wanted a character who was actually 1/3 warrior, how would it then be acceptable to you that upon gaining a level you would mandatorily fall to 30% Warrior or rise to 40% Warrior and could not regain your status as 1/3 Warrior for three whole levels?

-Username17
User avatar
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
Knight
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am

Post by Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp »

@Frank

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. Let me apologize and reclarify what I imagine when I describe my version of a multiclass system partially inspired by 1E Dual-classing.

For example, let's say a character starts with a class of their choice at 1st level. Let's say our player chose Mark as their name and Scout as their class. They have 10 HP, +1 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever the bonus for a Level 1 Character. Let's say the XP scheme is such that 1000 XP gets to 2nd level, 2000 xp gets to 3rd level, 3000 XP gets to 4th level and so on. Let's say this character gets all the way to seventh level and has an XP total of 28,720 in Scout. They have 70 HP, +7 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever appropriate level bonus for a Level 7 Character has. Now, Mark went on an adventure and gained 1250 XP, and Mark decides he wants to be a Cleric now. Well, the cost to gain a level in a class is the same as its first level cost so he pays 1000 xp and now Mark is a Level 7 Scout with 28,720 XP / Level 1 Cleric with 250 XP. Mark still has 70 HP, +7 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever appropriate level bonus for a Level 7 Character. Mark will only be a level 8 character if his highest level class is 8th level. After Mark's next adventure, he took some big risks but it resulted in big payoffs and he gains 3,240 XP. He decides he doesn't want to level Cleric but wants to gain a new Class in Rogue. So now he is a Level 7 Scout with 28,720 XP / Level 1 Cleric with 250 XP / Level 2 Rogue with 2,240 XP . Again he has all the abilities of each of his classes, but his stats are configured for a Level 7 Character.

In the above system design, it's very necessary to keep track of the XP totals of every class, because at any point, a character could choose to level that aspect up. Unlike in 1E, you can use any ability from any class at any time and you can gain levels in any class at your leisure (as well as none of the ancillary stat requirements and whatnot).

I hope the above is more clear.
FrankTrollman wrote: See this is at least defensible. However, can you actually tell me what such granularity is for? I mean, from the character standpoint, what is the difference between a Fighter 2/Wizard 7 and a Fighter 3/Wizard 6? Can you honestly tell me that you can tell me the difference between a character who is 22.2% Warrior and a character who is 1/3 Warrior? Even granting that such a partition is possible, and that you wanted a character who was actually 1/3 warrior, how would it then be acceptable to you that upon gaining a level you would mandatorily fall to 30% Warrior or rise to 40% Warrior and could not regain your status as 1/3 Warrior for three whole levels?
-Username17
From a character standpoint, in my system idea, I don't think you could say that there would be a significant difference. There would be slightly more Fighter Abilities with the Fighter 3 than the Fighter 2, but RP-wise it shouldn't mean a whole lot of difference. The granularity is there such that the system becomes more balanced and more mistake-proof. People have been whining for years that their Rogue 5 / Wizard 5 sucks or that their Bard / Barbarian isn't winning fights or that dipping a level into Cleric or Wizard for RP reasons maligns their character effectiveness or that a Fighter 20 / Wizard 20 has 30 BAB compared to a Wizard 20 / Fighter 20 with 20 BAB. If we design the system such that we intend Wizard 10 / Fighter 1 to be a valid option, then the game overall is more mistake-proof, more casual-gamer friendly, and thus better in my opinion.
Last edited by Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp on Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

As to abstract potentials for multiclassing, there is also something I'm gonna call pre-fab multiclasses. In this system, classes are rigid, and characters only ever get one class. However in place of allowing any sort of multiclassing, you have an individual class written out for any combination of your primary classes.

So if the primary classes are Fighter, Thief, Wizard and Cleric, you also write up classes for combinations along the lines of

Ftr+Thief= Assassin
Ftr+Wizard = Swordmage
Frt+Cleric = Paladin
Thief + Wizard = Ninja
Thief + Cleric = Ranger
Wizard + Cleric = Bishop

This has the advantage that there are no hidden synergies between classes, and the designer can delay or dilute especially synergistic options (like getting to use thief backstab with fighter weapons and attack bonus) while giving out nonsynergistic abilities (backstab with healing magic) or even going so far as to build some workarounds into classes (swordmage should have some ability to use heavy armor and spells which otherwise have ASF).

This has the disadvantage that it's not a fair answer to question, as it answers multiclassing with, "no, you can't" and is therefore only a classing system. It also has the disadvantage that it provides very limited customization and no cool combos for players to find as they develop system mastery. This means that to make it work, you have to provide a number of selectable options either within the classes (4e powers, all edition spells) or in addition to the classes (3e feats) and you have to take care that both class selection and customization selection are both meaningful without either overshadowing the other.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

So, has any tabletop RPG done something like FFXI multiclassing? I believe XI was inspired by the Japanese RPG Sword World (Lodoss War setting), where the main/sub system is the standard way of creating characters, though in that the subjobs are not picked from the main but stand alone as exclusively subjobs.


Gestalts come to mind as something similar. Could it be jammed into 3.X or Tome D&D?

Would a Tome Fighter10/Tome Barbarian5 be vaguely balanced compared to a TB10/TF5?

How should spellcasting levels work as a subclass to nonspellcasting mains?
Last edited by OgreBattle on Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote: From a character standpoint, in my system idea, I don't think you could say that there would be a significant difference. There would be slightly more Fighter Abilities with the Fighter 3 than the Fighter 2, but RP-wise it shouldn't mean a whole lot of difference. The granularity is there such that the system becomes more balanced and more mistake-proof. People have been whining for years that their Rogue 5 / Wizard 5 sucks or that their Bard / Barbarian isn't winning fights or that dipping a level into Cleric or Wizard for RP reasons maligns their character effectiveness or that a Fighter 20 / Wizard 20 has 30 BAB compared to a Wizard 20 / Fighter 20 with 20 BAB. If we design the system such that we intend Wizard 10 / Fighter 1 to be a valid option, then the game overall is more mistake-proof, more casual-gamer friendly, and thus better in my opinion.
So your "solution" to the fact that it is really fucking hard to balance a Fighter/Wizard is to make there be nine different ways to write Fighter/Wizard on your character sheet at 10th level, that there should be one thousand and twenty two different ways to get to be a 10th level Fighter Wizard and that a player should be required to dynamically change from one proportion of Fighter/Wizard to another every level with no possibility of even progression? You know how fucking insane that sounds? Because if you think it's difficult to balance one Fighter/Wizard progression or two, what the fuck makes you think you're going to be able to playtest over a thousand different progressions?

Look, you can do things involving maneuver decks that allow the fact that a player character is 13/60ths Wizard to actually be meaningful. But having to add discrete class units is always going to be clunky and shitty. No one liked the fact that their Fighter/Wizard character couldn't advance in spell craft on the levels that they happened to get a fighter feat. Because that was shitty and stupid.
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:For example, let's say a character starts with a class of their choice at 1st level. Let's say our player chose Mark as their name and Scout as their class. They have 10 HP, +1 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever the bonus for a Level 1 Character. Let's say the XP scheme is such that 1000 XP gets to 2nd level, 2000 xp gets to 3rd level, 3000 XP gets to 4th level and so on. Let's say this character gets all the way to seventh level and has an XP total of 28,720 in Scout. They have 70 HP, +7 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever appropriate level bonus for a Level 7 Character has. Now, Mark went on an adventure and gained 1250 XP, and Roy decides he wants to be a Cleric now. Well, the cost to gain a level in a class is the same as its first level cost so he pays 1000 xp and now Mark is a Level 7 Scout with 28,720 XP / Level 1 Cleric with 250 XP. Mark still has 70 HP, +7 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever appropriate level bonus for a Level 7 Character. Mark will only be a level 8 character if his highest level class is 8th level. After Mark's next adventure, he took some big risks but it resulted in big payoffs and he gains 3,240 XP. He decides he doesn't want to level Cleric but wants to gain a new Class in Rogue. So now he is a Level 7 Scout with 28,720 XP / Level 1 Cleric with 250 XP / Level 2 Rogue with 2,240 XP . Again he has all the abilities of each of his classes, but his stats are configured for a Level 7 Character.
Uhhh... yeah. That sounds kind of like AD&D Dual Classing. And it is a perfect storm of shit. That thing you said? That is fucking terrible. That is almost as bad as a multiclassing system could possibly be. It's bad and you should feel bad for having written it. I mean, are you fucking with me? You're letting people buy abilities that are not level appropriate but better than nothing for less XP than it takes to get actual level advancement, but you're still permanently out the XP so if you keep taking power "now" you eventually are hugely behind? What the fuck?

-Username17
A Man In Black
Duke
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:33 am

Post by A Man In Black »

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:For example, let's say a character starts with a class of their choice at 1st level. Let's say our player chose Mark as their name and Scout as their class. They have 10 HP, +1 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever the bonus for a Level 1 Character. Let's say the XP scheme is such that 1000 XP gets to 2nd level, 2000 xp gets to 3rd level, 3000 XP gets to 4th level and so on. Let's say this character gets all the way to seventh level and has an XP total of 28,720 in Scout. They have 70 HP, +7 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever appropriate level bonus for a Level 7 Character has. Now, Mark went on an adventure and gained 1250 XP, and Roy decides he wants to be a Cleric now. Well, the cost to gain a level in a class is the same as its first level cost so he pays 1000 xp and now Mark is a Level 7 Scout with 28,720 XP / Level 1 Cleric with 250 XP. Mark still has 70 HP, +7 Attack/Defenses/Saves/Skills/Whatever appropriate level bonus for a Level 7 Character. Mark will only be a level 8 character if his highest level class is 8th level. After Mark's next adventure, he took some big risks but it resulted in big payoffs and he gains 3,240 XP. He decides he doesn't want to level Cleric but wants to gain a new Class in Rogue. So now he is a Level 7 Scout with 28,720 XP / Level 1 Cleric with 250 XP / Level 2 Rogue with 2,240 XP . Again he has all the abilities of each of his classes, but his stats are configured for a Level 7 Character.
Dude.

That is a storm of gibberish.

Even if that is balanced, fuck that game. I have filled out tax forms less complicated than whatever's going on with that game.
I wish in the past I had tried more things 'cause now I know that being in trouble is a fake idea
User avatar
Juton
Duke
Posts: 1415
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:08 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by Juton »

A Man In Black wrote: Dude.

That is a storm of gibberish.

Even if that is balanced, fuck that game. I have filled out tax forms less complicated than whatever's going on with that game.
Is it really that complicated? Instead of just having one set of character XP and level you can have more than one. Presumably the bonuses and abilities of one class overlap instead of stack with those of other classes. If level costs double like in 2e than having two classes will in general put you only one level behind. If leveling works like in 3.X then a character advancing two classes is going to be 1-2 levels behind, which isn't that horrible.
Oh thank God, finally a thread about how Fighters in D&D suck. This was a long time coming. - Schwarzkopf
User avatar
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
Knight
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am

Post by Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp »

FrankTrollman wrote: So your "solution" to the fact that it is really fucking hard to balance a Fighter/Wizard is to make there be nine different ways to write Fighter/Wizard on your character sheet at 10th level, that there should be one thousand and twenty two different ways to get to be a 10th level Fighter Wizard and that a player should be required to dynamically change from one proportion of Fighter/Wizard to another every level with no possibility of even progression?
I wasn't aware that having to go ->

1. Fighter 1 / Wizard 1
2. Fighter 2 / Wizard 2
3. Fighter 2 / Wizard 3
4. Fighter 3 / Wizard 4
5. Fighter 4/ Wizard 4

Was a big deal at all. I've never heard that complaint. That being said it would be easy to just make up a combined class and call it a Swordsage/Eldritch Knight/Duskblade/Spellsword or whatever and call it a day.

Nor would it be difficult for the player to delay taking levels until they had enough xp to gain 2 levels.

Nor would it be difficult to add a rule such that a combined class character would require 1.5x the normal xp to gain a level, but if they did so, they would gain a level in each of their classes.

The issue with the above solution, is how does a character get off the "I want to be a Fighter/Wizard bandwagon"? Either you'd treat it as a class altogether that you can cast aside to level in another class with the ability to return to it later, and you could not separate the progression. Or you'd need the ability to drop one of the combo classes at some point. This was one of the complaints about multiclassing in 1E, characters would build a Wizard/Thief and realize that the Thief part of them sucked and wanted to continue adventuring as a pure Wizard, but there wasn't a game mechanic to do so.
FrankTrollman wrote:You know how fucking insane that sounds? Because if you think it's difficult to balance one Fighter/Wizard progression or two, what the fuck makes you think you're going to be able to playtest over a thousand different progressions?


There's an assumption here that because there is variety that there is meaningful complexity. All that needs to be looked at is the interactions between the powers of the two classes. How do the level 1 Fighter powers interact with the level 1 Wizard powers, the level 2 Wizard Powers and so on. Quite honestly if the system is well designed, and plenty of intelligent Optimizers are utilized to look for bugs, I think all will be fine.
FrankTrollman wrote:Look, you can do things involving maneuver decks that allow the fact that a player character is 13/60ths Wizard to actually be meaningful. But having to add discrete class units is always going to be clunky and shitty. No one liked the fact that their Fighter/Wizard character couldn't advance in spell craft on the levels that they happened to get a fighter feat. Because that was shitty and stupid.


It's trivially easy to implement pathfinder's changes and remove cross class penalties. If any class you have grants a class skill, it's always a class skill.

I'm not sure of another simulationist way to allow characters to gain levels in classes of their choice at their leisure other than what I've already described. Having combo classes with % involves the problem of being tied to that % and not being able to break or expand away from it (with the mechanics I've seen thus far).
FrankTrollman wrote:Uhhh... yeah. That sounds kind of like AD&D Dual Classing. And it is a perfect storm of shit. That thing you said? That is fucking terrible. That is almost as bad as a multiclassing system could possibly be. It's bad and you should feel bad for having written it. I mean, are you fucking with me? You're letting people buy abilities that are not level appropriate but better than nothing for less XP than it takes to get actual level advancement, but you're still permanently out the XP so if you keep taking power "now" you eventually are hugely behind? What the fuck?

-Username17
To me, this is a simulationist way to handle multiclassing. It's not my favorite way because the system assumes that classes are so distinct that they require another entire XP chart progression to master, and I'm not confident in a System's ability to truly distinguish a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin's ability to smash things with a hammer that differentlly from each other. That said I don't understand the insults, because I prefer my proposed 3E better than this one.

A Man In Black wrote:Dude.

That is a storm of gibberish.

Even if that is balanced, fuck that game. I have filled out tax forms less complicated than whatever's going on with that game.
There's really nothing complicated about it. If the wall of text is getting you just break it up into multiple lines. If you're not understanding it after that, just specify what you don't get and I'll elucidate.
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

BB: II wrote:There's an assumption here that because there is variety that there is meaningful complexity. All that needs to be looked at is the interactions between the powers of the two classes. How do the level 1 Fighter powers interact with the level 1 Wizard powers, the level 2 Wizard Powers and so on. Quite honestly if the system is well designed, and plenty of intelligent Optimizers are utilized to look for bugs, I think all will be fine.
Oh. IS THAT FUCKING ALL?

So in order to balance your multiclassing concept out to level 10, "all" you have to do is run power combination experiments for 36 different level/power combos and then repeat the process for 55 different class combinations. So before we even get into such questions as whether we have to balance a Lightning based spell selection with a Fire based spell selection we are already on the hook for one thousand, nine hundred and eighty power comparisons. Go ahead and call it three options per class per level, because that would be actually not that much and still bring it to over 17 thousand combinations you've just committed yourself to playtest. Just to level 10. The actual playtest report would be a full length novel at one sentence per combination.
BB:II wrote:To me, this is a simulationist way to handle multiclassing.
See I think this is the core problem. You need to take the word "simulationist" and shove it up your ass. Because there is absolutely nothing about one version of multiclassing or another that is more or less "simulationist" than any other. Classes are wholly arbitrary, and anything you can or can't do to enter or leave them is also wholly arbitrary. What's a simulationist way of "becoming a witch"? Simulating what? Kiss the Devil's penis? Plant a seed in your heart? Take 3 years off to retrain at Hogwarts Technical Institute? Anything you do or don't do with XP accounting is necessarily going to be a break in simulation. Because people in world probably don't have distinct spendable XP floating around.
BB:II wrote:I'm not sure of another simulationist way to allow characters to gain levels in classes of their choice at their leisure other than what I've already described.
Take a good hard fucking look at the bolded part. The part where what you are asking is for people to take discrete levels in any of your arbitrary classes in any arbitrary order. And then you conclude that the only "simulationist" way to do that is to allow people to take discrete levels in any of your arbitrary classes in any order. Well fuck a duck, it turns out that's also the only "gamist" way, and indeed the only "communist" way, and the only any fucking adjective you choose to put on that way. Because if the demand is "take a discrete level in one of an arbitrary list of classes in an arbitrary order" then tautologically the only way to satisfy that demand is with "take a discrete level in one of an arbitrary list of classes in an arbitrary order".

So if you want meaningful feedback, you're going to have to step back and make your demands less narrow.

For example, you could say that you wanted people to be able to gain abilities over time in an organic fashion and to adapt their character's position in the world to the powers that they had. In that case, you'd go for classes that were descriptive instead of prescriptive, and you'd let people buy abilities straight off. Classes would be a template that would give you some shticks and base saves and shit and you'd be able to select whichever class you felt like each adventure, provided that you meet the prerequisites. So rather than getting Whirlwind Attack because you took a level in Fighter, you'd be able to wear the Dervish hat because you had Whirlwind Attack.

-Username17
User avatar
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
Knight
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am

Post by Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp »

FrankTrollman wrote: Oh. IS THAT FUCKING ALL?

So in order to balance your multiclassing concept out to level 10, "all" you have to do is run power combination experiments for 36 different level/power combos and then repeat the process for 55 different class combinations. So before we even get into such questions as whether we have to balance a Lightning based spell selection with a Fire based spell selection we are already on the hook for one thousand, nine hundred and eighty power comparisons. Go ahead and call it three options per class per level, because that would be actually not that much and still bring it to over 17 thousand combinations you've just committed yourself to playtest. Just to level 10. The actual playtest report would be a full length novel at one sentence per combination.
Again, I don't hold the notion that every possibility in a complex game can or should be tested nor is every possibility that could be playtested significant. I mean really, if you have a game with multiple classes and multiple characters, the proper playtesting in your sense would have to occur with differing party sizes of different types. Test a Druid, Wizard, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue group as well as a Paladin, Warlord, Cleric, Rogue, Rogue Group to see what combos of synergistic powers that characters can have with each other. Heck, designers need to consider what would happen in an All Ranger Group or an All Wizard Group, well it breaks 4E, hehe.

What would happen is several sample sizes of several scenarios to be conducted across multiple groups. I mean even the Single Player Game Computer Games have limited abilities for the protagonist, but he has such a wide variety of monsters and locations to interact with, there's still too many variables to account for and many bugs are still found. And thus I don't see it as realistic to try to find all the bugs on the first go-round of a game, nor is it desirable to simplify a game such that it's possible to test all interactions.
FrankTrollman wrote: See I think this is the core problem. You need to take the word "simulationist" and shove it up your ass. Because there is absolutely nothing about one version of multiclassing or another that is more or less "simulationist" than any other.
Classes are wholly arbitrary, and anything you can or can't do to enter or leave them is also wholly arbitrary.


I disagree. To me classes and levels are a package of abilities as well as a general mark of skill in them. Lower level wizards are only capable of understanding and casting Magic Missile and Color Spray. Higher level wizards are capable of casting Planar Binding and Cloudkill as well as Magic secrets which let them utilize previous spells better.

In real life, you can learn how to become a Lawyer. As you learn new techniques to help your case and increase your chances of "winning" or getting a verdict in favor of your client. We can translate these abilities into "Levels" for a game. Higher level lawyers will generally win more cases against lower level lawyers.

Now, generally speaking in real life there's nothing preventing you from going from an accomplished lawyer toward becoming a Carpenter. You could then learn from a mentor all the tricks and techniques for building birdhouses, patios, and whatnot, and you could gain more skill and expertise such that you could command higher sales and beat out other firms with your offerings, we could also translate these concepts into "Levels" for a game. You don't automatically lose all your Lawyer skills after becoming and practicing as a Carpenter, you might forget a couple of things after a year or two have passed, but neglecting old age, you can generally with a little exposure to Lawyering again, you can continue unabated from where you were before.

Now, other proposed Multiclassing systems don't feel simulationist to me.

For example with FFXI Subjobs, it feels very arbitrary to say that I can be a Lawyer / Carpenter but not a Lawyer / Physicist Similarly, why can't I be a Lawyer / Carpenter / Physicist . Career changes, can happen multiple times and it feels unrealistic to limit it to 2.

Same thing with required multiclassing. Why do I have to go to college to be an Economist / Architect / Philosopher . I mean some people are double or triple majors, but most aren't and when these people actually get a job it's usually in just one field, let alone 2 or 3. I'm not seeing an ability to abandon advancement in previous classes to concentrate on just one or two. And secondly, if that ability is there, the mechanics proposed so far seem to mean I forget all my Economist abilities if I level up as an Architect / Philosopher.
FrankTrollman wrote: Anything you do or don't do with XP accounting is necessarily going to be a break in simulation. Because people in world probably don't have distinct spendable XP floating around.


There's a reason why it's called "Experience Points". They are merely a numerical representation of the gain in "Experience" or "Getting better at what you're doing." Experience points allow you to get better at your class, in the same way in real life, practicing your trade gives you experience which helps you get better at your trade.
FrankTrollman wrote: So if you want meaningful feedback, you're going to have to step back and make your demands less narrow.

For example, you could say that you wanted people to be able to gain abilities over time in an organic fashion and to adapt their character's position in the world to the powers that they had. In that case, you'd go for classes that were descriptive instead of prescriptive, and you'd let people buy abilities straight off. Classes would be a template that would give you some shticks and base saves and shit and you'd be able to select whichever class you felt like each adventure, provided that you meet the prerequisites. So rather than getting Whirlwind Attack because you took a level in Fighter, you'd be able to wear the Dervish hat because you had Whirlwind Attack.
Could you elaborate an example to express what you're meaning here especially on your idea of selecting whatever class you want each adventure?
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

I am wondering how a FFV-style multiclass system would work in a tabel-top style game?

Here's my idea: Classes are short (2-6 levels). Every time you gain a level in your class, you get one ability that you can carry to other classes (either an existing one to carry over like a Knight's armor proficiency or a 3rd level Time Mage carrying over the ability to cast 3rd level spells, or one that's completely new like the red mage's ability to double-cast spells)

I wonder how that would work out in a non-console game? Has it been tried before?
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Bill Bisco wrote:I wasn't aware that having to go ->

1. Fighter 1 / Wizard 1
2. Fighter 2 / Wizard 2
3. Fighter 2 / Wizard 3
4. Fighter 3 / Wizard 4
5. Fighter 4/ Wizard 4

Was a big deal at all.
It is a big deal. If you don't want any of the fighter powers offered at level 7 and 8, you want a wizard power at level 3, but you do want fighter powers offered at levels 4 and 6 your character ends up being something like:

Fighter - Fighter - Wizard - Fighter - Wizard - Fighter Wizard - Wizard

And that's a fucking mess. It gets even more unmanageable when you throw a third class or more into the mix.

Why do all that bullshit? Why not just keep the ratios even at all time and just repick every other level rather than planning your character out several levels in advance? And this is even before we get into balance issues, right now we just have a simple functionality problem.
BBII wrote:Quite honestly if the system is well designed, and plenty of intelligent Optimizers are utilized to look for bugs, I think all will be fine.
Or maybe people will just give up and implement heavy-handed nerfs that make the whole multiclassing system pointless except for dashing peoples' hopes. There are plenty of downright unbalanced class combos even in 4th Edition D&, a game that goes out of its way to suck anything cool from the game. The highest DPR guy for a good while was the Battlemind, who used a couple of obscure combos to rack up over 150 DPR At-Will in paragon tier.

It's trivially easy to implement pathfinder's changes and remove cross class penalties. If any class you have grants a class skill, it's always a class skill.
Thanks for just now falling into the 'multiclassing makes you necessarily more powerful' trap that hogarth was warning you about. Now, why should a rogue/wizard be better at skills than a rogue or a wizard?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

CAT28 wrote: I wonder how that would work out in a non-console game? Has it been tried before?
I do know how that worked within Final Fantasy Tactics and 5 and the answer is 'not very well'. It was a min-max cherry picking paradise of looking at lists, calculating how many Job Points you needed to get the abilities that you wanted, getting then, them bailing out. Then it's Dual Wield Rapid Fire Spellblade time!

This problem would be significantly aggravated on a TTRPG because unlike FFT or FFV if someone gets a bupkiss plate of abilities they can't just call time out, spend an hour grinding, and get the 'right' abilities.

It'd be even more aggravated by the fact that the abilities in these systems are more-or-less level agnostic. FFT does not care if you get Math Skill + Holy at level 9. A class and level-based TTRPG probably would give a fuck if you were setting your points and being LVP for the first four levels (because you were using nothing but Magic Missile) in order to totally dominate the rest of the campaign (because you got Polymorph Any Object 10 levels early). So there would be ability level limits... which makes the problem of build orders way the hell worse.


FFV and FFT's systems only work at all because you could grind if you made a mistake and neither game gave a flying piss about game balance. I have no idea why you'd want to bring that to a tabletop game.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I do know how that worked within Final Fantasy Tactics and 5 and the answer is 'not very well'. It was a min-max cherry picking paradise of looking at lists, calculating how many Job Points you needed to get the abilities that you wanted, getting then, them bailing out..
No idea about V, but having played the crap out of Tactics, I have to disagree. There was no pre-calculating or bailing. Since JP were awarded on a per-action basis, it was all about getting two party members who were uber-effective with any of {Frog, Sleep, Stop, Chicken, Disable}, making sure all party members had a nondamaging "attack" to use and being sure to heal enemies who self-damaged or ran into your counteractions until you could steal all their gear, xp and JP and each of your characters finished the ability they were currently working on by spamming their nondamaging attack against the helpless enemies.

But I am with you in that such a system beyond silly to try to import into a TTRPG.

You might be able to do something closer to Tactics advance, where JP was per battle won (and grinding against harmless enemies was now for XP), but even a fixed version of that still leaves you with two parallel advancement point and ability purchase systems.. There's no real reason that adventures/opponents/kills can't yield both main-class XP and sub-job XP and have MCXP and SJXP spent to purchase different types of levels/abilities - but I'm not seeing a compelling design rationale why a tabletop system should work that way.
Last edited by Josh_Kablack on Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Another reason why I support mandatory triple-classing:

One thing I learned from 4th Edition D&D is that it's neither required nor desired for everyone to get upgrades at the same time. What makes it especially sad and ironic was that their system of regimenting and normalizing features and bonuses was completely unnecessary for their class and level system; it would've made sense for 3rd Edition D&D but not for that game.

Now that said, I am not a fan of the 3rd Edition 'Wizards get a bonus feat every five levels' crap. That's way too long of a drought. Even if it's impossible to game the ability acquisition system and even with mandatory triple-classing no one of a first, second, or third class should go longer than one level without an upgrade of some type at the absolute maximum and even then those should be rare. Also note that not all upgrades need to be of the same type. It's totally okay for a 4th level druid first class to gain two new powers while a 4th level wizard 1st class just gets one power while a 1st class artificer just gets a new class feature. As long as the ability payout in aggregate is equal it's actually more satisfying for stuff to come online at different times.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
ModelCitizen
Knight-Baron
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am

Post by ModelCitizen »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
ModelCtizien wrote:Did you seriously just say that people should be allowed to pick any class but then make a rule that they can't because you think they're too stupid to do it?
I wouldn't say 'stupid', but the general idea is yes. I don't think it'd be impossible to balance on the game developer side, but as FrankTrollman said it'd be too much of a derp moment to have someone, especially someone new at the game, have to pick through 30 possible Kits for their character instead of 10. It's best to just winnow it down at the start.
A couple days behind but your game is not going to have 30 kits per 3 classes at the start.

You want picking 3 classes to be a central part of char gen so your game probably has lots of classes. Let's say 10, bare minimum. If each of them has ten kits that's 50-100 PHB pages. Just for kits, not classes or powers. That's obviously not feasible. It's more likely that your core would have 2-3 kits per class.

By the time anyone seriously has 30 options available they're working from a half-dozen splats. They've deliberately chosen to seek out new options and they want you to get out of their fucking way and let them.

You need to drop this option paralysis shit. It might have a place if you were talking about purely tactical options, but saying "you can't play this kind of character because you're not smart enough to handle that much choice" is fucking insulting.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

I was thinking about 4 kits per class (sort of like the expansion options that 4E D&D characters get) and 12 classes per game. Now on first blush looking through 8-12 kits - assuming most people will choose two or three classes - isn't that big of a deal, but also keep in mind at low levels people may choose a class on account of what kit it can give them. So can quickly go up to looking through 16-20 kits just in the core rulebooks.

That's too fucking many, especially since they haven't picked out powers, feats, skills, or anything else yet. Restricting kits to what's on your main class would knock it down to 8-12 for most people, which is much more manageable.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
ModelCitizen
Knight-Baron
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am

Post by ModelCitizen »

Or they could, you know, ask someone else at the table "what's a good kit for X?"

It's much, much easier for a player to pare options down than to add new ones. If you offer lots of options people who want fewer can just not look at some of them or ask someone else for help. If you offer few options, people who want more don't have anywhere to go.

But that doesn't matter because you're not doing either. You're writing lots of options and then arbitrarily taking some of them away. You believe that you are smart enough to write, balance, and manage lots of options, but your players can't because they are dumber than you. No matter how you sugarcoat it, that is what you are saying.
A Man In Black
Duke
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:33 am

Post by A Man In Black »

Juton wrote:Is it really that complicated? Instead of just having one set of character XP and level you can have more than one. Presumably the bonuses and abilities of one class overlap instead of stack with those of other classes. If level costs double like in 2e than having two classes will in general put you only one level behind. If leveling works like in 3.X then a character advancing two classes is going to be 1-2 levels behind, which isn't that horrible.
Oh, so that's cool. We're going back to "We have a 15356 XP party" instead of "We have a level 5 party."

Wait a fucking second, that's not cool at all. People get levels at irregular times, you still have the problem that some classes stack and some don't, and you still have (level)(abilities per class per level)^2 permutations to playtest if the most classes you can take is two.

So that game can shove its 1040z forms up its ass.
Last edited by A Man In Black on Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wish in the past I had tried more things 'cause now I know that being in trouble is a fake idea
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

ModelCitizen wrote:Or they could, you know, ask someone else at the table "what's a good kit for X?"
Ha! That's been the go-to excuse for apologists of convoluted rules for years. Probably decades. Get someone else to do it for you. Have someone else grease the skids.
It's much, much easier for a player to pare options down than to add new ones.
Yeah, that's not only not true, it's in fact the exact opposite. Have you ever heard the expression 'your eyes are bigger than your stomach'?
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
ModelCitizen
Knight-Baron
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am

Post by ModelCitizen »

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Yeah, that's not only not true, it's in fact the exact opposite. Have you ever heard the expression 'your eyes are bigger than your stomach'?
And there it is again. You think you know what I want better than I do. Until you get over that you will have nothing to offer to anyone.
...You Lost Me
Duke
Posts: 1854
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am

Post by ...You Lost Me »

ModelCitizen wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote: Yeah, that's not only not true, it's in fact the exact opposite. Have you ever heard the expression 'your eyes are bigger than your stomach'?
And there it is again. You think you know what I want better than I do. Until you get over that you will have nothing to offer to anyone.
Mod, that's not "I know you better than I know yourself", but a truth. When you have a selection of abilities, you get unhappy having to take them down, while you probably have plans to add things and improve your stuff right from the beginning of character creation--I remember making MtG and YuGiOH decks and agonizing over trading out Heavy Storm for D-Draw to keep my deck down to 40 cards, and later, when Dark Strike Fighter got banned, I immediately put another Stardust Dragon in, because I had been thinking about adding one for a long time.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
ModelCitizen
Knight-Baron
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am

Post by ModelCitizen »

...You Lost Me wrote: Mod, that's not "I know you better than I know yourself", but a truth.
Bullshit. I want as many good, functioning, supported character types as the game designer can write. If you write content and then take it out because you believe I cannot handle it, you are:

1) wrong
2) calling me a liar
3) an arrogant shitheel
4) unable to produce game design ideas that won't be poisoned by your egotism and low opinion of your audience.

Note that Lago originally believed his game would have ten kits per class. When I pointed out that this wasn't feasible he cast around for some new justification for why there would be more kits than he believed a player could handle. He hasn't put any thought into how many options he could actually write or test; his goal is to take away options for its own sake. Which is really fucking sad, because if his goal was "design a good game" rather than "dumb a game down" he might have encountered actual reasons to restrict kits to primary class only. (For example, if everyone with a rogue kit has to have the primary rogue track that includes Sneak Attack, then he could write kits that interact with Sneak Attack.)
Post Reply