Quote:
Originally Posted by
king.com
For me I dont see a difference, maybe my definition of Class system is simply broader but both games have you choosing a class which places large restrictions on what you can and cant do.
Well, for me at least, Dark Heresy & Co. straddle the line between class and classless systems. It's leaning towards the class side, but it occupies a design space distinct from that of D&D.
The key, to me, is the question of how much freedom you have over your character. Gaining a level (rank) in Dark Heresy carries no inherent bonuses. It just opens up new opportunities. Gaining a level in D&D automatically improves your base attack bonus, your saves, your hit points, your skills, and so forth at a rate determined by their class. They gain specific class abilities exactly at a specific point and nowhere else. Some casters have a greater degree of freedom, since wizards and clerics gain spell slots which they can trade out on a daily basis.
Dark Heresy is
much more free in letting you determine what your character looks like. Character creation gives you starting abilities based on your backgrounds and your chosen class, but after that, it's in your hands. There, the class serves as a guide. Some things are feasible, and some things are just beyond the scope of your chosen role, but within that role, there's a larger degree of flexibility and choice.
At least, that's how I see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
king.com
I still stay thats a D&D implementation problem, not a class system problem. I really would love to get into D&D but as Im not in a situation where if I were to play it I would have to run it, I need a system I can get into and want to learn the ins and outs of. If I don't want to do that theres a big problem. I'm really enjoying what they have put out for D&D Next and I really hope they implement a character creation system that actually offers a strong and interesting process for developing a character.
Well, I agree with you that there's a disconnect between the design goal of "all-inclusive fantasy system" and "stereotyped classes," which invalidates neither on their own, but they operate poorly in conjunction with one another. 3.x was a huge disappointment to me in this area. 4e's decision to clearly define each class within the role it was intended to fulfill was a good step in the right direction, as was its greater clarity in saying "this is the kind of world which this game operates in."
I'm very curious to see how 5e's modularity operates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
king.com
Personally I found Shadowrun 4th Ed's character creation to be my favourite classless. It breaks everything up into clear categories to be implemented and when it hits skills it tells you. If you want to talk? Buy these skills. If you want to shoot? Buy these ones. Spell selection gets far more tricky but extensions to character creation systems I dont have as much of a problem working with. I just wish it had told be that 19 dice is world altering levels of diplomancy.
The most important thing I found that Shadowrun doesn't tell you is how important it is to get Wired Reflexes (or equivalent). Going multiple times before the bad guys even realize a fight has broken out is
brutal. Half our first Shadowrun group stumbled into Wired Reflexes, and the other half didn't. The other half did not enjoy the game nearly so much as those of us who lived in bullet time. This, by the way, was SR3, not SR4, which I have the books for but haven't played yet. Between SR3 and Eclipse Phase, I probably won't get a chance to.
Point is, I'm always a fan of the game communicating important concepts to you. That sort of thing strikes me as very mature, very honest, and very good game design.