I've noticed, in the time I've spent collecting and using various RPG supplements for research and development of my own projects, that the idea of 'class = job' is rather prevalent. What I mean by this is, say, when a writer wants to create a new class for their game, what they do is they consider an archtype, say the bard, and they then say that ALL bards behave to a certain code of conduct/style/concept for the purposes of their world. Which is fine, it's all well and good, but when you change cultures in your world, or start considering other styles, then you have to create a new class to accommodate that.
Another example is making specific styles of combat a class of their own, so a guy with a spear isn't just a fighter equipped with a spear, he's a Spear-Man. Or a hobbit with a sling isn't just a hobbit with a sling, it's now a Slinger. By creating these very narrow channels in which a character can exist, yes, you allow for a greater amount of specialization for your players to pour over, but you also create a world where people are very narrowly defined by what weapon they carry. That's no longer a farmer, that's a Horticulturalist, fourth level. The woman hitting a cat with a paddle is now a Pussomancer, first level.
See? When you continue this line of logic it becomes ridiculous. Stick with the three biggies (Hittie Man, Thiefy Man, Spelly Man) and create the ability for your players to specialize on their own, if they want to.
No comments:
Post a Comment