>>316906
Man do I love your post. I'm curious, tho, about applying it to systens I dislike.
< Pathfinder
>> Ease of play
While I'm not a fan of 1dX system, unless someone brought up an obscure rule, like how high characters can jump, we could play whole sessions without opening a book.
<< Crunch
Monk vs AM BARBARIAN vs Wizard. 'nuff said, it's a broken mess.
<< Player options
Trap options galore which can have characters down in one round encounters meant to challenge the whole group or have your character remain completely useless.
< Shadowrun
<< Ease of play
The complexity of tracking wound penalties, recoil, range, visibility, upgrades, implants, wind force, spread, ammo type and burst fire modifiers GUARANTEES no roll you'll ever make will both take under 2 minutes and be accurate.
>> Crunch
Curiously not so unbalanced. For a game this complex, very few characters will end up not contributing at all, and most who will probably were made thay way on purpose. The decking shit should be NPC work tho. Plus the lore is pretty good.
>> Player Options
Varied. Significant. Often, even without perusing the very complex rule set, you end up with a viable character. Exception duly noted of Aspected Mages. Also, reagents, foci and programs are a bit too obscure.
Huh. Seems to me that there's a degree aspect that's important to denote with your theory.
> A game designer might wish to be okay in all 3 aspects rather than awesome in two and terrible in one.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.