GordonHalfman
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 119
There is a trend in arpgs to treat a character build more like an equipment loadout, and this seems fine to me. I don't see why there is a point of principle here. Depending on the system configuring your build to solve a specific problem rather than a general one is potentially a lot more interesting. It's particularly appropriate for arpgs where different builds are mechanically very different and the build system is very linearised and restrictive, i.e. it's based around skill trees where your choices at low level can lock out certain abilities entirely. These kind of systems give you a lot of potential to gimp yourself and also tend to result in games where dicking about with your build is half the fun.
The others thing about arpgs is that the character building isn't really attempting to model a character archetype for roleplaying purposes in the same way that PnP systems usually are. A lot of people obviously enjoy games where your build defines your characters history, profession or personality and so on. Or even your characters personal philosophy in games like Arcanum with the magic/tech divide. In these games respec leaves a bad taste in the mouth at best. The criticism doesn't seem to apply to arpgs though since these games aren't really trying to do the same thing. In Aarklash your wizard archetype is just "Wizard who can cast very damaging lightning bolt" instead of "Wizard who can cast lightning bolt that bounces to five targets" and so on.
In practice more RP focused games avoid the respec problem by just having broader less restrictive build systems. I generally prefer this anyway, I don't really understand the assumption that having a ton of choices to make at every level up is always a good thing. The D&D Wizard class for example has only relatively unimportant build options since it has a guaranteed core competence with a lot of in built variety. Being able to cast every arcane spell in the game and configure your spell book each day for specific encounters is fun, and there isn't anything obviously "decline" about this. In fact it's probably fair to say the wizard is more popular than the sorceror which does have to commit to spell choices at level up.
The others thing about arpgs is that the character building isn't really attempting to model a character archetype for roleplaying purposes in the same way that PnP systems usually are. A lot of people obviously enjoy games where your build defines your characters history, profession or personality and so on. Or even your characters personal philosophy in games like Arcanum with the magic/tech divide. In these games respec leaves a bad taste in the mouth at best. The criticism doesn't seem to apply to arpgs though since these games aren't really trying to do the same thing. In Aarklash your wizard archetype is just "Wizard who can cast very damaging lightning bolt" instead of "Wizard who can cast lightning bolt that bounces to five targets" and so on.
In practice more RP focused games avoid the respec problem by just having broader less restrictive build systems. I generally prefer this anyway, I don't really understand the assumption that having a ton of choices to make at every level up is always a good thing. The D&D Wizard class for example has only relatively unimportant build options since it has a guaranteed core competence with a lot of in built variety. Being able to cast every arcane spell in the game and configure your spell book each day for specific encounters is fun, and there isn't anything obviously "decline" about this. In fact it's probably fair to say the wizard is more popular than the sorceror which does have to commit to spell choices at level up.