Forums of the Megaverse®

barna10 wrote:ok, I must admit, I have been playing Palladium games since 1990, but I have never played a Palladium Fantasy. I like many aspects of the setting, but I HATE the O.C.C.s., especially compared to other fantasy RPGs.

For instance, why play a thief? I'm not talking about a rogue type character, I'm mean why pick the Thief O.C.C? What makes a thief special? Why does it take less XP for the Diabolist or Assassin to advance than it does a Knight or Noble? or for that matter, a Palladin?

I really found the system lacking in this area. Opinions?

Also, can you think of other O.C.C.s for Fantasy besides the ones in the main book and Adventures on the High Seas?

The OP's beef seems to be more with the OCC system than with a specific OCC. In a sense, I do understand the 'Why is this OCC special?" beef. Many of them seem a bit redundant, with their background flavor text and art being a more-defining feature than the mechanics of the class and the experience tables.

Personally, I think a good player could make just about any class not-lame. Some classes just need a bit more accomodation from the player than others.

houghtam wrote:

Cinos wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:Why must every class have a "special" ability in order to avoid being labeled "lame"?
The answer "because everyone does it that way" is not a valid one.

Because it's a quickly identifiable way to distinct two classes from each other, allowing each class as a stand alone to be truly unique to any player at a glance, and it gives value and credible to the class from a game play stand point. When everyone has a 'thing' there's a reason to try new classes, and those specials create an interesting and dynamic game-play experience that bad role playing alone can never hope to do.

I fixed your post.

They are called OCCs because they are your occupation. In real life, an ER doctor and an EMT have the same basic function: to save lives. They are completely separate occupations. Neither is "lame" because they don't have a "thing".

No, not really. No amount of role playing, no matter how awe inspiring, moving and truly actor worthy will make up for the fact your game is as interesting as just not playing a game and just doing a straight acting bit. Like serious, if you're class does nothing, why did you buy these books to do some free form acting? You could instead just have done some free form acting and spend the money you spent on books on a cool prop. Or a D&D book that you could still commit to the same level of Role playing and a rule set that at least work (even if they're on the bland and simple side of things, depending on edition).

And an EMT and an ER doctor do have a thing. One's all adventure and gun-ho go get-em, they get to speed around and have that element of chaos that EMT's get by having that foot in the field. More so when you're dealing with an RPG take on it as a class. You'd have driving skills, snap choices, and less focus on the wider scope of medical skills. While an ER doctor would look more like a wide array of skills, trying to match the right choice to the problem. You're trick might be a support staff of nurses, sweet surgery specials that EMT's don't get in place of their driving powers (and ability to speed and clear traffic!). Honestly, with some licence to be fun with it, I could build an entire RPG out of just medical classes that plays out 100% about medical drama excitement, you could even get the slow play build ups with normal doctors, or some House-style mystery medical drama type stuff thrown in the mix too with some pathologists and radiologists. Man, now I want to make, then play that game. . . .

perhaps we should look at this more positively and someone should start a thread on favorite OCCs.

gdub411 wrote:perhaps we should look at this more positively and someone should start a thread on favorite OCCs.

That is a very good Idea...be sure to let me know when you do start it so I can chime in...

houghtam wrote:Wow, I'll have Taking Analogies Literally for $1000, Alex.

Let's extrapolate this a little. Let's send our EMT and doctor on a hike with no equipment. Or hell, give them some equipment, I don't care. They each get a first aid kit, it doesn't much matter. The point is that while hiking, they are hikers...hell, let's just call them adventurers. When they go back home, they are an EMT and a doctor. That is their occupation. Both are likely to have pretty good training in how to use their skills to keep another person alive. That is to say, their OCC and Elective skills will be more or less similar. However, the doctor may be an avid hunter, and the EMT might like to go rock climbing on weekends. These are their secondary skills, and while they may naturally be better at some due to their profession, they are based on rounding the character out.

The same is true with the Thief and the Assassin. One specializes in stealing things, the other specializes in killing people. Because of the very nature of those occupations, there will obviously be many skills that bleed into one another. It is up to the person rolling the character to make him unique. "Why would I choose to be a Thief and not an Assassin?" Well, other than the attribute requirements (which I guess since I was laughed at, no one uses?), how about this: because that's his job. Make up a story, and make it interesting. To me, that's far more fun than "nah, I'm choosing X because I get an X-Ray death strike with multi boost combo breaker at level 2."

And yes, I will totally be responding in the "what's your favorite OCC" thread.

Yes, to you that's more fun, and to me and many others (I would like to think from the fact that the game still sells that it's also the opinion of the majority). However, the argument is going to fall on deaf ears in this thread, as I've been saying.

My initial response was a sarcastic "Secondary skills? Who's got time for skills, I'm a gonna kill somethin'!"

-Mike <8]

houghtam wrote:Wow, I'll have Taking Analogies Literally for $1000, Alex.

Let's extrapolate this a little. Let's send our EMT and doctor on a hike with no equipment. Or hell, give them some equipment, I don't care. They each get a first aid kit, it doesn't much matter. The point is that while hiking, they are hikers...hell, let's just call them adventurers. When they go back home, they are an EMT and a doctor. That is their occupation. Both are likely to have pretty good training in how to use their skills to keep another person alive. That is to say, their OCC and Elective skills will be more or less similar. However, the doctor may be an avid hunter, and the EMT might like to go rock climbing on weekends. These are their secondary skills, and while they may naturally be better at some due to their profession, they are based on rounding the character out.

The same is true with the Thief and the Assassin. One specializes in stealing things, the other specializes in killing people. Because of the very nature of those occupations, there will obviously be many skills that bleed into one another. It is up to the person rolling the character to make him unique. "Why would I choose to be a Thief and not an Assassin?" Well, other than the attribute requirements (which I guess since I was laughed at, no one uses?), how about this: because that's his job. Make up a story, and make it interesting. To me, that's far more fun than "nah, I'm choosing X because I get an X-Ray death strike with multi boost combo breaker at level 2."

And yes, I will totally be responding in the "what's your favorite OCC" thread.

And what's stopping you from choosing X because you get an X-Ray deaths trike with multi-boost combo breaker at level two AND still making a sweet story with it? Like you can have both you know right? Just making a character without thinking about the meta a bit doesn't some how make them more interesting. And just because your example of that EMT and Doctor having skills does not change the fact they can still have their own interesting thing, even if they can't use it out of their areas of expertise, you'll still see them respond differently when using their skills when out of that element.

Case in point as I pointed out, EMT's the better in the field, and that the two similar classes can be made separate and distinct from a game play level because of those differences, but thief and assassin or soldier and mercenary don't have those as a built in mechanic. Knight and Paladin suffer the same way, but you look at say Monk and Solider, or Diabolist and Summoner, Wizard and Warlock, and those all have distinct different game play value beyond the story you attach to them.

And to respond to MADMANMIKE, I never said these abilities must be combat focused. An actual ability for Soldier could be something simple like noted connections that gives them a discount on second hand military stuff. Bonuses to information gathering skills when working in their old stomping grounds. Noticeable and meaningful skill bonuses. Not a vague description of how they could maybe still be in an army (which is awful from an adventure game stand point as I've gone over, unless its a party wide thing), that doesn't actually have any -rules- to connect it to the game, leaving it in the realm of GM writ, which can be done with -any- class. There's nothing stopping a GM and Player going "Well, my assassin is going to be a Western Special Forces guy, so I'mma be in the army", or "I'd like my Wizard to be a field mage for the Eastern Territory kingdoms", or "My Wolfen is going to be part of that new military test for the Wolfen magical warfare stuff." it makes a fine story and that's all well and good, but it's not something you can hold up for the soldier class and try and call a class ability.