Mediums and Messages

On Ratings

Adolf Schmidt. Plate from Atlas der Diatomaceenkunde. 1890.

As part of my ongoing series of class reviews, I've been giving each class a rating using a scale borrowed from Skerples' Many Rats on Sticks GLoGhack (found on pg. 8):

This scale doesn't seem like it was ever intended to stretch to cover all classes, merely to provide a guide for a new player/GM encountering the 38 pages of classes that follow.

I picked it up in the first place because it speaks to what I want out of a rating system. It's not a letter grade. It's a description of a specific feature, in the same way a nut mix being rated "extra fancy" means it can contain larger nuts. But what exactly is it evaluating? Something like "how much work is this going to put on the GM's plate" and "how likely is a player who isn't bought in to have a bad time?"

What I don't want the rating scale to do is relate to the idea of a "core" class. I'm unconvinced by the structuralist argument that classes all reflect patterns underlying a superficial diversity. Though I often compare classes to an archetypal expectation, I do so with the aim of highlighting the specific features that stand out in a specific class for formal analysis. I definitely don't want to assess each class with combat verbs on how "fighterly" it is.

So, I want to introduce a new rating system that evaluates classes on the following rubric elaborated from Skerples' novelty rating:

As I write, I note that these are all descriptions of effort so let's name the ratings as follows:

For now, I'll omit any special ratings like "extra," but I'll keep that space open in case I find I need it.

#GLoG #class reviews #theory