PDA

View Full Version : What do you think the best way to handle classes is.



Tensu
2009-03-31, 04:57 PM
Be it freeform, tabletop, video game, or whatever, what do you think the best way to handle classes is? I'm curious to know...

question 1: wold you rather...

Have a small number of classes with a large number of skills and abilities each, little to no "bleeding" of skills between classes, and nigh-infinite possibility for reflavoring? example: "Priest."

or

A large number of classes, but with a very specific flavor, a smaller number of unique abilities, and potentially a lot of bleeding between classes? example: "Cleric, theurge, druid, shaman, monk, inquisitor, Prophet, Friar, etc., etc."

or

have no real classes, but a set list of abilities possibly with some manner of prerequisite-ery or otherwise connectedness, that the player can speck in at their leisure? example: "healing prayers, smiting prayers, swordfighting, cheese-making, fish summoning, etc."

question 2: would you rather:

have all classes be restricted to certain types of gear? example: No, You can't use a claymore and full plate: you're a mage."

or

Allow players to use any items regardless of class, but with such grave penalties that it's pointless. example: "Why do you want to use a claymore and full plate? you're a mage!"

or

Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

or

Allow players to use any items regardless of class, though stats may or may not still be a factor. example: "I've got the str and int to be a Claymore-wielding, Full-plate wearing, monster-nuking maniac!"

Question 3: would you rather...

Have classes limited to a certain role "No, you can't smite them. you're a healer"

have classes best at a certain role, but be able to do other stuff "Just focus on healing for now."

have classes able to fill a multitude of roles "Are you a heal-cleric, and smite-cleric, a negociate-cleric, and buff-cleric, or a jack of all trades-cleric?"

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-03-31, 05:04 PM
1: I hate class-based systems. Point-based builds all the way, IMHO. I shouldn't have to get another 10 HP if I want to be better at stabbing someone.

2: Well, once you've eliminated classes, then it just comes down to whether it is worth it for someone to try to cast in full plate, which comes down to the magic system and whether increases are linear, diminishing, or multiply. I prefer linear, but the exact system determines that.

3:See above.

Starbuck_II
2009-03-31, 05:16 PM
1. Have a small number of classes with a large number of skills and abilities each, little to no "bleeding" of skills between classes.
With a caveat: What do we mean by classes?
Would Rogue and Fighter (both types of warriors) be same or different classes?

2. Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

Yes, nothing as extreme as arcane spell failure, but I see no issue with mages have no proficiency.

They can take the feats. Maybe a penalty to concentration checks (equal to armor check if they exists) if the game has the metal armor messes up magic flavor (depends on game, 2nd edition D&D said that).
Penalty is there and messes Mages up (at least at lower levels), but not too extreme.

3. A mixture of Best focus and jack all trades types.
I find the extreme: can't smite, you heal" to be abhorrent though.

BRC
2009-03-31, 05:19 PM
I've always been more a fan of the way Shadowrun handled character creation. Yeah, it took longer, but it was more in-depth and versatile.

Though I suppose it really depends on the type of game. DnD is built for everything to fit nicely together. The rules say a party of X level will be challenged by, but be able to defeat, Y encounter, and should receive Z (or equivalent Z) for doing so. This system doesn't always work of course, but it provides a neat and easy framework.

Shadowrun on the other hand had no such system. The DM had no guidelines except their gut for how difficult an encounter was going to be, or how tough the party was. Then again, considering how lethal combat was, an odd roll this way or that could throw all that planning to the ground (One bad drain-resistance roll, and your mage is nursing the mother of all headaches for the rest of the day and is essentially out of the fight). Leading to more chaotic, less predictable gameplay.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-31, 05:24 PM
Classless, level-less, skill-/ability-/trait-based systems without crazy artificial restrictions are the best. Bonus points for increasing the attributes through experience gained from something actually tied to the character (like following and playing their stated motivations, drives, and goals), rather than just using the skill (this results in characters only getting better at the skills that everyone has to use, or that they're the best in the party in) or killing monsters and "completing adventures."

Cf. GURPS, The Riddle of Steel, RuneQuest (especially Mongoose's), HeroQuest, Shadowrun, etc.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is the only class- and level-based system I really like, because it's quirky. (Although reconciling the various professions with traditional adventuring can be a pain, I like games where the PCs have a real place in the world beyond "I wander and kill stuff" anyway.)

Question 1: The third.
Question 2: The fourth.
Question 3: The third.

Raum
2009-03-31, 05:50 PM
Why assume a need for classes at all? Get rid of 'em altogether!

Fiery Diamond
2009-03-31, 05:53 PM
Well, this makes a giant, giant difference in my answers:
"Be it freeform, tabletop, video game, or whatever..."

Freeform:
1. Eliminate classes (third option)
2. Irrelevant, as I don't think freeform should be based on statistics and numbers in any way - think of it as all fluff, no crunch. (This is why freeform "games" online are abhorrent to me.)
3. Since no classes and no crunch, a cross between second and third option (keeping some of second option so people have a reason to work together).

Tabletop:
1. Either 1st or 2nd works for me, but I tend toward the second.
2. Third option for balance reasons, but fourth option would be very fun.
3. Mainly third option.

Video game:
1. Either 1st or 3rd option, mainly depending on how many characters you control and whether you can change classes.
2. I'm used to the 1st option (conditioned from FF), but I would prefer the 4th option.
3. The 2nd option.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-31, 06:09 PM
I wanted to elaborate, but then this appeared:


1: I hate class-based systems. Point-based builds all the way, IMHO. I shouldn't have to get another 10 HP if I want to be better at stabbing someone.

2: Well, once you've eliminated classes, then it just comes down to whether it is worth it for someone to try to cast in full plate, which comes down to the magic system and whether increases are linear, diminishing, or multiply. I prefer linear, but the exact system determines that.

3:See above.

Replace "hate" with "don't like very much" and this is my point as well.

Shpadoinkle
2009-03-31, 06:44 PM
They all have thier appeals. Point based systems with no classes like GURPS are nice for building the exact character you want, without having to go through a bunch of bull**** to get the one ability you want and not have to be saddled with all this useless crap you'll never use.

On the other hand, class based systems give a distinctive feel and better definition. You know, in general, what everyone is capable of.

Draz74
2009-03-31, 07:21 PM
I'm going with "tabletop" since it's the only one I do enough to deeply care about.


Be it freeform, tabletop, video game, or whatever, what do you think the best way to handle classes is? I'm curious to know...

question 1: wold you rather...

I can see the appeal of all three, as long as they're stuck to strictly. But my own preference is probably closest to Option 3. But I don't mind still having "classes" as a basic framework that determine very basic attributes of a character, like overall fighting ability or overall casting ability.


question 2: would you rather:

Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

Dedication should be rewarded to some extent. A gish should never be as good at casting as a dedicated magic-obsessed archmage of the same level. But the gish should be fun, too, and powerful in his own right. And exploring creative combinations of abilities should certainly not be punished.


Question 3: would you rather...

I think what I've already written should clear this up. Dedication should be rewarded somewhat, but classes shouldn't be the way to shoehorn people into this dedication. Under my "basic framework" idea of classes, a caster-class could be a blaster mage, a healer, a necromancer, a shaman, or a multitude of other concepts.

Flickerdart
2009-03-31, 07:36 PM
I prefer a mix of the no-class and set-class approaches. There are some abilities that should belong to anyone who wants them (such as, say, acrobatic skills or basic weapons training), abilities that anyone of an archetype can use (such as Wisdom-keyed magic for spiritual classes) and some abilities so specialized that you have to dedicate yourself to them. So, for example, you chose to be an arcane spellcaster. Joe over there is a close quarters combatant. There is no reason that the both of you can't run or jump almost as well as one another, or play chess, or train pet riding alligators. But Joe is going to be better at weapons than you, and will be able to do things that you will never be able to do for walking down the path of magic, such as, say, punching through a magical shield with your fist while picking Balor bits out of your teeth.

Items shouldn't be restricted by class, but not everyone is going to get the same use out of the same item. No restrictions are necessary on this, if you want to run around in full plate and dual-wield greatswords, go ahead, only why did you decide to cast magic again? Oh. That's not a bad reason, actually. Have fun.

Classes, as their specialities go, should be better at one area than others, but not locked down in what they do. So, as a wizard, you get bonuses to your spells, and better spells than a fighter who wants to dabble in sorcery. But you don't have to cast spells. You can weave baskets if you want.

So... 3, 3, 3.

JeminiZero
2009-03-31, 07:55 PM
Cf. GURPS, The Riddle of Steel, RuneQuest (especially Mongoose's), HeroQuest, Shadowrun, etc.


And of course, Mutants and Masterminds 2e.

Agrippa
2009-03-31, 08:42 PM
question 1: wold you rather...

A large number of classes, but with a very specific flavor, a smaller number of unique abilities, and potentially a lot of bleeding between classes? example: "Cleric, theurge, druid, shaman, monk, inquisitor, Prophet, Friar, etc., etc."

But mostly by taking pre-existing classes, like cleric and tweaking them for the player in question.


question 2: would you rather:

Allow players to use any items regardless of class, but with such grave penalties that it's pointless. example: "Why do you want to use a claymore and full plate? you're a mage!"

or

Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

While I think that classes represent a combination background, training and mindset and firmly beleive in class-based armor and weapon restrictions, I see nothing wrong in allowing a mage (whether you call it a magic-user, wizard or sorcerer) to use a claymore, with penalty, if he or she is strong enough too wield it. The arcanist could even learn how to all weapons proficiently at higher levels. Either by multiclassing or raising the mage's experience point threshold.


Question 3: would you rather...

have classes able to fill a multitude of roles "Are you a heal-cleric, and smite-cleric, a negociate-cleric, and buff-cleric, or a jack of all trades-cleric?"

Not every one can be expected to play a cleric or wizard the exact same way.

ericgrau
2009-03-31, 09:39 PM
1. A
2. C
3. None of the above. I'd like classes that can fill a small number of roles equally well, regardless of build focus (though build focus might change the *pool* of roles somewhat, and class limits which roles you can choose from).

Knaight
2009-03-31, 09:44 PM
For Tabletop-Classless, Skill Based, Non HP, point based character creation, or subjective character creation, preferably with individual weapons(fairly broad though, so not something like Class IV roman gladius, more along the lines of "swords") as skills to avoid the whole "mages can't wield swords" issue.

Videogames, it depends on the game. RPGs, MMORPGs, etc. should be classless. That said, some turn based strategy games(Fire Emblem ie.) could work either way.

Irate Ranger
2009-03-31, 09:58 PM
It would depend on what kind of game I was tailoring the classes for.

Just as an example, lets say that I was creating a Hack 'N Slash, focusing on simple objectives, linear storyline, and co-operative gameplay. In this scenario, I'd probably keep the number of classes to a maximum of six, with each class having its own set of unique abilities and filling a specific role in co-operative play. I would still allow for a bit of customization, mind you. But it would be nowhere near that of a more complex RPG.

On the other hand, lets say I'm creating an MMORPG that focuses on depth, player interaction and an open-ended world. I'd probably have a moderate number of classes (around 6-12) that had a unique flavour, with maybe one or two "Jack-of-all-trades" style classes. I'd be a bit more liberal with what skills are unique to certain classes (Universal spell list, maybe?) But other than that, every class would be unique.

Basically, it all depends on what kind of game you are trying to create, and what classes would fit better in your setting/design plan.

PinkysBrain
2009-03-31, 10:21 PM
1 : I'd favour the first option, but there has to be a lot of room for character customization to change the options open to the character in combat/social situations ... feats/skills/powers/tricks/whatever). Also flexible and effective multiclassing is required (ie. none of the "can't multiclass a caster without a fitting PrC" **** from D&D). If there is not a lot of character customization available outside of class abilities, then I'd prefer the second option.

2 : The third option, with the caveat that it shouldn't be impossible to use the items effectively it should just come at a cost ... getting away from your archetype shouldn't be impossible, but I think archetypes are still worth having so there should be some pressure towards them.

3 : Silly question, absolutes are rarely interesting ... the second.

As for the off "classes/levels suck" discussion, I think level less systems suck ... it rewards hyper specialization too much (having point limits which can be invested in specific abilities which go up as the campaign advances IS a defacto level based system).

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-03-31, 10:33 PM
As for the off "classes/levels suck" discussion, I think level less systems suck ... it rewards hyper specialization too much (having point limits which can be invested in specific abilities which go up as the campaign advances IS a defacto level based system).What about systems with diminishing returns? For example, AQ:Jaern sets it up where to buy the next tier of any ability, you have to multiply the tier you're going to be by the abilitie's 'base cost'. IE: HP costs 25 xp times (your current HP total +1). Means that the experience spent to boost your current highest ability once could instead boost an untrained ability 5-6 levels. Makes for a lot more versatility.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-31, 11:45 PM
If you're going to uses classes at all, 1A-2C-3B is the way to go. A Class (as I understand it) should hew to a particular role/job and not be pushed aside by some other, more versatile class. The 2E Bard is a good example of a "Jack-of-all-Trades" Class that does not step on the toes of the Mage or Thief while still being flexible. I don't think equipment should necessarily be the province of any particular class, though certain classes should have greater proficiency with their "tools of the trade" than interlopers. Of course, you don't want to make each Class too constrained - nobody likes playing the heal-bot - so leave some flexibility within the role-description.

1C-2D-3C is barely a class system at all, IMHO.

Still, these aren't really all the options available, even if you assume class based systems. For instance, you can have a large number of classes, each grouped around certain roles but with distinct mechanical differences - the 4E Rogue vs. 4E Ranger, for example.

In any case, there is no standard definition of what a "class system" means, aside from it being used to label systems as diverse as AD&D and Rifts (and many others, I'm sure). I use the definition of Class I picked up from AD&D; I'm sure other people use different ones.

A more interesting question would be what people think the base characteristics of a Class System would be.

Harperfan7
2009-04-01, 02:31 AM
The last option of all three.

Take Oblivion for example, anybody can do anything anybody else can do (eventually), it's just a matter of how well/early on. Some people will never be as good as others at certain things, but they can both do them. And if you want to be a full plate wearing, great sword wielding, nuclear fireball throwing mage, go right ahead, you just won't be as good a fighter as a straight fighter and same with magic/mages.

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-01, 02:35 AM
1. Large number of similar classes because I like freedom of choice, but classes with similar rolls should play differently.

2. Anyone can use what they like, but there should be penalties for trying to use things which you're not trained to use.

3. I prefer classes to focus on 1 roll while being descent in another area, if they won't end up being overpowered.

Satyr
2009-04-01, 03:27 AM
Question 1:

A classless system is in almost every regard superior and preferable to a class-based system'; players have more influence on their character's development and further carreer, more fine tuning and personal adjustments allow for a higher degree of character individualisation and identification of the player with the character, and the finer adjustment and individual development makes it much easier to create well- rounded characters, while many class systems force the player into certain stereotypes.
Class systems in roleplaying games are an anachronism, and are only kept alive through a sense of tradition; there are virtually no reasons from a quality point of view to keep them. Even the one pseudo-advantage a class-based system has - orientation for undecisive players and are marginally faster character creation - can easily emulated in most classless systems through the use of prefabricated templates and lenses for the character, which are often not nearly as restrictive as most class systems.

Question 2:

Since I found classes to be an outdated model, class-based restrictions on equipment are probably worse, as long as there is no workale explanation within the foundation of the gaming world for it ("Iron, and especially cold iron are an active countermeasure for magic. While your mage can wear all the full plate armors he can carry, that may not be the wisest idea"; "Only the nobility and the warrior caste are trained in the combat with the sword - a mage who wear these sysmbols of power is treated as an impostor and can be banished by the local lords"). Arbitrary and unexplainable limitations are mostly stupid, and should by avoided. Sensible limitations based on the inner logic of the gaming world are a different matter.

Question 3:

If I have to cope with classes, I prefer as much individual influence of the player on the character as possible and as little enforced stereotypes and limitations of the system as possible.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 04:02 AM
Class systems in roleplaying games are an anachronism, and are only kept alive through a sense of tradition

And a silly one, considering Traveller ('77) and RuneQuest ('78) were never class-based, but skill- and career-based (your background loosely determined your starting skills).

Satyr
2009-04-01, 04:20 AM
I don't know much about Traveller, but the Runequest rules I know included a character creation which were based on a roll to determine the character's culture and social standing / profession, which pretty much were a class system - it just wasn't level-based, so characters improved in the skills they used a lot.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-01, 04:50 AM
Class systems in roleplaying games are an anachronism, and are only kept alive through a sense of tradition;

Woah, I actually agree with Satyr on something.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 05:11 AM
I don't know much about Traveller, but the Runequest rules I know included a character creation which were based on a roll to determine the character's culture and social standing / profession, which pretty much were a class system - it just wasn't level-based, so characters improved in the skills they used a lot.

The rolls (at a guess, I'd say the tables you refer to were from the RQ3 Glorantha: Crucible of the Hero Wars boxed set, book 3) are (obviously) optional, and that's not a class system - it's a background system. The system is entirely skill-, not class-based; there's no class abilities or limitations, and you can, if you care to, learn all three types of magic while wielding six different weapons masterfully and clunking around in plate armor (although you have to join a pretty specific cult or be Illuminated to combine "rune levels" in multiple practices; combined Rune Lord/Priest-Wizard-Shamans are only really found among one or two Gloranthan cultures, and even then they're rare). The basic book of RQ3, for instance, had no professions (I think the Deluxe book may have, though I'm not sure). You just picked your culture and got your X points to divide among your skills. In RQ2 (a scant 2 years after RQ1, which I don't have), you rolled for background (Peasant, Townsman, Barbarian, Poor Noble, Rich Noble, Very Rich Noble), which determined your wealth and starting equipment. Again, no class system at all.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-04-01, 05:11 AM
I must agree with Satyr, BRC and Sstoopid; having a class-less system is most preferable.

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-01, 05:30 AM
I prefer classes due to generally prefering to have some limits as far as character creation goes for some reason. I think it's because I don't like video games where characters are infinitly customizable ability wise due to it making the characters less unique. Which is strange because this doesn't apply to table top systems due to characters being infinitly more customizable anyway.

Satyr
2009-04-01, 05:46 AM
The rolls (at a guess, I'd say the tables you refer to were from the RQ3 Glorantha: Crucible of the Hero Wars boxed set, book 3) are (obviously) optional, and that's not a class system - it's a background system. The system is entirely skill-, not class-based;

In the old version of Runequest I have (from the early 90s, I guess), the roll for the class seemed pretty obligatory and made for serious differences between characters (especially because at least half of the characters were peasants...)
I also think that class-based and skill-based are not completely contradicting terms. You can quite easily create a system were players pick a template or a lense for their characters and advance them more or less freely nonetheless, for example in Gurps: Dungeon Fantasy.


Woah, I actually agree with Satyr on something.

I am as shocked as you are. :smallamused:


I think it's because I don't like video games where characters are infinitly customizable ability wise due to it making the characters less unique

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. The more a character becomes customized to the distinct ideas, wishes and perspectives of a player, the more unique the character becomes. More fine tuning allows for more unique characters, as they can differ in more aspects and the player has more contol over the character's carreer.

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-01, 06:05 AM
With video games, I was mainly thinking about FF 7 and 8 where all of your characters abilities except for limit breaks are decided through things which are attached to them, which leads to the characters themselves not mattering because it's the Materia/Guardian Forces which decide what they can do. (I know this wouldn't be an issue in the sort of RPGs you're refering to due to them being more versatile while using different skill granting methods, but I was mentioning that as a possible reason for why I prefer classes.)

Tengu_temp
2009-04-01, 06:10 AM
With video games, I was mainly thinking about FF 7 and 8 where all of your characters abilities except for limit breaks are decided through things which are attached to them, which leads to the characters themselves not mattering because it's the Materia/Guardian Forces which decide what they can do. (I know this wouldn't be an issue in the sort of RPGs you're refering to due to them being more versatile while using different skill granting methods, but I was mentioning that as a possible reason for why I prefer classes.)

Which has the benefit of you being able to take every character to every place, instead of having to worry to always bring a healer and whatnot. However, this point is moot anyway, as extremely few non-class-based RPGs have such homogenous characters (mechanics-wise) as these two games.

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-01, 06:16 AM
Are there any systems at all with systems which work like that? I know some systems involve random rolls (which I'd hate due to wanting to pick what my characters can do myself), and that some, like GURPs, use points to add skills and stats.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-01, 06:17 AM
I dunno. There's always a possibility something like that is out there.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 06:28 AM
Are there any systems at all with systems which work like that? I know some systems involve random rolls (which I'd hate due to wanting to pick what my characters can do myself), and that some, like GURPs, use points to add skills and stats.

Like what, exactly? If you mean "completely indistinguishable characters that you bolt transferrable items/powers onto," D&D 3.5 is the closest I know (magic items = your character), and it's not very close at all.

Satyr
2009-04-01, 06:48 AM
There are many games which allow you to adjust your characters very carefully to whatever you want to play - modular games, like Gurps, Mutants and Masterminds or Unisystem work better in this regard, with slight differences based on the system's depth of details. You can use thi modularity to create "rump characters" in every of the systems mentioned above which are then adjusted with additional skills, abilities or equipment. But I don't know any game where this is the default solution - in the case of the more modular games, this would also be a serious step backwards from the current freedom and character influence.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-01, 07:41 AM
As far as the classless vs class-based discussion goes, I can see advantages both ways - classless certainly allows for more customization, but class-based allows for more roundly-competent characters (i.e. someone like Conan or James Bond, who can pick something up and instantly be good at it, is more easily depicted, in my experience, by a class-based system). You can have that sort of thing in a classless system, but you need to use sort of an indie game character style.

Given the questions, and the assumption of classes:

1. a Broad classes.

2. This depends on the setting. If magic doesn't work if you wear armor, then wizards can't wear armor. If you want wizards to be physically weak, then restrict their weapons. If you don't, don't bother.

3. I would prefer for classes not to have specific roles at all. Your class determines your toolbox, not what you can do with it.

Morty
2009-04-01, 08:16 AM
The best... for what? I have trouble answering the questions, as the answers would depend on the type of the game I want, since I don't really belive in objective superiority of some options over others. Still:
1 - A. Or B, depending on how it's done.
2 - C
3 - C
Of course, I don't think that class-based systems are "outdated", whatever that might mean.

Knaight
2009-04-01, 08:40 AM
As far as the classless vs class-based discussion goes, I can see advantages both ways - classless certainly allows for more customization, but class-based allows for more roundly-competent characters (i.e. someone like Conan or James Bond, who can pick something up and instantly be good at it, is more easily depicted, in my experience, by a class-based system). You can have that sort of thing in a classless system, but you need to use sort of an indie game character style.

For James Bond and Conan types, what usually works is either just high attributes, in systems where attributes influence skills, or letting them take really broad skills, where things are usually more narrow. I would provide the Fudge Subjective Character Creation system as an example. Because Fudge uses a word scale for skills, attributes, and difficulties, it is really easy to determine all three. The subjective system basically consists of everybody just making their character as they want, with no or few limits, but with the GM watching over. So Conan would probably take Melee weapons at a very high level, Ranged Weapons at a slightly less high level, and Animals at a very high level, with high attributes. Then pile on character flaws.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-01, 09:15 AM
For James Bond and Conan types, what usually works is either just high attributes, in systems where attributes influence skills, or letting them take really broad skills, where things are usually more narrow. I would provide the Fudge Subjective Character Creation system as an example. Because Fudge uses a word scale for skills, attributes, and difficulties, it is really easy to determine all three. The subjective system basically consists of everybody just making their character as they want, with no or few limits, but with the GM watching over. So Conan would probably take Melee weapons at a very high level, Ranged Weapons at a slightly less high level, and Animals at a very high level, with high attributes. Then pile on character flaws.


Yes, you can do it with sufficiently broad skills, and high attributes are more or less a requirement for famous characters, but the skills need to be really broad. Even with your Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, and Animals, you're still not depicting Conan's sailing skills, his general survival skills, his persuasiveness, his tactical and strategic abilities, and so on. Sure, you can hit them all with sufficiently broad skills, but to some extent, that's what classes are - really, really broad skills.

On top of which, a loose-ish system like Fudge would be what I meant by an indie game style - not in a bad way, mind you; the more I look at systems like that, the more they appeal to me.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 09:26 AM
Characters like Conan and James Bond are easy to facilitate in completely skill-based games. In fact, they're much easier, usually. Conan would be a barbarian/fighter/ranger/rogue in D&D, and that would completely neglect the fact he's a great commander, and wouldn't give him Speak Languages as a class skill, etc. (It works out better in Conan d20, where you get languages easier, and you're supposed to multiclass. He's a barbarian/thief/soldier/pirate/noble.)

The thing is, those are two extremely powerful characters, both experience- and natural ability-wise.. Conan as he's usually envisioned and used in Howard's novels is in his late 20s, at the height of his prowess and skill. Conan from Frost Giant's Daughter would be much lower-powered, simply a wilderness fighter with good stats.

Telonius
2009-04-01, 09:41 AM
Question 1: Depends on the skill level of the players. For people just starting out in RPing, the first option (a few classes with a defined role) is probably best. "Do you want to play a thief, a fighter, a mage, or a healer?" is a question that just about anybody's able to answer. As the players get more familiar with RPing, slide the scale over to point-based classless systems.

Question 2: Starting out, I'd say option three (penalties, but not severe). It's their character, I don't want to rain on their parade. If he wants to be a Greatsword-slinging mage, terrific. He still only gets a certain number of actions per round. It'll prove instructive to him. (For classless generation, this won't even be an issue).

Question 3: Option two (best at something, but able to do other stuff). Only being able to do one thing is boring. When the players are savvy enough to go to classless, it won't be an issue.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-01, 09:54 AM
I would agree that a skill/class hybrid like d20 is far from ideal, but I think that all of

Conan would be a barbarian/fighter/ranger/rogue in D&D, and that would completely neglect the fact he's a great commander, and wouldn't give him Speak Languages as a class skill, etc. (It works out better in Conan d20, where you get languages easier, and you're supposed to multiclass. He's a barbarian/thief/soldier/pirate/noble.)
could be easily assumed into one class. Fighter, for example, could easily mean "guy who's good at physical stuff and stuff relating to war." Stuff like speaking lots of languages and riding horses can just be assumed as stuff that all PCs know how to do.


The thing is, those are two extremely powerful characters, both experience- and natural ability-wise.. Conan as he's usually envisioned and used in Howard's novels is in his late 20s, at the height of his prowess and skill. Conan from Frost Giant's Daughter would be much lower-powered, simply a wilderness fighter with good stats.

Sure, of course they are, but the important thing isn't so much that they're good at what they do as it is that they aren't horribly specialized. Bond's really good with a pistol, but not at the expense of being really good with a shotgun, or being able to speak a bunch of languages, or being an excellent driver, or what have you.

Satyr
2009-04-01, 09:55 AM
Of course, I don't think that class-based systems are "outdated", whatever that might mean.

That's actually quite easy: There is little to nothing I can do with a class-based system which I can't do equally well or better with a class-less one, but there are many things which I can do much easier with a class-less system than with classes. Even though is mostly a question of different qualities and degrees of "classiness" instead of a bipolar question, depending on how free the classes are designed and how much influence a character has on the fine-tuning of the character and its future development.

Loch
2009-04-01, 10:00 AM
Question One

I tend to favor no real classesl with abbility to use some sort of points system to buy and chopose your players abbilities and skills, I've mainly experianced this with the TriStatdx system and BESM which is also based off it and it seemed to work with character built on a certain amount of point depending on powers, facing challenges and encounters earnt you more points as you progress through the game.

Question Two

As mentioned above, I don't like classes, I'd rather have a character gear limited to proficiency and skill not, Your a magic suer no armor for you.

Question Three

Second option.

Morty
2009-04-01, 10:44 AM
That's actually quite easy: There is little to nothing I can do with a class-based system which I can't do equally well or better with a class-less one, but there are many things which I can do much easier with a class-less system than with classes. Even though is mostly a question of different qualities and degrees of "classiness" instead of a bipolar question, depending on how free the classes are designed and how much influence a character has on the fine-tuning of the character and its future development.

None of this justify objective statements like "classless systems are superior" or "class-based systems are kept only by tradition".

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 10:55 AM
None of this justify objective statements like "classless systems are superior" or "class-based systems are kept only by tradition".

But it does translate to "class-based systems are outdated." If there's an option with the same but broader functionality, the narrower option is outdated.

Winterwind
2009-04-01, 11:15 AM
Satyr already expressed very precisely and far more eloquently than I ever could have hoped to what coincides 100% with my opinion in his first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5943806&postcount=22) in this thread. For me, it's class-less systems all the way. Far more freedom and flexibility, and I see no trade-off at all.

Morty
2009-04-01, 11:22 AM
But it does translate to "class-based systems are outdated." If there's an option with the same but broader functionality, the narrower option is outdated.

Not if the supposedly "narrower" option is more enjoyable in this way or another to some people it isn't.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 11:27 AM
Not if the supposedly "narrower" option is more enjoyable in this way or another to some people it isn't.

Non sequitur. You can enjoy Ford Model Ts more than Lamborghinis, but they're still outdated.

Satyr
2009-04-01, 11:28 AM
None of this justify objective statements like "classless systems are superior" or "class-based systems are kept only by tradition".

Well, when a classless system can do pretty much everything a class-based system can equally well or better, and quite a few stuff which is completely beyond the class' systems possibilities, than that is pretty much an example for superiority.

And there is nothing intrinsically wrong with keeping stuff out of tradition - sometimes old age and tradition is what makes stuff cool in the first place - (I for one think that the older cars get, the more elegant they look, even though it is quite obvious that modern cars are much more efficient and versatile than the classical ones).

Satyr
2009-04-01, 11:33 AM
Stupid double post created through connection issues. Sorry.

The MunchKING
2009-04-01, 11:35 AM
The best way to handle classes is to go to them, take notes on whatever the teache says, and TRY to do good on the tests!! :smalltongue:

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-04-01, 12:32 PM
The only problem I have with classless systems, like GURPS, is that you end up with Munchkinism to the nth degree.

For example, there should be some things which are powerful. Those things, when synergized, become broken. And there is nothing that keeps a classless character from doing it.

A perfect example would be the mage/martial artist I wrote up in GURPS 3rd ed. With a 21 in Death Touch, he could cast it as a free action (less than one second), then use his quarterstaff (also his wizard's Staff), to deliver 2d6-3d6 straight to hit points, bypassing armor completely. For 2d6, it cost me no fatigue, I could do it all day long. If something needed to 'get dead now', I could spend one fatigue (which I could rest back in ten minutes) and do 3d6. Consider that in GURPS, you start with 10 hit points, and the only way to increase said hit points is to spend a LOT of points in raising your HT score.

Even better, he was a martial artist, and had Weapon Master, so he got a more rapid attack progression (3 attacks/round), and his Parry score was 2/3 of his Staff skill (18, which translates to a 12 Parry score) + his Passive Defense, which brought my Parry up to a 15. Then I got the Cinimatic Parry ability, which allowed me to parry unlimited number of times, and adds another +1. So basically, I have to roll a 16 or less on 3d6 to parry any attack (which can be parried), I'm ignoring armor, insta-gibbing people left and right...

All for a 150 point character.

Even better, he did have some other spells, although most were around level 15. These included Sleep (targeting Int for Save or Die), Flame Jet (for more ranged damage), half the Body Control college (prerequisites for Death Touch), and Curse Missile to launch them at range easier. He also had Reverse Missiles, although it was fatiguing to maintain it.

It is easier to balance a class-based game (at least when you have a small group of people authorized to make classes, which was Monopolies of the Coast's problem). It becomes more difficult to cherry pick ability A from class Y and synergize it with ability B from class Z.

This is why the game I am creating is a class-based system, with no ability to 'cross-class'. However, there are a total of 16 different classes, and classes can be flexible enough to pretty much be whatever kind of (balanced) character that you want to be.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 12:51 PM
That doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as D&D clerics, druids, and wizards. I am puzzled, to say the least.

It's also a problem very specific to GURPS. (M&M has a similar problem in theory, but the rulebook addresses this very frankly. "Please don't take or don't let players take unlimited Duplicate / Mimic etc., it will ruin everything.") How do you get that sort of problem in, say, RuneQuest? Or Traveller? Or The Riddle of Steel? And so on...

Faulty
2009-04-01, 01:05 PM
Small number of classes with lots of abilities and easy multiclassing; so characters have a bit of focus easily but have room to be very varied.

Allow players to use any item but make it not optimal for, say, a mage to wear full plate. Leaves the verisimilitude that comes with being able to use anything realistically, but prevents ridiculous things.

Have characters able to fit a variety of roles.

Fixer
2009-04-01, 01:30 PM
I believe the best way to handle classes is to allow them to be optional.

Classes are for people who want a cookie-cutter for their characters, either because of lack of knowledge of a system or lack of time or lack of interest. Classes make a game newbie-friendly. If a game doesn't have classes (or templates or professions or whatnot) then new players will feel overwhelmed and never pick up the game.

For those who prefer versatility, optimizing, and otherwise twinking a system to do things it probably was never meant to do, classes are a limitation, a restriction, a hindrance. Classes are the enemy.

Now, for me, I don't like classes as anything other than guidelines. I am among the optimizing crowd and, therefore, see classes as a means to an end, not a party role or profession. A character isn't a Fighter 2/Ranger 5/Samurai 7, they are a battle-hardened warrior who has an animal companion, woodland lore, a signature blade, and a few tricks up his sleeve.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-04-01, 01:40 PM
That doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as D&D clerics, druids, and wizards. I am puzzled, to say the least.

It's also a problem very specific to GURPS. (M&M has a similar problem in theory, but the rulebook addresses this very frankly. "Please don't take or don't let players take unlimited Duplicate / Mimic etc., it will ruin everything.") How do you get that sort of problem in, say, RuneQuest? Or Traveller? Or The Riddle of Steel? And so on...

D&D's problem is an inherent class imbalance. That is poor game design. I'm talking about, in a classless system, Munchkinism is vastly more powerful, and can lead to a significantly larger game imbalance.

As another example, I had a 100 point wizard-type, focusing on Fire spells. He was your blastomancer, but I also decided "What the heck, I've got an Int of 14, I'm going to go ahead and pick up Traps, since it's only a Mental Average, for 2 points, to get IT at a 14". As it turns out, the 'party thief' only had an Int of 12, and could only get a Traps skill of 13. Therefore, the party wizard actually had a higher chance of disarming most traps than the party thief did.

In addition, I was flinging about 1d6 Flame Jets and fireballs at no fatigue cost, or tossing around 2-3d6 damage fairly easily. I was also able to turn into a living fire elemental with no corporeal body to attack, although it was fatiguing to do so for long.

I also spent a couple of points on the Fencing skill, putting it at 12. Since Fencing parry is 2/3 of the base skill, I had a parry of 8, plus my PD puts it at a 10. For a character who is mostly a wizard, that is phenomonal, almost a 50% chance of parrying any given attack.

So for a total of 6 character points, I've made a character just as hard to hit as the 'main tank', and just as good at disabling traps as the 'thief'. This is the problem with classless characters, it's too easy for someone who knows how to manipulate the system to make characters far more powerful than 'newbies'.

Satyr
2009-04-01, 01:51 PM
A perfect example would be the mage/martial artist I wrote up in GURPS 3rd ed. With a 21 in Death Touch, he could cast it as a free action (less than one second), then use his quarterstaff (also his wizard's Staff), to deliver 2d6-3d6 straight to hit points, bypassing armor completely. For 2d6, it cost me no fatigue, I could do it all day long. If something needed to 'get dead now', I could spend one fatigue (which I could rest back in ten minutes) and do 3d6. Consider that in GURPS, you start with 10 hit points, and the only way to increase said hit points is to spend a LOT of points in raising your HT score.

And that is different where to the power gap between a well made clericzilla or wizard and a fighter (for example) in D&D 3.5?
As a side note, that wouldn't work in the current Gurps rules anymore nor is it that complicated to increase life points without increasing HT nor are characters dead nor even in direct thread of their life when they reach 0 Life Points -that is the threshold for consciousness. In one of my campaigns (where spellcasters are more like sidekicks to the true heroes) it wouldn't work at all.
Nonetheless, tool box systems like Gurps or HERO require a selection of the traits and features prior to the game, as there are many quite specific limitations to it. The 4th edition of Gurps is much more streamlined and better balanced than that - especially when the generally much superior power system is used (which means that you use the game's toolbox approach and build pretty much every power/spell/effect/whatever you want).
Besides, the most broken power in Gurps deals one point of damage to every creature in the universe per second, without any limitations, possible protection, preparation or countermeasures. As far as I know, there are similar abuses in Mutants and Masterminds, or D&D. It's not like that complete munchkinism is limited to classless systems.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 02:00 PM
D&D's problem is an inherent class imbalance. That is poor game design. I'm talking about, in a classless system, Munchkinism is vastly more powerful, and can lead to a significantly larger game imbalance.

You keep talking about GURPS. GURPS says nothing about classless systems, it says things about GURPS.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-04-01, 02:51 PM
You keep talking about GURPS. GURPS says nothing about classless systems, it says things about GURPS.

It is the classless system with which I am most familiar.

The power and unbalancing factor of Munchkinism is directly proportional to the player options. At least in a Class-based System (at least one which isn't already overbalanced like 3.5), you can limit the possible cheeze.

Level/Class based systems are also good at limiting power. Case in point: in GURPS 3e, I could spend 100 points on Psychokenesis Power level 20, and spend 45 on an Int of 14. For a 125 point character to be able to randomly, and effortlessly, toss around boulders like bullets, doing insane amounts of damage. Or turn someone into a cinder. Or an icicle. Or squish their head like an overripe melon. Or toss THEM around at super-mach speeds.

At least with a level-based system, you don't get this 'out of the gate'. Even the D&D 3.5 Wizard needs at least level 9-11 to be able to become practically invincible. A level 1 Wizard is not a god, yet. He's only got about 4-6 hit points. He can't wear armor, so unless he wants to cast his single 1st level spell as Mage Armor, his AC = his DEX Mod.

Oslecamo
2009-04-01, 02:59 PM
Well, when a classless system can do pretty much everything a class-based system can equally well or better, and quite a few stuff which is completely beyond the class' systems possibilities, than that is pretty much an example for superiority.


Ah, but there are some things that classless system can't do, and are very important in certain RPGs.

First, enforce teamwork.

Most RPGs are team games. If there are classes to limit your power selection, the designers can make sure that the players need to work togheter to overcome challenges, wich in my opinion greatly enforces the enjoy of the game. Sure there are people who enjoy playing "I'm good at (almost)everything!" characters, but trust me, limiting options can actually be a good thing if done properly. They force the player to works togheter and to think more to overcome obstacles by combining their powers instead of everybody trying to solve the problems on their own.

Second, by limiting the powers, it makes the game that much easier to balance, and for the designers to create monsters to properly challenge the party.

Look at Wow for example, the most popular computer RPG out there nowadays, in the basis of making players of diferent classes work as a team to overcome big bad bosses and challenges.

Team fortress isn't exactly an RPG, but it's a very popular recent FPS on the basis of introducing classes so instead of a bunch of guys with equal weapons like other FPS we have a bunch of diferent guys who need to properly combine their abilities

Wich leads me to ther third point, class based systems allow for bigger powers whitout straining balance. Power A could be broken if combined with power B, but if the powers belong to diferent classes in wich a way that you can't get them both at the same time then it's no problem.

You could technically do this last point in a classless system, but it would force a LOT more of testing from the game designers.

Last but not least, it enforces variety. The game feels much better if everybody feels their characters are unique, while in classless systems it's alomost inevitable that everybody will share the imba skills/powers, like in Exalted everybody takes an inpenetrable defense and the other resistance boosting power no matter if they are a diplomat or a fighter or a mage or whatever.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-04-01, 03:07 PM
At least with a level-based system, you don't get this 'out of the gate'. Even the D&D 3.5 Wizard needs at least level 9-11 to be able to become practically invincible. A level 1 Wizard is not a god, yet. He's only got about 4-6 hit points. He can't wear armor, so unless he wants to cast his single 1st level spell as Mage Armor, his AC = his DEX Mod. Three words: "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu" :smallamused:

Berserk Monk
2009-04-01, 03:07 PM
First question to ask is "What does the party need?" And if the answer isn't healer, the next question you ask is "Based on the last answer, how can I power game my character to do an insane amount of damage or make something dead fast?"

For warriors that's simple: high strength, big weapon, and feats to up the damage even more.

Rogues, well, you got to cash in on the sneak attack ability. Find ways to use it in any situation (when you're not flanking and a surprise round is out of the question).

As for casters, they get some powerful spells so it's not that big a challenge. Just take some metamagic feats to bust up the damage and effect.

Other things to consider to do a lot of damage: find ways to make several attacks per round (two weapon fighting/ flurry of blows), find ways to enslave get other people to do damage for you (undead minions, summoning monsters, animal companions). Think outside the box.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-01, 03:40 PM
It is the classless system with which I am most familiar.

And it's only a classless system, with its own specific problems (perhaps shared, to a degree, with M&M and HERO). Using it to characterize other classless systems (the vast majority of RPGs, therefore with far more internal variety than class-based systems; in fact, I don't think I own any class-based systems except Cyberpunk 2020 and D&D, and in CP2020 your class only determines one special skill you get that no one else does) is disingenuous.


Ah, but there are some things that classless system can't do, and are very important in certain RPGs.

First, enforce teamwork.

Clearly false. In our current RQ game, the party consist of a hunter archer who handles tracking and other animal- and wilderness-stuff, a trickster who handles deception and spying and trickster magic, a berserker who handles intimidating people and smashing things, and two spirit-talkers who still fill different roles (in combat, one hangs back and uses a lightning spirit, while the other uses a spear in melee; both are focusing their magic in different things).

Whatever they do, they need to utilize all their resources and choose the right person for the right job to be successful. In combat, they really need to back each other up, because the berserker is a glass cannon (well, a glass cannon that won't shatter until it's stopped berserking), the archer can't stand up in melee, the trickster can't fight at all, and the other spirit-talker

No one has infinite resources, and they all have to specialize (although the way I run the game, I try to encourage them all to learn and use basic skills they all should have, being part of the culture they are: brawling, basic athletics, farming ability, etc.). Even just their choices of which magic to learn individualize them to a huge degree, and require them to support each other.

This applies similarly in countless other games.


Second, by limiting the powers, it makes the game that much easier to balance, and for the designers to create monsters to properly challenge the party.

Balance is a concept only class-based games need. I don't need to consider balance when creating scenarios for classless games: I just need to consider verisimilitude. The lack of an explicit agreement of balance also forces the players to be more clever. If I'm running a cyberpunk game, the corporate hitmen aren't going to be a "balanced challenge" - they're going to be a squad of top killers, armed to the teeth and trained to work together, and the PCs will be outclassed in a straight fight (and probably in most crooked fights) unless they are also a squad of top hitmen armed to the teeth. That makes sense to me.


Wich leads me to ther third point, class based systems allow for bigger powers whitout straining balance. Power A could be broken if combined with power B, but if the powers belong to diferent classes in wich a way that you can't get them both at the same time then it's no problem.

This is true - artificially limiting things lets you artificially limit things. It's may be harder to come up with sensible reasons why you can't combine X and Y. It's still ridiculous and artificial limitation. Moreover, without an explicit agreement of balance (of PCs to PCs and of PCs to NPCs/monsters), this is irrelevant. And, again, finite resources: if working your way to Superpower A and B both require X resources, the character going for both is screwed.


Last but not least, it enforces variety. The game feels much better if everybody feels their characters are unique, while in classless systems it's alomost inevitable that everybody will share the imba skills/powers, like in Exalted everybody takes an inpenetrable defense and the other resistance boosting power no matter if they are a diplomat or a fighter or a mage or whatever.

If everyone in your M&M game is just going with Mimic and Duplicate, you've got a problem that has nothing to do with the system. Your example is very specific (as are the GURPS examples), and just shows bad game design. You assume these imbalances exist in all classless systems, which is absolutely not true.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-04-01, 04:05 PM
Last but not least, it enforces variety. The game feels much better if everybody feels their characters are unique, while in classless systems it's alomost inevitable that everybody will share the imba skills/powers, like in Exalted everybody takes an inpenetrable defense and the other resistance boosting power no matter if they are a diplomat or a fighter or a mage or whatever. As a DM and player of Mutants and Masterminds, I can tell you that the chances that you have the same two characters who are identical is rather minute: there are so many ways to vary powers, disabilities, weaknesses and capabilities that it is just damn difficult. There might be similiar concepts, but the execution can differ quite heavily.

Class systems have the problems that they make it harder (how hard depends on the system) to make a unique charcter, because there are limitations (the more classes, the steeper the limitations usually) as to what the individual class can do, so they start out looking very similiar, and often if you're after an optimal role, it gets even closer.

I personally dislike the Storyteller system for the simple reason that it leans quite heavily towards freeform, the stunt mechanics for example and as such it needs to be very liberal, which leads to some problems.

Satyr
2009-04-01, 05:34 PM
You keep talking about GURPS. GURPS says nothing about classless systems, it says things about GURPS.

It' a generalisation and therefore problematic, but Gurps is pretty much the determinator for classless games, as it is probably the best known one in this regard, and a highly adaptable one as well. Just in comparison to how often D&D is used as synonymous to roleplaying games in general, it's a negliable generalisation.



The power and unbalancing factor of Munchkinism is directly proportional to the player options. At least in a Class-based System (at least one which isn't already overbalanced like 3.5), you can limit the possible cheeze.

Not really. The more option you have, the more important it is to communicate within the gaming group and the more important is the role of the Gamemaster to control the access to certain powers; a game like Gurps just doesn't work if you take everything in Gurps: Characters and let players use it. The group, or the Gamemaster as a control organ must find the desired limits for the game and elect the options they want to use and determine the style of the game.
I don't want to insult you, but I have the impression that you once played a game or campaign of Gurps with a GM with a more laissez-faire attitude, and yes, that isn't working well if the players are not controling themselves. And now you seem to transfer this experience to this very broad category of
games in general.

The great difference you are concerned with, is that the state of "balance" or actually player power control you associate with class-based system is a prescriptive one whih is done by the autors and redactionary staff who creates the game's books - in opposite to a modular game that leaves this kind of control up to the specific group of gamemaster and does not use this prefabricated limits. Yes, this requires more personal responsibility for both players and gamemasters, and it is more difficult to set up own limits than to just copy the standardised ones. But for exactly these reasons, it's a so much better ways. I prefer games that treat their players - including me - like people who can think for themselves and are able to come up with their own decisions, instead of dictating (or *shudder* "enforcing") a specific point of view of someone else.It's not like that my ideas are particularly better than those of most authors, game creators, etc. - but they are the ones which are best suited to my wishes and ideas.

Especially since the game's rules cannot control what kind of players ae going to use the game; a munchkin whose idea of a perfect game is to overshadow everyone else, ruin the campaign and show how big his character's magical powers are because said munchkin has no testicles and needs to compensate will do this in any system; a pompous control-freak of a gamemaster who likes to bully his players or an overstrained one who cannot keep the story elements of the campaign interesting enough to keep the players' attention can appear in pretty much every game, and people like this are going to ruin every game. Roleplaying games don't create munchkins. People create munchkins.



Ah, but there are some things that classless system can't do, and are very important in certain RPGs.

First, enforce teamwork.

Most RPGs are team games. If there are classes to limit your power selection, the designers can make sure that the players need to work togheter to overcome challenges, wich in my opinion greatly enforces the enjoy of the game. Sure there are people who enjoy playing "I'm good at (almost)everything!" characters, but trust me, limiting options can actually be a good thing if done properly. They force the player to works togheter and to think more to overcome obstacles by combining their powers instead of everybody trying to solve the problems on their own.

Any game that enforces anything is probably crap. I think that a good game doesn't enforce, it encourages. You want teamwork in your game? You don't need any rules for it. What you need are players with basic social skills and the ability to communicate.
Besides, your argumentation is clearly faulty; as most classless systems are based on limited ressources so that a character who tries to be competent in many fields (which is pretty much a necessity in most games I run btw) does this through the sacrifice of high competence in one specific fields or other drawbacks.
Besides, am I the only one who think it's hillarious that player characters cease to cooperate because they were created in a skill-based system (dun-dun-DUN!!!!!)?


Second, by limiting the powers, it makes the game that much easier to balance, and for the designers to create monsters to properly challenge the party.

Look at Wow for example, the most popular computer RPG out there nowadays, in the basis of making players of diferent classes work as a team to overcome big bad bosses and challenges.

1. Balance is not the end of all means in a roleplaying game. A game can be completely unbalanced and still be great fun.

2. It may come as a shock to you, but combats and beating up monsters isn't the alpha and omega of roleplaying games, either. Neither are "challenges" of the characters a necessary element, and big bosses are even less important. You seem to have a particularly hidebound perspective on roleplaying games.

3. World of Warcraft has less in common with a roleplaying game than The Sims.


Last but not least, it enforces variety. The game feels much better if everybody feels their characters are unique, while in classless systems it's alomost inevitable that everybody will share the imba skills/powers, like in Exalted everybody takes an inpenetrable defense and the other resistance boosting power no matter if they are a diplomat or a fighter or a mage or whatever.

I found the opposite to be true. Enforcing certain stereotypes will certainly not make sure that the variety of characters increase. It will only make sure that a number of said stereotypes are used in the game.
And "it's alomost [sic] inevitable that everybody will share the imba skills/powers?" I don't play my games with competitive jerks who are only content when they have the most powerful character around. I don't play characters because they are the most powerful ones. I find the whole idea of playing to show your presumable friends how "imba" a character you can make pretty much disgusting.



If everyone in your M&M game is just going with Mimic and Duplicate, you've got a problem that has nothing to do with the system. Your example is very specific (as are the GURPS examples), and just shows bad game design. You assume these imbalances exist in all classless systems, which is absolutely not true.

It is not as much stupid game design, it's just stupid gaming - exactly the kind of problem which does not occur in real life groups of people who play together because they are basically friends and wo can communicate with each other. I mean, who in the right mind uses RAW in complete form in any game, classes or not? Every game has stupid rules somewhere. They are hilarious when discussed in a forum, but in the real play, they are either ignored or handwaved.

Winterwind
2009-04-01, 06:06 PM
It' a generalisation and therefore problematic, but Gurps is pretty much the determinator for classless games, as it is probably the best known one in this regard, and a highly adaptable one as well. Just in comparison to how often D&D is used as synonymous to roleplaying games in general, it's a negliable generalisation.I know no sale numbers, but from the contact I have had with classless games, and what games people I played with over the years were familiar with, I would suspect Call of Cthulhu or ShadowRun to be vastly more popular than GURPS. Classless systems, both of them.

Doesn't matter though - no matter which of them is more popular, claiming that, just because in one particular system, be it the most popular or not, some heavy abuse is possible, classless systems lend themselves more for powergaming makes little sense. The amount of possible abuse is a function of the balance and quality of design of the presented options, not the way of attaining them. Some class-less systems consist of, for example, only skills (say, with attributes that modify them, but everything one ever rolls on are skills). No powers, no additional modifiers, just skills. Such a system is a lot easier to balance and handle than a more rules-heavy system - and hence a claim that class-less systems are inherently more difficult to balance because GURPS has abusable options is to me like saying that trucks are generally heavier than cars because they are red (first, a nonsensical generalization - not all trucks are red - followed with drawing a connection between two completely unrelated matters).

Incidentally, the most unbalanced system I know of is, judging by these forums here, D&D, by a lot. Like, a really, really huge lot. In no other RPG forum I have ever attended to there was even a fraction of the discussions about unbalance, builds to boost power and characters overshadowing each other that is standard here. And last time I checked, D&D was a class-based system...

As for enforcing teamwork, classless systems can do that just as fine - rather than bringing some abstract concept of a class that happens to be needed by the party, individual characters can bring their unique skills that are needed by the for the party. Same effect.

PinkysBrain
2009-04-01, 09:19 PM
Optimization in D&D is more non-linear than in a point buy system, that's why you see more discussion ... a problem space where the optima are clearly recognizable doesn't need to be explored.

Satyr
2009-04-02, 04:40 AM
I know no sale numbers, but from the contact I have had with classless games, and what games people I played with over the years were familiar with, I would suspect Call of Cthulhu or ShadowRun to be vastly more popular than GURPS. Classless systems, both of them.

That happens when I write posts late at night - I mixed up classless systems (which is a very broad and veratile category) and modular games, which are basically one large toolbox -and Gurps is pretty much the archetypical representative for the latter category. Sorry for that.



Optimization in D&D is more non-linear than in a point buy system, that's why you see more discussion ... a problem space where the optima are clearly recognizable doesn't need to be explored.

I disagree on several levels. First, optimisation of character power is not an issue in every game. It is a major element of D&D games, because the focus of D&D can be simplified to "Kill things and take their stuff", and conflict takes a much more central role than in many, many other roleplaying game. Fortunately, not every game plays like D&D. And when character power is not as much an issue as, for example, simulation of a plausible character within the context of the campaign setting, an "optimized" character is probably not one who has the most game-breaking abilities.
And, the second point: a free, unlimited character development will almost automatically offer more options, influence and varibility for the character career than a class-based system, especially when the classes are combined with levels to create a strongly predetermined evoltuion of the character. The idea, that characters with a free allocation of abilities develop more linear than class-based characters stands in complete opposition to common sense and my experiences. It's like comparing the moves of a pawn and a queen in a game of chess.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-02, 06:49 AM
[in D&D] conflict takes a much more central role than in many, many other roleplaying game.

I probably don't have as much experience with different role-playing systems as you do, but I am fairly certain that conflict plays a relatively central role in almost every game. If you mean combat, I might agree, but conflict? I can't even begin to imagine how a game with no conflict could be anything but horribly boring.

Oslecamo
2009-04-02, 07:48 AM
Incidentally, the most unbalanced system I know of is, judging by these forums here, D&D, by a lot. Like, a really, really huge lot. In no other RPG forum I have ever attended to there was even a fraction of the discussions about unbalance, builds to boost power and characters overshadowing each other that is standard here. And last time I checked, D&D was a class-based system...


This is probably because D&D is by far the most played and popular pen and paper RPG out there, and thus also the most discussed and optimized by far. You don't see whole forums of people trying to breack GURPS or M&M 24 per day seven days per week.


Satyr:So you're saying that there are no bad systems, only bad players and game/dungeon masters?

In that case, you shouldn't need rules at all! Just go freeform and trust your players to don't try to breack the game or overshaddow each other and the DM/GM to come up with a good story and immersible world whitout any pre-written material.

1)With the amount of people complaining about balance this and balance that, I believe you're wrong. Perhaps it can be fun for you, but for other people it's clearly very imporant.

2) I must honestly ask you, if your RPG sessions don't consist of overcoming challenges, what do you do in them? What's the fun of pretending to be a spy or a wizard or a barbarian if there aren't proper challenges for you to overcome with all the cool capacities ou have?

3)You clearly haven't played enough Wow. People are paying money to pretend they're rogues/mages/paladins, hang up with other such people and then going around dungeons killing stuff for loot, the epithome of D&D from 1e. Are you saying that D&D 1e wasn't an RPG? There are many ways to roleplay,just like there are diferent rules sets for roleplaying.


Anyways you're lucky enough to have the time to develop campaign worlds out of nowhere and have a group of players and you all share an utopic social relation whitout any negative traits. Good for you. But don't think that everybody else out there is so lucky with players or has so much patience and free time.

Competition will arise a lot of times, and I've seen players turn against fellow players more than I would like to have seen. Some people play RPGs to relax, and when they're relaxing their brains get lazy and they just do what coms instinctivally with their characters. Wich may be frying the fellow PC who just did something they didn't like. It's a part of the game,will you like it or not.

Satyr
2009-04-02, 07:53 AM
Yes, combat would have been the more unambigious term.
I think that isn't a pure black and white question, but a sliding scale. Certainly, conflicts are a part of the plot of most games, but the emphasise that is put on this element varies widely (especially in the case of conflict, violent solution of).
One fun indicator for this are the illustrations in the gaming books. In the D&D player handbook, the overwhelming majority of illustrations show characters in martial poses, exploding spells, people presenting their weapons or outright combat scenes. In Gurps: Fantasy, there are only a handful of fighting scenes or weapons illustrated illustrated, but pictures of exotic or romantic places like wizard laboratories, fey castles, enchanted forests or inexplicable green oases in a frozen wasteland are much more common. As the illustrations should capture and show the mood of the game, you can easily guess that these two games have different angles to more or less the same overall genre (in this case, fantasy roleplaying games).

Drascin
2009-04-02, 08:10 AM
This is probably because D&D is by far the most played and popular pen and paper RPG out there, and thus also the most discussed and optimized by far. You don't see whole forums of people trying to breack GURPS or M&M 24 per day seven days per week.


Not only that, but it's easily one of the most fun to discuss optimization about. I mean, the only point-based systems I've played are GURPS and M&M, and both of those I haven't even played that much, but even with my limited experience I can see really clearly that breaking them is extremely, extremely easy. In fact, M&M basically tells you, right there in the manual, "Okay, dudes, we know a lot of this stuff breaks if you take it too far, but it was the only way to make it fit in lower play, so we're trusting you to not use it to blow up the continent, because we're sure you're rational dudes. Failing that, the DM should tell you to stop that crap at once" Which is of course the right attitude when talking about actual play, but is completely unfun for the whole theorethical optimization discussion business :smallbiggrin:. D&D, on the other hand, with its ruleset of self-contained modules, feels like a box of LEGO to us powergamers - you got your image in your head, how alike can you make it with the building blocks you have? :smallwink:

Satyr
2009-04-02, 09:17 AM
This is probably because D&D is by far the most played and popular pen and paper RPG out there, and thus also the most discussed and optimized by far. You don't see whole forums of people trying to breack GURPS or M&M 24 per day seven days per week.

First of all, there are. They aren't as numerous, partlially due to the greater popularity of D&D, partially due to the complete different focus of these games. Again, not every roleplaying game plays like D&D (fortunately).
The point is, the issues of the game are known, and since both games feature the majority of the complete rules in the core books, most of the issues are already completely discussed back and forth. Gurps 4th edition was published in 2004, and the last big rule change was Gurps Powers, which is also three of four years old by now - and there just isn't that much stuff to break.


So you're saying that there are no bad systems, only bad players and game/dungeon masters?

No. I say that no set of rules, how good they may be, will ever turn a complete jerk into a good roleplayer.

Not that this changes anything about the complete unrelated conclusion you draw out of this, which could'nt make less sense if you have translated it several times forth and back again via babblefish.


With the amount of people complaining about balance this and balance that, I believe you're wrong. Perhaps it can be fun for you, but for other people it's clearly very imporant.

...Which is an extremely D&D-typical issue that doesn't appear that much - if at all- in other roleplaying games.
Besides, since when has quantitiy ever proven anything about the quality? There are some indicators, but publical acclaim sais nothing about the overall quality.


I must honestly ask you, if your RPG sessions don't consist of overcoming challenges, what do you do in them? What's the fun of pretending to be a spy or a wizard or a barbarian if there aren't proper challenges for you to overcome with all the cool capacities ou have?

Have you ever conscidered that there is a difference between beating up monsters and mastering challenges? Or that a challnge is actually a challenge because it is not "level approriate"? Besides, I always found that exploration, immersion, method acting and sense of wonder are more important than mere mechanical challenges.


3)You clearly haven't played enough Wow. People are paying money to pretend they're rogues/mages/paladins, hang up with other such people and then going around dungeons killing stuff for loot, the epithome of D&D from 1e.Are you saying that D&D 1e wasn't an RPG?

I have played more than enough WoW, thank you. It is a fun game, but it is pretentious to compare it to a real roleplaying game. For this, there is just too little influnence on the plot, no variability of the narrative, and if done "right", practically no suspense. A roleplaying game is based on the mutual communication and exchange of players and gamemasters, whereby both parties influence each other. Computer "Roleplaying Games" do not allow for this kind of mutual exchange (persistent worlds and gamemaster coordinated / regulated games excluded.
And I found that D&D in general is based on horribly outdated concepts in many ways, especially because of this very limited focus on "kill things, take their stuff".


There are many ways to roleplay,just like there are diferent rules sets for roleplaying.

It is nice that you have appearantly wrapped your head around one of the elements I debated with you.


Anyways you're lucky enough to have the time to develop campaign worlds out of nowhere and have a group of players and you all share an utopic social relation whitout any negative traits.

I use prefabricated settings if I like them. I take them more like a commendation than a compulsion, but I use them. I don't think I ever wrote anything that indicated the opposite.
And: Do you really consider a game with people who are not jerks to be utopian? My condolensces then, I guess. No, the people I play with aren't perfect, neither am I. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to come to a compromise with which everybody is content.
Do you ever notice anything that is not an apparent extreme?

PinkysBrain
2009-04-02, 10:10 AM
The idea, that characters with a free allocation of abilities develop more linear than class-based characters stands in complete opposition to common sense and my experiences. It's like comparing the moves of a pawn and a queen in a game of chess.
I said nothing about character growth ... that's not the kind of linearity I'm talking about. It's just easier to see how a character can be developed and what the effects of your choices will be for future development in a point buy system.

How hard it is to find the optima in a function does not just depend on the amount of input variables.

Winterwind
2009-04-02, 06:12 PM
Optimization in D&D is more non-linear than in a point buy system, that's why you see more discussion ... a problem space where the optima are clearly recognizable doesn't need to be explored.
This is probably because D&D is by far the most played and popular pen and paper RPG out there, and thus also the most discussed and optimized by far. You don't see whole forums of people trying to breack GURPS or M&M 24 per day seven days per week.I knew it was a mistake to include that line... it causes people to jump in to defend D&D, rather that address my actual point, namely, that class-less systems are not, in fact, inherently more unbalanced than class-based ones.

Oh, and Oslecamo, I was speaking of forums devoted solely to those other systems. Plus, D&D is not even close to being the most played and popular pen and paper RPG here in Germany.

JMobius
2009-04-02, 06:24 PM
Oh, and Oslecamo, I was speaking of forums devoted solely to those other systems. Plus, D&D is not even close to being the most played and popular pen and paper RPG here in Germany.

Wow, really? Do you have any idea why that might be? Also, what is played, then?

Winterwind
2009-04-02, 06:39 PM
Wow, really? Do you have any idea why that might be? Also, what is played, then?The most popular RPG would be the Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge, DSA), which is a German fantasy RPG - I imagine it might have had a lot to do with D&D not becoming (or remaining - I don't know the history really) the most popular RPG here, as the Dark Eye took over its niche.
However, I have the impression the German RPG scene is a lot more diversified than the American one - while the Dark Eye is the most popular RPG, and a lot of people have started with it, it is far from a monopoly, and when meeting new roleplayers one cannot simply presume they would play it (or used to play it) - there are many others, too.

Raum
2009-04-02, 07:25 PM
I suspect it helps that gaming (in general, not necessarily RPGs) is more mainstream in Germany than in the US. From what I understand, there's a significant amount of both professional criticism and competition. That helps drive the diversity.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-02, 07:57 PM
Never found a Finnish D&D forum, but there's at least one RuneQuest forum (and a weirdly high amount of Finnish names in the list of big contributers to Issaries, Inc., the fan-supported publishing house continuing publishing stuff for Glorantha). The Finnish RPG scene is generally very diverse, too. The fact that only the Basic-Expert-Master-etc. line of D&D was ever translated into Finnish back in the late 80s/early 90s or whatever is probably a factor, and MERP and RuneQuest each had as much/more stuff translated for them as D&D ever had. (2300AD and Cyberpunk 2020 also got translated, among others. In fact, while not every Finnish RPer I've played with had had D&D experience, every one had had CP2020 experience...) By now, translations have died out as the entire customer base is at least fluently literate in English, but I suppose the legacy remains.

Kind of a sidetrack there, though.

Winterwind
2009-04-02, 08:10 PM
I suspect it helps that gaming (in general, not necessarily RPGs) is more mainstream in Germany than in the US. From what I understand, there's a significant amount of both professional criticism and competition. That helps drive the diversity.Might well be. I have little comparison how popular gaming is in the US.


[Roleplaying scene in Finland]
Kind of a sidetrack there, though.While we're on that tangent, in Poland, I heard (and witnessed, whenever I was there to visit family), Warhammer Fantasy RPG has taken over the fantasy RPG niche and totally dominated the roleplaying scene, dwarfing all other RPGs (D&D included).

Yahzi
2009-04-02, 11:57 PM
Balance is a concept only class-based games need. I don't need to consider balance when creating scenarios for classless games: I just need to consider verisimilitude. The lack of an explicit agreement of balance also forces the players to be more clever. If I'm running a cyberpunk game, the corporate hitmen aren't going to be a "balanced challenge" - they're going to be a squad of top killers, armed to the teeth and trained to work together, and the PCs will be outclassed in a straight fight (and probably in most crooked fights) unless they are also a squad of top hitmen armed to the teeth. That makes sense to me.
Yes!

I prefer classless systems as simulations of reality. The only way I could make D&D work in my head was to make the classes tangibly real; that is, a level of Fighter is a supernatural ability, not a reflection of how long you practiced sword-fighting. That 9th level fighter really does have enough Hit Points to walk away from a plane crash. How else could he kill a fire-breathing, armored lizard the size of a house with a sword?

Satyr
2009-04-03, 02:35 AM
The most popular RPG would be the Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge, DSA), which is a German fantasy RPG - I imagine it might have had a lot to do with D&D not becoming (or remaining - I don't know the history really) the most popular RPG here, as the Dark Eye took over its niche.

The reason is actually quite simple - TDE was published by a major board game creator, and as it was packed in boxes, the game was sold in toy stores, while other roleplaying games were only sold in book stores, and not even in most of those.

Oh, and back then, The Dark Eye had pretty much the best cover illustrations for roleplaying games ever. (http://www.ugurcanyuce.net/)

The rest is pretty much tradition and different preferences of the players that developed when they started to play.
The Dark Eye is not a particularly good game on the mechanical level - the rules are unnecessarily complicated, full of arbitrary powergaming blockers and the gameflow resembles the nimbleness of a beached whale, but the world design, world development and especially the available adventure modules are vastly superior to almost anything I have seen in English.


I suspect it helps that gaming (in general, not necessarily RPGs) is more mainstream in Germany than in the US. From what I understand, there's a significant amount of both professional criticism and competition. That helps drive the diversity.

That would be nice, but as far as I can tell, it isn't true, or at least not outside of universities. There was nothing ever that resembled a "Satanic Scare" in Germany, but sales and numbers of players ae both declining for 10 or so years. Media presence or other inidcators for "mainstreaminess" are practically inexistant.
The difference I found was that - generally speaking - roleplaying games in Germany are targeted at a slightly older and more mature audience than in the US, and therefore are often a bit less simplistic in some regards, for example alignment questions.
Oh, and that for some reason almost every second roleplaying game made in Germany features a post-apocalyptic setting.


I prefer classless systems as simulations of reality. The only way I could make D&D work in my head was to make the classes tangibly real; that is, a level of Fighter is a supernatural ability, not a reflection of how long you practiced sword-fighting.

That is the Earthdawn approach to classes - a class there is basically a form of magic that is trained and mastered by the characters. Both the classes -and the levels, which are effectively different steps to perfection are concepts which are known in the setting.
What's remarkable about this, is that the levels you gain are based on your skills and you have to increase your skills first to gain a new level (called "circles" here). Non-magical people - the vast majority of the setting's population - don't have classes, or levels.

Winterwind
2009-04-03, 07:44 AM
The reason is actually quite simple - [...]Ah, thanks; that provides some background information I had always been wondering about. :smallsmile:



Oh, and that for some reason almost every second roleplaying game made in Germany features a post-apocalyptic setting. *looks at notes for Endland campaign*
*looks at notes for other Endland campaign*
*looks at the DeGenesis-based avatar*
Oh, hush. :smallredface:

Raum
2009-04-03, 06:53 PM
That would be nice, but as far as I can tell, it isn't true, or at least not outside of universities. There was nothing ever that resembled a "Satanic Scare" in Germany, but sales and numbers of players ae both declining for 10 or so years. Media presence or other inidcators for "mainstreaminess" are practically inexistant.Perhaps I read too much into hearsay but I was under the impression mainstream German media published game reviews alongside movie and book reviews. Was my impression wrong? In the US, you're unlikely to see game reviews outside of niche publications targeted specifically towards a game's market.

rogueboy
2009-04-03, 09:58 PM
Question 1: While I’ve never played a classless system, I’ve become very intrigued with the concept of them, and (assuming use doesn’t change my mind) would prefer to play with a classless system in the future. On a related note, I’m working on designing my own classless system (blend of D&D 3.0, 3.5, 4e, GURPS, homebrew systems, houserules, and anything else I can get my hands on), and have run into an issue… in a point-based, classless system, should the cost of improving abilities be linear (each +1 to X costs Y points), or should it be some form of exponential-style curve (each +1 to X costs Y points, which is more than the previous +1)? What advantages and disadvantages does each imply? Additionally, how do classless systems typically deal with opponents? I'm used to D&D, but am at a bit of a loss as to how to use a similar style (book/list of premade monsters) in a classless (or level-less, more specifically) system.

edit: "Question 2" and "Question 3" (and the first half of "Question 1") are replying to the OP's questions, rather than posing my own. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Question 2: As stated above, I am in favor of a classless system; however, if I am playing a class-based system, I would prefer to be able to use any items, with at most a minor penalty. My first choice would be for no penalty if it fits the character concept well, with minor penalties if it’s a stretch to fit the item in question into the character concept. For example, if my concept is a “claymore-wielding, full-plate wearing, monster-nuking maniac,” as Tensu put it, then wearing full-plate shouldn’t carry a penalty; if, however, my offensive tactic is to use spells and a big sword to nuke enemies, then I should suffer penalties using something like a staff, or perhaps even if I don’t have my trademark claymore.

Question 3: Somewhere between options 2 and 3. I should have several roles to specialize in (2-4, depending on class), but should be able to do all of them reasonably, and the ability to do other stuff at least passably.

Raum
2009-04-03, 10:47 PM
Question 1: <snip>… in a point-based, classless system, should the cost of improving abilities be linear (each +1 to X costs Y points), or should it be some form of exponential-style curve (each +1 to X costs Y points, which is more than the previous +1)? Different systems use each method and some combine both. In general I'd recommend basing cost on the type of increase. Increases which broaden a character (add abilities and choices, not necessarily power) may be linear while increasing a given ability's power might be exponential.


What advantages and disadvantages does each imply? It really depends on what you want from the game system. Do you want inexperienced characters to have a reasonable chance against experienced characters? Use a linear model with new abilities adding options rather than power. On the other hand, to copy D&D's model of experienced characters being nearly invincible when attacked by inexperienced characters you'd want to increase both power and cost exponentially. Cost is a simple method of keeping new characters from starting with 'Uber Ability Number 9'.


Additionally, how do classless systems typically deal with opponents? I'm used to D&D, but am at a bit of a loss as to how to use a similar style (book/list of premade monsters) in a classless (or level-less, more specifically) system.Not sure I follow, why would it be significantly different?


Question 2: As stated above, I am in favor of a classless system; however, if I am playing a class-based system, I would prefer to be able to use any items, with at most a minor penalty. My first choice would be for no penalty if it fits the character concept well, with minor penalties if it’s a stretch to fit the item in question into the character concept. For example, if my concept is a “claymore-wielding, full-plate wearing, monster-nuking maniac,” as Tensu put it, then wearing full-plate shouldn’t carry a penalty; if, however, my offensive tactic is to use spells and a big sword to nuke enemies, then I should suffer penalties using something like a staff, or perhaps even if I don’t have my trademark claymore.I'm not sure you actually asked a question so I'll just ramble a bit on the subject. :) Classless games tend to take one of two approaches to equipment use and associated penalties. Some are skill or attribute based - you need X points in 'Melee Weapons: Sword' and/or Y Strength to use a falchion. Other systems penalize everyone equally or not at all - any one can wear plate or swing a maul, they just have to deal with the encumbrance penalties. Too bad the wimpy wizard falls down exhausted after the first five minutes...he should have put more points in Strength and less in Intelligence.


Question 3: Somewhere between options 2 and 3. I should have several roles to specialize in (2-4, depending on class), but should be able to do all of them reasonably, and the ability to do other stuff at least passably.Classless systems tend to have less definition between roles. How many roles you can successfully take on depends on how much specialization the system encourages or requires. Systems with with exponential power costs tend to have a 'sweet spot' you'll take a skill or ability to before moving on to another. Systems with linear costs are often built with broad characters in mind.

I'd suggest reading through and possibly playing a few different systems to see what you like.

rogueboy
2009-04-03, 10:59 PM
[regarding monsters]Not sure I follow, why would it be significantly different?

I'm not really sure, I was mostly looking for ideas, since I haven't really looked at how classless systems deal with monsters. I should probably go do that. I was thinking about how D&D monsters are balanced against characters (or a party, really) of a specific level, and trying to wrap my head around how monsters would be balanced in a classless system. I may well be overthinking things, and if so, great. :)


I'm not sure you actually asked a question so I'll just ramble a bit on the subject. :)

With what I labeled as "Question 2" and "Question 3" (and the beginning of Question 1) was actually responding to the OP's questions, though I realize that may not have been very clear since it's been a while since those came up. I'll go edit that so more people aren't thrown off.


I'd suggest reading through and possibly playing a few different systems to see what you like.

I will definitely have to do that. Do you have any recommendations for systems other than GURPS? I'm looking for (generally) a fantasy feel.

Raum
2009-04-03, 11:27 PM
I will definitely have to do that. Do you have any recommendations for systems other than GURPS? I'm looking for (generally) a fantasy feel.Depends on interests, budget, opportunity, and friends! :) Unisystem is free via Witchcraft (http://www.edenstudios.net/witchcraft/index.html), Savage Worlds (http://www.peginc.com/downloads.html) has a free test drive and only costs $10 for setting-less rules, Shadowrun (at least older versions, haven't played the current) is excellent for fantasy cyberpunk, many people like White Wolf's 'Storyteller' system (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, etc), ORE, Fudge, Fate, and Risus are all freely available in at least one form, and there are many more choices...

RPG.net (http://index.rpg.net/) has game reviews and Jon Kim (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/) has a big list of games with short blurbs...or you may want to start a thread explaining what you look for in a game and asking for suggestions.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-03, 11:48 PM
Don't forget Ars Magica (http://www.atlas-games.com/arsmagica/). Never played it, though I did play oWoD Mage which used the same system.

Personally, I'd recommend White Wolf. While technically "classless" there is a lot of structure in character creation (Clans/Tribes/Whatever) which may be comforting for a long-time Class Player.

Xuincherguixe
2009-04-03, 11:54 PM
Huh. Interesting how parts of this conversation got so vicious.

That being said, there was a time when I was pretty antagonistic towards D&D and all that it brought with it. Not that I have anything against fantasy, it was just stuff I had seen over, and over, and over, and over again.

I haven't got so much a beef with it anymore. I don't like a lot of it, but I've got a better idea on how to take those parts out. Or how to incorporate the good aspects into other systems.


My impression has been that while on these forums, Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu (and a few others) come up a lot, GURPS is a more popular game than either of those. It's just that it's so generic, there's not a whole lot to say about it. Both games just have so much style that they're memorable. Even if they've been taking a real beating lately. It's been rough for the whole industry the past couple of years. I'm sure it's been bad for Steve Jackson Games (the GURPS people), but they seem to be a pretty resilient company.



I'm going to have to go with what interestingly looks like the majority opinion that classless systems promote a funner game. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of looking at a game system and figuring how to optimize characters. But I would rather play a game of Shadowrun in which if someone makes bad choices they aren't necessarily doomed, and I don't end up doing everything than D&D where bad choices means that I could end up being the only one that does anything.

See, the real issue isn't about classes, it's about how supportive the system is to your game. Alas, I only have Shadowrun and a smidge of D&D experience so I don't know how good other systems are, having only second hand information and all. Fortunately, it seems like they are two so vastly different games that they're good ones for comparison anyways. (SR probably has more in common with GURPS or CoC, than GURPS does with D&D for instance). In fact, I would go so far as to say there are two sorts of games, those with strong systems, and those with weak systems.

D&D not only being a strong system, but I can't think of too many others. The general idea being that the rules are hard. They are these things written in stone, difficult if not impossible to get around. The focus is more on the system than the people involved. Math more than the Drama. And while it's not impossible to create interesting characters, and have good stories, in which the PCs are active forces that drive the game forward... you will find the system brings a lot of baggage with it, weighing you down and generally getting in the way of the game.

Weak systems are just about everything else. The rules are less arbitrary and more there to help along the game. Fudge is one example, where it's essentially impossible to min/max. Because being good at things can be bad, and being bad at things can be good. The rules are far more flexible, and it's easier to decide how to represent it when the PCs do something not specifically described in the books.

It's not strictly about the size of the ruleset either. D&D in it's early form (I've got a book actually) not only was strong, but didn't have a lot of support for general weirdness.

Don't get me wrong, it's possible to play a pretty open D&D game, or a really railroady call of cthulhu game (my understanding is that's just about all the campaign books). But that's a different issue.

I had an idea on how to handle classes, but there's a lot up there already so I'll wait a bit.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-03, 11:57 PM
Hmm.... well, I'll just note that I don't care if a game is class/classless - it's just one mechanic to consider among the myriad that make up a system. Neither is inherently good or evil - it's all about the implementation. :smallsmile:

Xuincherguixe
2009-04-04, 05:09 AM
One thought I've been toying with. A large set of abilities, of which a character would choose several of. The higher the total, the more experience it takes to increase in level. That's probably how I would handle it.

Of course, something like that would be pretty hard to balance. As certain combinations of things would be far stronger than others. Of course on the other hand, if we're going this route... certain things combined might be more expensive.

And since we no longer live in the days when 64K of RAM is enough, reasonable to write a computer program to go through assorted scenarios, and see how everything compares.

Saph
2009-04-04, 05:38 AM
I've played both class-based and classless systems, and on the whole, I find the class-based systems more fun. It gives more structure to the characters and makes them feel less like a collection of thrown-together abilities. From a DMing point of view, having a class/level system also makes session preparation much easier: "2nd-level Fighter" tells you far more than "80-point character".

That said, classless point-based systems have their place too; they allow more freedom in what you can put together and do a better job of representing a real person's odd collection of skills. For a combat- and challenge-heavy fantasy game, though, I think classes work better.

I'm a little surprised that people can say things as silly as "classes are outdated" given how massively popular class-based tabletop and computer RPGs are. I would have thought it's pretty obvious that both have their advantages.

- Saph

Satyr
2009-04-04, 05:56 AM
Perhaps I read too much into hearsay but I was under the impression mainstream German media published game reviews alongside movie and book reviews. Was my impression wrong? In the US, you're unlikely to see game reviews outside of niche publications targeted specifically towards a game's market.

There is a bit coverage on board games and card games, especially during the Spielemesse in Essen (which is pretty much the equivalent to the E3, only for board games) and prior to christmas. Roleplaying games are not present, though, but sometimes in summer, when absolutely nothing news-worthy happens, there are some reports about the larger larps as filler material with the whole range from scandalizing nonsense to actually objective reports.


In fact, I would go so far as to say there are two sorts of games, those with strong systems, and those with weak systems.

While I don't think that I would use the terms "strong" and weak" for this, that is actually a quite fitting observation -there are games that are more focused on the mechanical aspect of the game, and there are games that are more focused on the roleplaying aspects, but rarely in an extreme form, where the "other" aspect doesn't play a role anymore - this is not a binary question, but a sliding scale. The same is true for players and their preferences, I think.


I'm a little surprised that people can say things as silly as "classes are outdated" given how massively popular class-based tabletop and computer RPGs are. I would have thought it's pretty obvious that both have their advantages.

Quality and Popularity are two mostly unrelated categories; some stuff is popular because it is mostly good, some stuff is popular because of its absolute mediocracy and the focus on the smallest common determinator; the conclusion that something is good because it is popular is a very classic fallacy.

Saph
2009-04-04, 06:48 AM
Quality and Popularity are two mostly unrelated categories; some stuff is popular because it is mostly good, some stuff is popular because of its absolute mediocracy and the focus on the smallest common determinator; the conclusion that something is good because it is popular is a very classic fallacy.

RPGs are games. The purpose of a game is to be fun. People playing a game is usually a sign that they find it fun. You can insist that a popular game is "lower quality" if you like, but it's not clear why anyone else should care. :)

- Saph

Satyr
2009-04-04, 07:11 AM
The same would be true for movies, music, or any other thing that is a part of cultural creation. But even though more people prefer a film like "The Day after Tomorow" to "Pan's Labyrith" doesn't make Day... a better movie (or even a barely tolerable one).

Saph
2009-04-04, 07:25 AM
*shrug*

I've played GURPS, and I've played D&D, and I find D&D much more interesting and rewarding. You (as you remind us on a daily basis) prefer GURPS. If you want to believe that your preferences are due to your favoured system's objective superiority while other people's preferences are a sign of their acceptance of a "mediocracy" then it's not as though I can do anything to stop you.

- Saph

Oslecamo
2009-04-04, 07:32 AM
The same would be true for movies, music, or any other thing that is a part of cultural creation. But even though more people prefer a film like "The Day after Tomorow" to "Pan's Labyrith" doesn't make Day... a better movie (or even a barely tolerable one).

Who cares? The Mona Lisa may be the best painting in history, but most people I know will rather have a poster of their favorite actor/fiction character in their rooms than a copy of the Mona Lisa. Why? Because personally, they like them more!

Satyr
2009-04-04, 07:41 AM
I never claimed that the things I like are superior - or that I like them for this reason. If my subjective preferences and actual quality come together, that is pretty much coincedence. There are other fields where I have a terrible taste, and I never claim otherwise (which would be ridiculous if you knew what kind of music I like to hear).

Yes, I think that Gurps is a better roleplaying game than D&D (completely independent of edition), because I can do anything I could do with D&D equally well (especially when using the Dungeon Fantasy line), and many, many things I couldn't do with D&D without a lot of effort and hard work.

The problem of roleplaying games is that the genre lacks an established elite. In literature, for example, the situation is fairly easy - you have an academic standard, you have an academic staff that debates the whole thing, you have an intellectual elite that can determine quality. The word of one university professor in his field of expertise weighs more weight than that of a million laymen.
You do not have this kind of an elite in roleplaying game, which shows sometimes in the debates about it, when every idiot and his dog think tht their opinions are just as good as enyone else's.

Saph
2009-04-04, 07:48 AM
Yes, I think that Gurps is a better roleplaying game than D&D (completely independent of edition), because I can do anything I could do with D&D equally well (especially when using the Dungeon Fantasy line), and many, many things I couldn't do with D&D without a lot of effort and hard work.

Just because you can use GURPS better than D&D doesn't make it a better system. If I'm making a game, what matters is what system works better for me.

- Saph

Satyr
2009-04-04, 07:53 AM
That is pretty much depending on the prospects and requirements you put into the system beforehand; mine are generally ridiculous high. But I'm curious: What kind of game do you think you can implement in D&D so much better than in any other game (and why)?

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-04, 07:55 AM
I'm not really sure, I was mostly looking for ideas, since I haven't really looked at how classless systems deal with monsters. I should probably go do that. I was thinking about how D&D monsters are balanced against characters (or a party, really) of a specific level, and trying to wrap my head around how monsters would be balanced in a classless system. I may well be overthinking things, and if so, great. :)

This was already addressed: the monsters aren't balanced, and aren't supposed to. It is, however, easy to compare them to PCs: are their skills higher? How many attacks per round do they get? Is their damage higher? Is their armor higher?

Depending on the game, there may be no actual balance no matter what. In Cyberpunk 2020 (mostly class-less, entirely level-less), a skill-less punk without body armor and with an AK-47 can splatter your world-class assassin all over the street in one shot. If you pissed off the right people, you can get shot with an orbital laser or by a sniper without ever having a clue, or killed by a helicopter gunship.

The whole notion of "balance" is pretty much only applicable to level-based (not class-based) systems.

Also, monsters are presented in monster books, just like in D&D.

Also, if you want to try a classless, levelless system, here's the links to the free Mongoose RuneQuest SRD:
Core book (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1180&qsSeries=39)
Companion (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1184&qsSeries=39)
Monsters (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1183&qsSeries=39)

Saph
2009-04-04, 08:27 AM
That is pretty much depending on the prospects and requirements you put into the system beforehand; mine are generally ridiculous high. But I'm curious: What kind of game do you think you can implement in D&D so much better than in any other game (and why)?

I like the D&D standard setting - low tech, dangerous heroic-style worlds with a huge variety of species and a lot of conflict and combat.

As for why I use D&D, it's not something I bother to analyse very much. I judge a system based on how much fun I have when I play it. I have lots of fun playing D&D - more so than GURPS - so I keep on using it. If I ever get bored with it or particularly excited by a new system, then I'll try something else. But if you want a list, then off the top of my head:

1) Popularity. D&D is far and away the most popular system out there and pretty much everyone knows how to play it, which means I have to spend much less time teaching systems.

2) The class system makes building characters very interesting, particularly in 3.5 with all the unique abilities - it's a sort of mental construction exercise which gives very entertaining results. Best is the variety - if you get bored with one class, you can try another. I have way, way more characters built than I'm ever going to get to use. By contrast, when my old group used to play GURPS, pretty much everything came doing to getting a slightly higher number. The mechanics led to characters who were generic and highly forgettable - except for the mental disadvantages they took, which were probably the most entertaining part of the game and the only one I missed when I switched over.

3) The challenge vs. level system - monster level in 4e, CR in 3.5. It doesn't always work, but it really is essential for a heavy combat game. On the rare occasions when I've GMed point-based systems, trying to design combat encounters was an enormous headache. How combat-effective is a 120 point character? What about a 140 point one? What about the one played by Jim instead of Bob? There's no answer to the question - whereas in D&D an equivalent question does have an answer, because attack bonus, AC, HP, etc, give you a baseline to work from.

So that would be a short list. However, these are explanations, not justifications. I already know I find D&D more fun than GURPS, so the question of interest for me would be why, not if.

- Saph

Raum
2009-04-04, 11:36 AM
I've played both class-based and classless systems, and on the whole, I find the class-based systems more fun. It gives more structure to the characters and makes them feel less like a collection of thrown-together abilities. From a DMing point of view, having a class/level system also makes session preparation much easier: "2nd-level Fighter" tells you far more than "80-point character". Interesting, I've had a nearly opposite experience. It takes more time for me to level an NPC while choosing appropriate classes than to simply assign appropriate abilities. Though I ascribed it more to the leveling requirement than to the class requirement. I think levels make a bigger difference in play than classes. A significant portion of point based games have class equivalents after all.


That said, classless point-based systems have their place too; they allow more freedom in what you can put together and do a better job of representing a real person's odd collection of skills. For a combat- and challenge-heavy fantasy game, though, I think classes work better. I suspect experiences differ based on games attempted and personal preferences.


I'm a little surprised that people can say things as silly as "classes are outdated" given how massively popular class-based tabletop and computer RPGs are. I would have thought it's pretty obvious that both have their advantages.

- SaphIt's the internet, people say anything! :) Though I do agree with Satyr, popularity doesn't necessarily correlate with quality. However, the reverse is also true...just because it's popular doesn't mean it's no good.

If we want to measure quality objectively we'll need to define what makes a quality game and how to measure it.

Xuincherguixe
2009-04-04, 08:14 PM
While I don't think that I would use the terms "strong" and weak" for this, that is actually a quite fitting observation -there are games that are more focused on the mechanical aspect of the game, and there are games that are more focused on the roleplaying aspects, but rarely in an extreme form, where the "other" aspect doesn't play a role anymore - this is not a binary question, but a sliding scale. The same is true for players and their preferences, I think.

This is kind of my programming background showing up again. Strong vs Weak typing. The short version is, weak typing allows you to do nonsensical things like adding 56 to the letter a. Because when you get right down to it, everything is numbers. Strong typing gets in the way and decides "alright, there's something special about these numbers as compared to these ones". For what it's worth though, Strong Typing is good because generally speaking, you don't WANT to add 56 to the letter a. I won't get into this because it's way off topic, but I just wanted to explain where I got the terms from.

Using the terminology I just made up, weak systems are good because there is less you need to do to them in order to extend the game.

It's not binary, but then neither is Strong and Weak typing. Java's typing is ridiculously strong, and the assembly that I've used is incredibly weak. But it does get across the idea.

Strong vs Weak systems implies how hard the rules are coming down on the game.

There was a reason why I used the words system too. Because they are not by themselves a game. And while one can't judge games objectively, you can do that with Systems.

And if someone does manage to make a good game out of a strong system, it's almost certainly because they made it weaker. Strong systems are good for machines, not for fun. D&D is one of the few systems that seems to take the approach of "Change the rules? I don't understand what you're talking about. What you're talking about is insane." Naturally, people do it anyways. And while it makes for a more playable game (actually playable), it's not really built to handle adjustment. At least that's up to 3.5, admittedly better than 1st/2nd. I can't say much about 4th. It seems there is definitely a way they want you to play it, but it may be easier to get it to go in directions other than that.



Who cares? The Mona Lisa may be the best painting in history, but most people I know will rather have a poster of their favorite actor/fiction character in their rooms than a copy of the Mona Lisa. Why? Because personally, they like them more!
I personally don't think it's that great. But my thing is surrealism ^_^



1) Popularity. D&D is far and away the most popular system out there and pretty much everyone knows how to play it, which means I have to spend much less time teaching systems.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Sure people know the system, or do they? It's more likely that they know parts of it, because it's spread over so many books. Look at how often people won't use psionics because they just don't know them.

People know parts of D&D.

Not that it's very likely you'll be able to convince people to try a new system anyways. Pretty hard to convince anyone of anything. I know I couldn't sway myself.

sonofzeal
2009-04-04, 09:00 PM
Question 1
- I like being able to mix-and-match. A 3.5 style multiclassing (with many narrow classes), or a pointbuy system, either way. As long as there's lots of choice and flexibility.

Question 2
- Definitely the third option. Again, it's about choice. If everyone can use everything than there's not much choice, or rather all choices are the same; once you've had one character go through gear-selection, there won't be that much difference for others. But if you're prohibited (or might as well be), well that's no fun either. Better if it's possible to make things work, but takes effort and some cleverness.

Question 3
- Definitely the second option. Again, choice. Total freedom isn't choice, it's homogeny; total limitation is even more stifling. Best if the system makes you work at it to play against the grain, but does so in a way that the final results can be quite effective.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-04, 09:34 PM
D&D is one of the few systems that seems to take the approach of "Change the rules? I don't understand what you're talking about. What you're talking about is insane." Naturally, people do it anyways. And while it makes for a more playable game (actually playable), it's not really built to handle adjustment. At least that's up to 3.5, admittedly better than 1st/2nd. I can't say much about 4th. It seems there is definitely a way they want you to play it, but it may be easier to get it to go in directions other than that.

Are we looking at the same 1st/2nd edition AD&D? The ones which require the DM to make judgements on quite a bit of stuff? I have a hard time thinking of anything that you couldn't tear out of those games and/or force into them.

Saph
2009-04-04, 10:08 PM
I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Sure people know the system, or do they? It's more likely that they know parts of it, because it's spread over so many books. Look at how often people won't use psionics because they just don't know them.

People know parts of D&D.

Um . . . I really don't know what you're trying to say here. "The system" is the stuff in the core books - everything else is an add-on. Who cares if people don't know psionics? They're optional.

More people know how to play D&D than know how to play any other tabletop RPG. This is an advantage for D&D, because it makes it easier to find players than if you want to play something like, say, Earthdawn. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

- Saph

Satyr
2009-04-05, 02:45 AM
Are we looking at the same 1st/2nd edition AD&D? The ones which require the DM to make judgements on quite a bit of stuff? I have a hard time thinking of anything that you couldn't tear out of those games and/or force into them.

That may be a different approach in older and more recent editions of D&D - I also had the impression that in AD&D (I never played the older editions) was moe arbitrary and less defined - and you could mostly take the rules more as a rough guideline and not as written as stone, while the attitude in third edition shifted towards "the game is good as it is - change it to your own peril", which is a very prescriptive - or in Xuincherguixe's terminology, a "strong" approach.
The difference is, do you regard the complete evolution of the system or only the contemporary situation (diachronic vs. snychronic approach, using Chaussure's terminology) and how do you evaluate this?



More people know how to play D&D than know how to play any other tabletop RPG. This is an advantage for D&D, because it makes it easier to find players than if you want to play something like, say, Earthdawn. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

That is a quite pragmatic reason, but I must admit that I am narcisssitstic enough to prefer to strive for the game I want, despite making it difficult to find a group (even though, in Germany, finding D&D groups is actually quite different, as it is mostly a second tier game, while an almost absurd majority prfer the local matador of roleplaying games, despite its horrible rules).

DoctorJest
2009-04-05, 02:50 AM
I also had the impression that in AD&D (I never played the older editions) was moe arbitrary and less defined - and you could mostly take the rules more as a rough guideline and not as written as stone,

No, AD&D was quite the opposite. It's just that no one actually PLAYED that way (at least no one I knew). We just kind of made stuff up and used the rules as a rough guideline (at best) and just shot from the hip. The game wasn't written that way at all. It was pretty restrictive and rigid in fact (often arbitrarily so). Its just that no one took those whole "rules" things so serious back then.

Also, 1st Ed AD&D had huge holes in the rules, the kind you could drive a herd of tarrasque through, and that required the DM to make alot of judgement calls on if the rules applied in any situation. Houserules were therefore the norm and every group more or less had their own interpretation of the game system. I dont think this was so much by design as that the game designers didn't really know better. The whole RPG thing was pretty new still. People today would consider those games poorly designed. They were the best thing going at the time though. But the end result is most DMs throwing out a good 75% of the rules and just focusing on the easier to remember and fun stuff.

By the time 2nd Ed came out, the rules started becoming written more clearly and taken more seriously and so followed as written, which continued in 3e. I think it was more a shift in the mentality of the player base than it was in rule design. while houserules still abounded, it wasn't like the wild west days of 1st ed.

Matthew
2009-04-05, 03:15 AM
No, AD&D was quite the opposite. It's just that no one actually PLAYED that way (at least no one I knew). We just kind of made stuff up and used the rules as a rough guideline (at best) and just shot from the hip. The game wasn't written that way at all. It was pretty restrictive and rigid in fact (often arbitrarily so). Its just that no one took those whole "rules" things so serious back then.

Also, 1st Ed AD&D had huge holes in the rules, the kind you could drive a herd of tarrasque through, and that required the DM to make alot of judgement calls on if the rules applied in any situation. Houserules were therefore the norm and every group more or less had their own interpretation of the game system. I dont think this was so much by design as that the game designers didn't really know better. The whole RPG thing was pretty new still. People today would consider those games poorly designed. They were the best thing going at the time though. But the end result is most DMs throwing out a good 75% of the rules and just focusing on the easier to remember and fun stuff.

By the time 2nd Ed came out, the rules started becoming written more clearly and taken more seriously and so followed as written, which continued in 3e. I think it was more a shift in the mentality of the player base than it was in rule design. while houserules still abounded, it wasn't like the wild west days of 1st ed.

Yikes, cannot agree with this at all. You are mixing up "what I did", "what everybody did", and "how the game was written". AD&D first edition was written mainly to be used for tournaments, so quite a bit of stuff is predefined, but it also has a bit of a personality disorder, taking the line that the rulings of the game master have priority over the rules of the game. However, its main problem (for tournaments) is that the rules are not very clear, which is partly a result of the editing, and partly because it was an organic development from a much more free wheeling take on the game.

Anyway... my experience of classless systems is that people tend to end up gravitating towards a class of their own making. Nonetheless, the real advantage of a class based system lies not in quick character creation, but in preparation time, since everything is pretty much short handed for you. Sadly, this advantage was eroded by the gradual bolting on of "point buy" systems, culminating with what became D20/3e. It is no design accident that one of the things most vocally disliked about D20/4e has been a decrease in customisation options.

If your main focus is on a highly detailed character, whose every ability is fully defined and capable of progression, then you want a classless system, but I find such games a pain in the ass to generate NPCs for (and same for D20/3e). That said, there are plenty of rules light classless systems, but I think the "customisation" aspect tends to be much reduced.

Xuincherguixe
2009-04-05, 05:31 AM
Are we looking at the same 1st/2nd edition AD&D? The ones which require the DM to make judgements on quite a bit of stuff? I have a hard time thinking of anything that you couldn't tear out of those games and/or force into them.

I was puzzling a bit there, because I was thinking there for a bit, "Huh. This is a problem because he's basically right." Then someone else came along and my point isn't so totally problematic anymore.

"A system with holes in it that need to be filled in order to make it work is not the same thing as an open system."

At the time, roleplaying games were fairly new things. And in that sense it's fairly forgivable. The fact that they tended to attract people with my sort of personality. No, I really am a giant nerd. I'm definitely the target audience. At first I admired the complexity of the system. It wasn't something dull and insipid like a board game. Later I now realize that what drew me was that it was more free. Complexity is not required for options.

But yeah. Maybe you had great games, but I bet a lot of that was what you and your group brought more than the system. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it was in spite of the system. And really, a bad system doesn't necessarily make for a bad game.


If your main focus is on a highly detailed character, whose every ability is fully defined and capable of progression, then you want a classless system, but I find such games a pain in the ass to generate NPCs for (and same for D20/3e). That said, there are plenty of rules light classless systems, but I think the "customisation" aspect tends to be much reduced.

I will admit this was one of my problems with Shadowrun. Coming up with appropriate mooks to through at people. To be fair if I was to try the game again, I would probably deemphasize combat. More investigation, preparation, and disposal of evidence.



Um . . . I really don't know what you're trying to say here. "The system" is the stuff in the core books - everything else is an add-on. Who cares if people don't know psionics? They're optional.

More people know how to play D&D than know how to play any other tabletop RPG. This is an advantage for D&D, because it makes it easier to find players than if you want to play something like, say, Earthdawn. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?


Psionics is a pretty big "optional" set of rules. Though to be fair they're one the things I happen to like. If they're things that people don't need to know... then my point still stands, it's part of the system that people don't actually know. And you'll find it hard to play a Psion.

But for arguments sake let's go with something more traditional. The more confusing wizard. There are a lot of spell descriptions to read through. Even if you get the basic casting stuff which is itself fairly complex, you still need to understand the spells. And that's not even beginning to address tactics. Then there's bards, sorcerors, druids and clerics which are different still. And a whole myriad of books like Complete Divine, and the PHB II... it's hardly reasonable to expect people to buy all those books, and understand all the contents. I know there are "other options", but I don't really feel right about that sort of thing.

People don't know the system, they know parts of it. And so, you end up with players who "kind of" understand the game.

I've actually bought a few 4th edition Shadowrun books even though I don't really play the game anymore. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense I'll admit but they're good books! With fantastic art. And so it doesn't actually feel like a rip off. They're a good read, and there's lots of general stuff you can use. Lords of Madness seemed to be the best D&D book I read, and even still I find it doesn't even come close to Shadowrun's quality.

I mention this because with that in mind, it's even harder to justify buying D&D books. Why pay more, for something inferior, simply because everyone else knows something kind of? (Part of why I'm a Linux man now.)

I was going to leave things standing as they were, since you said you weren't trying to justify yourself. And I'm not entirely sure what the point of my saying this is, but I feel compelled to respond for some reason.

Honestly though, the most important thing is to have fun. Something I think that open systems handle better. After all, most people I would think would agree that more you can involve the players, the better.

"I land a vicious uppercut onto the ogre, dislocating his jaw and sending the piteous creature several steps back" more than, "I deal 15 hit points of damage." Combat is something nearly every game has, and so this might be a poor example. Chances are every game is going to have some particularly long and gruesome section on the sort of ways you can assault your victims. Violence is well supported in most games. Talking not as much. Something inspired like loosening some floor boards in order to frame someone, causing the companies stock value to decrease such that you can profit even less so.

I like that in Exalted you get extra dice for doing something in an excessively awesome way. I like that Shadowrun gives you karma (it's equivalent of experience, and a bit more) for making everyone laugh, good roleplaying, or generally making the game funner for all. They're games that reward creativity. Good ideas don't map well into D&D. Sure there's "tactical spell usage", but what about causing rooms to collapse on monsters? Or swinging a heavy statue on a rope to smash a dragon in a really awkward position.

Creative Problem solving mind you isn't everything (okay, it is to me, but I'm not the only person in the world). But it certainly helps involve the PCs if when they find a leaky pipe they are asked to fix if there is the option feign being a contractor, and thus demanding more money, doing half the job, and leave town.

Again, it's not that D&D doesn't encourage creative problem solving. But most of that ends up being applied to the system, rather than situations. A good batman wizard can do both, but it's one of the few that can. Hard for the fighter to do something creative with the situation, and the game isn't balanced for an "exploit their weaknesses!" sort of game play. It kind of expects you to just sit there and slug it out. With the occasional fireball substituting for a punch.

One way of looking at it, "How well does this game support someone who has read the evil overlord list (http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)?" The answer should be well. And I don't mean because PCs should necessarily be misanthropic sociopaths, but it represents a creative problem solving approach, pattern recognition, and generally good strategy. Theres something wrong when the game expects you to not think very well.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-05, 08:18 AM
I was puzzling a bit there, because I was thinking there for a bit, "Huh. This is a problem because he's basically right." Then someone else came along and my point isn't so totally problematic anymore.

"A system with holes in it that need to be filled in order to make it work is not the same thing as an open system."

At the time, roleplaying games were fairly new things. And in that sense it's fairly forgivable. The fact that they tended to attract people with my sort of personality. No, I really am a giant nerd. I'm definitely the target audience. At first I admired the complexity of the system. It wasn't something dull and insipid like a board game. Later I now realize that what drew me was that it was more free. Complexity is not required for options.

But yeah. Maybe you had great games, but I bet a lot of that was what you and your group brought more than the system. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it was in spite of the system. And really, a bad system doesn't necessarily make for a bad game.

I wasn't suggesting that having holes made it an open system - I have a hard time seeing what about early D&D is "pretty restrictive and rigid", to quote DoctorJest, or "'Change the rules? I don't understand what you're talking about. What you're talking about is insane,'" to use your own. What kinds of examples are you speaking about?


People don't know the system, they know parts of it. And so, you end up with players who "kind of" understand the game.

I disagree with you here. I could, for example, probably go find a GURPS setting book that Satyr hasn't read. It will probably have rules for setting-specific weapons and equipment in it - I don't know much about what GURPS setting books look like, so correct me if I'm wrong. Simply because he might not know the rules for, say, a WWI-era shotgun doesn't mean that he doesn't know how the system works. You wouldn't say that he only "'kind of'" understands the game because he may not have seen this weapon before, especially when one could show it to him and he'd very quickly grasp it. Lack of experience with specific rules is meaningless when you understand what they're based upon.


Chances are every game is going to have some particularly long and gruesome section on the sort of ways you can assault your victims. Violence is well supported in most games. Talking not as much. Something inspired like loosening some floor boards in order to frame someone, causing the companies stock value to decrease such that you can profit even less so.

But supporting something specific like that in the rules is silly, because it's almost never going to come up. That's why the game has a GM, to cover when stuff like that happens.


One way of looking at it, "How well does this game support someone who has read the evil overlord list (http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)?" The answer should be well. And I don't mean because PCs should necessarily be misanthropic sociopaths, but it represents a creative problem solving approach, pattern recognition, and generally good strategy. Theres something wrong when the game expects you to not think very well.

I feel kind of like you're missing the point of D&D - it's supposed to emulate a genre, not a world. As such, I would be upset if the Evil Overlord list was supported - it would break my immersion. I like how Classic Marvel Supers gives villains Karma points for throwing heroes into deathtraps instead of just killing them. If I were to make a Bond RPG, I would expect witty one-liners, pseudoscience, and stupidly-complicated plans to take over the world. To me, being too open is as bad as being too closed.

Roderick_BR
2009-04-05, 09:43 AM
Question 1:
Me and some friends will be working on a new class-based system, that combines your 1st and 3rd options. You have basic classes, but as you level up, you can select especific "paths". On core, though I'd stay with the 2nd option, as flawed as it is.

Question 2:
2nd option. A gear should be useful according to the character's skills. Really, wizards should have no much use for weapons and armor, as much as a fighter have no much use for a wand.

Question 3:
I like a mix of 2nd and 3rd. You are allowed to do a lot of things, you are just better at some more than others, according to your set skills.

Saph
2009-04-05, 10:26 AM
People don't know the system, they know parts of it. And so, you end up with players who "kind of" understand the game.

You really aren't making much sense here.

If a random gamer walks into my club and says "Hey, can I join your game?" then there's a good 80%-90% chance that he's at least moderately familiar with D&D. If the game's something obscure like Tunnels and Trolls, the chance of him being familiar with it is more like 5%.

So if I'm running a T&T campaign and a new guy shows up, I'll have to spend on average maybe 5x as long teaching him as I would if I was running D&D. And the multiplier's only that low because T&T is a fairly simple system. More people know D&D, which makes it easier to find players, which makes it easier to run games. Simple as that.

But okay, let's go with your example. Let's say you walk into my club and say you want to play a Psion. Most people don't know the psionics rules . . . except that pretty much by definition, if you're asking to play a psion it's because you do know the psionics rules*. The other players don't need anything more than a vague understanding of what you can do - the only other person who needs to know the rules for it is me. Which I do.

So it's really a non-issue.


"I land a vicious uppercut onto the ogre, dislocating his jaw and sending the piteous creature several steps back" more than, "I deal 15 hit points of damage." Combat is something nearly every game has, and so this might be a poor example. Chances are every game is going to have some particularly long and gruesome section on the sort of ways you can assault your victims.

...

I like that in Exalted you get extra dice for doing something in an excessively awesome way.

I hate stunt systems for exactly that reason. I do not want to hear Bob the Fighter's five hundredth detailed description of all the horrible stuff he wants to do to his victims. Bob may think it's awesome, but I find it boring. I'd much rather the guy gave a simple one-sentence description of what he's going to do - and while he's at it, he can leave off adjectives like "piteous".

- Saph

*Well, assuming you don't say that you want to be a Psion but have no idea what they are and didn't bring the book. But I'm assuming you're not going to do that.

Starbuck_II
2009-04-05, 10:34 AM
But okay, let's go with your example. Let's say you walk into my club and say you want to play a Psion. Most people don't know the psionics rules . . . except that pretty much by definition, if you're asking to play a psion it's because you do know the psionics rules*. The other players don't need anything more than a vague understanding of what you can do - the only other person who needs to know the rules for it is me. Which I do.

So it's really a non-issue.


*Well, assuming you don't say that you want to be a Psion but have no idea what they are and didn't bring the book. But I'm assuming you're not going to do that.

That would rather foolish and cruel :smallbiggrin:

Cainen
2009-04-05, 11:39 AM
I've always been under the impression that the best way to handle classes is to simply not do so. Any advantages a class-based system has magically end up vanishing whenever paired with my gaming style.

I've also found that the majority of the advantages of a class system can be perfectly replicated by a small amount of GM elbow grease. There are these things called templates, which give the characters they're applied to a bare minimum of competence and an idea of what the character can do. On top of that, if used it also ends up reducing the amount of effort a player has to put into the mechanical aspect of their character.

erikun
2009-04-05, 11:19 PM
Hmm, I'm wondering how this question came around? Well, either way, I'll go ahead and toss in my opinion. It's remarkably similar to most of the others, oddly enough...



question 1: wold you rather...

In this case, my preferred option is classless: you can achieve basically the same results as a classed system by just making each classes' abilities buyable with build points. Yes, there are issues with overpowered combinations, but this is more an issue that should be addressed by the system's design - if backstabbing people with a Fireball is overpowering, then perhaps something about the Fireball should prevent it from being used in a backstab, ne?

For when classes are required (or desired), I prefer the small number of broad classes over the higher number of narrow ones. Yes, calling yourself a Ranger/Cleric/Radiant Servant of Pelor can give us a very clear idea of what your character can do, but a Priest with Two Weapon Fighting can do exactly the same thing, if desired, and the players are free to change things a bit without completely rewriting the class. (Want to be a stormlord who throws lightning bolts rather than radiant bolts? A change of a few powers for the Priest, but mostly a complete rewrite for the Radiant Servant.)




question 2: would you rather:

Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

or

Allow players to use any items regardless of class, though stats may or may not still be a factor. example: "I've got the str and int to be a Claymore-wielding, Full-plate wearing, monster-nuking maniac!"

Somewhere between the two, depending on how you define it. The way I see it, a person who chooses a healer - either by picking the Priest class or by choosing feats/abilities that allow healing - should be better than someone who merely dabbles in it. Thus, the healer will be the best one at healing... an by extension, not the best one at smiting/thieving/fireballing.

Beyond that core, the healer should be able to choose whatever else they want to do. That does not, however, mean that they'll be better than anyone else at it. The fighter, or the guy who focused on high-Str + fighter-feats, should outclass the healer who just dabbles in fighting skills. A fighting-healer, a sneaking-healer, and a diplomatic-healer should be able to work as a fighter, rogue, and bard, just perhaps not as well as the ones truely focused on their jobs. As such, sure: the healer can run around swinging a greatsword at whatever they'd like. However, given their build choices, they wouldn't do as well as a fighter would.




Question 3: would you rather...

have classes best at a certain role, but be able to do other stuff "Just focus on healing for now."

or

have classes able to fill a multitude of roles "Are you a heal-cleric, and smite-cleric, a negociate-cleric, and buff-cleric, or a jack of all trades-cleric?"

This was kind of answered above. Sure, the healer should be able to fight, if they build the character that way. However, they're going to be better at healing than anyone else, and the fighter will be better at fighting than they will. As such, "focus on healing for now" isn't a bad thing - it's just using the character's strengths. If, and when, they aren't need for healing, they'll be free to go back to a-smiting whatever they'd like.