PDA

View Full Version : What character archetypes should a Fantasy Kitchen Sink RPG be able to represent?



D-naras
2013-09-24, 03:29 PM
Let's assume a setting that has steampunk, cthulhu, martial artists, firearms, spirits, undead, beastmen, medieval knights, ninjas and pirates.

If this setting also comes with the following skill list, what character archetypes do you think are unable to be represented:
Athletic:
Climb, Jump, Swim, Tumble, Balance, Sprint, Contortion(Escape artist + essentialy), Unarmed, Ride
Survival:
Stealth, Swim, Climb, Track, Navigate, Defense, Ranged, Treatment, Ride, Forage, Handle Animal
Social:
Diplomacy, Deceit, Insight, Interogate, Intimidate, Flattery, Gossip, Society, Handle Animal
Guileful(rogue's skills):
Stealth, Deceit, Sabotage, Sleight of Hand, Sprinting, Contortion, Diplomacy, Poisons
Combat: 7 skills
Brawn(Strong warrior), Finesse(Fast warrior), Defense, Unarmed, Ranged, Tactics(Smart warrior), Intimidate
Knowledge:
Meditation, Treatment, Lore, Politics, Society, History, Commerce, Appraisal, Decyphering, Sciences, Metaphysical, Tactics, Engineering
Craft:
Appraisal, Trinkets, Weapons, Armor, Cook, Poisons, Art, Engineering, Sabotage, Medicine
Supernatural:
Spellcraft(arcane magic), Spiritcraft(divine magic), Mindcraft(psionics), Sightcraft(for seers and oracles), Sorcery(for dark magic, curses, elder evils and such)

Also, feel free to post any classes from any rpg that actually uses classes, like dnd or L5R (kinda).

The Glyphstone
2013-09-24, 04:51 PM
Savage Guy Who Wields Improbably Big Axes/Swords In A Loincloth
Civilized Guy Who Wears Heavy Armor And Carries Shields
Guy Who Swashbuckles In Light Armor
Guy Who Only Fights With A Bow/Crossbow, Even In Melee
Flashy, Obvious Spellcaster
Flashy, Obvious Spellcaster With Different Fluff And Slightly Different Mechanics
Subtle, Not-Obvious Spellcaster
Psychic Who Works Like A Spellcaster But Drips Sci-Fi Fluff
Nature-Themed Spellcaster
Nature-Themed Warrior
Unarmed Combat Expert From A Far-Away Land
Stealthy Assassin/Thief
Stealthy Assassin/Thief From A Far-Away Land
Guy Who Makes Other Guys Fight Harder/Better


Define them by what they are/do, then give them names afterwards.

Knaight
2013-09-24, 04:54 PM
I'd consider classes a mechanic that works best in fairly tight, focused games that rely heavily on archetypes. Which means that a Fantasy Kitchen Sink has no business using them.

The Rose Dragon
2013-09-24, 05:17 PM
None. Zip. Nada. The integer numberOfClasses should return zero. Class-based systems are basically the redheaded stepchild of RPGs, and a fantasy kitchen sink especially should likely be effect-based or skill-based to work properly.

Black Jester
2013-09-24, 07:13 PM
Oddly, class systems seem to become more restrictive the more options you add and the more specific everyone gets. While I think that Rose Dragon's answer is the correct one - no classes is probably the solution - very broad, and general classes - fighter, scout, scholar also work quite well.
Why scholar and not 'spellcaster' because that way you can still have magical fighters, and magical scouts/rogues.

Mando Knight
2013-09-24, 07:18 PM
Fencer
Duelist
Berserker
Sentinel
Brute
Reaver
Predator

Those are a lot of terms for "Fighting-Man."

What separates a Brute, Reaver, and Berserker from each other? What's the useful difference between a Fencer (who generally fights in duels with light melee weapons) and a Duelist (who generally fights in duels)?

Saidoro
2013-09-24, 07:21 PM
Sponge, soap, green scrubby thingy...

What Black Jester said, basically. You could run it effectively with a skill based system(possibly with certain specializations within a skill having certain requirements to simulate the wacky one-off techniques that seem to crop up like mushrooms in these things) or you could do something like Legend does where classes are mostly a formality, you've got too many archetypes to cover each one with its own distinct class.

BTW, what on earth is a reaver and how is it distinct from a berserker, brute or predator?

Mando Knight
2013-09-24, 07:28 PM
A Predator, I assume, would be a hunter. Most predators (even larger predators like big cats or sharks) seem to rely on speed, a pack, and/or stealth to close in and deliver powerful strikes to take down their pray quickly. A brute or a berserker, however, would take a more direct, brutish, and heavy-handed approach.

No idea what a "Reaver" specifically should be or why it'd be considered a vital, individual class.

D-naras
2013-09-24, 08:05 PM
Sorry that my list is so out there. That's because I am making my own CLASSLESS point based system, for my own setting, and I wanted to see what people think characters should be able to do. Regarding my list:
Fencer: a light armored swordsman
Duelist: a warrior that fights in duels. Any kind of armed duel. 1 on 1.
Berserker: the guy that rages
Sentinel: The civilised armored guy with the shield
Brute: The semi-civilised muscle bound thug
Reaver: The scary warrior
Predator: The wild hunter warrior
Mage: The obvious mage
Priest: The obvious priest
Shaman: The other kind of obvious priest
Monk: The punchy-kicky guy from elsewhere

My system handles all those easily. It also covers all of Glyphstones suggestions as is, using only it's skill system.

I want to pick your minds about classes because currently, I want to make a number or "feats" or "merits" or "advantages" for my system. I call them distinctions and must be passive bonuses to customise your character in a meaningful and elegant way. I will also include things like noble-born, or wealthy. But for now, I want classes. Artificers, rogues, assasins, courtiers, psions, seers, things like that. Keep them coming!

Deffers
2013-09-24, 08:20 PM
Well, I think we can do the fighters on a sort of continuum.

-The guy who hits hard

-The guy who hits a bunch of times

That's one spectrum.

-The guy who moves fast

-The guy who moves slow

That's another spectrum.

-The guy who attacks one guy really well.

-The guy who attacks a whole bunch of guys.

That's a third spectrum.

Permute those for your basic fighter variants. You can sort of "weigh" that with hit points. Like maybe your fast fighter who hits a bunch of guys hard is fragile. But a slow fighter who hits a bunch of guys hard is less fragile. You'd probably accomplish this by having feats that boost your HP, and all characters start out pretty fragile without taking those feats. All guys start slow without taking feats to go faster. Your feat pool should also be large enough that characters are distinguishable from the beginning.

Magic should, perhaps, be different, with spells as feats. Your specialist wizard can be a bit more durable, but your batman wizard will be squishy. I feel like spellcasters are mostly differentiated by the source of their power, and then their specializations, per individual character, take over from there. Magic fighters and the like would probably dip from the magic feat selection and the melee feat selection. Most spellcasters just kind of blend into one.

Maybe have a feat that dictates which feat tree you can take, and that feat is the source of your magic powers? Maybe a feat beyond that which modulates the strength of your powers? Like if you can only cast something once a day, you can utilize its full power, but if you can cast it at will you get a limited version? Or maybe the once-a-day version costs less points?

Rhynn
2013-09-24, 08:30 PM
Oddly, class systems seem to become more restrictive the more options you add and the more specific everyone gets. While I think that Rose Dragon's answer is the correct one - no classes is probably the solution - very broad, and general classes - fighter, scout, scholar also work quite well.
Why scholar and not 'spellcaster' because that way you can still have magical fighters, and magical scouts/rogues.

Yeah, I find OD&D's "fighting-man, magic-user (+ thief)" pretty much covers the most ground out of class-based systems, but that also requires/goes with a general sparsity of mechanics. 3.X has a lot of classes because all the classes get very complicated and specific mechanics.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-09-24, 10:35 PM
I'd break it down into role and power source, kind of like 4e did. Though not quite the same categories. So you'd have something like:

Role:

Melee Combat
Ranged Combat
Tricky Combat
Support Combat


Power Source

Mundane Skill
Structured Magic
Nature Magic


Combining a Role and A Power Source gives you a class. So Melee+Structured Magic gives us the Paladin, perhaps. Ranged+Nature gives us a Ranger. And so on.

Rakaydos
2013-09-25, 12:17 AM
Savage Guy Who Wields Improbably Big Axes/Swords In A Loincloth
Civilized Guy Who Wears Heavy Armor And Carries Shields
Guy Who Swashbuckles In Light Armor
Guy Who Only Fights With A Bow/Crossbow, Even In Melee
Flashy, Obvious Spellcaster
Flashy, Obvious Spellcaster With Different Fluff And Slightly Different Mechanics
Subtle, Not-Obvious Spellcaster
Psychic Who Works Like A Spellcaster But Drips Sci-Fi Fluff
Nature-Themed Spellcaster
Nature-Themed Warrior
Unarmed Combat Expert From A Far-Away Land
Stealthy Assassin/Thief
Stealthy Assassin/Thief From A Far-Away Land
Guy Who Makes Other Guys Fight Harder/Better

Caster
Light Combatant
Heavy Combatant
With all having equal access to the skill subsystem.

Knaight
2013-09-25, 12:39 AM
Caster
Light Combatant
Heavy Combatant
With all having equal access to the skill subsystem.

So, why shouldn't magic and combat be part of the skill system?

Lord Raziere
2013-09-25, 12:42 AM
Meh.

I personally think these options:

Physical:
Melee Guy
Ranged Guy
Martial Artist
assassin
cavalry

Mental:
strategist
Scholar
schemer
investigator

Magical:
Harmer
Summoner
Healer
Illusionist
Protector
Magic Melee
Subtle-Mancer
Shapeshifter
ritualist

Social:
Face
Merchant
Con Man
Diplomat
Leader

Technological:
inventor
robot/cyborg
hacker
pilot
gunner and grenadier

….and now I realize I'm more like listing roles and such, and I know that there is some overlap here, and people are probably going to harangue me about including technological roles and saying that its "too sci-fi" but I really don't care, because my fantasy kitchen sinks include tech.

Rakaydos
2013-09-25, 12:54 AM
It all depends on whether you want to let people build characters who sacrifice combat ability for social aptitude, and vice versa.

The Glyphstone
2013-09-25, 02:20 AM
Caster
Light Combatant
Heavy Combatant
With all having equal access to the skill subsystem.

Character. With an extremely versatile skill system:smallcool:

Black Jester
2013-09-25, 04:43 AM
Yeah, I find OD&D's "fighting-man, magic-user (+ thief)" pretty much covers the most ground out of class-based systems, but that also requires/goes with a general sparsity of mechanics.

No, that's not automatically so. I can easily create a class-based system with very rough classes and still relatively elaborate subsystems etc. while still have only three classes, for instances a skill-based system in which each class provides a discount on certain skills, requiring everyone less effort or resources to become good at their core competences while still allow everybody to expand beyond it.
Or you can make many class elements more optional (like the feats in D&D) and let everybody pick up those based on their class, keeping the core classes very streamlined and still having lots and lots of options.

D-naras
2013-09-25, 04:51 AM
Asume that the skill system includes at least the following skills (don't mind the overlap):

Athletic:
Climb, Jump, Swim, Tumble, Balance, Sprint, Contortion(Escape artist + essentialy), Unarmed, Ride
Survival:
Stealth, Swim, Climb, Track, Navigate, Defense, Ranged, Treatment, Ride, Forage, Handle Animal
Social:
Diplomacy, Deceit, Insight, Interogate, Intimidate, Flattery, Gossip, Society, Handle Animal
Guileful(rogue's skills):
Stealth, Deceit, Sabotage, Sleight of Hand, Sprinting, Contortion, Diplomacy, Poisons
Combat: 7 skills
Brawn(Strong warrior), Finesse(Fast warrior), Defense, Unarmed, Ranged, Tactics(Smart warrior), Intimidate
Knowledge:
Meditation, Treatment, Lore, Politics, Society, History, Commerce, Appraisal, Decyphering, Sciences, Metaphysical, Tactics, Engineering
Craft:
Appraisal, Trinkets, Weapons, Armor, Cook, Poisons, Art, Engineering, Sabotage, Medicine
Supernatural:
Spellcraft(arcane magic), Spiritcraft(divine magic), Mindcraft(psionics), Sightcraft(for seers and oracles), Sorcery(for dark magic, curses, elder evils and such)

Considering this skill list, is there any character concept you can't do?

Morty
2013-09-25, 04:58 AM
As usual, this thread starts from a completely wrong premise. Before you start listing classes, you need to figure out what you want 'class' to be. You can't just throw names around. Do you want a lot of narrow classes, or fewer but broader ones?

And of course I'd agree with people here who say that classes in general can be more trouble than they're worth.

D-naras
2013-09-25, 05:01 AM
As usual, this thread starts from a completely wrong premise. Before you start listing classes, you need to figure out what you want 'class' to be. You can't just throw names around. Do you want a lot of narrow classes, or fewer but broader ones?

And of course I'd agree with people here who say that classes in general can be more trouble than they're worth.

I'll edit the thread title and first post then.

Emperor Tippy
2013-09-25, 05:07 AM
Cut classes entirely and instead let people build their own.

Make everyone pick, say, Primary, secondary, and tertiary specializations.

To use D&D as an example, a Wizard is a Magic User (primary), Arcane (secondary), Transmuter (tertiary).

Give everyone, say, 100 character points. 50 of those points must be spent on character attributes/abilities with the [Magic] tag. Of those 50 points, 30 must be spent on things with the [Arcane] tag, of that 30 twenty must be spent on things with the [Transmuter] tag. The other fifty points can be spent on anything you want, regardless of tag.

Numbers and prices need play testing and real balance, of course.

But have things like the "Stealth Skill Package", maybe it costs 7 points but it makes Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen skills into class skills.

Or things like BAB=HD costs, say, 25 of your character points.

Maybe Sneak Attack is 15 and the Monk's fast movement is 10.

So want to make a guy who is really good with fire magic and likes to fight in melee with a blade of fire?

Well then the fifty [Magic] points all get poured into things like hotter fire, elemental blade, immune to fire/own fire, etc. while the general points get poured into things like full BAB.

If you want an adaptable, classless, game that is the best way that I have found to do it. Of course there will be combinations that are better (often times by orders of magnitude) than other combinations but that tends to be the way it is in both real life and every RPG that exists (I've yet to see one that I can't shatter the concept of balance into little pieces with).

Lorsa
2013-09-25, 05:24 AM
Asume that the skill system includes at least the following skills (don't mind the overlap):

Considering this skill list, is there any character concept you can't do?

A regular farmer who doesn't have animals as his primary thing?

EDIT: The OP never asked what classes there should be, the question was if the skills listed can cover all possible character concepts or "classes" if you will. Not what there should or shouldn't be, if the skills covered everything. That's always been the question, not whatever is written in the title.

The Rose Dragon
2013-09-25, 06:06 AM
Asume that the skill system includes at least the following skills (don't mind the overlap):

Too many skills. Broader settings are usually better served by having fewer skills, not more (unless you are playing GURPS).

Regardless, if we are ignoring classes, the question becomes: skill-based or effect-based? If the former, how many categories of stats are there, and what do you want each of them to be able to do?

D-naras
2013-09-25, 06:30 AM
What do you mean skill-based or effect-based?

Black Jester
2013-09-25, 06:54 AM
Asume that the skill system includes at least the following skills (don't mind the overlap):


Generally speaking, it depends on the intended degree of complexity and mechanical depth, but you use a consistent level complexity. I think that having four to five different skills for basic athletics, but only one for each category of magic seems inconsistent to me and will almost guarantee that spellcasters will overshadow mundane characters if all skills require a similar amount of resources.
Generally speaking, I would reduce the overall number of mundane skills (the extreme case, where each of your categories except supernatural becomes its own skill would work for instance) and than mirror it with a roughly equal amount of supernatural skills as well.

D-naras
2013-09-25, 07:01 AM
I think I will take this, along with the current version of the system to Homebrew. Thanks guys.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-09-25, 08:33 AM
What do you mean skill-based or effect-based?

Skill-based is GURPS. If you want fire magic, you purchase the "Fire Magic" skill. If you want archery, you purchase the "Archery" skill. And so on. Each skill is sort of a packet of stuff you can do.
Effect-based is M&M. If you want fire magic, you purchase "Ranged Damage" with the Fire descriptor. If you want archery, you purchase "Ranged Damage" with the Weapon descriptor. Each thing you can do gets assembled from bare-minimum effects.

Alternately, think of it like Lego.

A class-based system hands you a pre-built castle. You can mess around with the minifugures, but that's about it.
A skill-based system gives you a bunch of pre-built walls and towers, and lets you assemble them into a castle however you want.
An effect-based system gives you a pile of bricks and says "have fun!"

The Rose Dragon
2013-09-25, 09:09 AM
[LIST]
Skill-based is GURPS. If you want fire magic, you purchase the "Fire Magic" skill. If you want archery, you purchase the "Archery" skill. And so on. Each skill is sort of a packet of stuff you can do.
Effect-based is M&M. If you want fire magic, you purchase "Ranged Damage" with the Fire descriptor. If you want archery, you purchase "Ranged Damage" with the Weapon descriptor. Each thing you can do gets assembled from bare-minimum effects.

Actually, in terms of basic mechanics, GURPS is also effect-based, though it puts more emphasis on non-effect-based stats, such as attributes and skills, compared to M&M. It is only when you get into things like the default magic system or psi powers as written in the Characters book that it becomes skill-based, but it is possible to ignore those entirely and just run a "magic and psi as advantages" game.

The main distinction between effect-based and skill-based is that the former simply stats out what you can do, whereas the latter also covers how you can do it. World of Darkness and Unisystem, for example, are both skill-based games.

D-naras
2013-09-25, 09:21 AM
Here's the Homebrew thread for the system in question. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305336)
Feel free to check it out and PEACH.

Knaight
2013-09-25, 10:30 AM
Considering this skill list, is there any character concept you can't do?

I'm not seeing any way to be in a number of magical professions. Alchemy, binding spirits (think Incarnum), etc. I'm also not seeing fine motor skills anywhere on the list, which gets in the way of pickpockets, jugglers, etc.

As long as you're just going through skills: I recommend looking at skill lists for existing games, and going from there. The GURPS skill list is quite comprehensive, and probably has everything you might want (though it desperately needs consolidation if you want a lighter game). The 5-point Fudge skill list is similar, if not quite as bloated.