PDA

View Full Version : Classes and Character Creation



Cluedrew
2015-04-23, 07:40 AM
So I've been thinking about creating this thread for a while. Then the "classes that should not be" threads came up and now the "classes that should be" thread is out there and in those people asked for a thread like this one so...




What are the advantages and disadvantages of class based character creation?

The main difference is one of structure. Class systems tend to have more structure, which can be a very powerful tool to help character creation along, but can also be restrictive. Classless systems generally have less structure which means there is a lot less to either support or restrict character creation.

Soft class systems, where some pseudo-class acts as a guideline without enforcing restrictions, try to be the best of both worlds. Although on a technical level they usually are just classless systems with examples.

Balance wise classes are should be easier to balance, as you only have to balance the contents of each class against other classes. In a classless system you have to balance all the possible combinations. However if the game is imbalanced it stands out more in a class system because there isn't a whole lot the underpowered classes can do to correct it.

In general I would say classes work better for tactical role-playing games where party roles and such come up. Classless systems work better in more narrative games where the subtleties and uniqueness of the character is important. Although this is in general and probably doesn't cover a lot of things.




What are the types of classless character creation?

Character creation being the process by with things end up on your character sheet.

I can think of 2. The first is point buy where some pool(s) of points are used to buy traits for your characters and is probably the most popular. The second is uniform start where all characters start the same, this one kind of breaks the trend because it is in fact more structured than a class system.



With that as a start what you have to say about class vs. classless systems?

Mr.Moron
2015-04-23, 09:37 AM
Class systems can be very effective in prompting teamwork, if that's one your design goals. If your game is set up so that it tends to have certain types of problems to solve, and for most types of problems no one class has a good solution to them on their own it means they have to work with other player.


You also frame "but can be restrictive" as though it were inherently a negative, but this isn't the case. If you're trying to play to a specific genre or feel, restriction can be a pro rather a con. Imagine a game in a setting with very rigid societal roles an opportunities: Here classes could be a very useful tool for not only keeping the status quo, but allowing the mechanics to make creating a character feel a restrictive as the society is.

Using classes also cuts down on the number of ways things might interact, and so might make it easier to introduce higher levels of complexity or additional "special cases" without having to worry as much about with unexpected interactions.

Free System: Abilities; A B C D E F G ; pick 3.
Class System: (ADF),(BCF),(EGA),(CED),(BEG); pick 1

In the free system you have a lot of possible interactions to worry about, if DEF blows your game up it'll blow up. In the class system we don't have to worry about since DEF isn't one of the options. I'm not even talking about "Balance" here I'm just talking about keeping the game working. Places where the rules might have gross contradictions, infinite loops, or cross-references that can't resolve.


Having played both, I like both.

I tend to like class or other restrictive systems more the further the setting is removed from the real world.
I tend to like class or other restrictive systems the more characters change over time.
I tend to like class or other restrictive systems more when I'm dealing with complex and interconnected setting elements.


I tend to like more free-form systems when I don't have to deal with any of those elements.

Morty
2015-04-23, 09:42 AM
It should be noted that very few systems use classes the way D&D does, unless they specifically set out to emulate it (like Dungeon World does, for instance), and for a good reason. Other systems use classes, careers and such, but they tend to be archetypes or templates, rather than straight and narrow paths like D&D classes.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-23, 09:50 AM
It should be noted that very few systems use classes the way D&D does, unless they specifically set out to emulate it (like Dungeon World does, for instance), and for a good reason. Other systems use classes, careers and such, but they tend to be archetypes or templates, rather than straight and narrow paths like D&D classes.

I've not found much meaningful difference between so-called "Soft Classes" and D&D classes. They're framed a bit differently in the text but in terms of how many meaningful character building choices I have they're not wildly different. Only fully open-ended or narratively-built systems really feel like they're markedly different. At least when I've been building characters.

WoD, L5R, 40kRPGs, IK, are all games that spring to mind that have "Class" systems of various names and levels of rigidness that didn't feel like amazingly different processes from D&D to me.Particularly the 3.P brand popular around here with all it's free allocation of skill points, high feat counts and wide menu-grazing for spells. Some being even more narrow.

Grinner
2015-04-23, 09:51 AM
I like this writeup. I think it summarizes the dynamic quite well.

To the question at hand, well, I can't really contribute anything that hasn't already been said. Classes make things easy because they pigeonhole the character, but that carries drawbacks in concern to authorial control (assuming you don't refluff, which kinda obviates the need for fluff in the beginning). It seems like classes would best represent some kind of archetype rather than a specific job, perhaps with additional elements (like feats) used to fill in the details.

Two problems arise, however. First, in using a class-based system as outlined above, it's not always possible to fulfill a particular vision from the start. You want a spellsword character? Then either use a spellsword class, which requires inventing a whole new class, or wait until you can pick up a level of wizard. Second, multiclassing in this way may not produce a balanced character. Either some synergy between the classes makes the character much stronger, or a lack of synergy causes the character to spread its resources too thin.

Some might argue that allocating character creation resources in this way is not playing the game "right". However, everyone wants to be effective in-game. It doesn't matter if you have the coolest backstory known to man; if you're not participating, you're bored. At the same time, it's kind of irritating when someone brings out their nonsensical, super-OP build.

It's all about finding the right balance. Rule of Cool's Legend had this neat mechanic called tracks whereby you would select from a number of ability progressions called "tracks" and essentially build a class from different combinations of these tracks.

Ultimately, I'd like to blame everything on Wizards of the Coast. In hindsight, they made a mistake in not strictly defining their vision for classes and feats. Classes seem like purposeless packages of character abilities sometimes, and feats, because they seem to run the entire spectrum of "fluffiness", fail to fulfill any sort of purpose besides "moar power".

Cluedrew
2015-04-23, 10:16 AM
Hurray, replies! And I'm glad you like the write up Grinner.

Yes restrictive is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance if you are playing a game set in the real world, the restriction that you can't be a spell caster is not really an issue. Hopefully. Where it becomes a problem is when there isn't a class for something that should be an option. Although it is an extreme example consider a class based society where the carpenters and blacksmiths have mechanical classes, but the stone masons do not. Unless stone masons simply to not exist... that is rather odd.

Also "Soft Classes" does not mean classes under a different name. Essentially it means a classes that you can stop following if you so choose. I actually feel they are closer to point-buy with guidelines than a class system. I think ShadowRun does this, but I've never actually seen the rules for character creation in ShadowRun so that is based off of hear-say.


archetypes or templates What you mean by archetypes and templates? I've never heard them used in the context of a classless role-playing game.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-23, 10:30 AM
Although it is an extreme example consider a class based society where the carpenters and blacksmiths have mechanical classes, but the stone masons do not. Unless stone masons simply to not exist... that is rather odd.

Unless Stonemasons exist outside the the intended scope of the game.

Just to re-frame it it a bit: Imagine stonemasons do have a class but Soldiers, Nobility, Wizards, Clergy, Merchants and Barbers have no playable representations in the rules. These things are all part of the setting and even feature as central aspects of it, likely to be an important part of any story taking place there. Yet it's entirely consistent because the game we're talking about is "Builders & Tools: The Game of Fantasy Construction Projects". You might have the odd sidebar on how to make the rare Merchant-class overseer for a specific style of game, but it is just not something the game provides by default.

The game is about being construction workers so it provides various classes for the different kinds of construction workers. That you can think of a really cool Swordsman-Sorcerer that could feasibly exist in the setting, doesn't really mean the rules are flawed if they don't support it (even if he somehow uses his cool Sword-Sorcery strictly for building purposes) because the game would built to be about mundane construction workers.

JNAProductions
2015-04-23, 10:53 AM
Is it weird I totally want to play Builders & Tools: The Game of Fantasy Construction Projects?

Mr.Moron
2015-04-23, 11:00 AM
Is it weird I totally want to play Builders & Tools: The Game of Fantasy Construction Projects?

Rocks fall. Everyone dies. The GM isn't being mean, Earnest failed his Fastening[Nails] check, and everyone failed their Check Flaws[Wood] and Notice Noise[Creaking] checks. Those beams really couldn't hold up the ceiling.

Grinner
2015-04-23, 11:05 AM
Is it weird I totally want to play Builders & Tools: The Game of Fantasy Construction Projects?

I kinda like the idea too, since it sounds so different.

I have to wonder how something like that would actually work out in play, though. What would you do? Just place bricks?

Player: I attempt to heave the next block onto the wall.
GM: Okay. You'll need to pass a DC 15 Bricklaying check.
Player: *rolls a 12*
GM: Okay. You successfully lay the brick
Player: I try to place the next brick.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-23, 01:48 PM
What you mean by archetypes and templates? I've never heard them used in the context of a classless role-playing game.

An example of using archetypes when creating a character using a sample character sheet:

http://www.tenra-rpg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/kirie.jpg

Kirie selected Former Armour Rider, Mercenary and Armour Hunter as her archetypes for her concept.

Former Armour Rider gives:
Interface 3
Etiquette 2
Art of Rule 2
Emotion: Hatred of Yoroi Armours

Costs 10 Karma

Mercenary gives:
Melee Weapons 3
Marksmen 3
Information 3
Emotion: Ambition

Costs 30 Karma

Armour Hunter gives:
Melee Weapons 4
ZAKT-8 Ultimate Edge weapon
Emotion: Look up to the strong

Costs 30 karma and 1 attribute point

Due to overlapping skills, Kirie traded the Melee Weapons 3 from Mercenary for Notice 3.

Kirie only has 39 points in attributes out of 40 due to paying 1 attribute for her ZAKT-8 Ultimate Edge.
Kirie has 73 karma because she paid 3 karma for 15 extra soulgems.
Kirie decided her ambition wasn't important enough for her character, so her fates only reflect her other two archetypes, with her Hatred of Yoroi Armour more important to her than Looking up to the Strong, taking 3 dots instead of 2 dots on her fates.

What you get is a character that models the concept pretty well and has plenty of room for character growth. As an older teen, she probably was recently an armour rider and spent a few years learning how to wield her sword after her parents disowned her for not being able to be an armour rider anymore. She probably has a mentor or a mercenary chief who taught her the sword. There are acquaintances and ex-clients she can name at a later date due to her position as a mercenary. Her parents probably knew some influential people to actually get an armour to ride.

What you get is a detailed character with a rich background with less than 5 minutes of work that actually functions when you use a set of archetypes.

Rad Mage
2015-04-23, 01:55 PM
An example of using archetypes when creating a character using a sample character sheet:

http://www.tenra-rpg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/kirie.jpg

Kirie selected Former Armour Rider, Mercenary and Armour Hunter as her archetypes for her concept.

Former Armour Rider gives:
Interface 3
Etiquette 2
Art of Rule 2
Emotion: Hatred of Yoroi Armours

Costs 10 Karma

Mercenary gives:
Melee Weapons 3
Marksmen 3
Information 3
Emotion: Ambition

Costs 30 Karma

Armour Hunter gives:
Melee Weapons 4
ZAKT-8 Ultimate Edge weapon
Emotion: Look up to the strong

Costs 30 karma and 1 attribute point

Due to overlapping skills, Kirie traded the Melee Weapons 3 from Mercenary for Notice 3.

Kirie only has 39 points in attributes out of 40 due to paying 1 attribute for her ZAKT-8 Ultimate Edge.
Kirie has 73 karma because she paid 3 karma for 15 extra soulgems.
Kirie decided her ambition wasn't important enough for her character, so her fates only reflect her other two archetypes, with her Hatred of Yoroi Armour more important to her than Looking up to the Strong, taking 3 dots instead of 2 dots on her fates.

What you get is a character that models the concept pretty well and has plenty of room for character growth. As an older teen, she probably was recently an armour rider and spent a few years learning how to wield her sword after her parents disowned her for not being able to be an armour rider anymore. She probably has a mentor or a mercenary chief who taught her the sword. There are acquaintances and ex-clients she can name at a later date due to her position as a mercenary. Her parents probably knew some influential people to actually get an armour to ride.

What you get is a detailed character with a rich background with less than 5 minutes of work that actually functions when you use a set of archetypes.

Ah, Tenra Bansho ZERO. A personal favorite of mine. Especially for how the mechanics encourage and reinforce the importance of role playing.

Morty
2015-04-23, 02:33 PM
I see someone has already explained my point more thoroughly than I would have. I've recently come to the conclusion that it's not really classes that restrict D&D characters, but levels. Having everything parcelled in small bits across 20 levels makes things seem suffocating.

Yora
2015-04-23, 03:35 PM
What I like about character classes in an RPG is that they take care of the generic stuff like how much life you have, what your attack chance is, your basic defense scores, how much magic, and so on. Stuff that is basically invisible and which would be impossible to identify simply from hearing what the character does. Doing these things manually through allocating points is number crunching for the sake of optimization. Unless any of those values is extremely high, they are not part of the image you have for the character you want to play, so players don't need to have control over them. Assigning fixed values to them speeds up character creation a lot, but doesn't take away any real creative descision from the players.

However, I think D&D 3rd edition really overdid it by hardcoding specific special abilities into these class frameworks. If you want to play a ranger-type character, you're not getting your interpretation of the ranger archetype, but you get someone elses interpretation forced on you. You might like the idea of a paladin (which I think is valid and nothing wrong with it), but if you want to play such a character in D&D by picking the paladin class, you also get a magic horse, healing hands, cleric spells, and a very restrictive code of conduct, which are all not universal concepts of paladinhood, but very specific ideas of one guy who wrote the class. These things are not invisible numbers that quietly run in the background, but things that define the character and what he can and can not do, and how he would do them. That's too much for me.

I think a good class system really just covers only the invisible numbers, while leaving it to the players to either chose their special abilities, or make the abilities so open ended and unspecific that the players can chose what the mechanics represent in the game world.

SowZ
2015-04-23, 05:52 PM
I see someone has already explained my point more thoroughly than I would have. I've recently come to the conclusion that it's not really classes that restrict D&D characters, but levels. Having everything parcelled in small bits across 20 levels makes things seem suffocating.

I liked the way that one Star Wars game handled it, where class abilities were listed as class bonus feats and each level you picked one of those feats. No more, "I like the 5th level ability for X class, but the rest are garbage. Oh well, I guess I'll dumpster dive for five levels." Instead, take what is useful to your character and ignore the rest.

Red Fel
2015-04-23, 08:41 PM
I find myself liking the extremes. I either prefer a very fixed-class system (a la D&D/PF) or a very flexible system (a la GURPS, Ironclaw, etc.).

I enjoy a fixed-class system because, as mentioned, it helps to illustrate growth over time. The problem with growth in a classless system is that it's so gradual; you save up enough points to increase an ability score by one, or take a new spell, or develop a single new specialization. It's tiny bites. The advantage of a fixed-class system is that when you level, everything explodes. You get new attack bonuses, new spells or skills, better saves, grab a feat, all sorts of benefits. It really captures that feeling of overwhelming power. It's also more efficient. Yes, you may have to plan out a build levels in advance, but you don't have to spend an hour dropping points here and there - simply grab a class level, maybe assign some skills or a feat, and you're done.

By contrast, I enjoy a classless system due to the flexibility involved. One of my great frustrations with a fixed-class system is how hard it is to make a given concept, and to do so effectively. For example, if I want to make a barechested clawed fighter with wings and a tail, I have to take a specific race and class, specific feats, specific levels of this and that; I need multiple books and sources, and he still won't be good for much of anything until level 6 or so. With a classless system, each of those has a point value attached to it. I can grab the things I want, ignore the things I don't, and create the concept to be ready more or less out of the gate.

That's not to say that the classless system needs to be completely point-buy free-for-all. I still have some shuddering memories of trying to piece together mechanics in GURPS to custom-tailor a character, but not all classless systems work that way. For example, in Ironclaw, when creating a character, you choose a race. That race immediately gives you several specific features - it's a bundle pack, basically. You also choose a career. That career gets you a bundle of gifts, plus specified mechanical benefits - again, a bundle pack. (It's also worth noting that you can purchase additional careers later in the game, although you have to meet requirements for doing so.) Yet neither of these prevents you from doing anything else with your life. For example, you could choose to be a Pit Fighter, take the gift of Elemental Apprentice, and become a thuggish combatant who can ignite fires. You start with bundles, much like how D&D/PF starts, and then build incrementally in the direction you choose.

It's this particular intersection of the two that I like most. While I enjoy the two extremes, one for structure and one for creative freedom, I prefer the intersection - freedom, but with bundles. That, I think, is a great way to describe it. As has been mentioned in other threads, this idea of a "character creation barrier," where chargen is so complex as to be daunting to the uninitiated, is ameliorated with bundles. By being able to bundle things together, and otherwise limiting character generation to finite, straightforward factors, you can simplify chargen. By then allowing basically everything - from ability scores, to skills, to feats or feat-equivalents - to be purchased individually, you kill dead levels and eliminate the frustration of a lack of customization. Whatever character you want to play, you can play.

That, I think, is the sweet spot.

Knaight
2015-04-23, 09:00 PM
The big thing that classes are very good at is conveying relevant setting information. If you detail that there is a particular class tied to a particular organization with access to a particular set of abilities, that says something about the setting. To use an example from REIGN (which isn't class based, but does have magic traditions that kind of work in a similar way), there's a group of healers who got their power by desperately climbing a mountain and staring at the sun. They've got a gift for healing in general, working specifically with the desert sands, extending out to things like magical glass prosthetic limbs. There's another set of mages that are connected to the wolves of their wastes, with various abilities to call upon them and transform and be wolflike. On another side, there's a set of skill specializations tied to the remnant couriers of a destroyed country, dramatically enhancing the ability to beg and plead.

These organizations? They say a lot about the setting, and just the set of connected abilities does a lot for that. If there are particular setting elements which are starkly divided, and that needs to be communicated quickly, classes can do the job. Another big thing is that class/level systems almost inherently have a retro aesthetic, and if the aesthetic of early RPGs is being invoked, classes generally do a good job of it. Then there's niche protection within extremely focused games, where a huge chunk of it is one thing and making that one thing interesting and approached a bunch of ways matters. Classes are one way to do that, and D&D often provides a good example of this, particularly 4e - though the one thing wouldn't necessarily have to be combat, even though it largely is.

Outside of those niches though, I generally find classless systems substantially stronger. Even within some of those niches, I personally prefer them, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are generally superior (whereas I would for most other scenarios).

veti
2015-04-23, 09:48 PM
Rolemaster is a system that uses classes, but with (theoretically, at least) much more latitude than D&D. Anyone can take any skill or any spell list, within reason - but the points cost of the pick depends on your class. A wizard gets spell lists much cheaper, and much faster, than a rogue; a fighter gets weapons and armour skills faster, and so on.

And yet, it still suffers from the same "endless proliferation of new classes" syndrome that blights D&D.

I think classes are, essentially, a "simulationist" feature. If you want a semblence of "realism" in your game - for values of "realism" that aren't inherently incompatible with the very concept of FRPG - then it's reasonable to limit characters to one of a limited menu of backgrounds. If your setting is "medieval Europe with mythic elements", then knights are a thing that exist, and you can be the son of a knight; monasteries are a thing that exist, and you can have been educated in one; wizards are a thing that exists, and you can have been apprenticed to one; ditto thieves. And each background will translate to a specific class, which can't be easily changed because it reflects, like, 18 years of upbringing. And you can't mix and match these elements as you wish just to make a specific character you think sounds cool, because there's no plausible way such a character could have come about in this world.

If you want a more "narrativist" game, where you get to control your own destiny, then point-buy is a natural and obvious mechanism for character generation, and classes are an unnecessary straitjacket.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-23, 11:17 PM
It's this particular intersection of the two that I like most. While I enjoy the two extremes, one for structure and one for creative freedom, I prefer the intersection - freedom, but with bundles. That, I think, is a great way to describe it. As has been mentioned in other threads, this idea of a "character creation barrier," where chargen is so complex as to be daunting to the uninitiated, is ameliorated with bundles. By being able to bundle things together, and otherwise limiting character generation to finite, straightforward factors, you can simplify chargen. By then allowing basically everything - from ability scores, to skills, to feats or feat-equivalents - to be purchased individually, you kill dead levels and eliminate the frustration of a lack of customization. Whatever character you want to play, you can play.

That, I think, is the sweet spot.

sounds like the Eclipse Phase package system in the Transhuman book: you have only 10 package points, but you can purchase certain packages in 1, 3 or 5 increments for a bunch of skills, the more you put in, the more you gain. your supposed to spend all the points so that you end up with a character with a diverse set of skills. it isn't just profession stuff but faction and background skills as well. which I think is a good system, and should be used more.

you want to play an orc? well pick the Orc package, and determine how much being a Orc means to you and spend the necessary package points to get all the associated skills and abilities, best thing is, with packages and bundles you can make sure that two people who want to play an Orc for different reasons can co-exist in the same game: one simply had to spend points on a different package to make it clear.

So Elf-Mage-Rogue? thats three packages. which one is most important is up to you, but of course you can always say that all three are equally important. its a good system in my opinion, and kind of underused, as it has a lot of the good parts of both class systems and point buy systems rolled into one.

Red Fel
2015-04-24, 09:22 AM
sounds like the Eclipse Phase package system in the Transhuman book: you have only 10 package points, but you can purchase certain packages in 1, 3 or 5 increments for a bunch of skills, the more you put in, the more you gain. your supposed to spend all the points so that you end up with a character with a diverse set of skills. it isn't just profession stuff but faction and background skills as well. which I think is a good system, and should be used more.

you want to play an orc? well pick the Orc package, and determine how much being a Orc means to you and spend the necessary package points to get all the associated skills and abilities, best thing is, with packages and bundles you can make sure that two people who want to play an Orc for different reasons can co-exist in the same game: one simply had to spend points on a different package to make it clear.

So Elf-Mage-Rogue? thats three packages. which one is most important is up to you, but of course you can always say that all three are equally important. its a good system in my opinion, and kind of underused, as it has a lot of the good parts of both class systems and point buy systems rolled into one.

Well, to go back to my Ironclaw example, the system starts with packages, and then goes into a more traditional point-buy. Your race choice gives you a bundle of advantages, and you can subsequently upgrade your race directly (and everything to which it provides an advantage) or purchase entirely separate advantages. Your career gives you a bundle of advantages, and again you can either upgrade the career itself (and by extension its advantages) or purchase new ones. But after these initial bundles, everything becomes individual.

What this does is remove the intimidating point-buy barrier to initial character generation, allow the player to get accustomed to the system, and then enable the player to purchase individual components later on.

Admittedly, I don't know much about Eclipse Phase, so we may be discussing the same thing, but it sounds like the system you're describing is closer to a class system, in that you're purchasing packages instead of individual abilities or upgrades, but with fewer requirements on the purchase of each (and fewer unwanted bits) than a more traditional class system like D&D/PF.

Still sounds interesting, though.

All that said, I do think that there is a strong trend in TTRPGs away from a fully class-based system. I think a lot of games associate the class system with D&D, and many are breaking away from that mold, either to distinguish themselves or simply because they've come up with a clever alternative. And frankly, I don't think it's a bad thing at all.

Grinner
2015-04-24, 09:56 AM
What this does is remove the intimidating point-buy barrier to initial character generation, allow the player to get accustomed to the system, and then enable the player to purchase individual components later on.

Admittedly, I don't know much about Eclipse Phase, so we may be discussing the same thing, but it sounds like the system you're describing is closer to a class system, in that you're purchasing packages instead of individual abilities or upgrades, but with fewer requirements on the purchase of each (and fewer unwanted bits) than a more traditional class system like D&D/PF.

You're talking about the same thing really.

The package method is technically an "optional" system, and the default method in the corebook is a straight-forward point-buy system. The package method is so much easier, though.

Jay R
2015-04-24, 10:06 AM
Is it weird I totally want to play Builders & Tools: The Game of Fantasy Construction Projects?

I played it once, but we had a bad GM. We wanted to build a cathedral, but he insisted that we had to build a railroad.

Cluedrew
2015-04-24, 11:09 AM
I kinda like the idea too, since it sounds so different.

I have to wonder how something like that would actually work out in play, though. What would you do? Just place bricks?
I believe it uses a "day of work" system, so unless an event happens (an accident, labour dispute, present progress to the client) you make a few roles at the beginning of the day and then skip to the evening.


I played it once, but we had a bad GM. We wanted to build a cathedral, but he insisted that we had to build a railroad.
I heard the steam-punk splat book got a lot of flack, surprised a railroad GM would use it.

Ironclaw sounds like a good example of Soft Classes from what Red Fel said about it.

Another thing that classes tend to be good at is representing diversity. Not that characters in a point-buy system can't be different from each other, but they tend to bleed into each other more than classes. Mind you this is also dependant on communication between players and similar things. From a flavour sense it is only an encouragement because people still have to play their character's differently, but mechanically it does work well with roles. Of course roles might not be what the game is about but it is there.

On a somewhat different note, is it just me or to a lot of stories that feature games prominently use classes? Its not all of them for sure but many. Which makes me think of games don't use classes but hand out class labels anyways (for instance, every character in the party is a member of their own unique class). Which makes me think of another possible strength of classes: communicating character concepts. If I had a character who was a member of the Spell Knight class would you be suppressed if I said she was heavily armoured, had good attack with her sword, some access to arcane spells and had a general air of refinement?

I feel I should say something good about point-buy or some other classless system, but with my limited experience with them everything I could say has been said.

Rad Mage
2015-04-24, 11:10 AM
I played it once, but we had a bad GM. We wanted to build a cathedral, but he insisted that we had to build a railroad.

Pull a page out of Girl Genius and build a cathedral for an order of monastic train engineers who revere the railways.

Red Fel
2015-04-24, 11:19 AM
Another thing that classes tend to be good at is representing diversity. Not that characters in a point-buy system can't be different from each other, but they tend to bleed into each other more than classes. Mind you this is also dependant on communication between players and similar things. From a flavour sense it is only an encouragement because people still have to play their character's differently, but mechanically it does work well with roles. Of course roles might not be what the game is about but it is there.

This is a fair point, but when you think about it, why does this have to be the case? Characters can be reasonably differentiated by their abilities, not by their ability bundles, in virtually any system. Yes, two characters could both take a specialization in, say, anatomy, but that doesn't mean that both are actually playing medics. One could be playing a martial artist, for example. Or a prostitute. Hey, don't knock it, at least he's getting an education.


On a somewhat different note, is it just me or to a lot of stories that feature games prominently use classes? Its not all of them for sure but many. Which makes me think of games don't use classes but hand out class labels anyways (for instance, every character in the party is a member of their own unique class). Which makes me think of another possible strength of classes: communicating character concepts. If I had a character who was a member of the Spell Knight class would you be suppressed if I said she was heavily armoured, had good attack with her sword, some access to arcane spells and had a general air of refinement?

This is also a really good point. It's a lot easier to say "I play a seventh-level Paladin" than it is to say "I have a character specialized in computer use, high-caliber firearms, and applied thermodynamics." One is shorthand for a collection of images and abilities, and the other requires you to actually go through and list them. That said, there is a flaw in the shorthand, and Paladin is the perfect example - it means different things, including abilities, to different people. If I said "spellcasting holy knight," that communicates one type of paladin; if I said "sworn knight to a liege," that communicates another type.

And if I said "I play a character who specializes in heavy melee weaponry and armor, horseback riding, and low-level buff and healing spells, with a strong ethical component," that communicates quite clearly what I'm playing.

Cluedrew
2015-04-24, 08:46 PM
Yes, two characters could both take a specialization in, say, anatomy, but that doesn't mean that both are actually playing medics. One could be playing a martial artist, for example.
Funny you should use this example, last time I played a point-buy game I had a character who had several ranks in anatomy. He was an assassin type and used the anatomy skill to inflict status effect like injuries to people. He also was the only one in the party with any ranks in etiquette if that tells you anything. It can be done with point-buy and can fail with classes, but I think classes help.

Funny thing about the assassin though. Even though I created him organically and he had lots of unique traits, by complete accident he fell perfectly into one of the game's archetypes (one I didn't know about when I made him). To me this incident proved that classes are a completely viable option if handled properly.


there is a flaw in the shorthand
In this regard I would say they are like acronyms for character concepts. Sometimes there is one you just don't know, sometimes it expands to different things and sometimes there isn't one. Yet it is convenient.

Jay R
2015-04-25, 11:39 AM
Classes work best to simulate a genre in which there are clear archetypical character types, like wizard, fighter, etc.

A non-class system works best in genres with a continuum of character types, or in which all characters are completely unique.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-25, 03:52 PM
Classes work best to simulate a genre in which there are clear archetypical character types, like wizard, fighter, etc.

A non-class system works best in genres with a continuum of character types, or in which all characters are completely unique.

Well, sure, except "fighter" has never been an archetype in fantasy. No fantasy character has ever been defined by "I hit things, and am recognizably different from other characters because of that". Never mind that most fantasy characters don't fit archetypes. What is Frodo, exactly? Is he the same class as Sam?

In practice, fiction doesn't have cookie-cutter race-class combinations.

Jay R
2015-04-25, 06:00 PM
Well, sure, except "fighter" has never been an archetype in fantasy. No fantasy character has ever been defined by "I hit things, and am recognizably different from other characters because of that". Never mind that most fantasy characters don't fit archetypes. What is Frodo, exactly? Is he the same class as Sam?

In practice, fiction doesn't have cookie-cutter race-class combinations.

Gilgamesh, Achilles, Beowulf, Sigurd, and Lancelot, are all the basic "hero" archetype. They are recognizably similar, and if I added Frodo, or Aladdin, or Merlin, or Br'er Rabbit to the list, everybody would recognize that the last name didn't belong.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-25, 06:10 PM
Gilgamesh, Achilles, Beowulf, Sigurd, and Lancelot, are all the basic "hero" archetype. They are recognizably similar, and if I added Frodo, or Aladdin, or Merlin, or Br'er Rabbit to the list, everybody would recognize that the last name didn't belong.

Sure, there's a nearly-invincible warrior-hero archetype - I wouldn't call that a "fighter," though; I don't think the class maps to the archetype just for the fact that it's more like it than a different class. And I'd point to Frodo as an example of a fantasy character who doesn't clearly fit any class.

Now that I think of it - I realize these are different goalposts - a leveling system gets away from those archetypes by assuming that your average warrior could become Achilles, or that Achilles was at any point a "normal" human.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-25, 06:40 PM
Gilgamesh, Achilles, Beowulf, Sigurd, and Lancelot, are all the basic "hero" archetype. They are recognizably similar, and if I added Frodo, or Aladdin, or Merlin, or Br'er Rabbit to the list, everybody would recognize that the last name didn't belong.

Did you want to use those as an example of a fighter? Those are more examples of "guys descended from the divine or have divine protection" more than anything. Lancelot was the son of a king, Beowulf, Sigurd and Gilgamesh were related to gods and Achilles was protected by the River Styx. Their invincibility wasn't from their own efforts and were well above what a fighter could do.

It's odd that fighters have to work pretty hard to accomplish what Odysseus's crew could in Homer's Odyssey. Every single one of them had at least twice the skills you would expect from a D&D fighter.

Cluedrew
2015-04-25, 06:41 PM
Sure, there's a nearly-invincible warrior-hero archetype - I wouldn't call that a "fighter," though; I don't think the class maps to the archetype just for the fact that it's more like it than a different class. And I'd point to Frodo as an example of a fantasy character who doesn't clearly fit any class.

Now that I think of it - I realize these are different goalposts - a leveling system gets away from those archetypes by assuming that your average warrior could become Achilles, or that Achilles was at any point a "normal" human.

There isn't an exact mapping because stories are read as opposed to played. That might seem like semantics but it is an important distinction. Characters in stories don't have to be mechanically balanced, they don't even have to be narratively balanced because that is what the main character is. But games have to balance characters out, have to keep the players engaged and can't count on unlikely outcomes. So Achilles heal would make for a really bad mechanic for a PC, and having a party include an "everyman" and a god like wizard is probably not a good idea. That being said if someone runs a 3.5 campaign with both a commoner and a wizard in the party, I would like to hear that story.

Actually, a high-level fighter might actually do a very good job of the nearly-invincible warrior-hero archetype. Most of them are invincible because they are simply too skilled to ever be struck. Unless we are actually talking about the "I'm sorry, my neck has appeared to have dulled your sword" type. So high AC, maybe low HP unless you go for "hit points" over "heath points". Any run of the mill fighter would have to critical hit to do anything. By the way in movies the extras never critical hit, or even role high.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-25, 06:46 PM
There isn't an exact mapping because stories are read as opposed to played. That might seem like semantics but it is an important distinction. Characters in stories don't have to be mechanically balanced, they don't even have to be narratively balanced because that is what the main character is. But games have to balance characters out, have to keep the players engaged and can't count on unlikely outcomes.

I know; I'm responding to the statement that


Classes work best to simulate a genre in which there are clear archetypical character types, like wizard, fighter, etc.

A non-class system works best in genres with a continuum of character types, or in which all characters are completely unique.

and trying to demonstrate that a) RPG classes don't simulate fantasy fiction and b) fantasy fiction isn't as archetypical as it would need to be for an RPG class system to simulate it in the first place.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-25, 07:04 PM
Actually, the Iliad doesn't depict Achilles as invulnerable; he takes a cut and even bleeds from it. The whole "River Styx" thing isn't even mentioned. Achilles is a badass demigod who hefts boulders, slays hundreds, and fights even gods, because he's a badass demigod, not because his mom gave him a special bath.


It's odd that fighters have to work pretty hard to accomplish what Odysseus's crew could in Homer's Odyssey.Die horribly, often literally by the boatload? :confused:


Every single one of them had at least twice the skills you would expect from a D&D fighter.Actually, Odysseus' crew was largely mundane; you seem to be conflating the Iliad and the Odyssey.

The forces united under King Agamemnon, including Ajax and Odysseus, fight against the forces united under King Priam, including Paris and Hector, while Achilles sulks in his tent over a slight from Agamemnon. The gods themselves lend aid to both sides of the battle. However, the tide of battle shifts when Patroclus is slain, driving Achilles to take the field to avenge him. Achilles slays Hector and drags his body around Ilium by his chariot, until Priam convinces sneaks into their camp and has a heart-to-heart with Achilles to let him have his son's body so he can give him a proper burial.
Odysseus takes an extra ten years getting home from the above war. He spends, no kidding, like eight of those years sharing beds with beautiful women, and while he's eager to get home to his wife, he muses about how if his wife has cheated on him, he'll have to kill her. His crew gets picked off by giants, a cyclops, the monstrous Scylla, and a storm sent by the gods, until he's the only one left. Finally he makes it back home in time to see his dog die (after having spent twenty years away from it, mind), and brutally murders the 108 suitors that have courted his wife in the time since he disappeared.

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-25, 07:27 PM
GURPS is like the socialist utopia of gaming systems. It's classless.

I guess I always felt like forcing characters into archetypes was destructive and that classless games are better. The lack of structure allows players to forge a character's mechanical individuality, leaving more room for roleplaying, less for rollplaying.

erikun
2015-04-25, 10:16 PM
Classes were, at least originally, a quick-and-easy way to sit down and start playing. You are a Fighter? Well good, you are good at Fightenating things. Here are your Fightenating numbers. You roll these numbers when you want to do some Fightenating.

The most annoying thing about D&D3e is just how much it seemed to mix this up. You are a Fighter? Well, okay. Here are you skill points, which you must then distribute of these different skills. No, not those ones, those are restricted to spellcasters. Oh, but those skills are only worth half as much when you buy them, because they are not Fighter Skills™. And then you must select your Feats, only those Feats can be used for any feat but those other Feats can only choose select Fighter Feats™, and you must select them in order, which means we need to calculate your BAB and Skill Ranks at each level to see if you qualify for each one you plan on taking...

I mean, I understand that you want to personalize the character beyond the class. But D&D4e, despite problems, ended up just doing this so much better. Here is your Fighter. Here, select three of these skills you are good at. You can have any one of all the feats available. And pick your three fancy maneuvers that you hit things with.

I still haven't played D&D5e, though.

Wartex1
2015-04-25, 10:26 PM
Classes were, at least originally, a quick-and-easy way to sit down and start playing. You are a Fighter? Well good, you are good at Fightenating things. Here are your Fightenating numbers. You roll these numbers when you want to do some Fightenating.

The most annoying thing about D&D3e is just how much it seemed to mix this up. You are a Fighter? Well, okay. Here are you skill points, which you must then distribute of these different skills. No, not those ones, those are restricted to spellcasters. Oh, but those skills are only worth half as much when you buy them, because they are not Fighter Skills™. And then you must select your Feats, only those Feats can be used for any feat but those other Feats can only choose select Fighter Feats™, and you must select them in order, which means we need to calculate your BAB and Skill Ranks at each level to see if you qualify for each one you plan on taking...

I mean, I understand that you want to personalize the character beyond the class. But D&D4e, despite problems, ended up just doing this so much better. Here is your Fighter. Here, select three of these skills you are good at. You can have any one of all the feats available. And pick your three fancy maneuvers that you hit things with.

I still haven't played D&D5e, though.

DnD 5E is like:

You're a fighter? Neat. Now, once you reach 3rd level, you can choose if you wanna do magic, jump around, or hit things harder. As for your skills, you get two fighter skills, but you also get some from your background, and maybe another from your race. Good? Good.

Cluedrew
2015-04-27, 07:05 AM
It occurs to me we might be doing an injustice by talk about classes and point-buy like they are two separate boxes.

Let me set up a scale this scale stretches from completely structured in character creation (a single prefab character, items and all) to not structured at all (write down whatever you want to be). Now very little exists at either end, some non-role-playing games at the structured end maybe, but even most Freeform RPGs have more structure than what ever because there is a internally consistent world the character is being made for.

Point-buy systems are close to the non-structured end. They have created a list of options, put limits on how many you can get, sometimes one requires another and so on.

Class systems exist closer the structured end. It is a particular type of structure where you pick one of the class bubbles and create a character within it.

Now I actually wanted to say some profound repercussion of this realization, but I don't really think there are any. I suppose it highlights the idea (already brought up by Red Fel) of using something between the two systems, but it doesn't change a lot else.

I suppose on other thing I could throw out there is that both point-buy and class systems can exist at different points on this scale. That is there are more and less structured variants of both.

MrStabby
2015-04-27, 09:46 AM
It occurs to me we might be doing an injustice by talk about classes and point-buy like they are two separate boxes.

Let me set up a scale this scale stretches from completely structured in character creation (a single prefab character, items and all) to not structured at all (write down whatever you want to be). Now very little exists at either end, some non-role-playing games at the structured end maybe, but even most Freeform RPGs have more structure than what ever because there is a internally consistent world the character is being made for.

Point-buy systems are close to the non-structured end. They have created a list of options, put limits on how many you can get, sometimes one requires another and so on.

Class systems exist closer the structured end. It is a particular type of structure where you pick one of the class bubbles and create a character within it.

Now I actually wanted to say some profound repercussion of this realization, but I don't really think there are any. I suppose it highlights the idea (already brought up by Red Fel) of using something between the two systems, but it doesn't change a lot else.

I suppose on other thing I could throw out there is that both point-buy and class systems can exist at different points on this scale. That is there are more and less structured variants of both.

3rd Ed was somewhat of a middle-ground with feat strings. Yes it ran in parallel with race and class but the feats system was kind of like a cross between points buy and classes.

I seem to be one of the few people who didnt think it was that bad (although maybe conceptually - in practice it isn't perfect). It has the benefit of a class system (again, if done right) that it enables enough fewer options to make it more easy to filter out overpowered paths. If x -> y ->z as feats and if A-> B-> C then you only need to worry about the combination of C and Z at a level where you have at least 6 feats. This path of feats is like a class in that it will tend to have some strongly thematic abilities in which you develop but you can supplement these with other abilities chosen from the bottom of feat hierarchies.

I think classes and feats actually work well in practice for character diversity. With a completely free choice and no class synergies to worry about, too many characters would end up selecting just the same feats - having different things for them to work in conjunction with creates bigger differences in style. On the other hand with no feats and no archetypes two characters of the same class can feel far too similar.

If I were to have one criticism of 5th it would be that too often the archetypes within classes are poorly balanced so there is not much diversity there.

Red Fel
2015-04-27, 10:24 AM
3rd Ed was somewhat of a middle-ground with feat strings. Yes it ran in parallel with race and class but the feats system was kind of like a cross between points buy and classes.

Disagree. 3rd Ed was thoroughly class-based. Feats are a once-every-several-levels perk, which is nonetheless limited by various other factors. Further, they're all weighted equally - the Toughness feat (have a handful of HP) carries the same cost as the Maximize Spell feat (bigger badder boom). In a proper point buy system, almost everything is for sale - ability score upgrades, skills, proficiencies, abilities - but they tend to have different costs. Saying that feats make a class system into a point-buy system is like saying that skill ranks do the same.


I think classes and feats actually work well in practice for character diversity. With a completely free choice and no class synergies to worry about, too many characters would end up selecting just the same feats - having different things for them to work in conjunction with creates bigger differences in style. On the other hand with no feats and no archetypes two characters of the same class can feel far too similar.

It's funny, because in this thread I've now heard that argument both ways. I'd like to summarize it. A class-based system allows for much more diverse characters, because each character class has its own functions and skills. A point-buy system is less diverse, because everyone gets to purchase from the same pool, and will end up taking the same "best" abilities. A point-buy system allows for much more diverse characters, because each character can be custom-built to specification, allowing distinctions to be made at the most minute level. Two similar characters can nonetheless have vital and valuable differences. A class-based system is less diverse, because all martial characters ultimately boil down to rolling damage dice, and all spellcasters become boringly omnipotent as levels approach 20.
I'm not saying that either position is 100% right or wrong. I think they both have merit. But it's very interesting. The fact is, a class-based system creates a huge (and often complained of) schism between, say, Fighter and Wizard. But saying all characters in a point-buy system start to look the same assumes that they will be built similarly; a better comparison, then, is between Fighter and Other Fighter. In fact, that's a perfect comparison. As in a point-buy system, both Fighters start with an identical chassis, which they then customize with feats. (You did liken those to point-buy earlier, as you recall.) In the end, two Fighters will still be mostly similar, because they have the same base chassis and functionality.

But let's look at a point-buy system like GURPs. You can make a fighter who wields a broadsword and armor shreds faces. You can make a bare-chested fist-fighter who wields human spinal columns like nunchucks. (I did.) You can make a phantom thief who wields a paintbrush full of plastic explosive and possesses inexplicable regenerative qualities. (Same campaign. I have funny friends.) You can make a cyborg, a wizard, or a guy literally made out of lightning. Even the similar roles are dramatically different, and the different roles are worlds apart. Just because they can be made similarly doesn't mean that they are, or have to be.

Morty
2015-04-27, 11:06 AM
The thing about D&D is that it does not only use classes. Elements similar to classes aren't uncommon in the industry, although few examples are as hard-and-fast as D&D's classes. But it uses levels, which very few other RPGs do.

MrStabby
2015-04-27, 01:05 PM
Disagree. 3rd Ed was thoroughly class-based. Feats are a once-every-several-levels perk, which is nonetheless limited by various other factors. Further, they're all weighted equally - the Toughness feat (have a handful of HP) carries the same cost as the Maximize Spell feat (bigger badder boom). In a proper point buy system, almost everything is for sale - ability score upgrades, skills, proficiencies, abilities - but they tend to have different costs. Saying that feats make a class system into a point-buy system is like saying that skill ranks do the same.



Sorry. I wasn't saying that there were no classes in 3rd ed. 3rd Ed was class based AND point buy based (more weakly) and also had the feat chain mechanic that is something in between. I was not trying to suggest that all these were equal in importance.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-27, 02:24 PM
GURPS is like the socialist utopia of gaming systems. It's classless.

I guess I always felt like forcing characters into archetypes was destructive and that classless games are better. The lack of structure allows players to forge a character's mechanical individuality, leaving more room for roleplaying, less for rollplaying.

Gurps is an over-complicated system that I'd rather have nothing to do with. too high of a character creation barrier, give me Fate or M&M3e.

Knaight
2015-04-27, 02:41 PM
Gurps is an over-complicated system that I'd rather have nothing to do with. too high of a character creation barrier, give me Fate or M&M3e.

I honestly do not understand how GURPS can be an issue when D&D 3.5 isn't. Between the two I'd consider it vastly simpler and vastly more straightforward, though by no means simple or straightforward.

Red Fel
2015-04-27, 02:45 PM
I honestly do not understand how GURPS can be an issue when D&D 3.5 isn't. Between the two I'd consider it vastly simpler and vastly more straightforward, though by no means simple or straightforward.

The big problem with GURPS is simply assembling powers. If you want to do anything more than very simple stuff, like "hit hard" or "use gun" or "talk some," you have to piece an ability together, with modifiers for how it's used, what it does, rider effects, modifiers, and so forth - all that for one power. Criticize the system mastery needed for 3.5 all you like, but Fireball tells you precisely what it does in one very neat, compact package.

I had a PC in GURPS whose basic punch attack had several modifiers on it, covering how many people he could use it on in one round, how much damage he could do with it, and how touch tank plating had to be to stop it. (Hint: Good luck with that.) Building his punch attack took me a good fifteen minutes. And heaven help you if you try to create energy weapons.

It's a barrier to entry, is the point. And while system mastery and good chargen programs can be a huge help - I had one years ago, no idea where I put it, that streamlined the whole punch thing - it's still a chore.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-27, 04:10 PM
[list=1] A class-based system allows for much more diverse characters, because each character class has its own functions and skills. A point-buy system is less diverse, because everyone gets to purchase from the same pool, and will end up taking the same "best" abilities.

Isn't the other side of that argument the argument that class systems are less diverse because everyone ends up taking the "best" classes? Obviously, both arguments assume optimization as the primary objective of character creation, which sometimes it can be.

Kalirren
2015-04-27, 08:05 PM
Classes were, at least originally, a quick-and-easy way to sit down and start playing. You are a Fighter? Well good, you are good at Fightenating things. Here are your Fightenating numbers. You roll these numbers when you want to do some Fightenating.

I think this is more important than it may seem at first. A lot of theorists forget that the most important resources of them all are play time and effort. IMO, the only really strong explanation for the proliferation of classes in widely used, classed systems is that what players really looking for is to spend the minimal amount of time and effort describing their character, so that they can spend more time and effort playing their character.

If your system doesn't use classes, as in freeform, you have to start asking and answering the question, "what can your character do?" in more complicated terms, which can take lots of time. If your system uses classes that don't describe your concept well, as in 3.5 Paladins, you have to start putting effort forth into 'building' the character to assert to the GM and the other players, "This is what my character can do," which can take lots of time. Often, somewhere in the many middles there, there are character concepts that fit established classes/packages well, and everything is fine - people go straight to playing, without spending too much time.

I think that's why systems tend to be closely associated with settings, and be found in packages with settings.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-27, 08:18 PM
I honestly do not understand how GURPS can be an issue when D&D 3.5 isn't. Between the two I'd consider it vastly simpler and vastly more straightforward, though by no means simple or straightforward.

dude, you don't know whats wrong with that sentence.

DnD is easy: Catfolk Sorcerer, done. everything else is pretty easy from there.

GURPS: is like.....ok I have a bunch of traits that I have to find to make a catfolk, as well as another bunch of traits to be a sorcerer, and I have to go through the entire book to find them, remember how much they cost and how much points I have to spend for this character, and even after that I have to find all the skills that would fit them and calculate how much they cost, and how much should this character's culture affect them? what disadvantages I should take? man this book is full of options, how am I supposed to find anything in here? oh god I'm getting tired of scrolling through the pdf/flipping through the pages just to find all this stuff to make the most basic parts of my character, screw it I'm using Fate Core/M&M3e.

very big difference in character creation barrier. GURPS has one of the higher CCB's. DnD has actually a pretty low CCB, because its so easy to come up with a character concept that can be summarized in just a few words, so that people know what your playing. sure DnD 3.5 is terrible in game, but at least I actually get to playing.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-27, 09:46 PM
If your system doesn't use classes, as in freeform, you have to start asking and answering the question, "what can your character do?" in more complicated terms, which can take lots of time.Let me go over a meagre handful of characters I've played in classless systems.
Tough brawler
Psychic vampire
Adventuring archeologist
Sorcerous con-artist
Hacker/driver

Answering "What does the character do?" seems pretty simple.


Punch people and take punches. Seems straightforward.
**** with people's minds and drink blood. Concept description fits it to a "T."
Indiana Jones-type stuff, exploring ruins, nothing unexpected here.
Use magic to trick people out of stuff. Sounds good.
Hack devices and pilot vehicles. We're good.

None of these things particularly took lots of time to either envision or describe.

Kitten Champion
2015-04-27, 10:01 PM
Oh, so that's what a psychic vampire does!

Lord Raziere
2015-04-27, 11:11 PM
yeah here are the concepts I've played in freeform and classless systems:

-pacifist elven diplomat summoner
-life-creating alchemist with an alchemy gun
-multiplying shapeshifter with severe multiple personality issues
-former comic book supervillain in power armor
-goblin pyromancer/shotgunner/leader/inventor
-super-smart cutoff hivemind scout alien

its easy to make such concepts easily without class/race, its just that some systems are incredibly bad at doing that easily and instead explode into this point-buy bonanza where everything has to be built from the ground up and its just so tiring to do that most of the time. I mean sure, I want some capability to build from the ground up, but more package stuff please? more, I don't know, bundle, would be nice?

BayardSPSR
2015-04-27, 11:21 PM
So, from your perspective (Raziere), GURPS is to point-buy as 3.5 is to class/race?

Lord Raziere
2015-04-28, 12:02 AM
So, from your perspective (Raziere), GURPS is to point-buy as 3.5 is to class/race?

what do you mean by that? that they're both popular systems and showcase the big downsides of their methods? I guess you can say that, if thats what you meant?

I mean, I'm not ragging on the people who somehow have the mental fortitude to master the 3.5 system or be able to get through the point-buy-itis wall of GURPS to get to its apparently simplified play. but not everyone is able to do that. sure, the 3.5 system has a low CCB, but also is technically able to do any character concept it in existence, but only with enough sourcebooks and the will to page through multiple books, take all the options you need and then plan out a full character development from 1 to 20 with all the math calculated out. GURPS can work, but only if you focus on getting used to its character creation system enough to be able to get used to all the options so that you can pick and choose them as if it was natural.

I'd rather use Fate Core or M&M3e, which even at their most complex, are only one book and are consistent with how characters are created and don't involve as much overblown mechanics work just to make a character concept work at its most basic level, while still retaining customizability and lots of possibilities. maybe they don't have the lowest CCB, but they are easier to learn than GURPS, and unlike in DnD, I don't have to bend fluff around for my concepts, in my opinion.

Cluedrew
2015-04-28, 07:33 AM
Come to think of it, I've never seen a class system that divorces flavour from mechanics like a lot of point-buy systems. I think it might be because that goes against the main strength of classes, the complete package. Point-buys seem to thrive in environments where the connection between what a skill is and what it does is very loose.

D&D 3.5 can actually be seen a lot like a point buy. On character creation you get some stat points, a race point and a class point. Each time you level up you get another class point. Every time you spend a class point you get some abilities, some further skill points to spend, plus the occasional stat point or feat point. You also get gold points the first time you spend a class point. The main unit is bigger but you are just spending 'points' to create a character.

erikun
2015-04-28, 08:08 AM
I've found classless systems which were just as bothersome to deal with as class-based systems. For the most part, it depends on how fiddly the system is and how much work it takes to get involved with it. Something like Fate or HeroQuest is fairly good, allowing someone to very quickly stat out a character however they want, with varying degrees of balancing this well. Something like Mutants & Masterminds gets a bit more complicated, since you are ultimately putting together a bunch of abilities that someone else feels covers everything, and hoping that it represents the character you want the best. I've never played GURPS before, although it sounds like an even more extreme example.


It occurs to me we might be doing an injustice by talk about classes and point-buy like they are two separate boxes.

Let me set up a scale this scale stretches from completely structured in character creation (a single prefab character, items and all) to not structured at all (write down whatever you want to be). Now very little exists at either end, some non-role-playing games at the structured end maybe, but even most Freeform RPGs have more structure than what ever because there is a internally consistent world the character is being made for.

Point-buy systems are close to the non-structured end. They have created a list of options, put limits on how many you can get, sometimes one requires another and so on.

Class systems exist closer the structured end. It is a particular type of structure where you pick one of the class bubbles and create a character within it.
I would actually argue that class-based and classless are two entirely separate things. With class-based, your class determines what you can do. Are you a Priest? Then you can heal. Are you a healer? Then you are a Priest. Yes, there's a little give and some variant classes that grant the ability as well, but for the most part Priest = healer.

In a classless system, anyone can do anything with the only limit being the available skill points to purchase abilities. You could easily create a priest with no healing abilities, just making them a holy warrior who smites their opponents or even a wandering oracle. You could easily create a wizard or a soldier with magical healing. In this system, healer ability = healer, and building a character around the healing ability determines how effective it is.

The clearest distinction happens when you look at the "border" cases, where the two systems attempt to merge. What happens when a class-based system tries to use point-buy abilities? It comes of as fairly clunky and awkward. You end up with nonsensical restrictions as a method to keep classes distinct (No, your wizard cannot heal because that is the priest's job!) and you end up with an awkward method of distributing point-buy skill points to cover the things that aren't directly related to the class. Even in something like Rule of Cool's Legend system, you're still restricted to three "class trees" and must follow the ones you pick, to the point where it is effectively a triple-class system in a way.

Conversely, take a look at the classless systems that use "classes", and what do you typically see? Each of the "classes" is just a point-buy pre-packaged build. In some cases it is optional, which really just makes it a shortcut to jump into the point-buy system. In other cases, the classes are discounted as an attempt to tempt players to take them - or they end up mandatory, which ends up making the system feel quite awkward in a lot of cases.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-28, 08:37 AM
It's funny, because in this thread I've now heard that argument both ways. I'd like to summarize it. A class-based system allows for much more diverse characters, because each character class has its own functions and skills. A point-buy system is less diverse, because everyone gets to purchase from the same pool, and will end up taking the same "best" abilities. A point-buy system allows for much more diverse characters, because each character can be custom-built to specification, allowing distinctions to be made at the most minute level. Two similar characters can nonetheless have vital and valuable differences. A class-based system is less diverse, because all martial characters ultimately boil down to rolling damage dice, and all spellcasters become boringly omnipotent as levels approach 20.


Isn't the other side of that argument the argument that class systems are less diverse because everyone ends up taking the "best" classes? Obviously, both arguments assume optimization as the primary objective of character creation, which sometimes it can be.

That's because diversity or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether a system is class or skill-based. It has to do with amount of valid play options.

In a class system where one class can model more things than other ones, or model them better, people will gravitate towards using that class over others. Example: between Aristocrat, Warrior, Adept and Expert, which one do you think you'd be using the most for modeling NPCs? Aristocrat and Warrior both have narrow and specific skill lists, so what they can model is heavily limited. Adept is more powerful and versatile than them, but it gains all of that from one distinct mechanic, casting spells, and has little ability to customize it. An Expert, on the other hand, can pick any ten skills as class skills. You can use it to simulate a lot more different characters than the other NPC classes.

(On the other hand, this comes at the cost of having a clear identity. You can't tell what an Expert is about, before you have picked its skills. As this is homologous to an argument people have made towards point-buy systems, I'll reiterate what I said about the Expert in another thread: classes like it are like baking a point-buy system at the heart of your class system.)

When there is no clear "best class", or where even the weakest class contributes something unique to it, this doesn't happen. Earlier editions of D&D are arguably an example. Playing a Fighter at low levels is a lot easier and more rewarding than trying to play a Magic-User (with their paltry few spell slots) or a Thief (who will die if the fighting gets real), but there's a lot the Fighter just can't do on his own, so there's a clear benefit to having the two other classes around. At higher levels, the tables get flipped, with Magic-User and Thief both offering more utility - but getting there without a Fighter is very hard. It's this dynamic, where no class can simply replace the other, that enforces diversity.

Now, to point-buy systems. The problem is exactly the same, only the level of granularity at which it happens changes. Instead of classes, we're now looking at how different skills or traits compare to each other. If one skill or trait allows for modelling more things, or models them better, people again gravitate towards buying that skill or trait. If the Medic skill also allows you to do what more specialized Vetenarian and First-Aid skills would, people buy that. If the Melee skill allows you to do what Fencing and Bojutsu would do, they buy that, too.

And hence, like with the Expert becoming the most used NPC class, a lot of characters end up looking the same mechanically in a point-buy system with clear "King" skills or traits. Even if the characters are intended to be different and are played differently in the game.

Milo v3
2015-04-28, 09:49 AM
I generally prefer class based systems because most point-buy systems I've seen left me with no idea how many points I'll have to put into some things to be at the correct level of power and that characters can be so separate from each other in regards to statistics like health, making balancing enemies ridiculously harder for me as a GM.


Oh, so that's what a psychic vampire does!

Not really, generally a psychic vampire is a vampire who feeds on mental things like memories, emotions, dreams, etc. A "psychic" "vampire", rather than a "Psychic Vampire".

Kalirren
2015-04-28, 10:32 AM
Let me go over a meagre handful of characters I've played in classless systems.
Tough brawler
Psychic vampire
Adventuring archeologist
Sorcerous con-artist
Hacker/driver

Answering "What does the character do?" seems pretty simple.


Punch people and take punches. Seems straightforward.
**** with people's minds and drink blood. Concept description fits it to a "T."
Indiana Jones-type stuff, exploring ruins, nothing unexpected here.
Use magic to trick people out of stuff. Sounds good.
Hack devices and pilot vehicles. We're good.

None of these things particularly took lots of time to either envision or describe.

Great. Your character concept statements were all simple and easy to express in English, I agree. But I don't know from what you've said how easy or difficult it was to express and execute those concepts in system language, which is the part that I have found difficult in the past. Perhaps I should have been more specific before. Was that part easy too? If so, I'm interested in exactly which systems those are, because then they sound like they would be fun to play in.

My own play experience with classless systems is that I tend to get bogged down in advancement and creation, and I often find that a character I created under one concept, with certain strengths, will advance and those strengths can't be effectively maintained under advancement. But maybe that's more a problem with me than with the systems.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-28, 02:06 PM
Great. Your character concept statements were all simple and easy to express in English, I agree. But I don't know from what you've said how easy or difficult it was to express and execute those concepts in system language, which is the part that I have found difficult in the past. Perhaps I should have been more specific before. Was that part easy too? If so, I'm interested in exactly which systems those are, because then they sound like they would be fun to play in.

My own play experience with classless systems is that I tend to get bogged down in advancement and creation, and I often find that a character I created under one concept, with certain strengths, will advance and those strengths can't be effectively maintained under advancement. But maybe that's more a problem with me than with the systems.

Well, yes thats the Character Creation Barrier I'm talking about. for some systems its very hard to get past it, because its too much time to learn the language of the system.

Fate Core? easy to pick up, not much to learn, completely classless but it works because all you really have to do is fill in a few aspects, determine your skill pyramid, and pick like 3-5 stunts.

M&M3e? default PL10 characters have 150 points to distribute, there are a lot of options but its pretty clear on everything so in my opinion M&M3e is about medium in its CCB.

and then there systems like Eclipse Phase, Anima Beyond Fantasy and such that have 600-1000 point distributions to go through or GURPS where the points are variable but there are so many options that your brain can't process them all at once- these all have high CCB at least to me, because people have claimed to me that once you get past character creation, its actually pretty simple in play for all three of them. its just that all the complexity is front-loaded to you at the beginning, so if your not willing to deal with that initial complexity, you apparently never get to some soft chocolate core of simpleness.

Red Fel
2015-04-28, 03:06 PM
these all have high CCB at least to me, because people have claimed to me that once you get past character creation, its actually pretty simple in play for all three of them. its just that all the complexity is front-loaded to you at the beginning, so if your not willing to deal with that initial complexity, you apparently never get to some soft chocolate core of simpleness.

Yeah, this is the thing. With a class-based system, there's a continuing build aspect - choosing the right classes, the right spells, the right feats. It's almost like they take the initial complexity and ease it by spreading it out over the course of the game. With many point-based systems (although not all, as many have noted), that complexity is front-loaded. GURPS is a particularly egregious offender; point-buy, particularly in some of the more point-high settings, is extremely cumbersome, but afterwards the "roll 3d6 and score under" mechanic is shockingly straightforward, and applies near-universally. The problem is getting to actual gameplay; as Raz notes, the CCB is outrageous.

Cluedrew
2015-04-28, 04:52 PM
People have said classes aren't used that much outside of D&D and its derivatives. And this makes me sad because a lot of criticisms of class systems seem to be criticisms of D&D 3.5 rather than the general.

For instance a class system could be based entirely on mechanics and a flavour. Now the melee class is mostly going to be the fighter analog, but maybe the wizard who takes a one or two levels styles it as contact spells and mystic shields. Or the summoning class, is it a necromancer with zombies or a ninja with living shadows?

Or maybe the classes get about two thirds of there functionality from skills. The fighter selects 2 combat skills, 1 physical skill, 1 common skill and any 1 other skill. The wizard selects 1 mystic skill, 1 mystic or divine skill, the magic touched skill, 1 common skill and any 1 other skill. The priest selects 1 divine skill, any 2 divine, mystic or common skills, 1 combat or common skill and any 1 other skill. Yes I added "and any 1 other skill" to every class on purpose, now anyone can do anything, they probably will not be able to do it as well or as much, but they can do it.

Maybe it is just my perception of the situation, but even if it is the most famous and popular one D&D 3.5 is not the only class system out there, and even if it was that doesn't mean others couldn't exist. Of course D&D 3.5, being famous and popular, still makes a great example but don't assume that anything true of 3.5 is true of all class systems.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-28, 05:31 PM
That's because diversity or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether a system is class or skill-based. It has to do with amount of valid play options.
...
And hence, like with the Expert becoming the most used NPC class, a lot of characters end up looking the same mechanically in a point-buy system with clear "King" skills or traits. Even if the characters are intended to be different and are played differently in the game.

That's really interesting. It sounds like, in a "good" point-but system, you don't have redundant, narrowly-different versions of the same thing unless that thing is the focus of the game (you have "Martial Arts" instead of "Kung Fu" and "Taekwondo" unless the game is mechanically built around the interaction between different cultural martial arts traditions).

I want to mention one thing that I think point-buy systems do differently from class systems: scaling with the number of players. In a point-buy system, a character can be any shade of extremely generalized to extremely specialized, while class-system characters exist in a narrower range of specialization. This means that class-system characters are easier to build into a balanced party (assuming balanced classes) for the expected number of players (in D&D, 4, I think), but that for a smaller number of players a point-buy system can allow their characters to cover their bases more thoroughly, or for a larger number of players, to build their characters towards more particular tasks, making more tasks more effectively covered.

For example, a party with a Fighter only gains so much from adding another Fighter, and even less from adding a third - but "aggressive frenzied unarmored two-handed attacker" is well supported by "armored defensive warrior" and "long-range precision archer;" three niches that a class system might cover with the same class, meaning that a character occupying any of them can't completely specialize in any of them, and still has a moderate ability to occupy the other roles, making such a combination more redundant and more likely to result in a player not having an area to excel in.

On the other end, a class system (at least without effective multiclassing, or at a level at which multiclassing is impossible) may lead to a one- or two-character party struggling because it expects that certain tasks will be certain difficulties for a balanced party, where a point-buy system can make it easier to build a character with enough magic to be useful, enough combat skills to defend theirself, enough stealth skills to not be reliably caught, and enough healing to not be crippled by their first injury. Obviously, good GMing will cater to an imbalanced party, but in such a case the class system loses one of its advantages over the point-buy system: facilitating challenge creation for the GM by making player capabilities predictable.

Of course, in the middle, class systems are generally built so that as long as everyone takes a class with a different name, they'll all have something unique to contribute and the party will be relatively balanced (perhaps not in practice with the number of classes available in 3.5+, but in theory). A point-buy system with inexperienced players is more likely to produce wildly different levels of specialization, making some characters risk being one-trick ponies in small parties and others risking becoming completely irrelevant in larger parties. As above, good GMing can compensate for that, but in my experience it makes balance even harder than it is with point-buy in the first place.

I can offer two examples of this:

The first was a sniper in a three-player cyberpunk game, who excelled in shooting things from prepared, hidden positions. He spent pretty much the entire game trying to get into hidden positions to snipe Bad Guys from, and didn't have much of an impact aside from that. He was also quite vulnerable outside combat, in the sense that having a conversation with a police officer was enough to get him arrested overnight once. We made it work, but it would have been easier if he'd had a more varied skill set.

The second was a well-dressed pirate masquerading as an exiled lord in a fantasy game. The character was decent socially, decent but lightly equipped in combat, and had some other general utility. We started with two players, and he fit in great, and was more effective than the other, more-specialized, character (a tough necromancer). We added another moderately-specialized player (unarmored archer/swordsman), and he still fit well - he was probably the least effective at this point, but he punched above his weight with the social skills and versatility.

Then we added a fourth player (skilled, armored knight), and when character advancement happened, pirate-lord decided to add musical talents and a crossbow. He now had five different things he could do moderately well, but could only do one of them at a time, and all of them could be done better by other players (especially once archer/swordsman got social skills). At one point, pirate-lord got into a duel with the knight and was unsurprisingly schooled.

Then we added a fifth player.

Somehow, I was blessed with happy, easygoing, roleplay-focused players, so no one ever actually complained, and the character had a glorious dramatic death before any severe problems came up. Nonetheless, I was in constant fear of this character suddenly becoming unable to do anything and making the game less fun.


Maybe it is just my perception of the situation, but even if it is the most famous and popular one D&D 3.5 is not the only class system out there, and even if it was that doesn't mean others couldn't exist. Of course D&D 3.5, being famous and popular, still makes a great example but don't assume that anything true of 3.5 is true of all class systems.

Can someone offer an example of another class system, so we can make this less D&D vs. Other? I'm not familiar with a wide range of games; all of the class systems I've been exposed to are D&D editions, clones of D&D editions, and Apocalypse World/Dungeon World.

Milo v3
2015-04-28, 05:38 PM
Pokemon Tabletop Adventure has a decent class/point buy system (about a 3:1 ratio), where the classes are packages of features you can take, but function more like unlocking skill trees in a videogame. I've heard good things about it, but not sure how it works in practice.

Cluedrew
2015-04-28, 05:46 PM
Can someone offer an example of another class system, so we can make this less D&D vs. Other? I'm not familiar with a wide range of games; all of the class systems I've been exposed to are D&D editions, clones of D&D editions, and Apocalypse World/Dungeon World.

Some of the World of Darkness games use class systems... I think, from what I have read and heard about the games as I have no play experience to back that up. My understanding is that, first your 'type' defines which game you use, but than after that there are a bunch of classes (of a different colour) to pick from that effect your supernatural abilities.

I think people over look this because large parts of a character are independent of both type and class. But assuming I'm not misunderstanding something it still qualifies as a class system. Actually it beat D&D to the class/sub-class system.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-28, 06:59 PM
Can't talk of the tabletop version, but I'll talk about the actual handheld Pokemon videogames for a moment, especially because the games look very different from in-game and metagame perspectives.

Looking at just the game, each species of Pokemon is practically a class of their own, in theory having their own strenghts and weaknesses. But from a metagame point of view, there's a much smaller list of classes, or rather, strategic and tactical roles the species can fulfill based on their abilities and movesets.

In-game strategy is largely dictated by species scarcity. You often can't have the mon you want, or can't have as many of them as you want. Many times, you have to make mutually exclusive choices between mons. As opposing mons are of set level and yours aren't, typically managing experience points and power leveling are more important than the exact abilities and movesets of your mons. Having a super effective move against each type is usually as far as you have to think of Pokemon moves.

As a result, when teams look alike, it's more because the mons are common, rather than powerful. When teams look different, it's because in-game teams can pretty much be whatever and still win through grinding and recovery items.

In the metagame, scarcity is rarely a problem. Because battles usually take place at set level, experience points and levels cease to be considerations. Exact abilities and breadth of movesets become immensely important. Mons that have sub-par abilities or movesets fall out of competition. Instead of countering just different elemental types, you're now countering specific mons or movesets.

As a result, when teams look, it's because those mons are plain better at what they do than others. When teams look different, it's because there's enough different character options that if you build a "perfect team", someone else can build a perfect counter to it. Diversification emerges from trying to outguess your opponent's tactics.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-28, 07:01 PM
Some of the World of Darkness games use class systems... I think, from what I have read and heard about the games as I have no play experience to back that up. My understanding is that, first your 'type' defines which game you use, but than after that there are a bunch of classes (of a different colour) to pick from that effect your supernatural abilities.

I think people over look this because large parts of a character are independent of both type and class. But assuming I'm not misunderstanding something it still qualifies as a class system. Actually it beat D&D to the class/sub-class system.

and are actually more limiting than DnD because of how they do it. When I have to take a subclass like that, it makes me feel as if its the only thing I can do now, as if I am going up a pyramid and the possibilities are disappearing. I mean sure it has this X-splat, Y-splat and an eventual Z-Splat thing going, but WoD games are often so limited in scope, it just doesn't feel like all that much to me. it just feels very small and inconsequential. their X-Y-Z splat thing is applied so much to narrowing possibilities so that a single splat can play in its own little world, I can't evaluate it on a more mix-and-match set up, which is what many other RPG's do. there is no such thing as Elf Acanthus Mage of the Free Council, because that goes against the entire point of playing Mage: The Awakening, which has no elves in it. so unless Onyx Path starts doing something more universal with the Storyteller system, I can't really evaluate it on the same criteria I evaluated other RPG's, because they're all about emulating a certain setting. settings I don't like because they're horror, so I think it skews my judgement a little?

basically, Storyteller is high in specific story emulation and low in universality. I can't say whether they're a good system for general character creation, because its all about a certain story, therefore whether the barrier for entry is high or low depends entirely on whether you like the story its trying to sell you. if you want to play a game of Mages full of pride and hubris in a horrific modern world trying to find knowledge about supernatural stuff.....its great. if you want play literally anything else, its not. but if your not satisfied with that....

I can point out people make Splat: The Verbing in various homebrew supplements. in this, I can actually say how the CCB is for the Storyteller System is in: Incredibly. Why? because while it is easy to make a character from one of the existing splats, you need to make your own splat for pretty much anything else. making a homebrew Splat: The Verbing kind of deal takes time. you need to figure out the X-splat of how they began, the Y-splat of what faction they join, the Z-splat of what prestige class they get, and in addition its sets up so that you basically have to go into great history and detail about all the options and your own enemies. which means that your creating an entire game just to make a single new class of creature. At least in GURPS, I don't need to build an entire game just to play one concept. At least in DnD, I can take a bunch of pre-existing stuff, patch it together and then refluff it into the concept I want. can't do that with WoD.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-28, 09:33 PM
Yeesh, Raziere, if you want to play an elf Mage, find an ST who's okay with that. Finding one who has a copy of WoD: Mirrors is a good start. Work out with the ST what an elf is, and why they go unnoticed in the world, or how the world is different for having elves, or otherwise have a reason for you playing an elf.

You're also not expected to play Ghouls in a Vampire game, or Werewolves in a Mage game, or Demons in a Hunter game, yet in my (admittedly small) experience with WoD and other White Wolf/Onyx Path games, any time someone offers to run a game, everyone remotely familiar with it starts throwing concepts at it regardless of splat type. The Camarilla game I (briefly!) ran had a Giovanni and a Tzimisce; the New York Vampire game had a Mage and a Demon; my seafaring Exalted game was supposed to be all-Solar, and only one player made a Solar; any time I browse online for open WoD games even splat-exclusive ones seem to inevitably be overwhelmed by people wanting to play Werewolves and Changelings.

Sure, you're asking for something atypical, but so do like 75-100% of WoD players, and an elf would probably not even be in the top ten for disruptive/out-of-place character ideas (#1 is of course Samuel Haight).

Lord Raziere
2015-04-28, 11:10 PM
well see, thats not on me, thats a problem of WoD. its design is one geared NOT to crossover, when most player crossover their characters anyways, its why I don't think their design works because people will want crossovering anyways, and they haven't yet matched their games to how people actually play them. and no I don't actually want to play an elf Mage, I was just throwing it out as an example, there are tons of ways to be an elf with arcane powers that are far easier, and don't involve horror but do involve more action.

however know that I might be able to be a Demon or a Changeling in more than just their respective games is worth noting. thanks.

but yeah, WoD has a low CCB only for a narrow range of concepts that takes time to expand, and it isn't immediately obvious that you can do unusual concepts in WoD. its the problem with any system geared towards emulating a certain setting: it has little to no rules for things that aren't the norm for their world, which is kind of point, because its a specific world that cuts off certain concepts, which can make it hard for weird players like me to get into them, even if I like that world. its an intentional raising of the CCB to anything that wouldn't fit into what its intended to do, which I can understand as a person who likes telling stories, even my own settings are big mish-mashes of every concept I can put in and make my own and such.

its why I prefer more flexible systems, some RPG's are just designed better for people and mindsets, I'm sure that whatever mindset you have is perfect for Storyteller Alucard, because you seem to play all their games. I have my own that fit me though, and the work well.

speaking of which Alucard, I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you on Celikan, I'll try and finish him soon, creating a playable god really is harder than making any Exalt.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-29, 12:12 AM
well see, thats not on me, thats a problem of WoD. its design is one geared NOT to crossover…Perhaps in oWoD, but nWoD is specifically a toolbox to allow players to throw whatever together; saying players couldn't play a Vampire and a Mage in the same chronicle is akin to saying you can't use a screwdriver and a hammer in the same project - it may be true of certain individual projects, but it's not intended to be that way across the whole line. (Hell, if I recall correctly, there are even nWoD books out there explicitly for the purpose of facilitating crossovers.)


and no I don't actually want to play an elf Mage, I was just throwing it out as an example…Hard to be sure, given your loathing of humans and other mundanes, but even so, your choice of example doesn't make much difference.


it isn't immediately obvious that you can do unusual concepts in WoD.Not in my experience.


I'm sorryNo worries. :smallsmile:

Milo v3
2015-04-29, 02:18 AM
Perhaps in oWoD, but nWoD is specifically a toolbox to allow players to throw whatever together; saying players couldn't play a Vampire and a Mage in the same chronicle is akin to saying you can't use a screwdriver and a hammer in the same project - it may be true of certain individual projects, but it's not intended to be that way across the whole line. (Hell, if I recall correctly, there are even nWoD books out there explicitly for the purpose of facilitating crossovers.)

I don't think Raziere was meaning crossovers as in one player is a vampire and another is a mage, but this character is a vampire And a mage. Maybe. But, even if your right, the balance of the different factions are so over the place that they Shouldn't Crossover IMO.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-29, 02:37 AM
I don't think Raziere was meaning crossovers as in one player is a vampire and another is a mage, but this character is a vampire And a mage. Maybe. But, even if your right, the balance of the different factions are so over the place that they Shouldn't Crossover IMO.

Nope, even I'm not that weird. if I wanted a vampire wizard, there are much easier ways to do that.

like Fate, or M&M3e.

even Anima Beyond Fantasy does that better: play a Vetala, go Wizard archetype, choose which path of magic you want.

I'm not stupid. WoD is about as welcoming to my weirdness as a round hole is to a square block. my brand of creativity just does not fit into it. its a setting I generally view from a distance, even though I like things about it: Demon the Descent, The Changelings, The Mages and such, because of its horror aspects focusing on things that I do not find fun.

what I was saying is that if you want to play a vampire, or a mage or whatever- its easy, you have an entire book dedicated to them and their society. if you want to play a dragon in human disguise who wants to have a metaphorical horde of wealth and not deal with Fae problems, well you either have to build an entire splat around dragons in human disguises or wait until Beast: The Primordial comes out. which is a push in a more universal direction. even if you do not go outside the bounds of WoD's urban-horror genre with zero hybrids or crossover the splats are focused on their own little version of it to the exclusion of all else. if you want something other than urban fantasy horror, you are just plain out of luck if you use the Storyteller system unless your good at homebrewing.

Morty
2015-04-29, 04:15 AM
People have said classes aren't used that much outside of D&D and its derivatives. And this makes me sad because a lot of criticisms of class systems seem to be criticisms of D&D 3.5 rather than the general.

As I keep saying, which keeps being overlooked, D&D not only has classes, but it also has levels. And it's the latter that sets it apart from all the systems around it. Because I for one can't think of any other system that uses "them.


its design is one geared NOT to crossover, when most player crossover their characters anyways

I think you're going to have to back up both those claims a little.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-29, 04:42 AM
I think you're going to have to back up both those claims a little.

I know that NWoD is better designed for crossovers than OWoD and that there is probably a sizable amount of fans that does not crossover at all.

however. that still does not change the fact that as a system, WoD is very bad at crossovers because of the inherent balance issues and requiring multiple splat books to do that, with characters from completely different self-contained societies. something which many other systems have a far easier time of doing. you want a vampire, a werewolf, a wizard, a changeling and a ghost to all be in same party? get out Dresden Files RPG and you'll be able to do it far easier with less mechanical trouble than WoD. even if NWoD relatively better at crossovers than its predecessor, that still leaves it objectively bad at them from a wider perspective of RPG's. what takes multiple splatbooks and a lot of consideration of balance and such and so for NWoD, is an easy task for a single universal system rpg that does a crossover game more efficiently, with a more unified system, and is practically designed to get wildly different concepts like that to play as best they can together, rather than a system actively designed to keep them in their own little worlds with crossover being a purely optional afterthought, even if its designed in.

while that still does not change the fact that it is apparent that there is a sizable amount of people that does crossover WoD routinely. it does not change the fact that the WoD does not support what they do as a core part of WoD play, only a side option that clearly does not receive much elaboration.

there is no reason to back up these claims, on the contrary, they seem like things I should continue to state, as they are true to my perspective.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-29, 08:07 AM
I know that NWoD is better designed for crossovers than OWoD and that there is probably a sizable amount of fans that does not crossover at all.

however. that still does not change the fact that as a system, WoD is very bad at crossovers because of the inherent balance issues and requiring multiple splat books to do that, with characters from completely different self-contained societies. something which many other systems have a far easier time of doing. you want a vampire, a werewolf, a wizard, a changeling and a ghost to all be in same party? get out Dresden Files RPG and you'll be able to do it far easier with less mechanical trouble than WoD. even if NWoD relatively better at crossovers than its predecessor, that still leaves it objectively bad at them from a wider perspective of RPG's. what takes multiple splatbooks and a lot of consideration of balance and such and so for NWoD, is an easy task for a single universal system rpg that does a crossover game more efficiently, with a more unified system, and is practically designed to get wildly different concepts like that to play as best they can together, rather than a system actively designed to keep them in their own little worlds with crossover being a purely optional afterthought, even if its designed in.

while that still does not change the fact that it is apparent that there is a sizable amount of people that does crossover WoD routinely. it does not change the fact that the WoD does not support what they do as a core part of WoD play, only a side option that clearly does not receive much elaboration.

there is no reason to back up these claims, on the contrary, they seem like things I should continue to state, as they are true to my perspective.

How can you on the one hand make strong statements and claim that they're objective truths: "that still leaves it objectively bad at them ", and then try deflect any criticism with "I don't have to back up climbs, it's my perspective". This post is intellectually dishonest in the worst way.

SowZ
2015-04-29, 08:55 AM
I know that NWoD is better designed for crossovers than OWoD and that there is probably a sizable amount of fans that does not crossover at all.

however. that still does not change the fact that as a system, WoD is very bad at crossovers because of the inherent balance issues and requiring multiple splat books to do that, with characters from completely different self-contained societies. something which many other systems have a far easier time of doing. you want a vampire, a werewolf, a wizard, a changeling and a ghost to all be in same party? get out Dresden Files RPG and you'll be able to do it far easier with less mechanical trouble than WoD. even if NWoD relatively better at crossovers than its predecessor, that still leaves it objectively bad at them from a wider perspective of RPG's. what takes multiple splatbooks and a lot of consideration of balance and such and so for NWoD, is an easy task for a single universal system rpg that does a crossover game more efficiently, with a more unified system, and is practically designed to get wildly different concepts like that to play as best they can together, rather than a system actively designed to keep them in their own little worlds with crossover being a purely optional afterthought, even if its designed in.

while that still does not change the fact that it is apparent that there is a sizable amount of people that does crossover WoD routinely. it does not change the fact that the WoD does not support what they do as a core part of WoD play, only a side option that clearly does not receive much elaboration.

there is no reason to back up these claims, on the contrary, they seem like things I should continue to state, as they are true to my perspective.

http://new1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/4404258+_7fb8735ce2cbb7f557e52783be8f236f.gif


As I keep saying, which keeps being overlooked, D&D not only has classes, but it also has levels. And it's the latter that sets it apart from all the systems around it. Because I for one can't think of any other system that uses "them.



I think you're going to have to back up both those claims a little.

There's tons of games inspired by the d20 system that use the exact same paradigm. RIFTS is one example that pops into my head. Mutants and Masterminds.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-29, 12:26 PM
How can you on the one hand make strong statements and claim that they're objective truths: "that still leaves it objectively bad at them ", and then try deflect any criticism with "I don't have to back up climbs, it's my perspective". This post is intellectually dishonest in the worst way.

I'm just saying that narrowly, they might have a point, but in a wider perspective, they don't. I mean sure, having a small solution is better than having no solution at all, but having a full solution is far better than the small solution that NWoD gives.

Morty
2015-04-29, 12:55 PM
There's tons of games inspired by the d20 system that use the exact same paradigm. RIFTS is one example that pops into my head. Mutants and Masterminds.

Yes, I suppose I should have said "d20 derivatives" rather than just D&D.


I'm just saying that narrowly, they might have a point, but in a wider perspective, they don't. I mean sure, having a small solution is better than having no solution at all, but having a full solution is far better than the small solution that NWoD gives.

So... you're not going to present any proof for your claim that most nWoD players supposedly want more crossover than than the game gives them.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-29, 01:04 PM
So... you're not going to present any proof for your claim that most nWoD players supposedly want more crossover than than the game gives them.

I don't see you able to present any proof that disproves or contradicts that, other than anecdotal evidence. why are we focusing on this? we have more important things to discuss. like the actual topic of the thread.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-29, 03:23 PM
Any thoughts on how class-systems and point-buy systems affect party building, as opposed to just character building?

Red Fel
2015-04-29, 09:09 PM
Any thoughts on how class-systems and point-buy systems affect party building, as opposed to just character building?

Class systems make general concepts immediately distinct from other general concepts. For example, a Fighter is easily distinguished from a Wizard. However, their ability to differentiate breaks down when you have two similar general concepts with distinct specializations - for example, a mobility-based Fighter still resembles a slow tank of a Fighter; a skill-based Rogue still resembles a stealth-and-stab-based Rogue. As a result, if you're putting together a party, and one guy takes a Fighter, the next guy who wants a Fighter may well have to take something else, to prevent redundancy.

Point-buy systems allow more precise calibration of otherwise similar character concepts. In the examples above, you can more easily and finely distinguish between the mobility Fighter and the slow tank Fighter, or the skill-based Rogue and the stealth-and-stab Rogue. However, because there is no immediate package (i.e. class), there is also a likelihood that concepts can blend together or overlap more. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, you can have a stealth spellcaster, a stealth grunt, a stealth hunter/ranger, and a stealth skillmonkey, which would work great in a stealth or heist-themed campaign. On the other hand, if everyone can have some level of spellcasting, it might make the focused spellcaster feel a little outperformed by the guy who casts and uses guns, the guy who casts and has social skills, and the guy who casts and has mechanical skills. As a result, the party can have similar-but-distinct concepts; on the other hand, they can have distinct concepts which nonetheless render one another redundant.

Cluedrew
2015-04-29, 09:27 PM
Yes. I think class-based systems have an advantage here because you can enforce limits so character's can't do everything and need each other to succeed. And if you don't want that you can create all-rounder classes. To pull this off in a point-buy system... you would either need a set of restrictions as "arbitrary" as the ones in a class system but probably more complex than the class's or exponential returns on investment so specialization is always the better option. Both of these things seem to cut into point-buys advantages more than it is worth. However I have never seen a system that does either so that is conjuncture.

For both class and point-buy they tend to cause problems when there is not enough characters to create a party, so single player games don't work as well. But I have something to say about that case too. Don't use monopoly rules to play chess. It will not work well, or at all really... I tried... there is no Go space on a chess board so you can't even but the pieces down. I would also use that argument about World of Darkness as I am not a fan of the basic story they got going on and it might not do other sorts of stories so well. But they weren't trying to tell those so from a game design perspective, can't fault them for that.

SwordSaged.

Knaight
2015-04-29, 10:50 PM
Yes. I think class-based systems have an advantage here because you can enforce limits so character's can't do everything and need each other to succeed. And if you don't want that you can create all-rounder classes. To pull this off in a point-buy system... you would either need a set of restrictions as "arbitrary" as the ones in a class system but probably more complex than the class's or exponential returns on investment so specialization is always the better option. Both of these things seem to cut into point-buys advantages more than it is worth. However I have never seen a system that does either so that is conjuncture.

Alternately, you just make reasonably distinct characters and watch everything fall into place with no issues. The only place you run into problems are the same place where you run into problems in a class based system, where everyone is trying to make fairly similar characters but also want distinct niches.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-30, 01:02 AM
The only place you run into problems are the same place where you run into problems in a class based system, where everyone is trying to make fairly similar characters but also want distinct niches.

... which I imagine point-buy systems have more potential to do successfully - in theory. It seems like point-buy systems rely more on player system-knowledge than class systems - in the sense that any class system would be more reliant on player knowledge/effort if it were adapted to a point-buy system.

Cluedrew
2015-04-30, 07:10 AM
Alternately, you just make reasonably distinct characters and watch everything fall into place with no issues.
Close, but I wasn't speaking in terms of the player's creating the party, rather from a system perspective. Although you can create a party of interdependent characters in a point-buy system it should be easier, or perhaps more natural is a better way to put it, to enforce in a class system.

Also distinct does not mean interdependent. A warrior skilled with sword, bow and shield, a spell caster with a variety of offensive & defensive spells, short and long range and a half-monster with claws, acid spit and regeneration are all very different characters, especially once they get their own personalities. However it is a very different dynamic than a melee DPS, ranged support and a tank. These roles are more that I was getting into.


The only place you run into problems are the same place where you run into problems in a class based system, where everyone is trying to make fairly similar characters but also want distinct niches.

I want to point you towards the All Guardsman Party (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386908-The-All-Guardsmen-Party). Besides being a quality campaign log it is a good example of a bunch of characters that are all "the same, only different". If they were using some d20 Warhammer 40k system they would all be the same class: Guardsmen. So it is and isn't in both cases, you need a little extra communication but if you have that you should be fine.


... which I imagine point-buy systems have more potential to do successfully - in theory. It seems like point-buy systems rely more on player system-knowledge than class systems - in the sense that any class system would be more reliant on player knowledge/effort if it were adapted to a point-buy system. I actually think this is the a large part of the "structure scale". The further towards unstructured you go the more powerful the system is (in general, quality of design is also an important factor) but the more system mastery and effort you need to actually use it. Everything comes with a cost.

Red Fel
2015-04-30, 07:13 AM
... which I imagine point-buy systems have more potential to do successfully - in theory. It seems like point-buy systems rely more on player system-knowledge than class systems - in the sense that any class system would be more reliant on player knowledge/effort if it were adapted to a point-buy system.

It depends on the system. The more granularity your system offers, the more system mastery it requires. Again, contrast the D&D spell Fireball with trying to reproduce an identical effect in GURPS; you have to purchase the different attributes of the ability, including its damage potential, energy type, range, radius, and so forth, separately. These levels of detail aren't binary; there's an entire spectrum between them. Some systems require substantially less mastery to develop the character you want, but inevitably, that's due to a certain degree of simplification. The simpler the choices, the less system mastery is required, but the less granularity you achieve. Am I using that word correctly?

Knaight
2015-05-02, 11:29 AM
I want to point you towards the All Guardsman Party (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386908-The-All-Guardsmen-Party). Besides being a quality campaign log it is a good example of a bunch of characters that are all "the same, only different". If they were using some d20 Warhammer 40k system they would all be the same class: Guardsmen. So it is and isn't in both cases, you need a little extra communication but if you have that you should be fine.

There's a reason I included that bit about everyone particularly wanting distinct niches - if that's not what everyone wants as much, it can work just fine. Take the very existence of Pendragon, in which basically everyone plays an Arthurian knight at all times.

Cluedrew
2015-05-09, 02:08 PM
Well this thread is winding down (or has wound down) so I thought I would post a new version of what I had in the original post. Essentially a collection of my thoughts on character creation as I see it right now.

First my new theory of character creation revolves around a scale from structured to granular. The scale here is almost a lateral measure of the number of choices you have to make and the number of options you have to choose from. Structured systems have few choices and hence less freedom in creating your character, but in return you get a system that takes less effort to use and less time to learn. The opposite is true of granular systems.

A brief aside on meaningful choices and viable options. The scale I mentioned doesn't take into account the "quality" of the choices and options so choices that don't really effect anything or choices that never get used don't effect the scale simply because they are bad design decisions anywhere on the scale and should be avoided regardless.

Now a lot of this thread was spend in sort of a "class vs. point-buy" frame of mind. But point-buy is actually the more general of the two as it essentially encompasses all systems that give the player some resource which can then be used according to the player's choice to unlock character abilities. This doesn't actually every system that allows for character customization, the best except I can think of is where a character has XP and levels in multiple different areas, but each level means exactly the same thing. This is more often found in the realm of computer games however.

However a more restrictive definition of point-buy would probably be more useful. I will go with something like "a character creation system where character traits are bought using a, often large and singular, pool of points and individual purchases have variable costs and have little dependence on each other". Which usually gives a very granular system.

Class systems are of course more structured, but they are a particular kind of structure. To cut down choices without having characters become to similar classes package together a lot of the choices. So if you are a barbarian you get all the barbarian-y things, which is a problem if you only want half the barbarian things and some of the druid things, but if you like the given archetypes it works well.

As class systems have less choices and options they are more restrictive. At its best these restrictions can be desirable, such as enforcing party roles, balance or to align with in world groups, but it can also just be the price paid for a less complex system.

Other systems with similar amounts of choices to classes exist, but seem to favour more detail over a smaller scope.

So how you balance detail and ease of use is one of the main choices role-playing games have to make. Classes and point-buy systems are some of the more common ways of approaching this balance. I would also like to say that while one may have certain advantages over the other but in general, neither is superior to the other.

That is all, thanks for reading.

NomGarret
2015-05-10, 02:01 PM
Hope it's not too late to add two more data points to the list: L5R and 7th Sea. L5R, in its various editions, is a primarily class system. Pick your clan, pick your school, then you get a little pool of point buy for extra traits and skills. It's a hybrid of point buy and level going forward. Class abilities level up once certain thresholds of traits and skills are purchased.

7th Sea is point buy with the ability to purchase class ability bundles.