Class vs Classless Systems

[kenjigoku]

Which do you prefer?

• Class based systems
• Skill based systems
• Some combination

Please explain why as well.

[BWR]

It doesn't really matter, as long as the system is decent. If forced to choose I would probably go with a classless system, simply because you (should) have more flexibility for customization and not have to rely on package deals.

[Lorsa]

I could explain why better if you first explained what you mean by the various categories. D&D for example have classes, but it also have skills and freedom to choose which ones you want so does that make it a combination?

[Ravens_cry]

Classed systems, all other things being equal, certainly take a lot less system mastery to just play.
I was able to make my first 3.5 character by going through the books. It took me about a day, and it probably wasn't the best Sorcerer ever, she was a half orc, and the highest I rolled, before adjustments (duh), was 17, but it was playable.
Compare that to Mutants and Masterminds. I've had the books for several years, and I still am having a hard time distilling a concept into the available powers and skills.

[Krazzman]

From what I got so far:
Class Systems.

I like DnD, I disliked DSA.
I like SWSE, I disliked GURPS.
But on the other hand I wasn't really fond of Warhammer Fantasy RPG but liked Shadowrun.

I think my problems with Classless systems were a) the systems, b) the set powerlevel, c) the dm/party and d) my scatterbrainyness and not being able to read any sourcebooks before building.

Shadowrun I first encountered with a Pregen Char.
DnD I built a horrbile Elf Rogue.
DSA wasn't fun because I felt left out and made fun of for in character decisions.
GURPS was weird because I had a concept and then halfway through the DM stopped helping me built it and basically said deal with it and as such I was useless.
And SWSE seems good so far (only played a level 1 Jedi for two sessions without any Combat Encounters so far).

[TheTrueMooseman]

My favourite systems right now lie somewhere in-between, where the classes give access to the skills you can buy, i.e. 40k RP, SW: EotE. It means there are still recognisable archetypes that mesh well with the source material, while ensuring that no two characters are the same and allowing a good deal of player choice.

[erikun]

In theory, I'd be inclined to say both systems. The idea behind class system - at least, in concept - is to allow a player to build a character quickly and to theme with the campaign. Your D&D character, in a world where fighting in manditory and high HP is standard, will have combat bonuses and a number of HP each level. It's build right into the class. You don't need to worry about not taking combat skills, or forgetting about increasing saving throw bonuses, because everyone gets those automatically. You can focus, instead, on the other aspects like spells and skills. This would, in theory, work just fine with other themes as well: a murder mystery campaign would give classes with investigation skills, a court intrigue plot would have classes with social skills, and so on.

The problem is, I rarely see that to be the case. The only class systems I've noticed lately have been D&D and the various D&D-like systems, and D&D within the last decade has been anything but "quick and to theme". What's more, several generic classless systems have been quite better at that than any class system I've seen - HeroQuest RPG and Fate have both been great at generating interesting characters quickly and making sure they have at least the skills you'd expect for a specific setting.

[Eldan]

In most point buy systems I've tried, I have one problem. There tend to be very few truly interesting abilities for the characters to buy. In a lot of them, you don't learn new melee techniques, you increase your melee skill. You don't learn new unique spells, you increase enchantment to a higher level. Even the mechanics are often quite samey, in that no matter your character's power source, you roll the same dice, then fluff them differently. It becomes a bit dull, after a while.

There's exceptions, of course. M&M was always quite excellent.

[Necroticplague]

I prefer a combination of the two. An entirely point-based system often ends up with PCs that have to make hard choices between having interesting abilities and actually being competent at anything. In a class-based system, the classes can unsure you have at the least the basics covered, so you can't get screwed over because, say, you forgot to buy up to your Toughness/Dodge cap. Ideally, in y eyes, you'd have a class providing basic competencies, and then an amount of points to spend on more interesting features.

[Black Jester]

There is literally nothing you can do with a class-based system you cannot do better or equally well with a classless system. The opposite of this statement is rarely true (and the only reason I write 'rarely' is because I am open to the idea of a truly adaptable and non-restrictive class system; I am not sure that one exists or that it is even more than a mere theoretical possibility).

Of course, not every classless system is good, and every class-based one is bad. There are really good systems using classes and really bad ones avoiding them. But even the best class-based systems are pretty mediocre when compared to truly well designed games (e.g. Gurps). Classes (and levels, their ugly step siblings) are basically an anachronism of truly oldschool gaming, and with the exception of this environment they always feel obsolete and unnecessary restrictive, even if the rest of the game is fairly well designed.
The reason for this is simple: pretty much any class-based mechanism is a purely metagaming-based concept with no true correspondence within the actual setting that justifies its existence. As a result, they are mostly artificial and forced onto the system without any real interconnection with it. As such, pretty much any class system forms a burden on the immersion process during the game and remains as an alien object within the game as a whole that needlessly complicates the suspension of disbelief through overtly artificial mechanical aspects. Classless systems usually fit much better within the actual setting and come so much closer to fulfill the main purpose of any RPG rules, namely the mechanical adaptation of the events and people within the game.

[AstralFire]

Star Wars Saga is a very good example of the advantages of a class-based system; class levels are essentially narrativium incarnate, which is central to play in the system. I object to the notion that class or skill based inherently lean a system towards any particular way, except in that class-based systems are more likely to inherit D&D mechanics and sensibilities that have no place being in the world they're attempting to emulate.

[LibraryOgre]

Star Wars Saga is a very good example of the advantages of a class-based system; class levels are essentially narrativium incarnate, which is central to play in the system. I object to the notion that class or skill based inherently lean a system towards any particular way, except in that class-based systems are more likely to inherit D&D mechanics and sensibilities that have no place being in the world they're attempting to emulate.

And, of course, I took it farther by making the system classless, though not levelless.

That said, I usually prefer classed systems, as they make it easy to define broad roles and make sure they're filled, leaving you with less gaps in a party. But this also ties into my usual preference for game styles.

[Psyren]

Star Wars Saga is a very good example of the advantages of a class-based system; class levels are essentially narrativium incarnate, which is central to play in the system. I object to the notion that class or skill based inherently lean a system towards any particular way, except in that class-based systems are more likely to inherit D&D mechanics and sensibilities that have no place being in the world they're attempting to emulate.

Do they have an SRD anywhere I can look at? Or do you just have to dive in and buy the books on the... strength of the Star Wars brand?

[Jay R]

They have different purposes, and create different games. In a game like Flashing Blades, somebody who started as a Noble should always be different from somebody who started as a Rogue or a Soldier. In contrast, gaining a new power in Champions is much more fluid.

Similarly, in original D&D or AD&D, a class was a complete lifestyle that set you apart from people in other classes.

However, a system like D&D 3E, in which all classes are always open to pretty much anybody, and people routinely have more than one, is neither one. It's a hybrid form, a little closer to a classless system in which each increase is done by modules. ("Do I want Thief level two or Wizard level three next?")

[AstralFire]

Do they have an SRD anywhere I can look at? Or do you just have to dive in and buy the books on the... strength of the Star Wars brand?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6651498

I made a thread to allow people to get a sense of how the system works. It's not as good as a System Resource Document, but at least you can see some of the changes.

[valadil]

I thought I preferred systems with classes. Really what I like is levels. I want to get a huge increase in power upon reaching a milestone rather than a slow but steady increase that amounts to the same thing.

[shadow_archmagi]

I prefer a combination of the two. An entirely point-based system often ends up with PCs that have to make hard choices between having interesting abilities and actually being competent at anything. In a class-based system, the classes can unsure you have at the least the basics covered, so you can't get screwed over because, say, you forgot to buy up to your Toughness/Dodge cap. Ideally, in y eyes, you'd have a class providing basic competencies, and then an amount of points to spend on more interesting features.

Yep. Classes serve two purposes, in my mind:

#1: They take the "basics" and make it automatic, thus standardizing progression and making it easier to avoid extremely high/low competency levels

#2: They can provide nifty things without making the player feel like they're 'spending' on them. If my hacker gets the ability to code underwater at level 3, that's silly and wonderful and I'm happy about that. If I'm trying to figure out how to spend 3 character points, I'm unlikely to choose underwater coding over something more useful.

[Mastikator]

Pure skill, each action is a skill roll, each skill has its own experience meter.
Only seen one system actually do this, it was less book keeping than class based systems actually, and more balanced by leaps and bounds. It even had built in diminishing returns that created an incentive both for mastery of few skills and for being rounded.

[Razanir]

I could explain why better if you first explained what you mean by the various categories. D&D for example have classes, but it also have skills and freedom to choose which ones you want so does that make it a combination?

Skill-based systems specifically refer to systems where your "class", so to speak, is just an amalgam of skills you're trained in. If you've played Final Fantasy II, that's an example of one.

[Knaight]

I tend to favor classless systems, with a scant handful of exceptions. If old school style involving strong archetypes is specifically desired, classes are fine. In practice, this basically works out to classless systems, plus Torchbearer. There are also hybrids along the lines of lifepath systems (e.g. Burning Wheel), and I do sometimes like those. That said, my favoritism towards classless systems is pretty clear. There are more exceptions that take it yet further away from the traditional class based system than there are that bring it closer - such as Microscope, in which there are no player characters, characters do not have statistics, there is no GM role, etc.

[Eric Tolle]

I like "Skill+" systems, where there are skills and other traits that define a character. Fate would be one such system. where aspects ( short descriptive sentences) and stunts ( traits that allow you to bend the rules) mean that characters with the same skills can be very different.

Besides, having the aspects " Last surviving member of the Ghost Battalion" or " Barely controlled fury" are much more evocative than "Barbarian 5 with the Power Attack and Superstitious feats".

[Tengu_temp]

I prefer classless systems - they give me more freedom and options in creating exactly the characters I want, without forcing them into the mold of a specific class. Though it seems that, apart from Mutants and Masterminds and Spirit of the Century, most of the games I play are hybrid in a different way: you pick a broad class, like a clan in Vampire or an archetype in LotW, and it gives you access to one or two abilities specific to that class, but everything else is entirely point buy.

[kenjigoku]

Thanks for everyone's input. My friends and I keep discussing the merits of both class based and "skill" based systems.

I never really considered playing a game which hybrids them. In general the games I have played are either one or the other.

So far I have gathered that class based systems are too restrictive (which is how I tend to feel about them. House-rules abound for some flexibility). But that rigidness applies a consistent framework on which the game can be entered and played with.

For "skill" based systems, you wind up with 4th edition's [same stuff, different wrapper] approach to characters. But the advantage is your character in a sense can "do more".

Ideally, one would like a hybrid, where class can define what you specialize the most in but have plenty of freedom to move around and learn "skills" without significantly hampering the power of your character. My personal concern with a hybrid system is, if you do not have a power limit (so no levels and whatnot) what is stopping the elves (or other long lived races/begings/etc) from taking over the world since they can get N "skills" and class traits?

[Isamu Dyson]

I generally prefer classless systems, but some class-based systems (like D&D, d20 Modern, and Spycraft) are so close to my heart that I continue to play them.

It's nice being able to play a highly competent martial artist at the beginning of an adventure instead of waiting, say, five or more levels. Of course, there are tradeoffs (being a specialist means you are less of a generalist), but that is a given.

[Spore]

I am a flexible player. I like both systems, however a well balanced classless system is to die for. I like making choices, I just do. If my character doesn't fit into x amount of classes, I am quickly getting frustated. Because of that I start to base my characters on classes instead of vice versa.

In my opinion, systems like D&D and Pathfinder restrict the fluff of a certain class too much. I'd like a system of generic classes with "purchasable" class features. Creating a red mage is always the test subject for me. It takes physical prowess, decent spellcasting of ALL schools and acceptable defensive capabilities. The closer I can get to a working red mage (while offering as few abundant class features as possible - a bard is not red mage for me), the better the system.

Or to explain the build in Skyrim skills: Onehanded, Light Armor, Destruction, Restoration.

[Komatik]

One thing about classless point buy systems that can end up disappointing is that rigid formulas for stuff rarely add up in a way that makes sense.

For example, in Warhammer an elf can cost X points, an elf with a spead can justifiably be X+Y points and an elf with a bow be worth X+Z. But they tried a unit that had both spears and bows, and costed them at X+Y+Z. The unit ended up being utterly worthless due to ridiculous overcosting for years on end.
That's why predefined packages are useful - they enable you to assess a whole and make a judgment on it's overall value.
Often a jack-of-everything needs to be very close to a specialist's power in each of his individual capabilities to be worth consideration. There's a very real danger of leaving such archetypes boringly lackluster, yet the danger of competency is creating a bit too powerful an archetype. I'd say leaving them slightly, tantalizingly overpowered is better. The best way to ensure that, say, a druid and a sorcerer are both viable despite being equally powerful casters in this fictive setting of ours is to create stylistic differences.
I at least am a total sucker for style and another character being more powerful than mine isn't much of a drag as long as mine is competent (whether it's an RPG campaign of a head-to-head contest like a fighting game).

There's also systems like WHFRP 2nd Edition that throw wrenches in jack-of-all-trades concepts because everyone gets the same advances. A warrior-sorcerer career loses most of it's luster if you fall noticeably behind on swordsmanship because you need to spend the next ten advances to catch up to where the party sorcerer got to in three. The dual advancement that is the whole point of the career, feel-wise, is put in jeopardy in such a system.

The thematic freebies that feel cool but you wouldn't actually want to invest build points in ever are a pretty interesting benefit I hadn't looked into previously.

[Lorsa]

Thanks for everyone's input. My friends and I keep discussing the merits of both class based and "skill" based systems.

I never really considered playing a game which hybrids them. In general the games I have played are either one or the other.

So far I have gathered that class based systems are too restrictive (which is how I tend to feel about them. House-rules abound for some flexibility). But that rigidness applies a consistent framework on which the game can be entered and played with.

For "skill" based systems, you wind up with 4th edition's [same stuff, different wrapper] approach to characters. But the advantage is your character in a sense can "do more".

Ideally, one would like a hybrid, where class can define what you specialize the most in but have plenty of freedom to move around and learn "skills" without significantly hampering the power of your character. My personal concern with a hybrid system is, if you do not have a power limit (so no levels and whatnot) what is stopping the elves (or other long lived races/begings/etc) from taking over the world since they can get N "skills" and class traits?

I still don't quite understand how you define class-based vs. skill-based systems. It would help for the discussion as now people are using their own definitions which may lead to contradictory answers.

For example, if I use what I "think" you mean, I prefer "skill-based" systems. They offer much more freedom in terms of character generation and it's often easier to move from one role to another (which is something I often like to do).

Class-based systems only real advantage is that in theory they would be easier to "balance", as in keep the power level between the various PCs on a similar level. When a class-based systems fails at doing this it has lost its only benefit in my opinion and should abandon the design.

[Waar]

Having played both loose class sytems, fully point-buy systems as well as systems with mostly symbolic classes, the difference is not that big. As of yet I have never seen a rules heavy strict class system (as in no/very little multiclassing and class independent choices) but I imagine the diference between that and a loose class system would be greater.

So I prefer a system with several interesting choices, classes optional but not too strict.

I am a flexible player. I like both systems, however a well balanced classless system is to die for. I like making choices, I just do. If my character doesn't fit into x amount of classes, I am quickly getting frustated. Because of that I start to base my characters on classes instead of vice versa.

In my opinion, systems like D&D and Pathfinder restrict the fluff of a certain class too much. I'd like a system of generic classes with "purchasable" class features. Creating a red mage is always the test subject for me. It takes physical prowess, decent spellcasting of ALL schools and acceptable defensive capabilities. The closer I can get to a working red mage (while offering as few abundant class features as possible - a bard is not red mage for me), the better the system.

Or to explain the build in Skyrim skills: Onehanded, Light Armor, Destruction, Restoration.

Funny how you explain the test for class based systems with a skillbased, class less system (as for the elder scrolls try crusader or spellsword instead of bard, maybe a Dunmer )

Edit:

I still don't quite understand how you define class-based vs. skill-based systems. It would help for the discussion as now people are using their own definitions which may lead to contradictory answers.

For example, if I use what I "think" you mean, I prefer "skill-based" systems. They offer much more freedom in terms of character generation and it's often easier to move from one role to another (which is something I often like to do).

Class-based systems only real advantage is that in theory they would be easier to "balance", as in keep the power level between the various PCs on a similar level. When a class-based systems fails at doing this it has lost its only benefit in my opinion and should abandon the design.

I think the OP refers to the difference between getting stuff at level that you get for xp, and buying stuff for xp. For instance, consider the difference between drakar och demoner 6th and 7th edition.

[Jay R]

It's a somewhat meaningless question.

I've seen good systems with classes. I've seen bad systems with classes.

I've seen good classless systems. I've seen bad classless systems.

Both can work well; both can work badly.

Decide what you want to do in your next game, and pick a well-written system that does that.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

What Jay R says. That being said, I tend to find that classless systems are usually better games, or at least games that I like better. But then there's the Apocalypse World family of games (including Dungeon World, Monster of the Week, Monsterhearts, etc.) which leverages classes incredibly strongly and does them nigh-perfectly. Well, compared to everything else I've seen.