Could you live with just three classes?

[Kiero]

True20 is a "rules lighter" D20 engine, based on the system which originally appeared in Blue Rose. It streamlines in a lot of places, and one of the major changes is reducing the number of classes to three. Just three, not merely three base classes.

You can see for yourself in the Quickstart (which is free), the three classes are Warrior (good at fighting), Adept (magic) and Expert (skills) - these are detailed in a 3-page preview. You build the character you want by judicious multi-classing various combinations of those three.

I quite like some of the ideas there, when compared with standard D&D (especially the much-reduced Skills list), though there are still some holdovers I don't like (such as Feats). But then the less there is the better for me.

Whaddya think? Is three enough, or would it not feel like enough variation for you?

[Piccamo]

I prefer GreenRonin's Mutants and Masterminds (which doesn't have to be about superheroes if you don't want it to). What do you have against feats?

[Kiero]

I prefer GreenRonin's Mutants and Masterminds (which doesn't have to be about superheroes if you don't want it to). What do you have against feats?

Complexity, and the sheer number of them. Not to mention that so many of them are enabling basic maneuvers; granularity level is set too high for my tastes. Any list of anything in an RPG be that skills or powers or whatever should never be longer than 20, IMO. And the shorter the better.

[Tobrian]

You can see for yourself in the Quickstart (which is free), the three classes are Warrior (good at fighting), Adept (magic) and Expert (skills) - these are detailed in a 3-page preview. You build the character you want by judicious multi-classing various combinations of those three.

Isn't that the same just-three-basic-classes idea that appeared in the WotC Unearthed Arcana?

The UA Expert class is extremely cool and flexible. I love it. Now one can finally build all those characters that don't quite fit into the normal PHB core classes or that one used to have to simulate (badly) by taking levels in bard or rogue for the skill points and sort of hoping the DM would allow substitution levels to exchange bardic music abilities or sneak attacks for something else.

[Caelestion]

Complexity, and the sheer number of them. Not to mention that so many of them are enabling basic maneuvers; granularity level is set too high for my tastes. Any list of anything in an RPG be that skills or powers or whatever should never be longer than 20, IMO. And the shorter the better.

That sounds far too simple for my taste. If you have three lists, each with 20 items, admittedly you do indeed have 4000 possible combinations of abilities. However, it won't be long before you use all the abilities in various characters and, unless you really like some of them, it's going to get somewhat samey.

[SpiderBrigade]

Well, with such short lists the abilities would have to be either more flexible, or more generic, or both. You'd definitely be wise to adopt a more fluff-heavy playstyle. As Caelestion mentions, you'd see similar combinations of crunch pretty often. So you can't define your character's abilities only with mechanics.

You'd want to have an attitude where two mechanically identical fighters would be drastically different. A burly Thog-smash brawler and a refined martial arts master both being represented as a fighter with power attack, for instance. Thog is swinging wildly with a lot of force, while Master Kang over there is attempting to hit a vital accupressure point.

So yeah, I could deal with only three classes or an even greater limitation of character crunch options. But it's a very different playstyle from the usual D&D.

[Kiero]

That sounds far too simple for my taste. If you have three lists, each with 20 items, admittedly you do indeed have 4000 possible combinations of abilities. However, it won't be long before you use all the abilities in various characters and, unless you really like some of them, it's going to get somewhat samey.

Depends entirely on your focus. I find mechanics generally boring and get in the way of the fun. Learning combinations of stuff, exceptions, how things work together aren't my idea of a good time.

But then I don't play D&D and haven't for years. I have played emulated D&D with Wushu, and that was fun. There we have no mechanically-significant options, and characters are defined by three things they're good at and one they're not.

Like SpiderBrigade says, different play style.

[Caledonian]

If mechanics are simple, people will put more effort into defining their characters through roleplaying and flavor.

This is a good thing.

[Justin_Bacon]

If mechanics are simple, people will put more effort into defining their characters through roleplaying and flavor.

This is a good thing.

I find people who can't do both to be boring and limited.

This is a bad thing.

[Tengu]

If mechanics are simple, people will put more effort into defining their characters through roleplaying and flavor.

This is a good thing.

Simple rules, yes. Lack of choices, no. Players must have a lot of choices when it comes to character creation and development, otherwise the characters they make will become too similar mechanically which will just be boring for everyone - just look at AD&D where the only mechanical difference between two fighters are the stats and the used weapon, and where the same tactics work equally well for both of them.

Though trued20 does not look like AD&D. And since I tend to play classless games, there's nothing wrong for me in a broader field of choices, but less classes.

[Caledonian]

Simple rules, yes. Lack of choices, no.

Too many choices can be overwhelming. But yes, there should be opportunities for many choices, both in-combat, preparing-for-combat, and out-of-combat.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I love choices. I love choices so much that metagaming is a very appealing aspect of roleplaying for me, despite the many who would snob me for that and call it "rollplaying". So, honestly, a three class system without feats isn't very appealing to me at all since you're limiting my ability to get creative with metagame building.

I could certainly still enjoy it from outside the metagaming aspect, but why should that be left out? I'm going to "roleplay" anyway. What difference does it make if I "rollplay" too?

[Piccamo]

If mechanics are simple, people will put more effort into defining their characters through roleplaying and flavor.

This is a good thing.

There needs to be a certain amount of complexity to keep people interested. That is an advantage of having several books in a system; it allows you to manage how complex you want your game to be. With lots of options for 3 generic classes it could work quite well.

[Rob Knotts]

Isn't that the same just-three-basic-classes idea that appeared in the WotC Unearthed Arcana?

The introduction to True20 describes it as being based on the Blue Rose d20 game, but it's entirely possible that the trio of core classes suggested in UA was added to the basic Blue Rose rules to create the generic True20 rules. I've never the rules for Blue Rose, but from the reviews I've been able to find, I gather the signature ability for each of the three true20 classes is similar to the signature abilites for backgrounds in Blue Rose. Each of the three classes has a basic ability that compliments thier specialty, so conceivably you could add more core classes for more setting-specific special abilities.

My group has played mostly GURPS, but we've tried a few d20 games, and I suspect they'd take an instant liking to true20. The only reason I'm not running it right now is that true20 isnly 3/4 of a genuinely original, open-ended d20 game. Character creation is completely overhauled from regular d20, but monster creation simply a rehash of type-lists from the monster manuals. If they had gone ahead and added another "monster/NPC" class with additional rules for fleshing them out, I'd be quite happy, but tfor buying into an alternative d20 system I expect a lot more than just cutting/pasting the standard run-of-the-mill d20 treatment of monsters. Hell, just some notes on how to use M&M to create monsters woulda been fine.

[Pauwel]

I dislike True20. It seems to try being something between the default d20 system (by using classes to begin with) and M&M (by using Toughness saves and generally being more rules-light) and it seems to me that is fails at being either of the two.

[Lolth]

I can live with any system/setup, so long as it's explained and evenly applied. The rules are just the framework for a game, after all.

[Draz74]

I don't feel like multiclassing between these three basic choices really gives you the ability to represent any character you want. If you want a gish-type, for example, a straight warrior/adept multiclass won't get you a character that's nearly powerful enough to keep up with your party member who went straight Expert. (There may be multiclass rules in True20 that I don't know about that fix this problem, but I doubt it.)

I like the Generic Classes idea, but I think they need to be supplemented with Generic PrC's that can make a mix of base classes advance more effectively. That's what Gyzaninar does.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The problem with this system is that the warrior has nothing to do while skills are needed, the expert is poor when fighting is needed and the adept can still just do anything.

Therefore every character will be required to multiclass in order to do anything.

Why not just have 1 class then?

[Caledonian]

There needs to be a certain amount of complexity to keep people interested.

Yes, but D&D doesn't give you options, it gives you various classes. Having only a few classes with many options is far superior.

[Kiero]

So, honestly, a three class system without feats isn't very appealing to me at all since you're limiting my ability to get creative with metagame building.

Uh, True20 has Feats. I was talking about ditching them. I can't stand metagaming, personally.

There needs to be a certain amount of complexity to keep people interested.

To keep certain kinds of people with specific tastes interested. Not everyone out there.

[Caledonian]

Your ability to metagame build has increased, not decreased, because by combining the three classes and choosing specific skills and feats, you can design your own class.

The D&D system is more limiting.

[Caelestion]

This is starting to sound like a hagiography, Caledonian. Surely a decent review can avoid that most obvious of pitfalls.

[Matthew]

I could live with it fairly easily, I think. I know Golthur produced a fairly similar system using the three Generic Base Classes. He posted up his Combat System in the Home Brew forum.
TrueD20 is, after all is said and done, just a modified version of D20. It has its own advantages and drawbacks. Overall, though, I would probably be more inclined to Home Brew my own version (a fairly common attitude, I think).

[ghost_warlock]

I prefer to have lots of options, both mechanical and fluff-based, hence I like D&D the way it is with scores of classes, feats, and whatnot.

I've had a few bad experiences with "simple" systems. In the groups I've played with, the simpler the system the more generic the rules are. Generic rules, that leave a lot open to interpretation, are just begging for arguments to start over what and how a character can do a variety of actions. When you have to create specialized rules off the cuff, you can run into DMs who make things too easy, too hard, or just say "I don't have rules for that so you can't do it."

What I like about the complexity of D&D is that many of these issues have been pre-resolved. How far can my character jump? What happens when I attack an enemy's weapon? How do I resolve an attack against an opponent who isn't aware of my presence? Granted, some things are still open to interpretation (called shots and, especially, how some spells interact or work under specific circumstances).

A simple system may seem less restrictive and may make the characters seem less pigeon-holed, but you'll find that you're often at the mercy of the DM's whims about what you can and can't do during a game. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in D&D, but it's nice to have the security of a detailed rules system for everyone to fall back on.

[Jayabalard]

What difference does it make if I "rollplay" too?

You said it yourself... there are some who look down on it and think that gameplay based around metagaming is inferior to gameplay that doesn't allow any metagaming.

You're free to play how you want; but if someone isn't interested in a system that eliminates metagaming, then I don't quite understand why they'd argue with someone who is interested in it and is looking for help in refining that type of system ... it's kind of like going on the questions by RAW thread and arguing fluff opinions.

[Belkarseviltwin]

Three classes are fine. Fighting Man, Magic-User and Cleric...

[redwood]

I think a great game system is one that is relatively simple and also easily extensible.

Keeping the "core" rules relatively straightforward is good in that it allows newcomers to pick up the game easily. Those who want to keep it simple can stick with the "core" rules.

However, others want more ways to tweak their character so a game system needs to be extensible (such as allowing new feats, spells or classes). If you--as a player--don't like all the extra options, just ignore them.

Is True20 too light? It seems fine to me as an entry-level game. Add a few supplements so those that want to can personalize their characters. Then add a few more because everyone is bored with (or complains about) the existing supplements. Voila, you're back to D&D.

[SurlySeraph]

If you can multi-class freely, than 3 classes is enough. As long as my range of choices isn't limited, I don't care how many classes there officially are; if I want a paladin, I'll be equally happy if I can just make a cleric/ fighter that's close enough.

[Fhaolan]

Lots of systems work off of three 'classes'. As long as multiclassing is easy and doesn't have a cost, it works just fine.

However, it's not something beginning players are going to deal with very well. You have to have a certain level of experience as a player to be able to build out concepts this way.

To extend this farther is to go to one class with lots of options, leading into to a pure-point-buy system like GURPS, and from there you get into char-gen light systems like Primetime Adventures and so on.

Eventually you just end up sitting around a table telling stories to one another, completely systemless. It's something I think every rollplayer ought to do at least once in their career. Not something for everyone, but everyone should try it once. :)

[Dan_Hemmens]

I really don't see the point in the three-class system. It strikes me as combining the inflexibility of classes with the directionlessness of classless systems.

I want to either (a) pick a strong archetype and run with it, in which case I want a class-based system, because that's easiest or (b) create a unique character with abilities and weaknesses that I define myself, in which case I want a classless system.