The Classless RPG

[HidesHisEyes]

I've been casually working on a D&Desque game system based on 5E but with a few specific design goals, one of which is giving players more control over character building. That is to say, they keep making choices about which features to gain as they level up as opposed to committing to a set of features that then unfold with relatively little actual choice-making (as in 5E).

A thought I've had while working on this idea is that the classes presented in D&D are very specific, both mechanically and conceptually. Some are far more conceptually loaded than others - warlock or paladin compared to fighter or rogue, for instance - but still the whole idea of classes seems to be based on the idea of saying "my character is a xxxxxx and this is what that means", and committing to that concept and the features that come with it. The archetypal fighter, the archetypal ranger, the archetypal wizard. These are concepts that exist and when you make your character you pick one. Now I have no problem whatsoever with this, I think it's a really cool idea which lends itself to a dungeon-crawly, almost video gamey style of play where the adventures themselves are more important than the characters having them. This is great if the whole group wants to play that kind of game.

The thing is, most players don't. Most players, in my experience, are at least as interested in creating interesting characters of their own, both conceptually and mechanically, as they are in leading those characters on adventures. Most view character creation as a process of coming up with a concept and then using the game's character options (with class being overwhelmingly the most significant) to realise that concept. Now there's nothing wrong with this either, it's also a really cool idea. But the problem is that D&D's class system isn't really built for it. Multiclassing is there as an optional rule - the fact that everyone uses it and most players would balk at a DM who disallowed it goes to show how at odds most players are with the basic idea of classes.

Please let me be clear on this: I'm not saying "classes suck". I'm saying that "pick a class" and "create a unique concept" are two different styles that belong in different systems, and in the same system they just get in the way of each other. Surely, for the way most of us want to play, the logical character creation system would be classless. You choose some basic traits (hit die, spellcasting, proficiencies) and then you collect features as you level to build the character you envision.

So that's what I'm attempting in the 5E-based homebrew system that I'm putting together. It's hard to balance, it's hard to get the same amount of mechanical variety as classes provide, but I have a strong sense that if someone can get it right then it would be really good.

Anyway, I guess my overall point is: play with restrictive classes or play with none at all, and multiclassing should never need to exist. Now you can all tell me why I'm an idiot for thinking that!

Post script: I'm aware of many systems that don't have classes - or that have fewer and broader classes - and do pretty much what I'm talking about, and I've taken inspiration from several. My aim is to design something that plays and feels like D&D - crunchy gameplay in a classic fantasy setting - without the restrictions of classes.

[Bogwoppit]

You could take a look at the Generic Classes section of 3e's Unearthed Arcana - it reduces the classes to three (basically Fighter, Mage, Rogue), and makes all the class abilities into feats anyone can take.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...ricClasses.htm

The method might map over to a 5e system with a little modification.

Also - shouldn't this be in Homebrew?

[Anonymouswizard]

Post script: I'm aware of many systems that don't have classes - or that have fewer and broader classes - and do pretty much what I'm talking about, and I've taken inspiration from several. My aim is to design something that plays and feels like D&D - crunchy gameplay in a classic fantasy setting - without the restrictions of classes.

How attached are you to D&D-style rules? Because there's a ton of 'crunchy and classless or looser classes in a fantasy setting', everywhere from 'classic' (we talking Tolkien or pulp here?) fantasy to more historical stuff and more anime stuff.

Because if you leave levels behind you get a lot of choices. The only game I know that comes close to 'levels but no classes' is Savage Worlds which gates certain Edges behind having (X*20)XP.

I personally like the game Keltia from 7ème Cercle, which is essentially an alteration of their Norseman/Viking game Yggdrassil to be about iron age Celts and King Arthur, and so plays fairly close to a low magic 'standard' setting. The rules aren't the best (in my experience the company's games are better for the historical information), but they're serviceable and crunchy.

If you haven't looked at it, take a glance at Ars Magica. The magic is much closer to what people actually believed it was, which leads to Mages being overpowered but focused on research (a friend of mine referred to it as 'academia the RPG', but her group hadn't used troupe play).

Onto the actual point of your post, I really don't see the point of keeping levels, over just letting players spend XP on hit dice/hp, spell slots, spells known, ability score increases, and features. I mean, that's even harder to balance, but it's literally what 90% of my collection does and allows for far more versatility (it also leads itself to those hilariously useless character concepts such as 'one spell known, one hit die, no features, 90 1st level spell slots', whether that's good or bad is personal opinion*).

The second thing is it's nigh impossible to get an actual objective measure of how much anything should cost. See GURPS, sure IQ might be balanced or underpowered in a dungeon crawl, but come to an investigation set in a modern city and everybody is suddenly pumping IQ (or occasionally DX). Even within the same technology level training in the use of social skills might be useless, in another they could be the most important skills in the game.

Then you get sneaky games like Rocket Age, where skills are theoretically less useful, but you don't want to sink all your points into stats because otherwise you won't hit high difficulties.

Then occasionally you get certain combinations of abilities that just break the game completely because you can't balance everything as well as you could in a classed game.

You shouldn't strive for perfect balance because it doesn't exist. However you should strive for balance for your group (if it's just for them) or for the intended style of game (if it's a commercial product). The GM should be able to tweak things to fit their own group, but you should never make it so the GM has to do this. The GM is(/houserules are) a fix for unintended balance issues, not a reason to avoid balancing in the first place.

And sometimes, intentional nonbalance is fine. Reaction drives in Mongoose Traveller 1e are just plain worse, with fuel taking up 2.5% of your ship's space per hour of acceleration at one standard earth gravity (which is still ~35,000m/s after an hour's acceleration, but for the same acceleration with a standard M-drive you need no extra fuel), but it's intended to be used by all ships in place of standard M-drives for some settings. But it should never be a case of 'wizards are intentionally better than fighters'.

* Also depending on the exact spell known.

[Airk]

Sounds like a waste of time to me, unless it's something that you would personally find very fulfilling even if no one else in the world cares. I say this for two reasons:

First most players who play D&D are comfortable with classes - there's a lot of room to maneuver inside even the more restrictive ones, and let's be honest. If you're really worried about who your character is, what your character DOES is of secondary importance.

Second, most of the players who aren't comfortable with classes have moved on to game systems that support a more flexible character generation method. You're unlikely to lure them back to wanting to play D&D by giving them some sort of probably questionably balanced point buy chargen system, because it's relatively unlikely that the only reason they moved on from D&D is because they didn't like classes.

People have been inventing classless RPGs since like 1978. Many of them are extremely D&D-like. If you would enjoy the intellectual exercise of building "classless D&D" for the thousandth time (because I promise you, there have been at least that many people in the history of D&D who decided that classes were some sort of problem and they could do better - even if the games they created never left their table or maybe even the binder they wrote them down in.) then by all means, go to it. But if you are looking for something people outside of your immediate playgroup will look at and go "wow!" then I suggest you give the idea a pass, and instead spend the time you would have spent on it reading some of the countless hundreds of interesting RPGs out there, most of which don't implement classes.

[Anonymouswizard]

Heck, I have a game where, as an exercise, I decided to build a system for it because I didn't own a dedicated Space Opera system. It was fun, but it took a long time and I may never add more to the system. I do plan to go back to it, but I'm unlikely to ever use it as anything serious rather than as an intellectual exercise (I've got a couple of 'systems' for just that purpose).

That setting is still being developed, just for the Traveller rules because they're well known enough not to scare away potential players (i.e. most people who have played more than D&D at least know the name) and it gives me almost what I want. Sure, I have to throw in several house rules here and there (characters begin with a bunch of 'basic' skills, 1d6 enemies and rivals, 1d6 friends and contacts, and then 'roll on the lifepath system for their current life', the only M-drives are reaction engines) but writing those is a bit of fun. But by using the Traveller rules I can move the setting between groups with much less hassle.

Plus it means I can use the same system for all my Space Opera games, so it's a win-win.

[Airk]

I'm not denigrating intellectual exercise system building - I learned a LOT from my horrible mess of an attempt - I'm just pointing out that if you want more from it than that, you're probably going to be disappointed if your goal is nothing more than "classless D&D". (Actually, you'll probably be disappointed anyway for a variety of reasons, the primary of which is "you have no experience building game systems, so your first N systems are probably going to be a hot mess." but that's neither here nor there.)

[LibraryOgre]

You might want to take a look at my work on a classless Star Wars Saga Edition.

It works fairly well in Saga because most "class features" are either feats or talents, and feats and talents aren't too far apart in power and utility. In 5e, you'd likely want to develop something akin to talent trees.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm not denigrating intellectual exercise system building - I learned a LOT from my horrible mess of an attempt - I'm just pointing out that if you want more from it than that, you're probably going to be disappointed if your goal is nothing more than "classless D&D". (Actually, you'll probably be disappointed anyway for a variety of reasons, the primary of which is "you have no experience building game systems, so your first N systems are probably going to be a hot mess." but that's neither here nor there.)

Oh, I was completely agreeing with you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Looking at the systems I've built, most of them were hot messes, half of them I couldn't complete, one had a neat idea but wouldn't have worked as well as I'd hope, and one or two of them were basically okay. Oh, and like everybody else out there I tried to create my own version of d20 (in fact I still have plans for one, but it's more 'I want 5e to be a bit more like BECM'). I started being less disappointed when I moved towards more concrete goals than 'better X', and a lot more satisfied when I began hacking systems instead of trying to build them out of nothing. I find it more rewarding to have built the final 'simulation' rather than the core mechanics, so I tend to take somebody else's core system these days.

[HidesHisEyes]

How attached are you to D&D-style rules? Because there's a ton of 'crunchy and classless or looser classes in a fantasy setting', everywhere from 'classic' (we talking Tolkien or pulp here?) fantasy to more historical stuff and more anime stuff.

Because if you leave levels behind you get a lot of choices. The only game I know that comes close to 'levels but no classes' is Savage Worlds which gates certain Edges behind having (X*20)XP.

I personally like the game Keltia from 7ème Cercle, which is essentially an alteration of their Norseman/Viking game Yggdrassil to be about iron age Celts and King Arthur, and so plays fairly close to a low magic 'standard' setting. The rules aren't the best (in my experience the company's games are better for the historical information), but they're serviceable and crunchy.

If you haven't looked at it, take a glance at Ars Magica. The magic is much closer to what people actually believed it was, which leads to Mages being overpowered but focused on research (a friend of mine referred to it as 'academia the RPG', but her group hadn't used troupe play).

Onto the actual point of your post, I really don't see the point of keeping levels, over just letting players spend XP on hit dice/hp, spell slots, spells known, ability score increases, and features. I mean, that's even harder to balance, but it's literally what 90% of my collection does and allows for far more versatility (it also leads itself to those hilariously useless character concepts such as 'one spell known, one hit die, no features, 90 1st level spell slots', whether that's good or bad is personal opinion*).

The second thing is it's nigh impossible to get an actual objective measure of how much anything should cost. See GURPS, sure IQ might be balanced or underpowered in a dungeon crawl, but come to an investigation set in a modern city and everybody is suddenly pumping IQ (or occasionally DX). Even within the same technology level training in the use of social skills might be useless, in another they could be the most important skills in the game.

Then you get sneaky games like Rocket Age, where skills are theoretically less useful, but you don't want to sink all your points into stats because otherwise you won't hit high difficulties.

Then occasionally you get certain combinations of abilities that just break the game completely because you can't balance everything as well as you could in a classed game.

You shouldn't strive for perfect balance because it doesn't exist. However you should strive for balance for your group (if it's just for them) or for the intended style of game (if it's a commercial product). The GM should be able to tweak things to fit their own group, but you should never make it so the GM has to do this. The GM is(/houserules are) a fix for unintended balance issues, not a reason to avoid balancing in the first place.

And sometimes, intentional nonbalance is fine. Reaction drives in Mongoose Traveller 1e are just plain worse, with fuel taking up 2.5% of your ship's space per hour of acceleration at one standard earth gravity (which is still ~35,000m/s after an hour's acceleration, but for the same acceleration with a standard M-drive you need no extra fuel), but it's intended to be used by all ships in place of standard M-drives for some settings. But it should never be a case of 'wizards are intentionally better than fighters'.

* Also depending on the exact spell known.

I'm very attached to D&D style rules. I'm also attached to the approximate setting of D&D, and to many of its basic assumptions about gameplay and game style. All the balancing and design decisions are predicated on this. I decided to stick with levels for the balancing reasons you mention, so that GMs will have a decent idea of what PCs are capable of after x amount of time spent adventuring.

Having said that, aside from freedom in character creation I'm also aiming for a game that is simpler, faster-paced and lower-magic. It has a ten-level progression. One of the things that irks me about D&D, even 5E, is how clunky and slow gameplay gets at higher levels, as well as the feeling that characters quite quickly become superheroes rather than adventurers fighting for their lives. So yeah, I'm going for a specific game style that resembles D&D but is different in certain ways. My game is not supposed to be all things to all people. It's my idea of the RPG I'd like to play. As I said, I'm aware that I'm not exactly breaking new ground here. But my goal is to convert specifically 5E D&D to this style of game, which as far as I'm aware has not been done.

Sounds like a waste of time to me, unless it's something that you would personally find very fulfilling even if no one else in the world cares. I say this for two reasons:

First most players who play D&D are comfortable with classes - there's a lot of room to maneuver inside even the more restrictive ones, and let's be honest. If you're really worried about who your character is, what your character DOES is of secondary importance.

Second, most of the players who aren't comfortable with classes have moved on to game systems that support a more flexible character generation method. You're unlikely to lure them back to wanting to play D&D by giving them some sort of probably questionably balanced point buy chargen system, because it's relatively unlikely that the only reason they moved on from D&D is because they didn't like classes.

People have been inventing classless RPGs since like 1978. Many of them are extremely D&D-like. If you would enjoy the intellectual exercise of building "classless D&D" for the thousandth time (because I promise you, there have been at least that many people in the history of D&D who decided that classes were some sort of problem and they could do better - even if the games they created never left their table or maybe even the binder they wrote them down in.) then by all means, go to it. But if you are looking for something people outside of your immediate playgroup will look at and go "wow!" then I suggest you give the idea a pass, and instead spend the time you would have spent on it reading some of the countless hundreds of interesting RPGs out there, most of which don't implement classes.

But none of which appear to be what I'm aiming for, which is specifically my beloved 5E, but without classes, with different assumptions about player power level and mechanics to match, and faster-paced, somewhat stripped down gameplay. Absolutely it is at this point an intellectual exercise, and I'm getting a lot of satisfaction out of it as just that. I'm not planning to get rich off it, and you may be right that no one other than me would be at all interested in it, but if my own interest persists then I expect at some point to finish it, playtest it, publish it (probably for free) and see what happens.

You might want to take a look at my work on a classless Star Wars Saga Edition.

It works fairly well in Saga because most "class features" are either feats or talents, and feats and talents aren't too far apart in power and utility. In 5e, you'd likely want to develop something akin to talent trees.

Thanks for sharing. I have looked a lot at Saga Edition and have indeed proceeded along the talent tree route.

[FreddyNoNose]

I'm not denigrating intellectual exercise system building - I learned a LOT from my horrible mess of an attempt - I'm just pointing out that if you want more from it than that, you're probably going to be disappointed if your goal is nothing more than "classless D&D". (Actually, you'll probably be disappointed anyway for a variety of reasons, the primary of which is "you have no experience building game systems, so your first N systems are probably going to be a hot mess." but that's neither here nor there.)

Perhaps what he is saying he loves dnd so much he wants to fundamentally change it. You know, like how some chicks want to change their boyfriends. lol

[HidesHisEyes]

Perhaps what he is saying he loves dnd so much he wants to fundamentally change it. You know, like how some chicks want to change their boyfriends. lol

Erm, well kind of, although I don't think "change" is the right word since the original D&D will still be there.

[LibraryOgre]

Perhaps what he is saying he loves dnd so much he wants to fundamentally change it. You know, like how some chicks want to change their boyfriends. lol

Pretty much every serious gamer dabbles with system overhauls a few times. Some turn out good stuff... others turn out heartbreakers that are "It's like D&D, but with all my house rules!"

Hell, I've got an attempt at 3rd edition I started before WotC announced they were going to do their 3rd edition. It's on a website that I put up in college. I've also got a system I based off the hints in a series of books (Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame, which has several college students wind up in their "totally not D&D" D&D game). I wrote one that uses a standard deck of playing cards, and it's based off a system TSR put out back in its twilight. I've been designing systems that are varying degrees of **** (from "extremely" to "not very, if I do say so myself") for a quarter century, now.

Love of the game doesn't mean not wanting to change it. It can mean wanting to perfect it, and in chasing that perfection, you learn about it. You figure out what doesn't work, and what does. If you're on the ball, you figure out why, and realize that something that doesn't work in one game is totally cool in another.

Anyway, I'm old and get off my lawn. Let folk learn systems by taking them apart and trying to put them back together.

[HidesHisEyes]

Pretty much every serious gamer dabbles with system overhauls a few times. Some turn out good stuff... others turn out heartbreakers that are "It's like D&D, but with all my house rules!"

Hell, I've got an attempt at 3rd edition I started before WotC announced they were going to do their 3rd edition. It's on a website that I put up in college. I've also got a system I based off the hints in a series of books (Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame, which has several college students wind up in their "totally not D&D" D&D game). I wrote one that uses a standard deck of playing cards, and it's based off a system TSR put out back in its twilight. I've been designing systems that are varying degrees of **** (from "extremely" to "not very, if I do say so myself") for a quarter century, now.

Love of the game doesn't mean not wanting to change it. It can mean wanting to perfect it, and in chasing that perfection, you learn about it. You figure out what doesn't work, and what does. If you're on the ball, you figure out why, and realize that something that doesn't work in one game is totally cool in another.

Anyway, I'm old and get off my lawn. Let folk learn systems by taking them apart and trying to put them back together.

*APPLAUSE*

Than you, that was a more eloquent argument for this kind of project than I could have given if I'd stayed up all night on it.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm very attached to D&D style rules. I'm also attached to the approximate setting of D&D, and to many of its basic assumptions about gameplay and game style. All the balancing and design decisions are predicated on this. I decided to stick with levels for the balancing reasons you mention, so that GMs will have a decent idea of what PCs are capable of after x amount of time spent adventuring.

Having said that, aside from freedom in character creation I'm also aiming for a game that is simpler, faster-paced and lower-magic. It has a ten-level progression. One of the things that irks me about D&D, even 5E, is how clunky and slow gameplay gets at higher levels, as well as the feeling that characters quite quickly become superheroes rather than adventurers fighting for their lives. So yeah, I'm going for a specific game style that resembles D&D but is different in certain ways. My game is not supposed to be all things to all people. It's my idea of the RPG I'd like to play. As I said, I'm aware that I'm not exactly breaking new ground here. But my goal is to convert specifically 5E D&D to this style of game, which as far as I'm aware has not been done.

So what, 5e hacked to be classless and low magic? Alright, if you want advice:
-Stop, have a think, and work out what these terms mean.
-For simpler, you likely want to remove most class features. Seriously, that's where about 90% of the complexity in 5e is and the things I'm most likely to forget.
-For faster paced, look at Savage Worlds. It's probably as complex as 5e, but is a lot faster because there's less bookkeeping (minor characters are either up, down, or off the table, major characters have 3 wounds before being incapacitated). Plus cards for initiative is fun.
-For lower magic, I assume you mean less spellcasting? Yeah, I'm planning on that as well for my 5e hack (which also removes hp, make a save or start the death spiral), most casters will have a handful of 1st and 2nd level spells and up to 25ish spell points (level*2+wisdom modifier), although I am keeping classes.

Yeah, D&D has the problem of the characters transistioning past adventuring without the game doing so, they key way to avoid this is toning down magic (which is where all the 'adventure bypass' and world altering abilities are).

[Airk]

But none of which appear to be what I'm aiming for, which is specifically my beloved 5E, but without classes, with different assumptions about player power level and mechanics to match, and faster-paced, somewhat stripped down gameplay.

Irrelevant. As you are already discovering, you can learn a LOT from looking at games that aren't what you want on most levels. There have been decades of devoted game designers working on various game design issues. You might be smarter than any of them, but you are never going to be anywhere near as smart as all of them together. Read what they have done. Examine it critically. See what is useful to you and what is not. Steal what is. Remember what is not. Try to understand why they made the decisions they did. Examine your own decisions in that same light.

All that said, to be honest, I'm not sure what's LEFT of 5e when you remove classes, the assumptions about power, and strip down the gameplay. Seriously. What's left? the d20? Elves, dwarves and halflings? Killing things and taking their stuff? I don't think you'll be left with a game that is recognizable to most people as D&D 5e at that point.

Absolutely it is at this point an intellectual exercise, and I'm getting a lot of satisfaction out of it as just that. I'm not planning to get rich off it, and you may be right that no one other than me would be at all interested in it, but if my own interest persists then I expect at some point to finish it, playtest it, publish it (probably for free) and see what happens.

I don't want to be all doom and gloom, but the answer to "what happens" is probably "a few people download it and then nothing". I'm not trying to dissuade you, mind, just level setting expectations.

And yeah, it had better be for free, because WotC would probably have words for you otherwise.

[Anonymouswizard]

Irrelevant. As you are already discovering, you can learn a LOT from looking at games that aren't what you want on most levels. There have been decades of devoted game designers working on various game design issues. You might be smarter than any of them, but you are never going to be anywhere near as smart as all of them together. Read what they have done. Examine it critically. See what is useful to you and what is not. Steal what is. Remember what is not. Try to understand why they made the decisions they did. Examine your own decisions in that same light.

This. Honestly, I personally wish I'd picked up Traveller earlier, I'd recreated half the subsystems based on 3d6 rather than 2d6.

All that said, to be honest, I'm not sure what's LEFT of 5e when you remove classes, the assumptions about power, and strip down the gameplay. Seriously. What's left? the d20? Elves, dwarves and halflings? Killing things and taking their stuff? I don't think you'll be left with a game that is recognizable to most people as D&D 5e at that point.

I think you might have forgotten the other half of the sacred cows, there's nothing about removing 10 foot poles or magic-user superiority.

I don't want to be all doom and gloom, but the answer to "what happens" is probably "a few people download it and then nothing". I'm not trying to dissuade you, mind, just level setting expectations.

And yeah, it had better be for free, because WotC would probably have words for you otherwise.

Yeah, this is an important thing to realise. This is why I'm unlikely to release any of my stuff for money unless it's a 'I put a free version out with a note as to which game is needed' and then the company offers to make it official (so like, it'll probably never happen, which is fine).

[Millstone85]

Maybe if an RPG had really elaborate yet elegant rules for swords, skills and spells, it just wouldn't need classes.

[Tinkerer]

I've done about 4 different system rewrites over the years and they can definitely be extremely rewarding. I would have to disagree with your premise that classless systems encourage unique and distinct characters though.

Surely, for the way most of us want to play, the logical character creation system would be classless. You choose some basic traits (hit die, spellcasting, proficiencies) and then you collect features as you level to build the character you envision.

As well as your comment in another thread that classes are like an abusive spouse that the RPG community keeps going back to. From over 30 years of playing in both classless and classed systems I would have to say that in my experience classless systems actually slightly hamper creative and unique characters for the majority of people. They tend to draw you even more into senseless minmaxing, and for newer people they make it harder to get a grasp on the world. But it's not a huge impact that it has on the players and winds up being fairly close, hence why I said slightly hampers. Although I question if this is a "classless" system as you mentioned. A fair chunk of systems with a classed progression work as you stated, you get your basic traits from your class and then you collect features as you level to build the character you envision. I mean the Unearthed Arcana may be a lot more permissive but it is still a class system.

Anyway best of luck in building it, keep us abreast in the Homebrew section.

[HidesHisEyes]

I've done about 4 different system rewrites over the years and they can definitely be extremely rewarding. I would have to disagree with your premise that classless systems encourage unique and distinct characters though.



As well as your comment in another thread that classes are like an abusive spouse that the RPG community keeps going back to. From over 30 years of playing in both classless and classed systems I would have to say that in my experience classless systems actually slightly hamper creative and unique characters for the majority of people. They tend to draw you even more into senseless minmaxing, and for newer people they make it harder to get a grasp on the world. But it's not a huge impact that it has on the players and winds up being fairly close, hence why I said slightly hampers. Although I question if this is a "classless" system as you mentioned. A fair chunk of systems with a classed progression work as you stated, you get your basic traits from your class and then you collect features as you level to build the character you envision. I mean the Unearthed Arcana may be a lot more permissive but it is still a class system.

Anyway best of luck in building it, keep us abreast in the Homebrew section.

Yeah I had noticed, or at least suspected, the same thing. One of the great advantages of classes is that they lock the player into a narrowed down set of abilities, so once you've chosen a concept you make your choices within that concept and certain things that would otherwise be very tempting are simply unavailable (or have to be got through the balancing act of multiclassing). A classless system has the potential to make players gravitate towards certain builds and paradoxically end up with fewer archetypes actually being played, not more. I've been thinking about ways of getting around this.

I've also been looking through the PHB and trying to identify the different bundles of abilities that each class contains. For example barbarians have their rage and associated features, but they also have "brute strength and resilience", "keen senses and instincts" and "primal spirituality". Bards have "inspiration", "magical music", "skills and knowledge" and "gish stuff". And so on. Bizarrely, I'm now thinking in terms of even more restrictive classes, except that every character gets two or three, mixing and matching themed bundles of abilities instead of individual abilities. And then you could choose a standalone feat here and there to keep things interesting.

(This idea is also inspired by the game Legend, by the way. Believe it or not I have indeed been reading about other systems 😜)

[2D8HP]

Chaosium's BRP, which is just so intuitive.
(Here's a pdf sample), is my "go-to" generic system.

They're many BRP based games, the most known of which is Call of Cthullu, which I found to be one of the easiest RPG's to Gamemaster or "Keeper", more D&D like were RuneQuest, Pendragon (my favorite), and Stormbringer, but the most D&D like was Magic World (free pdf "quick start), which was designed to use "Runequest like rules, but with a gonzo D&D feel".

Check it out.

(in fact I still have plans for one, but it's more 'I want 5e to be a bit more like BECM').

Sounds like a worthy project.

I'm interested.

[Anonymouswizard]

Sounds like a worthy project.

I'm interested.

Still trying to work out what subclasses I want for dwarves and halflings (because I remember elves getting two classes, standard Elves and Warrior Elves), but once I've got that out of the way I'll start posting the rules in the Homebrew section.

[Slipperychicken]

The most valuable thing a homebrewer can do is to stop and research to see what's actually out there, and experience firsthand how these ideas actually play. That will help cultivate a range of insights into how roleplaying games work and how design choices can impact actual play. Blindly embarking on a project to "fix" the only system they've ever seriously tried (usually DnD) is a great way for a fledgling homebrewer to waste energy, reinvent the wheel, and add to a growing list of heartbreaker systems that no-one will ever play.


I recommend OP to look at the 'One Roll Engine' games for examples of how classless RPGs can work. And maybe the elegant core mechanic can help steer him away from the d20 and its evils.

[Max_Killjoy]

The most valuable thing a homebrewer can do is to stop and research to see what's actually out there, and experience firsthand how these ideas actually play. That will help cultivate a range of insights into how roleplaying games work and how design choices can impact actual play. Blindly embarking on a project to "fix" the only system they've ever seriously tried (usually DnD) is a great way for a fledgling homebrewer to waste energy, reinvent the wheel, and add to a growing list of heartbreaker systems that no-one will ever play.


I recommend OP to look at the 'One Roll Engine' games for examples of how classless RPGs can work. And maybe the elegant core mechanic can help steer him away from the d20 and its evils.

Yeah, I've run into a lot of "revolutionary" systems that amount to someone running out of their house some morning in 2017 and yelling "Cords are stupid, phones should be wireless! And useable anywhere you go!"

[Tinkerer]

I've also been looking through the PHB and trying to identify the different bundles of abilities that each class contains. For example barbarians have their rage and associated features, but they also have "brute strength and resilience", "keen senses and instincts" and "primal spirituality". Bards have "inspiration", "magical music", "skills and knowledge" and "gish stuff". And so on. Bizarrely, I'm now thinking in terms of even more restrictive classes, except that every character gets two or three, mixing and matching themed bundles of abilities instead of individual abilities. And then you could choose a standalone feat here and there to keep things interesting.

(This idea is also inspired by the game Legend, by the way. Believe it or not I have indeed been reading about other systems 😜)

Hmm, kinda similar to d20 Modern? It was similar to d20 except each base class was based around an attribute rather than a concept, each class got a handful of talent trees, and you were generally expected to switch classes quite frequently (back in the days of 3X I often thought of converting d20 Modern to fantasy as it was quite unique). I haven't played Legend so I don't know if it's really close or not but it's definitely one of the more interesting ways of looking at things that I ran across. I really enjoyed how tying the class to the attribute rather than an occupation meant you could say "Yeah, I'm a smart soldier. I'm not as great at fighting but my tactics make up for it"... Dammit, now I'm interested again in making that conversion. You see what happens? You start talking about doing conversions and 7/10 people will go "Try and use X system" 2/10 will go "That's a dumb idea" and 1/10 people will go "That reminds me I had something I was working on"

(Also never doubted that you were looking at other systems, that's usually what starts this train of thought)

[2D8HP]

The most valuable thing a homebrewer can do is to stop and research to see what's actually out there.....

Yeah, I've run into a lot of "revolutionary" systems that amount to someone running out of their house some morning in 2017 and yelling "Cords are stupid, phones should be wireless! And useable anywhere you go!"

So much this. I call it the "Barnes & Noble syndrome" (knowing only the few games that are lately on the shelf of chain bookstores).

You don't see it as much in posts at the Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems thread, but at the other Roleplaying Games threads, there are more "I wish for" posts that seem to show this, prompting me to post on the Fight Me thread:

....I wish someone would make a game that...
(they did, Either Tunnels & Trolls in 1975, RuneQuest in 1978, Champions in 1981, Stormbringer in 1981, or Pendragon in 1985, all generally did whatever it is the complainer wishes "someone" would publish, different games for different complaints)....

....and I'd add that there's a wealth of newer games that do what people try to re-invent.

I completely get sticking to familiar rules (I've used BRP/Call of Cthullu instead of bothering to learn the rules for Top Secret and I'm toying with using old TSR "Basic/Classic" D&D, or BRP with the 7th Sea setting), but when the complaint is about the rules, why not seek out the alternatives?

[CharonsHelper]

So much this. I call it the "Barnes & Noble syndrome" (knowing only the few games that are lately on the shelf of chain bookstores).

I'll also add, that a designer should also read systems which they don't plan to run and don't even like much. Nearly every system (excluding FATAL) have some good points and/or interesting things about them.

I know that as I started designing my game (a swashbuckling space western) I picked up and read a LOT of different games, many of which aren't really my style to play at all. Especially those which people told me were similar to my ideas to see how they executed them.

Ex: I read Anima because someone mentioned that it had a class/point-buy hybrid (which is what I used in Space Dogs). Frankly - the system has a lot of interesting ideas, but it's too convoluted for me, and besides the class/point-buy hybrid it's not much like what I'm going for at all, but it was still definitely worth the read.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, I've run into a lot of "revolutionary" systems that amount to someone running out of their house some morning in 2017 and yelling "Cords are stupid, phones should be wireless! And useable anywhere you go!"

I still remember my first 'innovative' system. You used spell points instead of spell slots! Fighters specialised for insane damage! Druids couldn't cast while shapeshifted!

Ah, the days of having only played 2 games.

These days I try to work out ways to make spacecraft which use reaction drives fun. It involves sacrificing a good amount of available space to give players a decent ability to change their velocity in combat, and then still having problems because the players want to strip out as much as possible to include more weapons or shield generators. Then they whine about the lack of shield generators in the setting, or the lack of psionics, or the lack of something. But mainly people expect ships to act like the ones in Star Wars (the movies, I understand the books can be better about it), where even a fighter can cross the galaxy in a week or three, whereas I tend to like the ships in the Night's Dawn Trilogy (even a small ship is rather large, take a long time to cross interstellar distances, and use limited fuel for their reaction drives*). It's really difficult to get a realistic ship that most players will find fun, but if you can find a group who'll except the limited fuel it's rewarding.

Of course you should compromise, I allow more efficient fuels to allow longer periods of acceleration, but I'm trying to avoid having ships moving at relativistic speeds to avoid giving players more headaches (it takes weeks of acceleration to hit them with standard Traveller M-drives, but it's possible**).

* I mean the ships in the books are rarely low on fuel, but they seem to spend more time drifting then accelerating and tend to cross intrasystem distances with their FTL drives.
** I once tried to build a STL colony ship with the Traveller rules, I failed because I couldn't include enough fuel to power a M-1 drive for even a year.

EDIT: I've bought and read a lot of systems over the years trying to find out what's out there. Quite a few I liked, some I hated, some I've grown to like, others I've grown to dislike. But it's made me a lot better as a homebrewer then I was in the days when all I had played was D&D.

@2D8hp, yeah I get what you mean. 90% of the time I see someone going 'I want to hack D&D to do X' I find myself thinking of either a game or a homebrew that's already done that. I've been though it myself, trying to write a science fiction system when what I wanted was 90% Traveller and 10% houserules (the big one for my next setting being that hyperdrives use the 'Warp Drive' rules, drives in this universe are abbreviated R for Reaction or H for Hyper).

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll also add, that a designer should also read systems which they don't plan to run and don't even like much. Nearly every system (excluding FATAL) have some good points and/or interesting things about them.

I know that as I started designing my game (a swashbuckling space western) I picked up and read a LOT of different games, many of which aren't really my style to play at all. Especially those which people told me were similar to my ideas to see how they executed them.

Ex: I read Anima because someone mentioned that it had a class/point-buy hybrid (which is what I used in Space Dogs). Frankly - the system has a lot of interesting ideas, but it's too convoluted for me, and besides the class/point-buy hybrid it's not much like what I'm going for at all, but it was still definitely worth the read.

To go along with multiple bookshelves full of games and reference books, I have so many free PDFs and system preview PDFs and PDFs that I've purchased... and much of it to look for a system that does what I want... and then when I realized that doesn't exist, to gather up both good ideas and "don't ever do it that way" warnings.

Anyone setting out to create a system should learn how D&D/d20 works, how HERO works, how the old WoD system works, how something like the 4thEd L5R system works, how Fate works, how something quick and simple like Planet Mercenary (shameless plug) works, and anything else they can get their hands on. And for each, they should also learn how it doesn't work.

Then they should decide what they want the system to do, and why.

And from my experience, the goal should never be "mechanical innovation" for the sake of innovation. Different for the sake of different rarely accomplishes anything other than being different.

[BRC]

Okay, first I'm going to disagree with you, and then I'm going to try to be helpful.

Please let me be clear on this: I'm not saying "classes suck". I'm saying that "pick a class" and "create a unique concept" are two different styles that belong in different systems, and in the same system they just get in the way of each other. Surely, for the way most of us want to play, the logical character creation system would be classless. You choose some basic traits (hit die, spellcasting, proficiencies) and then you collect features as you level to build the character you envision.

Nope, I disagree with several premises.
1) The idea that a Class System means the Adventure is more important than the Characters, and that the Class System somehow prevents conceptually "Unique Characters". Not true. In my experience, a Player's investment into the character is more story based than mechanical. They want to play Roland, Dishonored Knight, with his 10 pages of backstory. They don't particularly care that Roland has some unique mechanical gimmicks when it comes to how he swings his sword around. Mechanically, Roland may look like countless other 6th level Fighters, but that doesn't mean he's not a Unique Character.

In fact, I would argue that a Class System can help with (Conceptually) Unique Characters. Class Systems are used because they're easy to comprehend. Heroic Fantasy is a genre built on archetypes anyway, and many people sit down at a table wanting to play some variant of an archetype their familiar with. "I like Assassin's Creed, so I want to be an Assassin" "I want to be a Swashbuckler, like Inigo Montoya" "I want to be a Barbarian, like Conan", ect ect. D&D's class system is designed to easily accommodate those common heroic fantasy archetypes (Although, I will admit they do struggle when going outside such archetypes).

Psychologically, Class systems can lead people down certain routes, certain classes are loaded with enough flavor that it can be difficult to build a character using that class that isn't some form of the example characters. A Knight with anger management issues who goes berserk in combat can use Barbarian stats. Still,that separation is largely psychological, rather than mechanical. A change in mindset, some refluffing, and the occasional houserule is usually enough to handle that.

For Example "Marco, the Spellblade Duelist of House Atello is a master swordsman who wields a Rapier and Magic in equal measure." Could be statted as an Eldritch Knight Fighter, a Blade Pact Warlock, a Multiclass Fighter/Sorceror, a Valor College Bard, some sort of weirdly refluffed Paladin, ect ect, and still be Marco, Spellblade Duelist of House Atello in all the ways the Player cares about.

2) The bit I have bolded.
The fact is, as you have noted, many Classless systems exist. Many Heroic Fantasy Classless Systems Exist, many people have no trouble creating "Unique Characters" within a system that uses Classes. People don't play D&D, handcuffed by the class system, because they have no other choice.

3) "Logically", a system should be functional and usable. Class Systems may be more restrictive, but they're easier to use, especially for new players. "Logically" a player might want to not have to read the entire system before they can build a straightforward "Dude who Hits Things With Swords". Especially when the concept of balance and character power comes in. A single-classed character (Usually) Guarantees at least basic competency in whatever gameplay style the system encourages (For D&D, it's heroic combat based fantasy). Many players want the mechanics handled, so they can get to handling who their characters ARE.



My point isn't to say you're Wrong, or that Class Systems are mechanically superior to classless ones. But, I do think you're underestimating the versatility of a class-system.

I'm a QA tester, professionally speaking. When talking about designing a piece of software we talk about the "90% Case", which is "How are 90% of users going to use this software", while at the same time acknowledging the 10% case.

I would say about 75% of D&D Players don't care about making their characters mechanically novel, either because they want to play an Archetype, or because they would rather focus on a novel Character than a novel stat sheet. Then, maybe 20% want to build mechanically novel characters, but have no trouble doing so within the existing class systems. Either Multiclassing and odd feat choice gets them where they want to go, or they actually enjoy the idea of extracting a unique character build from a restrictive system, and wouldn't get as much joy out of doing so in a free-form system where you can build, I dunno, a combat-juggler who throws exploding cabbages just as easily as you can build an archetypical fighter.
That leaves about 5% (IMO) of players who want to play characters that still fit within the realm of the game being played (They're not trying to play a space-alien with a laser gun or anything), but can't make the character work.


I guess what I'm saying is, don't ignore the 90% case. If you want to improve on the D&D class system, you should first have a good understanding of what it does well and where it struggles. Describing D&D as it exists as a video-game like system where characters are totally defined by their classes both underestimates how versatile the system is (It's not incredibly versatile, but it's far more so than "A fighter is a Fighter, a Wizard is a Wizard"), and implies a misunderstanding of how most players I've met approach building their characters.



So, with that said, let me point out some areas where the D&D Class System DOES restrict unique characters.

1) Mechanical Enforcement of Fluff: The Big Offenders here are Druids, Monks, Rangers, and Barbarians. Monks are always supposed to be semi-mystic Kung Fu Guy. While you can certainly build a Barbarian who is not Conan, you're mechanically encouraged to do so, right down to things that encourage you to wield a Greataxe over a Greatsword. Druids are the class for Shapeshifters, but ALSO need to be nature wizards. Rangers are the Fighter's Flashier Cousin, but are also encouraged/expected to be dex-based wilderness tracker types.
Mechanically, concepts like Shapeshifting, Flashy Combat Tricks (Like Whirlwind attack or Multishot), Unarmed Combat, and Rage don't necessarily need to be married to any particular piece of Fluff. You could have an arcane shapeshifter, a big, unarmed Brawler, The classic Dragonslaying Knight with heavy armor and a sword (Who wants Favored Enemy and Collussus Slayer), or even the classic Dual-Axe Berserker. All of which are mechanically discouraged (Not undoable, especially with refluffing, but mechanically discouraged) by the class system. You usually need to take extra Feats to make the build function as well as sticking to the class's fluff archetype.

2) Packaging unrelated features together into one class. Consider a Rogue, Rogues fight better with their allies (Sneak attack), and have access to a wide variety of Skills. These features don't need to sit in the same class. Consider, for example, a big, burly Master Blacksmith who fights with the swords he makes. In combat, he sounds like a Fighter, but if you want him to stand out as a Master Blacksmith (better than another party member who just took proficiency in blacksmith's tools), you would need to dip into Rogue or Bard for Expertise. This means that you're "Paying" a level for Rogue's stealth and sneak attack, or Bardic spellcasting, when all you really want is to be an especially good Blacksmith.

3) Mechanically Enforcing certain ability sets to go with certain skills.
The best class in D&D 5e for sustained magical blasting is the Warlock. If a player approached me and said "I want to play a spellcaster, but I don't want to deal with all the bookkeeping. I just want to shoot magic at people each round" I would point them at the Warlock.
But, Warlocks are Charisma Based. Which means that, mechanically speaking, the player is encouraged to focus on charisma-based skills. None of the Warlock's class features really benefit from Intelligence. So, if this player wants to play a sustained blaster mage, who is ALSO a learned Scholar of Arcane Lore, the game makes him pay through the nose. The "Learned Scholar of Arcane Lore' concept calls for a high intelligence, but the Warlock doesn't get any benefit from that. So, the Warlock is mechanically punished if they take a high Int, since while it enables their character concept, it costs them for relatively little benfit.

From the other direction, a well-built Warlock should have a high charisma. But, if somebody imagines their warlock as a creepy, antisocial Cultist type, that doesn't exactly fit. just by making mechanically sound choices, they could end up with a high Persuasion score, even if doing so doesn't fit their character concept.



As far as "Allowing for Unique Characters", HERO system is the Gold Standard. If you want to build a Classless D&D that really embraces the idea of letting players build what they want, you're going to have it look something like HERO system.

Consider a Paladin's Smite ability. Strip away all the fluff, and it's the ability to convert a spell slot to extra damage on a melee attack, at a rate of 1d10/level of the slot used. Figure out how much THAT is worth, and give anybody with both spell slots and swords a chance to take it. Whether they want it to be a manifestation of Divine Will, or a Sorceror running lightning through the blade, or a Druid reshaping a wooden staff mid-swing.

[Knaight]

In fact, I would argue that a Class System can help with (Conceptually) Unique Characters. Class Systems are used because they're easy to comprehend. Heroic Fantasy is a genre built on archetypes anyway, and many people sit down at a table wanting to play some variant of an archetype their familiar with. "I like Assassin's Creed, so I want to be an Assassin" "I want to be a Swashbuckler, like Inigo Montoya" "I want to be a Barbarian, like Conan", ect ect. D&D's class system is designed to easily accommodate those common heroic fantasy archetypes (Although, I will admit they do struggle when going outside such archetypes).

This right here? That was the point of the preamble to the original post - class systems are very good at codifying certain archetypes and making them mechanically interesting without paying the cost of system wide mechanical weight; they tend not to do well at supporting variety. It just highlighted the more negative aspects of the feature being changed.