This originally comes from the "Class-Based Generic Games" thread, but I wanted some feedback on the concepts found in it. The basic idea is to make a universal system which, rather than being skill-based, defines characters by class levels, of which they are expected (but not obligated) to take more than one.

QuoteSoldier
Core Ability: Sharpshoot: Spend 1 Action Point: Re-roll a ranged attack check; take the higher result.
Primary Abilities: Firearms, Athletics
Secondary Abilities: Close Combat, Throwing, Tactics
Class Foci:
Sniper: +2 to Sniper Rifles, Ignore 1 level of cover with Firearms
Grenadier: +2 to Grenade Throwing, +5 Effective Range with Grenades
Heavy Weapons: +2 to Heavy Weapons
Medic: +2 Paramedics

QuoteSorceror
Core Ability: Channel Bloodline: Spend 1 Action Point: Regain a use of a Lineage power.
Primary Abilities: Concentration
Secondary Abilities: Occult, Presence
Class Foci:
Dragon-Blooded: Access to Draconic spell list.
Faerie-Blooded: Access to Fae spell list.
Angel-Blooded:Access to Angelic spell list.
Chaos-Blooded: Access to Chaotic spell list.

For the purposes of this example, the system is roll vs. DC 1d20. "Skill" here means something that you get to add your level to; "Primary" means you add your whole level, and "Secondary" means you add half of it. Ability scores generate the rest of your numbers (HP and such). You get an action point that regenerates when you have time take a rest, and you get to pick one focus when you take the class.
The idea is that there would be a fairly extensive list of these in the core book, with specialized one by setting; the specialized ones would use the logic of prestige classes and represent culturally-peculiar professions and institutions.

Any thoughts?

You're more than halfway to a career system like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Quote from: Gordon Horne;337865You're more than halfway to a career system like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

True, but that's not the purpose. A career system generates a set of skills, whereas here I'm experimenting with avoiding skills altogether.

I probably brought this up in the other thread, but your examples are almost entirely dependent on skills.  You even list the skills in the 'class' description.

Quote from: The Worid;336916This originally comes from the "Class-Based Generic Games" thread, but I wanted some feedback on the concepts found in it. The basic idea is to make a universal system which, rather than being skill-based, defines characters by class levels, of which they are expected (but not obligated) to take more than one.

Have you seen D20 Modern by WotC?  It's fairly close to what you are describing.  Just remove the skill system and use feats and talents.

Here is the MSRD from WotC.

Here is a hyperlinked MSRD.

Quote from: StormBringer;339411I probably brought this up in the other thread, but your examples are almost entirely dependent on skills.  You even list the skills in the 'class' description.

True, but (and I should have clarified this) "skill" here is meant in the common usage, where it means "something you can do", and does not here imply the existence of a skill list. I'll edit it to say "Abilities" to avoid confusion. However, point taken; it is terribly hard to avoid using skill lists. I know that you've largely opposed the idea (no offense intended), but do you have any thoughts on how it might be accomplished?

Quote from: Drohem;339415Have you seen D20 Modern by WotC?  It's fairly close to what you are describing.  Just remove the skill system and use feats and talents.

Thanks, but I already own a copy. I'm taking it into consideration, but not sure that I want to use classes the way it does.

Quote from: The Worid;339811True, but (and I should have clarified this) "skill" here is meant in the common usage, where it means "something you can do", and does not here imply the existence of a skill list. I'll edit it to say "Abilities" to avoid confusion. However, point taken; it is terribly hard to avoid using skill lists. I know that you've largely opposed the idea (no offense intended), but do you have any thoughts on how it might be accomplished?

'Abilities' is better for avoiding the terminology.

I'm not dead-set opposed to using skills or skill lists, so no offence taken.  It just depends on what you are trying to write.  For a modern or future game, skills are all but unavoidable.  A person's identity has become increasingly predicated on what they know, rather than what they do.  In earlier times, there was little separation between what one did and who they were.

It's not impossible to avoid skills or skill lists, but it can be tricky.  For starters, you will need to make a list of basic class-defining skills anyway, but they will be obscured behind the class description.  Secondly, they would have to be unique to a particular class.  Magic use, for example, could be seen as a specific skill, or each spell could be a separate skill anyone could learn.  So, you shroud that by simply defining a class as 'magic users', which no one else can do.  

Behind the scenes, you can calculate how frequently or to what degree that would increase and balance that against the guy that climbs walls, or the other one who uses a different kind of magic.  As you mentioned earlier,  use those to silo a class and call it an 'ability' inherent to that class, which no one else has access to.  To keep things simple, probably one or two such 'pseudo-skills' would be sufficient for any given class, depending on how broad.  Essentially, magic users have just the one schtick:  magic.  Clerics can cast magic, fight pretty well, and turn undead.  At the core, a magic-user/fighter with an extra gimmick.  Thieves have a rather more obvious list of skills, but that is really all they can do.  Backstabbing is nice, but it comes up rather rarely.  Fighters, of course, can use any weapon or armour they lay their hands on (a benefit that is greatly lessened if you don't use weapon vs AC charts, by the way), so they aren't 'paying' for a ton of weapon 'skills'.  

Additionally, this allows room for a minor sort of skill system to be put into play as well.  Rather more like 'feats', the skills can now provide some minor bonuses that can be improved as desired.  While the fighter increases their skill with weapons through use, you can have a 'sword master' skill that would grant a +1 bonus for each point they spent on it, perhaps only available to fighting types.  Everyone else would have to buy the basic ability with a weapon, and could only buy additional bonuses once every couple of levels or so.  It allows a player to customize their character a bit more than just multi-classing, and does away with weapon or spell specialization, as they would simply put points into whatever area they felt was lacking, or to give them a greater edge.  Thieves might buy points in 'stealth' to help them with hiding and moving silently, wizards might dump points into potion making or spell crafting, and so on.  Skills that probably wouldn't be available to other classes, or if they were, would only provide marginal benefit or shore up some weaknesses of the character.

My examples are rife with fantasy tropes, I know, but I think most people would have a difficult time with a class-based system if it was more recent than the 20s and 30s pulp genre.  Even then, it is kind of pushing it.  If you are determined, however, replace 'fighter' with 'soldier', 'thief' with 'rouge/scoundrel', 'wizard' with 'academic/techie'.  Clerics are tricky; they could be the face of the party, or the leader with carefully laid plans.  Straight medic would work, also.

I'm pretty sure you can't really write a game without some kind of skill list in mind, it's just in how you obfuscate that when creating classes.

Quite a lot of insight. I think the the best part about class systems is how well they do niche protection: only rogues gets to scale sheer surfaces, so it pays to have someone playing one. Moreover, they tend to handle concepts such as "spell level" a bit better, because skill-based systems tend to be based on a bonus to checks, rather than granting higher planes of ability (which can be worked around with feats, of course). However, I'm coming to the point where I agree with you: I'm not sure that a generic class system is worthwhile, because although one could do it, it wouldn't do much a skill system couldn't. However, the entire exercise has set me in the direction of considering an entirely different sort of game, based heavily on a feat-variety rules construct (sort of a halfway point between classes and skills), so it hasn't been a waste of time.

If a class is just a collection of skills, and you can choose any class whenever you want, why have class at all? Just have the skills by themselves.

If skills are restricted by class, then why have skills at all? Just have the class, with a list of what each class can do.

Another viewpoint is that if you have a short enough skill list, those skills are effectively character classes. If "Melee" is just the title for a list of Sword, Mace, Punching, Kicking, Knife, Staff, etc, fair enough. But if "Melee" is a single skill, with Sword, Mace, etc all under it, then it is effectively "Meleeist" as a class.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;340757If a class is just a collection of skills, and you can choose any class whenever you want, why have class at all? Just have the skills by themselves.

If skills are restricted by class, then why have skills at all? Just have the class, with a list of what each class can do.

Another viewpoint is that if you have a short enough skill list, those skills are effectively character classes. If "Melee" is just the title for a list of Sword, Mace, Punching, Kicking, Knife, Staff, etc, fair enough. But if "Melee" is a single skill, with Sword, Mace, etc all under it, then it is effectively "Meleeist" as a class.

Ya know what, Kyle?  You can stop condensing my brilliance into bite sized pieces.