In one discussion elsewhere, I've met with a feeling, that D&D is just one of many Class-and-level games and it is nothing exceptional. I don't know many other C'n'L games except for few obvious D&D clones.
So my question is, how common C'n'L design actually is? What are the other popular C'n'L games out there and what are the differences between them? I've often had an impression, that skill-based usually point-buy is much prolific design lately.
How obvious is obvious?
Off the top of my head, Dragonquest uses an interesting mix of class/level with skill. You buy levels in a profession using XP, but weapons skills are bought entirely separately and invidually. As well, it's pretty easy to have multiple professions. Characteristics can also be bought up IIRC--you don't automatically gain HP when you "go up a level". So it's almost more like a skill-based game in which most skills outside of combat are bought in "clusters", which are the Professions.
Talislanta, at least up to 2e, was mostly class/level-based in that you gained HP by going up levels, and you also increased all your skills at a constant rate when you went up a level. But at character creation you would add a few skills to your base set, and during play you had the option of adding/increasing individual skills by spending XP. (There was a limit on the number of "additional" skills, though, I think.)
Well, it's extremely rare, when you think about it, at leasts in the modern sense. The only ones I can think of is the Palladium series. (I'm sure someone will point out some others..)
But this weird rarity is only if you look at tabletop.
I've always thought this was strange, the way most professionally designed games avoid class and level like the plague. If the most successful competitor is doing one thing-all other values aside, and everyone else is consciously avoiding it, doesn't it seem likely that perhaps the one thing is a factor in why it is so successful? Also, doesn't it also stand to reason that if the most successful MMO's also use this one 'design feature' and manage to pick up huge support, wouldn't it also be sort of a proof of concept?
But no. Most people outside the mainstream reject class and level, and some even characterize it as being "primitive".
If you were to look at the most popular MMORPG's, the ones with millions of players?
All of them class and level. (Almost) every last one of them. And not d20 derived. World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, GuildWars, Lineage, Everquest, etc etc. all share this class and level feature.
Quote from: Elliot WilenHow obvious is obvious?
Well, I mean direct clones. Like we have got a game here, which is just like translated Basic D&D with different name and two renamed races and such and one new class (Alchemist). I mean, that is obvious. Other than that... it is not obvious :p Really, this is not about definitions, just common sense meaning.
For the rest - yeah, thanks for directions. I will definitely check both Dragonquest and Talislanta, I am really curious what are the possiblities.
Thanks also to Abyssal Maw... yeah I am also bit surprised by this avoidance od CnL, it seems to me, it is more a fashion or attempt to do it differently.
BTW, I'm pretty sure Tal 4e/5e went entirely skill-based, though still using "archetypes" during character creation.
I can think of other examples but they're obscure antiques. Like High Fantasy, or (IIRC) Ysgarth 3e.
What about T&T? Rolemaster?
AM, the thing is that D&D is pretty generic, and even moreso if you include D20/OGL. So if I wanted to do a C&L game, I'd need to find a way to differentiate it from D&D. Otherwise, why should someone buy my game, when D&D already does the C&L thing very well, has an established userbase (equals: it's easy to find players), and a built-in "penumbra" of flexibility through OGL? That's the problem I see with C&L from a marketing perspective. From the perspective of designing your own game, though, it's fine, as a zillion happy homebrews attest.
The one place I think you could market C&L without competing directly with D&D would be to tie it to a specific, very funky setting, more or less as was the case with Talislanta. If the "vision" for the setting is far enough from D&D, then building a system from the ground up starts to make more sense than starting with OGL and hacking out the parts that don't fit.
About computer games including MMOs: these just don't have to deal with the same issues as tabletop in terms of finding other players.
So basically we do have C&L games for each major genre, and maybe what's there is all that the market can really support. Superhero: Silver Age Sentinels & M&M. Spy: Spycraft. SF: T20 and D20 Future, plus Star Wars Saga. Etc.
Licensed games are a completely different story, though. Something that should probably be considered separately. Do you think that, say, the exclusive licenseholder of a Star Trek game should use C&L? Then what aspects of C&L are you talking about, exactly? Because C&L in AD&D 1e is a lot different from implementations with easy multiclassing, skill/feat options every level, no HP gain or BAB gain per level, etc.
Rolemaster certainly has classes and levels. As does Earthdawn, although they are called circles.
My system uses them but not in the DND way.
Bill
Quote from: One Horse TownAs does Earthdawn, although they are called circles.
You stole my post!
Are people still playing ED?
I've always thought it would have been a more successful ruleset if it weren't so fucking married to its setting.
Yeah, Bill, I thought the same thing when I read the OP - Iridium!
There's classes, but not in the way most people thing about them like D&D. There's levels, but not really in the way most people think of it.
So it's a strange thing. I'd bet that D&D is relatively unique in the strictness of class and level advancement: the implementation. But, in the more general sense, I think the concepts permeate quite a bit.
But you guys sure know your shit about games...man...I regret the years I took off...
I'd say that in the early days, designs like RQ and possibly Traveller were seeking to model a reality more closely. Classes, ultimately, can't be reconciled with the way people are (or even characters in books), and that's a concern if you want to represent a naturalistic universe.
Another one that I think qualifies: WRFP. I don't know the details, but the careers system (in both editions) sounds class-like, although it has some sort of multiclassing. In fact it sounds sort of like an ongoing lifepath system.
In general that might really be the most naturalistic approach of all, since both point-based and experience-check/training-based allow too much concentration on specific skills instead of looking at what a person is doing with their whole life.
Quote from: droogI'd say that in the early days, designs like RQ and possibly Traveller were seeking to model a reality more closely. Classes, ultimately, can't be reconciled with the way people are (or even characters in books), and that's a concern if you want to represent a naturalistic universe.
I disagree. I will say, DND like classes have a rough if not impossible time of it but classes and levels can be quite useful in reflecting profession and progression if not done overly restrictive.
Bill
Quote from: Elliot WilenIn general that might really be the most naturalistic approach of all, since both point-based and experience-check/training-based allow too much concentration on specific skills instead of looking at what a person is doing with their whole life.
Which also drives design in the direction of eg Over the Edge, Risus, HeroQuest, where broad groups of skills are understood and subsumed under loosely-defined words or phrases. A sort of return to the idea of archetypes represented by classes, but a looser implementation.
Savage Worlds has levels, but no classes. Although, you can take class-like Advantages. Cyberpunk 2020 has classes, but they are pretty loose. No levels though.
Quote from: droogI'd say that in the early days, designs like RQ and possibly Traveller were seeking to model a reality more closely. Classes, ultimately, can't be reconciled with the way people are (or even characters in books), and that's a concern if you want to represent a naturalistic universe.
I'd have to agree at least with the D&D C&L implementation. They can be very good when tailored to a setting but are very hard to use to emulate other settings, characters or the way people are. Compare Classic Traveller skill based stating of characters from movies and literature. Yet pure skill based systems as in Classic Travller suffer, IMHO, from lack of a dynamic character progression mechanic.
C&L can also make it easy to balance a character progression mechanic if you don't have too many of them. They can, however, feel restrictive to players. The funny thing is, the current number of D&D classes far exceeds the number of skills in most skill based systems, which to me seems to chuck the benefits but retain all the flaws.
A really lite class & skill approach might be The Fantasy Trip (two classes Wizard and everyone else).
Emphasis: TFT is class & skill, not class & level. You spend XP to increase your stats in 1-point increments; one of your stats is IQ, which is the number of "slots" you have for spells/skills. Spells use 1 slot each for wizards; skills use variable # of slots for heroes. Heroes can take spells (but they use 3 slots); wizards can take skills (but they use...double (?) the number of slots...except for Dagger).
Character creation is the same two-layered approach: you choose wizard or hero, then you allocate 32 points to your three stats (ST, DX, IQ, minimum 8 each). Then you select spells/skills to fill your IQ slots.
HP don't increase "per level"--they go up with ST. Combat skill doesn't go up "per level"--it goes up with DX. If you have a skill/spell, you generally roll against DX to use it--there's no independent skill level.
It's really pretty far outside the C&L paradigm yet it avoids the complications of the usual skill-based approaches.