Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2025, 09:07:04 PM

Quote from: Brad on January 17, 2025, 06:22:52 PMOthers have said this sort of stuff better, of course, but honestly it's a game. Classes enable more immediate play. Not to mention, "I'm putting a team together," is like the ultimate action movie trope. You gotta have the heavy weapons dude, the safe cracker, the mechanic, the face man, etc. Even the hyper-competent jack-of-all-trades is an archetype in the genre. So, yeah, class directly emulate fiction and make it easier to play the game more quickly.

That depends what fiction you're emulating. While all fiction has archetypes, I think some fiction doesn't easily lend itself to systematizing those archetypes as classes.

You mention safe cracker like in heist movies or the Mission: Impossible series. Those would do well with classes, but on the other hand, I think the James Bond 007 RPG fits well by not having classes, because there aren't those simple roles.

I do like some class-based systems, like Cyberpunk and Monster of the Week, for example - which match up well with their associated fiction.

On the other hand, I think Call of Cthulhu emulates Lovecraft's fiction well by not having classes. Also, Marvel Superheroes I think does well by not having classes to emulate it's fiction. There are some subsets of superheroic action that can work well with classes, but not a broad superheroic system.

I've preferred classless systems for my Tolkien games as well - I've been using Savage Worlds most recently. I don't think Tolkien's stories actually lend themselves to simple classes, despite some D&D classes being based on his characters. Nothing wrong with D&D, but D&D does not emulate Tolkien's fiction.

WEG Star Wars is essentially classless, but the template system forces an archetype, so it's the same in practice. Life path systems like in Runequest and Traveller also do the same thing, pretty much.

RE: D&D and Tolkien, BECMI is literally the best game ever for a LotR campaign...MERP is great, but if I use BECMI I can make the fellowship in thirty seconds.

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 18, 2025, 01:21:48 AMSomeone offers to run a quick D&D adventure.  You volunteer to play the Rogue / Thief.  Everyone with any experience, understands exactly what role you are going to fill.  Someone else volunteers to play a Priest / Cleric, etc. 

You don't need 640 pages of rules.  You can run a class based game, right off the top of your head,

This has nothing to do with classes or not. There have always been plenty of rules-heavy class-based games with hundreds of pages of rules, like AD&D, Rolemaster, etc. - as well as rules-light class-based games like the Basic Set and others.

There have also always been plenty of simple rules-light classless games like BRP, Ghostbusters, etc.

Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2025, 08:58:21 PMWEG Star Wars is essentially classless, but the template system forces an archetype, so it's the same in practice. Life path systems like in Runequest and Traveller also do the same thing, pretty much.

It's not the same in practice. In D6 or Runequest or Traveller, you don't have to know anything about what template or lifepath was used in order to play the character. A template is just a package of point spending - Shadowrun and even GURPS have templates as well. A BRP profession is a grouping of skills, but characters with the same profession in Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest can have zero overlap. Likewise, two characters can go into the same service in Traveller and end up with completely different skills.

Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2025, 08:58:21 PMRE: D&D and Tolkien, BECMI is literally the best game ever for a LotR campaign...MERP is great, but if I use BECMI I can make the fellowship in thirty seconds.

In BECMI, you can quickly roll up four 1st-level halflings, two 1st-level fighters, and a 1st-level magic user, dwarf, and elf. That clearly draws inspiration from Tolkien, but the question is, how well do those characters actually emulate the specific characters of Gandalf, Frodo, etc.?

In play, I don't think the characters or the rules emulate Tolkien's fiction very well. Similarly, I could try doing the Hobbit, and roll up a party of a 1st-level halfling and thirteen 1st-level dwarves, but those stats and the rules don't emulate the action very well.

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2025, 08:17:34 PMIt's not the same in practice. In D6 or Runequest or Traveller, you don't have to know anything about what template or lifepath was used in order to play the character. A template is just a package of point spending - Shadowrun and even GURPS have templates as well. A BRP profession is a grouping of skills, but characters with the same profession in Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest can have zero overlap. Likewise, two characters can go into the same service in Traveller and end up with completely different skills.

You literally don't have to know anything about how any D&D character was created, either. I don't understand what your point is, here. You give someone a SW character and say he's a smuggler, you give someone a D&D character and say he's a fighter. Are you claiming I cannot play a class-based system without knowing how the character was generated or what?

QuoteIn BECMI, you can quickly roll up four 1st-level halflings, two 1st-level fighters, and a 1st-level magic user, dwarf, and elf. That clearly draws inspiration from Tolkien, but the question is, how well do those characters actually emulate the specific characters of Gandalf, Frodo, etc.?

In play, I don't think the characters or the rules emulate Tolkien's fiction very well. Similarly, I could try doing the Hobbit, and roll up a party of a 1st-level halfling and thirteen 1st-level dwarves, but those stats and the rules don't emulate the action very well.

You can literally play that troupe and delve the Mines of Moria and fight the balrog. That's the entire point. "Emulating fiction" is stupid. I want to play a fucking hobbit who runs out of his house without a handkerchief, not "emulate fiction," and BECMI can do that with zero issues.

I think you're conflating some sort of modern notion of storytelling with RPGs; the game is paramount, the story is a product of play. You can't write a script and expect the PCs to just magically go along with it and pretend you're actually playing a game.

Quote from: Brad on January 20, 2025, 02:05:01 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2025, 08:17:34 PMIt's not the same in practice. In D6 or Runequest or Traveller, you don't have to know anything about what template or lifepath was used in order to play the character. A template is just a package of point spending - Shadowrun and even GURPS have templates as well. A BRP profession is a grouping of skills, but characters with the same profession in Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest can have zero overlap. Likewise, two characters can go into the same service in Traveller and end up with completely different skills.

You literally don't have to know anything about how any D&D character was created, either. I don't understand what your point is, here. You give someone a SW character and say he's a smuggler, you give someone a D&D character and say he's a fighter. Are you claiming I cannot play a class-based system without knowing how the character was generated or what?

Yes. In D&D, class is mechanically important after character creation - because the class defines how you advance with XP.

You write in THAC0 and saving throws for the character to avoid looking up based on class, but you need to know what class you are to determine when you level up and what happens then.

If the only benefit of classes were the mechanical balancing benefits, that would be enough. 
Classes let players that want to kind of min/max do so within good limits, and if you find something that's busted at your table you can fix it at the class level for the next campaign.  It's easy to add an additional class either to flesh out your world or deliver exactly what a player wants.  It's the correct and way to handle anything that's going to matter from a mechanical perspective, and it keeps all the relevant rules in one bundle. 

Everything that crosses class lines in any version- from feats to the myraid little buttons and doodads in 4e and 3e to the spells in all versions- runs into balance issues that vary from worldshattering to "this is too good everyone in your world would use a spiked chain".

But balance isn't even the main reason I like classes.  The main reason I like classes is that it allows for the meaningful welding of story and mechanics, which is the main draw of having any rules at all for me.  It also allows for bright archetypes that stick out for your players and even in some cases NPCs.  Those are the top merits of class systems. 

I'm totally uninterested in classless RPGs as a DM or player, and frankly, even video games without classes are unappealing to me.  "You can build everything from common skills" is total anathema to me, I won't even touch it.

Quote from: Venka on January 20, 2025, 03:03:29 PMThe main reason I like classes is that it allows for the meaningful welding of story and mechanics, which is the main draw of having any rules at all for me.  It also allows for bright archetypes that stick out for your players and even in some cases NPCs.  Those are the top merits of class systems.

I can understand this logic -- in class-based systems, the rules have more input into who the PCs are. Who the PCs are - especially their archetypes - is an important part of the game.

But that doesn't always mean that I want that predefined. It's like having a pre-made setting built into the rules or pre-made adventures. Sometimes I want to just use what is offered, but sometimes I want to create my own in a do-it-yourself (DIY) spirit.

Creating distinctive and archetypal characters is interesting to me, much like setting creation and adventure creation. I run a lot of one-shot convention games, and creating a good set of pregen PCs is something I get into. In my last Savage Middle Earth adventure, there were ten pregen characters who were all dwarves. I enjoyed writing up the contrast of the bodyguard vs the two-fisted tavern-keeper, for example.

Classes are fantastic for lazy MFs who can't muster the energy to buy groceries and prepare a meal.

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 23, 2025, 09:25:10 PMClasses are fantastic for lazy MFs who can't muster the energy to buy groceries and prepare a meal.

That's a ridiculous angle. One could just as easily argue classes are for non-obese people with who don't have hours to min-max a parlor game in a smelly game store. Let's leave broad insults out of it.

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on January 24, 2025, 08:34:28 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 23, 2025, 09:25:10 PMClasses are fantastic for lazy MFs who can't muster the energy to buy groceries and prepare a meal.

That's a ridiculous angle. One could just as easily argue classes are for non-obese people with who don't have hours to min-max a parlor game in a smelly game store. Let's leave broad insults out of it.

Well, he's being somewhat hyperbolic, but it IS true class-based games are infinitely easier to get people who don't have the inclination to do a bunch of math and make a bunch of decisions playing. This isn't an insult; I know plenty of people who are casual RPG fans who just want to basically "pick a piece" and play the game, they don't want to go through 52390458923408 options. The same kind of people who are more than willing to play a boardgame as long as you keep track of the rules so they don't have to memorize a ton of shit.

State-of-the-art discrimination!

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 18, 2025, 01:21:48 AMSomeone offers to run a quick D&D adventure.  You volunteer to play the Rogue / Thief.  Everyone with any experience, understands exactly what role you are going to fill.  Someone else volunteers to play a Priest / Cleric, etc. 

You don't need 640 pages of rules.  You can run a class based game, right off the top of your head,

Just like in a classless system. It turns out that the words we use to refer to party roles communicate information equally well in any context.

Hilarious that you're using D&D as an example of a game with a small amount of rules btw.

Quote from: Brad on January 24, 2025, 08:47:24 AM

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on January 24, 2025, 08:34:28 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 23, 2025, 09:25:10 PMClasses are fantastic for lazy MFs who can't muster the energy to buy groceries and prepare a meal.

That's a ridiculous angle. One could just as easily argue classes are for non-obese people with who don't have hours to min-max a parlor game in a smelly game store. Let's leave broad insults out of it.

Well, he's being somewhat hyperbolic, but it IS true class-based games are infinitely easier to get people who don't have the inclination to do a bunch of math and make a bunch of decisions playing. This isn't an insult; I know plenty of people who are casual RPG fans who just want to basically "pick a piece" and play the game, they don't want to go through 52390458923408 options. The same kind of people who are more than willing to play a boardgame as long as you keep track of the rules so they don't have to memorize a ton of shit.

Classless systems are better if you hate math. D&D is probably the worst possible system for introducing new players. They're also better for "pick a piece" players. They can just describe the sort of hero they want, and I can have a sheet ready for them in under five minutes. They don't even need to read the rules.

Quote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:26:30 AMClassless systems are better if you hate math. D&D is probably the worst possible system for introducing new players.

It depends. Which version of D&D are we talking about? IF it's 5e, then I would agree. B/X is probably the easiest for someone to introduce new players, at least from my experience.

Also I disagree with "Classless systems are better if you hate math". I found there is much more number crunching in a classless system than ones with classes.

I also find most of your comments are made just to be a contrarian and to be edgy.

Quote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:26:30 AMClassless systems are better if you hate math. D&D is probably the worst possible system for introducing new players. They're also better for "pick a piece" players. They can just describe the sort of hero they want, and I can have a sheet ready for them in under five minutes. They don't even need to read the rules.

And you're at every table making characters and interpreting the rules for every player in every group? You're equating a product + service to a product, and that's hardly a fair comparison. However, if you want to compare, then there are FAR more D&D-based character building guides online than for classless games.

oh.my.god.

I agree with HappyDaze on something.

See what happens when you sperate politics from the gaming table?

Quote from: blackstone on February 04, 2025, 09:04:05 AM

Quote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:26:30 AM

Quote from: Brad on January 24, 2025, 08:47:24 AMWell, he's being somewhat hyperbolic, but it IS true class-based games are infinitely easier to get people who don't have the inclination to do a bunch of math and make a bunch of decisions playing. This isn't an insult; I know plenty of people who are casual RPG fans who just want to basically "pick a piece" and play the game, they don't want to go through 52390458923408 options.

Classless systems are better if you hate math. D&D is probably the worst possible system for introducing new players. They're also better for "pick a piece" players. They can just describe the sort of hero they want, and I can have a sheet ready for them in under five minutes. They don't even need to read the rules.

It depends. Which version of D&D are we talking about? IF it's 5e, then I would agree. B/X is probably the easiest for someone to introduce new players, at least from my experience.

Also I disagree with "Classless systems are better if you hate math". I found there is much more number crunching in a classless system than ones with classes.

Both class-based systems and classless systems can have math. To illustrate, here is a snippet from "EXAMPLE OF CREATING A PLAYER CHARACTER" from the 1981 D&D Basic Set.

Quote10. For gold, the player rolls an 11 on 3d6, then multiplies by 10, which gives the character 110 gold pieces (gp) with which to buy equipment. 110 gp is recorded under MONEY on the back of the character sheet.

11. The player decides on the following equipment: chain mail armor (40 gp), a shield (10 gp), a sword (10 gp), a short bow (25 gp), a quiver of 20 arrows (5 gp), 1 silver-tipped arrow (5 gp), a 50' rope (1 gp), a 10' pole (1 gp), 12 iron spikes (1gp), 6 torches (1 gp), 1 week's standard rations (5 gp), a large sack (2 gp), 1 quart of wine (1 gp), and a wine skin (1 gp). The player would have liked to have purchased plate mail armor, but to do so would have meant giving up a bow. The equipment is listed on the back of the character sheet. Since 108 gp were spent, the "110" is erased from under MONEY, and replaces with a "2".

That's a significant amount of math, I'd claim.

For comparison, in the Ghostbusters RPG, you have to distribute 12 points between the four attributes Brains, Muscles, Moves, or Cool. That's simpler. And equipment is easier - just grab whatever cards you want from the equipment card pile. The options are limited, but you can have whatever is available.

Class-based games can be very simple, but so can classless.

If you really want simple character creation, then for any system the easiest is just to have a bunch of pregen characters. Then the player just picks which pregen they want - like in Marvel Superheroes, Shadowrun, or many other RPGs. If you want players to just pick an archetype and use it, then this is the way to go.