Quote from: rawma;841792So I care about niche protection so that a player doesn't feel their archer character is worthless because the mages can sling better damage with their cantrips

This doesn't really sound like a situation present in an OSR system.  The ones that even do have 0th level spells usually have things like no damaging ones or maybe a wimpy ray of frost that deals 1d3 or something while the bow does 1d6.  And usually the cantrips that do exist in OSR games are not unlimited.

What you are saying sounds more like niche protection concerns for a game of Pathfinder.

QuoteIt does help to have lots of archetypes or skills or colleges of magic or deities or whatever so that every player has a good chance of being a little bit better than the rest of the party at something

This is the part of niche protection I don't really have any interest in.  I'm not really interested in games where people sitting down to play have a good chance of having a character that is a little bit better at something than anyone else sitting down there already.  If you join, you start at 1st/0th level like everyone else did.  Want to be a little better than the rest of the party at something?  You better survive and make smart player choices and get there.  And you may need to accept that you'll never catch up or out shine the veterans.  Or maybe when a veteran warrior sacrifices his life so the rest of the party can escape certain death you'll learn what shining really is about.

This may putting it too strongly, but if someone's fun is contingent on being special in comparison with other players, there's something wrong with their approach to RPGs.  The Referee is going to describe some pretty dangerous situations and the players should be focused on surviving and thriving in that environment rather than having a special snowflake contest every time there's a fight.

Quote from: AsenRG;841407And let's not forget, Conan reads ancient scripts and performs a ritual that chases away an ensorcelled pursuer...

It would be easier to just assume that ANYONE could have read that ritual.  Because clearly Conan never went to magic school.

QuoteWhen the big three (Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser and Conan) examples of genre characters are outside the limits of a class system, it's time for a classless one.

None of those are outside the limits of a class system.

QuoteGandalf is consistently described as a human, so elf is right out.

Actually, Gandalf is canonically an angel.  Or the Middle-Earth equivalent of one, in any case.

QuoteWith barbarian rages, Read ancient script, Perform Rituals with impromptu tools and being sneakier than a thief, and able to kill a major enemy with a knife, as long as you can get surprise, which suggests a sneak attack mechanic?
You honestly think the Barbarian class covers that?

Barbarian rages is purely roleplay.  Read ancient script entirely depends on what languages you know; all this shows it that Conan is probably a high-INT barbarian.  Perform rituals is probably something any character could have done in that case, just like there are magical books that it's implied any character could read, in AD&D 1e.  
And everyone get's a sneak attack in D&D: it's +2 against unaware opponents, usually.  Between that and surprise, and a STR bonus, it wouldn't be surprising that Conan could kill a major enemy. Of course, if we're talking DCC instead of D&D, it could also be a Mighty Deed.

QuoteI don't think in mechanics, I think in character abilities. Way too often, you can't get those with a starting character, because the designer had a different idea about the class. So you need a variant class, thus, class proliferation.
Not a problem with classless systems for obvious reasons.

No, classless systems have WAY worse problems than "I can't be exactly the special snowflake I envision from the start".  Like the potential for min-maxing abuse, longer character-creation times from a glut of options and beancounting point-expenditure processes, and having melange characters that end up looking like nothing and symbolizing nothing.

QuoteWhat's the bonus of classes we're throwing out? If people are still playing archetypal characters, it's not that!

People in classless systems are often not playing Archetypal characters.  That quickly becomes the exception rather than the rule as soon as players find out that by turning their character into some kind of nonsensical jack-of-all/no-trades, they can game the system.  

So besides archetypes, which are SUPER-important for a number of reasons (how quickly newer players understand what they're supposed to be, for one, but also for symbolic reasons of tapping into concepts bigger than yourself), there's also all of the above: it avoids delays in character creation,  confusion, and player abuse of the system. In games with classes, you worry about Class, not about mechanics.  Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever; classless games will have people thinking less about who their character is in the world, and more about what's the best stuff to start with.

RPGPundit, I'll show you enough respect to not answer that post. Because I would need to disagree with almost every statement in it, and honest, I'm sure you also have better things to do with your time. I'm sure busy reading a new setting that I'm already running.

To everyone who recommended 5e, thank you, but it really isn't what I'm looking for, combat system-wise. And since it's a thread for classless OSR and not how to loosen up 5e's class system,  no need to give more 5e examples, is there?

Nathan, I agree with your point that D&D doesn't map to any piece of literature except those it spawned itself.
I disagree that this isn't a problem. New players, or at least those that I've found most likely to be interested at all in RPGs these days, are often using literary characters as their archetype examples. Thus, a classless take on it is quite desirable for gaining new players.
I'd much rather ditch D&D for another system than go with a D&D that doesn't fit my needs. Don't know why it's so hard to get for some people in this thread, but it sure seems to be. So I'm stating it clearly: the choice isn't between D&D with or without classes. It's between a classless option and me and my groups, versus a class-purist D&D without me and my players.

My point about using D&D as a grand framework for literature is about only one way being a problem.  When people start seeing class, alignment, level, D&D magic as the way to talk about literature.  As if D&D is more than a game but some grand literary criticism tool.  

I disagree with the Pundits assertion that non-archetypal play suddenly becomes the norm and all players try to figure out the strongest possible combination of character elements.  I think only a small subset of RPGers would immediately try to figure out the best possible combination.  Most would want to play what sounds cool to them.  What grabs them.

As well, there's one very, very simple way to totally prevent Pundit's concerns from happening that is very much in keeping with OSR sensibilities.

Make it random.  Stats 3d6 in order.  Roll twice on this chart to see what your character is good at (reroll duplicate results).  Start playing.

Myra Cartwright  AC 10 [9] HP 5
STR 11 DEX 7 (-1) CON 12 INT 7 (-1) WIS 9 CHA 12
Skulduggery
Athletics

Good luck in the underworld Myra!  You may be The Rebel and The Explorer in terms of archetypes, but you lack a bit in the way of natural talent.

Aldwin Brathe AC 9 [10] HP 2 SP 4
STR 11 DEX 10 CON 8 (-1) INT 10 WIS 7 (-1) CHA 7 (-1)
Folk Magic
Interaction

Good luck in the underworld Aldwin!  You're The Shaman.  With 2 HP be careful of dangerous creatures!  

Iago Montera AC 8 [11] HP 5 SP 3
STR 11 DEX 13 (+1) CON 11 INT 5 (-1) WIS 15 (+1) CHA 11
+1 attack & damage
Divine Blessing

Good luck in the underworld Iago!  You're The Hero.  Do what you can and trust your gods.

I have only read the original question and RPGPundit's last post and your response, but you could take a look at The Fantasy Trip, and/or the current Dark City Games clone.

It's a circa-1980 design (and out of print, but findable) which is classless but is only not still my favorite system because I'm a simulationist detail freak and we wanted more detail and realism after a few years' play. I have played it recently with house rules, and it actually stood up quite well. There's still a small Internet forum of people who continue to play TFT and prefer it over everything.

It does not satisfy your requests for D&D mechanics, as it does not use levels and armor reduces the damage of each blow but doesn't make you harder to hit. It also uses hex-based tactical combat, and hit points stay in a low range, so if you want to tank, you need heavy armor and/or magic protection to usually keep you from getting injured, not a pile of hitpoints.

It is a simple point-buy system. Three attributes to spread points between (ST, DX, IQ), choose to be a wizard or not, race, gender, and then you can pick spells or talents to learn with your 8-16 IQ points. Enough experience lets you add a point to an attribute.

I can pick the stats of a non-wizard character from rules memory in well under a minute, and maybe another minute to write it down, e.g.:

Zog the Orc, Male
ST 11 DX 12 IQ 9
Talents: Ax/Maxe Shield Swimming Climbing Orcish Human
Smallaxe 1d+2
Large Shield (stops 2 damage, -1DX)
Cloth Armor (stops 1 damage, -1DX)
Dagger 1d-1

So, it doesn't suffer from RPGPundit's problem of taking long to make a character, and I don't find that there is much/any problem with munchkin minimax designs, as the most effective designs tend to work because they make sense anyway, and there isn't a lot to be done that would be weird and effective. The only example of that I can think of are ninja halflings with throwing stars (which are an optional rule anyway), but that's easily disallowed by not having the halfling ranged weapon bonus stack with throwing talent, or other simple tweaks (including just having halflings stay in character and not have throwing stars).

Being a classless system, yes it's possible to make non-archetypal characters, and weird characters. Or you can choose characters that make sense, including being archetypal, if you want that. I always felt this was an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Only a fairly small number of talents can be taken and they are pretty basic, so it doesn't tend to confuse people or make things very weird unless you're trying or the player is particularly confused. I tend to find D&D-style classes and their abilities much less natural, myself, though of course it's not what I usually play.

Quote from: Skarg;842174I have only read the original question and RPGPundit's last post and your response, but you could take a look at The Fantasy Trip, and/or the current Dark City Games clone.

I just went acd downloaded the DCG clones.  The sci-fi one looks very functional without that much of a departure from the fantasy version.  I also grabbed all the sample modules.  Thanks for letting me know about Dark City Games.

QuoteIt does not satisfy your requests for D&D mechanics, as it does not use levels and armor reduces the damage of each blow but doesn't make you harder to hit. It also uses hex-based tactical combat, and hit points stay in a low range, so if you want to tank, you need heavy armor and/or magic protection to usually keep you from getting injured, not a pile of hitpoints.

As a huge BRP/d100/Call of Cthulhu fan I'm okay with all those things, even if it's not what the original poster was talking about.

QuoteThree attributes to spread points between (ST, DX, IQ)

. Despite having the classic six ability scores in my examples above, the game I'm actually running uses STR, DEX, MIND from Microlite74 so that's pretty much the same thing as ST, DX, IN.  I find it's enough to have three stats.  I also do a talk about your character thing and basically you get +1, 0, 0 to place in the three stats.  If during the course of the three minute conversation the player actually ddescribes their ccharacter as dumb, weak, clumsy, etc., then the appropriate stat gets a -1 and another stat gets a further +1.  I don't actually use the normal 3-18 scores in the game, just a -1 through +2 modifier.

Quote from: NathanIW;842157My point about using D&D as a grand framework for literature is about only one way being a problem.  When people start seeing class, alignment, level, D&D magic as the way to talk about literature.  As if D&D is more than a game but some grand literary criticism tool.  

I disagree with the Pundits assertion that non-archetypal play suddenly becomes the norm and all players try to figure out the strongest possible combination of character elements.  I think only a small subset of RPGers would immediately try to figure out the best possible combination.  Most would want to play what sounds cool to them.  What grabs them.

As well, there's one very, very simple way to totally prevent Pundit's concerns from happening that is very much in keeping with OSR sensibilities.

Make it random.  Stats 3d6 in order.  Roll twice on this chart to see what your character is good at (reroll duplicate results).  Start playing.

Myra Cartwright  AC 10 [9] HP 5
STR 11 DEX 7 (-1) CON 12 INT 7 (-1) WIS 9 CHA 12
Skulduggery
Athletics

Good luck in the underworld Myra!  You may be The Rebel and The Explorer in terms of archetypes, but you lack a bit in the way of natural talent.

Aldwin Brathe AC 9 [10] HP 2 SP 4
STR 11 DEX 10 CON 8 (-1) INT 10 WIS 7 (-1) CHA 7 (-1)
Folk Magic
Interaction

Good luck in the underworld Aldwin!  You're The Shaman.  With 2 HP be careful of dangerous creatures!  

Iago Montera AC 8 [11] HP 5 SP 3
STR 11 DEX 13 (+1) CON 11 INT 5 (-1) WIS 15 (+1) CHA 11
+1 attack & damage
Divine Blessing

Good luck in the underworld Iago!  You're The Hero.  Do what you can and trust your gods.

So the version above is probably fine.  You are picking 2 perks, that help create a theme for the character.  That's fine and it's a nice intermediate zone between classed and classless (after all, you can't take bad stuff to get more good stuff, for example).  What I think helps, a lot, is that the choices are likely to be structured and balanced (which when you have a list and every one has to be balanced is easier than a system where features have varying power levels).

What gets messy is when you have many different customizations.  Look at the create your own class tables in 2nd Edition DMG or the skills and powers sourcebook.  I can do terrible, terrible things with those systems.  

Equally true is that randomization is the best enemy of min-maxing.  Zak Smith's Red and Pleasant Land has an Alice class with random features upon leveling up.  Many of the worst abuses involve stacking and combinations.   This could also be done in a classless system way, perhaps with sub-tables.

But classes get you to "interesting and meaningful choice" very quickly.  I can imagine trading that "for discovery of the world and the creation of options" but most of the time you end up with some pretty optimal choices.

O

Quote from: Votan;842207(after all, you can't take bad stuff to get more good stuff, for example).

This is such a good point.  The worst part of the many games that have points systems where you can take flaws to get more perks is that the flaws are a giant train wreck when it comes time to address them in play.  The best case scenario is that they are ignored and don't come up in play and then they were just free points.  Or it comes up as a relatively meaningless nod or mention that doesn't take the spotlight.  The worst case scenario is that play becomes about them and everyone is just sort of sitting there while play is about Joe's character's drug addiction that not even he cares about because he just took it for points to spend on perks.

The whole premise is often ridiculous as well.  As if being really afraid of spiders someone gives you more resources towards learning weapon smithing or having a meth addiction makes you a better ER surgeon.

I do have one take a penalty to get a bonus.  In the stats.  You take a -1 to one of three stats to get a +1 to another.  But this isn't 3-18, but -1 to +2.  And only if you describe your character as being exceptionally weak or stupid or clumsy or whatever.  How is it going to matter in play?  Well, you're going to have less HP, a worse AC or be more vulnerable to mind effecting magic, fear, enchantments, etc.,.

QuoteEqually true is that randomization is the best enemy of min-maxing.  Zak Smith's Red and Pleasant Land has an Alice class with random features upon leveling up.  Many of the worst abuses involve stacking and combinations.   This could also be done in a classless system way, perhaps with sub-tables.

I may be running a regular Dungeon Crawl Classics open table for a local store and I've noticed this "confounding min-maxing through randomness" is definitely part of that design as well.  I think it's a great approach.  Except for one thing...

QuoteBut classes get you to "interesting and meaningful choice" very quickly.  I can imagine trading that "for discovery of the world and the creation of options" but most of the time you end up with some pretty optimal choices.

I've played a ton of B/X and one thing I do remember doing is thinking "this time I'd like to try being a cleric" during character generation.  If everything is random all the time you may have incredibly long runs of the character you are interested in not coming up for play.  For example, in my game having both divine spell casting and the ability to turn the unholy will only both be present on the same character sheet 0.5% of the time.  It's simply not what a typical priest/cleric looks like in my game.  So if someone is doing the random thing rather than the conversation thing, it's very, very unlikely to come up as a character with both abilities.

As for the conversation method, I think it works really well as it concentrates on what's important to the player about their character rather than trying to combo off with character elements to break a system.  In a published format though, I would see it as just another system to try to break for the power gamer.  If I say this as an answer to this question and then this as an answer to that question, I'll get X and Y which then I can combine by saying the right thing to get Z and so on.

Done in an honest way though, I find it works fine.

Quote from: Votan;842207But classes get you to "interesting and meaningful choice" very quickly.  I can imagine trading that "for discovery of the world and the creation of options" but most of the time you end up with some pretty optimal choices.

About half the time I do random chargen, class games make me play a class I don't even like. Thus, they limit me to "choices I could care less about". It might become a problem if the GM doesn't allow rerolling.
Sure, the same can happen in a classless game with random chargen. The difference is, I know I can develop the character the way I wanted to, so I have something to look forward to, at least!
With a class game, I have the death of the botched character to look forward to, which isn't conducive to roleplaying in any way, shape or form that I can imagine.

But in short, I have no issues with minmaxers. I just get them to the endgame of influence brokering that much faster. That's the ultimate solution, while randomness just makes for more randomisation!

Quote from: NathanIW;841867This doesn't really sound like a situation present in an OSR system.

It's a single example. The usual old-school problem is that some supplement introduces, in a game that had classes X, Y and Z, a new class that's basically uber-X; all of the players who chose class X are annoyed, and all of the rules that describe class X turn out to be a waste of space. It's fine when a new class has a different set of tradeoffs; the problem is when every significant class feature is better in the new class.

In a classless system, this usually happens because some clever combination of features cheaply overshadows an entire area. I'll refrain from an example because you seem unable to generalize from anything specific.

QuoteThis is the part of niche protection I don't really have any interest in.  I'm not really interested in games where people sitting down to play have a good chance of having a character that is a little bit better at something than anyone else sitting down there already.  If you join, you start at 1st/0th level like everyone else did.  Want to be a little better than the rest of the party at something?  You better survive and make smart player choices and get there.  And you may need to accept that you'll never catch up or out shine the veterans.  Or maybe when a veteran warrior sacrifices his life so the rest of the party can escape certain death you'll learn what shining really is about.

This may putting it too strongly, but if someone's fun is contingent on being special in comparison with other players, there's something wrong with their approach to RPGs.  The Referee is going to describe some pretty dangerous situations and the players should be focused on surviving and thriving in that environment rather than having a special snowflake contest every time there's a fight.

You completely misunderstand my point, which has nothing to do with niche protection or with level. I'm saying that a positive result of having more skills is that, by chance or design, you can have a better bonus in something, however obscure, and your starting character doesn't feel like a sidekick to another starting character who rolled better.

Quote from: rawma;842682It's a single example. The usual old-school problem is that some supplement introduces, in a game that had classes X, Y and Z, a new class that's basically uber-X; all of the players who chose class X are annoyed, and all of the rules that describe class X turn out to be a waste of space. It's fine when a new class has a different set of tradeoffs; the problem is when every significant class feature is better in the new class.

In a classless system, this usually happens because some clever combination of features cheaply overshadows an entire area. I'll refrain from an example because you seem unable to generalize from anything specific.

Both of these are known as bad design. What's the point of focusing on examples of what happens if you botch the game design?
Better focus on not botching!

Quote from: rawma;842682In a classless system, this usually happens because some clever combination of features cheaply overshadows an entire area. I'll refrain from an example because you seem unable to generalize from anything specific.

Because I'm not interested in broken play that doesn't work.  So you'd be describing an example of a problem I am in no way interested in having.  So I'm only interested in ways that the combinations of features that do not do that and means of keeping it from occurring from the word go.  

So far I have three strategies that I know work from actual play.  Conversation based character generation and random character generation make up the first two.  Specifically avoiding any point buy system where you can get additional points by taking disadvantages.  Or any class building system where points are a spent as a resource in its own character creation resource management game.  CharOp* is definitely a thing I'm not interested in.

The third strategy in and oldy but a goody.  You have a person there (maybe like some sort of referee or judge or game master or something) who might notice a player is attempting to CharOp and then that person tells them what they are doing is inappropriate for the game.  And if they can't adjust they may have to find another group that would fit them better.

QuoteI'm saying that a positive result of having more skills is that, by chance or design, you can have a better bonus in something, however obscure, and your starting character doesn't feel like a sidekick to another starting character who rolled better.

And I think that having more skills leads to people to be more likely to view their skill list as a menu of things they can do and, even worse, shouldn't even try.  To quote the original poster:

Quote from: Larsdangly;837364There is clearly some kind of pressure in that direction, when you consider the common arguments against the addition of the thief and other classes in OD&D expansions.

and

Quote from: Larsdangly;83751340 years worth of grognards have correctly noted that every time you add a new class you implicitly narrow the view of what every other class can do. The classic example is the thief's appropriation of being sneaky, climbing and opening stuff, but you could argue the same thing about nearly any class you want to name. So, why not just say 'fuck it' to all of them and let every character try what they want?

This isn't really about trying to make a expansive menu of character options that people can use during the game.  It's about the opposite.  About opening up the real options of play by having less classes.  Down to one/zero.  The approach that gets you there is simply not going to be one where you can CharOp the character creation system to get the best possible character.  Why?  The real game options are not the powers on your character sheet.  They are the things you can describe doing in response to what the referee describes.

Furthermore, I still see special-snowflake-itis in what you are advocating.  Saying "your starting character doesn't feel like a sidekick to another starting character who rolled better" definitely strikes me as something someone who's enjoyment is contingent on the power level of their character would say.

This is not a new argument.  I'm sure there were people in the 70s who were annoyed that they had to start at level 1 when they joined a game where everyone else is at level 4-6.

I do not share those concerns.

*CharOp is a process (and sub forum on the wotc forums) where people figure out the best possible options to take during character creation and at each level to maximize the effectiveness of a character.  Including having metrics like DPR (damage per round), average HP healed per spell level expended and a variety of other means of evaluating character effectiveness in order to maximize it.  For many it is a fun separate resource management game that you don't even have to be in an RPG session to play.

Quote from: AsenRG;842687Both of these are known as bad design. What's the point of focusing on examples of what happens if you botch the game design?
Better focus on not botching!

It's like the old therapy joke.  The only reason to dwell on your problems is that you are planning on continuing to have them.

Quote from: NathanIW;842696It's like the old therapy joke.  The only reason to dwell on your problems is that you are planning on continuing to have them.

Not sure about therapy, since I'm not qualified, but it seems logical when applied to game design, doesn't it?

Quote from: AsenRG;842698Not sure about therapy, since I'm not qualified, but it seems logical when applied to game design, doesn't it?

Definitely.  

To use rawma's examples, it's best to simply not use the supplement that introduces "uber-X" or use a game with a classless system that produces the bad results he's talking about.  And if you're writing the game, it's best to not design uber-x and not design a classless system built to produce a best possible combination of chosen elements that an optimizer can discover.