Quote from: NathanIW;843249So that leaves the last two:

5. Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever;

6.  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.

Actually, I take these two answers, and raise them a Beyond the Wall and a Traveller. Lifepath character generation often helps players see the PCs as more of a real person.
As you can notice, one of them is a class-based one, while the other is skill-based system, so again, that's irrelevant.

Quote from: AsenRG;843314Actually, I take these two answers, and raise them a Beyond the Wall and a Traveller. Lifepath character generation often helps players see the PCs as more of a real person.
As you can notice, one of them is a class-based one, while the other is skill-based system, so again, that's irrelevant.

Lifepath character creation is a great idea.  I'm sort of doing it with the conversation approach.  I think I may have to get more explicit about it.

Beyond the Wall even has a rumour and campaign generation system.  Where players talk about what they might have heard about different locations and the GM checks to see just how accurate that really is.

Quote from: rawma;842818Hmm; eliminate all skills, or make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level. I wonder which one would be a worse design? :confused:

Given the distance of a bit of time I decided to actually respond to a small portion of your insulting post.

The answer, for the goals of this game, is to eliminate all skills.  Easily the better design.  Why?  The goal it accomplishes is to allow all players with all player characters to describe anything without worry about mechanical concerns.  

When you have a system that has skills and then makes it explicit that anyone can try a skill at default level, they often won't.  Especially if failure might have a cost.  I've played a ton of games like RuneQuest, 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Rifts, etc., that have exhaustive skill systems where all sorts of things are defined.  Across a few different cities.  And I've noticed it is a consistent trend.  That a list of skills becomes a menu people order from during play.  It's natural.  It's also fun for those games and works great.  Those games have different goals than my current OSR classless game.

And if you notice the language of that last paragraph, borrowed from your post:  "make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level."  I don't want players to "try a skill at default level."  I want them to describe what their character does.  In real words.  Using natural language.

So yes.  Eliminate the skill system is definitely the better design for that goal.  Though even then, that's a caricature.  I'm not actually eliminating the skill system but allowing it to generalize and atrophy.  Until it's just four different words that describe groups of possible actions during adventuring.  That remind the referee to make calls or checks with the character being better than average at that sort of action kept firmly in mind.

And again, I can't help but notice how not one single bit of this has to do with class/class-free characters.

I think attributes are the most under-utilized part of core D&D rules, and that one can draw an important lesson here from the old Melee/Wizard rules: In these earliest forms of 'The Fantasy Trip/GURPs' style games, characters have only 2 or 3 attributes and no skills, and all events are resolved as rolls vs. an attribute score. If one simply expanded this approach to apply to the 6 stats of D&D, and then layered on the concept of levels and HP, I don't think there would be any need for skills or other complications. Of course some people always want that next level of complexity, but that isn't who I'm aiming at with this thought.

Quote from: Larsdangly;843431I think attributes are the most under-utilized part of core D&D rules, and that one can draw an important lesson here from the old Melee/Wizard rules: In these earliest forms of 'The Fantasy Trip/GURPs' style games, characters have only 2 or 3 attributes and no skills, and all events are resolved as rolls vs. an attribute score. If one simply expanded this approach to apply to the 6 stats of D&D, and then layered on the concept of levels and HP, I don't think there would be any need for skills or other complications. Of course some people always want that next level of complexity, but that isn't who I'm aiming at with this thought.

Well, the next level of complexity isn't "separate skills for everything". It's "have a +3 to your attribute if you take a Skill Focus, everybody gets 5 on the first level and further 2 per level", which is fully manageable:).
Both options are bearable if you ask me;).

Quote from: Larsdangly;843431I think attributes are the most under-utilized part of core D&D rules, and that one can draw an important lesson here from the old Melee/Wizard rules: In these earliest forms of 'The Fantasy Trip/GURPs' style games, characters have only 2 or 3 attributes and no skills, and all events are resolved as rolls vs. an attribute score. If one simply expanded this approach to apply to the 6 stats of D&D, and then layered on the concept of levels and HP, I don't think there would be any need for skills or other complications.

The 3/DX type checks really do make a good basis for a game.  It's likely better than my use of just modifiers.  And the highest without going over mechanic makes for easy resolution of opposed actions.

I also recently read  Dark Heritage which is a cthuloid m20 variant that has classless magic.  I may go that route and have the arcane talent, divine blessing and folk nature magic just be more about efficient use of spell points and resistance to potential negative effects when casting inside their area of expertise.

Though I may also add some sort of price of power type limitation for learning new spells.  Something that makes it a tough choice.

Quote from: NathanIW;843405Given the distance of a bit of time I decided to actually respond to a small portion of your insulting post.

Thanks. I don't have the energy to respond to even a fraction of your insulting posts.

QuoteWhen you have a system that has skills and then makes it explicit that anyone can try a skill at default level, they often won't.

I notice this theme in your comments, that putting something in the rules in clear and certain terms will result in ... people taking it to mean the opposite. Since you seem eager to speculate about my preferences (incorrectly), I speculate that you experienced bad players who always went to the mechanics directly and a bad GM who agreed with it or at least didn't rein it in. More rules won't fix bad players/GMs; nor will less rules. With your gloomy outlook, you might as well go totally free form, which I've played and which works if you have a good GM. I ran a home-brew for a while that had four characteristics - physical, mental, awareness and interaction - and pretty much no other skills; it wasn't very different from games with skills.

QuoteAnd if you notice the language of that last paragraph, borrowed from your post:  "make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level."  I don't want players to "try a skill at default level."  I want them to describe what their character does.  In real words.  Using natural language.

That was probably just clumsily phrased; the notion that skills a character might "have" aren't cut off from those who don't "have" them (ranks, proficiency, whatever). You probably still need to explain that to players; e.g., that not having "fighting" listed doesn't mean they can't fight.

QuoteAnd again, I can't help but notice how not one single bit of this has to do with class/class-free characters.

I'd say your system clearly has classes (around ten, if I remember correctly; there was later mention of changing the list); starting players get two, and add two more at various later levels. I am reminded of Peter Knutsen's Multiclass RPG; interesting, although substantially heavier than what you've described.

I would like to see how AsenRG's list of archetypes that can't be done in D&D, all of which are nearly standard in D&D 5e until he demanded a level of detail and mechanics that you want to avoid, would be represented in your system. For some of them he wanted a starting character with what for your system would be three or more choices.

Quote from: rawma;843951Thanks. I don't have the energy to respond to even a fraction of your insulting posts.

At least your latest post is better than the tantrum you threw earlier in thread, so thanks for that.

QuoteI notice this theme in your comments, that putting something in the rules in clear and certain terms will result in ... people taking it to mean the opposite.

When it comes to specific skill definitions covering a wide variety of skills, yeah they will.  They'll look down their long list of skills and see some at +8 and others at maybe 0 or +1 and be far, far less likely to try the latter.  If you think I've magically come across a string of bad players spanning multiple cities on two continents or that something about how I referee creates that effect, I'm cool with that.  I don't think that's the case as I have played very different games with many of these people and I know from first hand experience that you are simply wrong on that count.

An idea that's pretty much been central to this thread is the inverse relationship between breadth of rules and options in play.  In your tantrum you insultingly referred to it as "limited design" while such limits in design actually open up options in play.  So it's more than trying to avoid the pitfalls of an expanded skill system.  It's about embracing the type of play that maximizes options without giving up the OSR feel of play.

As for why not go full free form?  Consistency.  There are going to be described actions that are very similar to previously described actions.  And actions that are occur frequently during play.  In this case, exploring a dangerous underworld.  One of OD&D's strengths is that it has rules for the most common sorts of things that might come up in play without going overboard.

QuoteI'd say your system clearly has classes (around ten, if I remember correctly; there was later mention of changing the list); starting players get two, and add two more at various later levels.

Please see the original post for the idea of a build-a-bear approach Larsdangly put forward.  Throughout this thread people have been ragging on what this thread is not about.  Like Pundit's points about bean counting points and having a glut of options.

So I'm totally okay if you want to call it having 10 classes.  At least we'd finally actually be talking about what this thread is actually about.   So with that agreement, I'll now ask you if you have anything to contribute towards the topic of having interest or examples of a game like what was described in the original post.  I don't care if you agree or disagree with the central idea of this thread or even understand it (see the quote in my signature if you still need help).  Do you actually have anything to contribute?

As for archetypes, I think they were largely a red herring that sent this thread careening off into the abyss.  As I pointed out to the Pundit, the build-a-bear approach has produced archetypes in actual play.  So it is totally irrelevant what archetypes do or don't show up in 5e (or any other version of. D&D).  They *do* show up in the type of game that this thread is about.

Quote from: rawma;843951I would like to see how AsenRG's list of archetypes that can't be done in D&D, all of which are nearly standard in D&D 5e

I also pointed out that D&D 5e isn't an OSR game, which is what the topic is about. If I want a game that works in a largely similar way to 5e, I've got those already, what I'm looking for is a classless OSR game, so any 5e suggestions are anything but helpful.
Did you miss that post?

Quote from: NathanIW;843405When you have a system that has skills and then makes it explicit that anyone can try a skill at default level, they often won't.  Especially if failure might have a cost.  I've played a ton of games like RuneQuest, 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Rifts, etc., that have exhaustive skill systems where all sorts of things are defined.  Across a few different cities.  And I've noticed it is a consistent trend.  That a list of skills becomes a menu people order from during play.

Maybe the foks you play with are less rational, but in my experience the difference between having a poor chance and having a great chance is what matters, regardless of how you define it in stats. With no such convenient ratings, people will still notice that Willy Mays is better at baseball than Irving Forbush.

Some games, because what's applicable is (perhaps intentionally) vague, boil down to players making arguments for why an Expert Hairdresser (class, cliche, trait, whatever) should give an edge in landing a jumbo jet.

The only real mechanical solution is to make everyone equally competent at everyryhing, since the problem is different competence at anything.

Alternatively, you can get players who find such diversity not a problem but a pleasure.

As for treating stats as a menu of what one can do,  that's a matter of a particular culture -- one in which it is typically an accurate representation of what the GM will allow. That's the cause, not some arbitrary distinction of 'skills' from other things. (WotC-D&D 'feats', magic spells and other explicitly exclusive powers are another matter.)

QuoteIt's natural.  It's also fun for those games and works great.  Those games have different goals than my current OSR classless game.

And if you notice the language of that last paragraph, borrowed from your post:  "make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level."  I don't want players to "try a skill at default level."  I want them to describe what their character does.  In real words.  Using natural language.

So yes.  Eliminate the skill system is definitely the better design for that goal.  Though even then, that's a caricature.  I'm not actually eliminating the skill system but allowing it to generalize and atrophy.  Until it's just four different words that describe groups of possible actions during adventuring.  That remind the referee to make calls or checks with the character being better than average at that sort of action kept firmly in mind.

And again, I can't help but notice how not one single bit of this has to do with class/class-free characters.

Anyway, what's supposed to be 'OSR' about Wayne the Meth Addled High School Dropout being just as good at brain surgery and regression analysis as Dr. Doktorow?

I'm actually going to answer that at face value.  In an OSR game that actually had brain surgery come up in play I'd rule that it's a damned specialized field and pretty much anyone attempting it would automatically fail.  It'd be the type of thing for which a full time NPC surgeon would be required.

Now if having those skills is part of the scope of the game, then I see no problem with having them.  If I was doing a Star Trek TOS OSR build-a-bear game I'd probably have "medical" as one of the elements.  Along with "engineering" and a few other game appropriate elements.

There is simply no reason to concern ourselves with such things for a dungeon crawl though.

I posted the following earlier in the thread:

That the types of dungeoneers that go on adventures will be sufficiently similar in abilities not covered by the rules that the referee can rely on checks or rulings modified by ability scores as needed.

I think that's a time tested approach worth using.

Quote from: Phillip;844018Maybe the foks you play with are less rational

 ...

which it is typically an accurate representation of what the GM will allow. That's the cause, not some arbitrary distinction of 'skills' from other things.

From my post immediately preceding yours:

"If you think I've magically come across a string of bad players spanning multiple cities on two continents or that something about how I referee creates that effect, I'm cool with that. I don't think that's the case as I have played very different games with many of these people and I know from first hand experience that you are simply wrong on that count."

Again, this isn't some grand conundrum I'm trying to solve.  It's just been an attempt to explain some of the strengths of OSR approaches having a lower volume of rules in a possibly futile attempt to actually deal with the subject matter of the thread (one can dream).

I have another session of my game in a few hours.  Apparently the players have been talking about it and I'm getting emails from friends of friends asking to join in.  I may be having to make some sort of wait list for the game.  I suppose that's a good problem to have.  Going forward my interest in this thread will be ways of making this ttype of play even better.  I think I've spent enough energy on answering concerns.

So do you have any interest in or examples of an OSR game that does away with set classes?  Perhaps with a build-a-bear approach like Larsdangly talked about.  Or maybe with a single adventurer class like some of Randall's design work?  Perhaps another idea?

Quote from: Larsdangly;843431I think attributes are the most under-utilized part of core D&D rules, and that one can draw an important lesson here from the old Melee/Wizard rules: In these earliest forms of 'The Fantasy Trip/GURPs' style games

I've given this some thought and I think you're right.  I'm going to be implementing this tonight.  Attribute checks are time tested and while I liked the die roll + bonus vs target number idea, I think there's more utility in the X/DX approach of Fantasy Trip.  Though I'm definitely keeping d20 attack rolls and saving throws as they are iconic of a D&D experience.

Quote from: NathanIW;844056I've given this some thought and I think you're right.  I'm going to be implementing this tonight.  Attribute checks are time tested and while I liked the die roll + bonus vs target number idea, I think there's more utility in the X/DX approach of Fantasy Trip.  Though I'm definitely keeping d20 attack rolls and saving throws as they are iconic of a D&D experience.

In 5e, everything is an Attribute check, though.  Yes, some abilities get a bonus, via Proficiency, but the main focus is the attribute.