When I was a young little Ashakyre, I remember reading the rules for Dungeons & Dragons and hating the class restrictions. "Please, Daddy? Can't the wizard wear some armor? It would be so coooooool... And can't the barbarian just have one spell? Just one little itty bitty fireball when he gets surrounded by goblins? Pleeeeeassseee?"

So of course over the years I always worked on a system that was fluid. I didn't have classes, and armor and spells were based on your stats or you skills or whatever. There were many shades of gray between and pure wizard and a pure warrior, and you could pick where you wanted your character to be. It was cool.

And yet... about 6 years ago I was playing with a friend and solicited his feedback, and he just didn't like his character. For the most part, he wanted more bits and bobs to differentiate his character. And I can agree, at the time things in the game felt kind of samey. Granted, this particular version of the game was focused almost entirely on balance and had almost no color/fluff.

Now, in the last year I've added a lot of color to the game and I'm happy with the setting and how it inspires adventure ideas. And yet I'm not sure I've overcome the problem. And I would have thought it was just a matter of adding more stuff to the game and giving that stuff some color. But I'm not so sure now. Reading the rulebooks to Stars Without Number and Swords & Wizardry, I get the sense that each player is going to feel a real difference of their unique class having at least one thing it can do better than the others. And there's no chance no matter how the characters develop over the game that someone is going to come into your niche. I suppose that's what they mean by niche protection.

My first question is this: what psychology is at play here? When distinct classes feel good, why do they feel good? I feel like I can almost imagine an answer, but I can't articulate it. If any character can evolve into any other, then it feels like mush. But if there's at least one thing unique about your class then your feel grounded. What's going on here? In Divinity: Original Sin, it's classless and it works. At least it does to me. Any character can evolve into any other character. But my game is mush. And yet when I imagine the basic archetypes in my game, it feels crisper when I imagine them being in seperate silos.

Second question: how much of this might have to do with explaining your game and gameworld to new players? Do you suppose a game that's very grounded into standard tropes can get away from more shades of gray between archetypes?

Your system needs to be lumpy.  Their need to be tipping points, where small changes can make a big difference.  Their need to be opportunity costs.

You start with some Marx, and add a splash of Pol Pot or maybe a bit of Mao.  Then if it doesn't work or just ends up poorly, you say it wasn't real.  

I'm kidding.  What makes a classless system 'work' for me isn't going to be the best answer you get.  I tend to sit and think up something interesting as a character, and the game's 'classes' simply don't always support it.  I've always liked clerics, but I've never liked that I have to go and purchase a stupid amount of skills to gear him the way I want him to play (I've always thought of a weapon/armor/shield things as 'iconic' with a character).  That being said, if I can get that cleric where I want him to be in a few games, I'll be pleased.  

One of my friends' complaints about a Rogue/thief class was that the DM/GM tends to often forget about them.  There isn't always a trap, a locked door, or a jewel on a statue.  And for myself, I don't know why- but it feels more fun to imagine an armored hero with a flail taking on a horde of skeletons than it does... a guy with a crossbow and a dagger, I suppose?  Some folks I know tend to gravitate toward 'fighting' classes because you see cool fight scenes on Game of Thrones and other movies, and it makes it cooler.  Like- how many movies do you see a kick-ass wizard or a daring rogue in and they're actually doing cool stuff?

As far as explaining your game world?  Well, I don't know.  In Oriental Adventures, everyone wanted to be Samurai and Ninjas.  No matter how hard you tried to talk about how rogues, rangers, or what-have-you was 'relevant' to the game world, they just gravitated toward certain things.  As far as 'explaining' it?  I'd say weave the 'classes' into the lore, maybe 'Rangers' are well-respected and nearly every boy in the country wants to be one.  Perhaps Clerics are almost national heroes, and there's statues of them outside cathederals that praise their deeds.  I'd say 'sell' the classes like they're a legitimately recognized lifestyle in the setting.

Quote from: Crüesader;920744I tend to sit and think up something interesting as a character, and the game's 'classes' simply don't always support it.  

And when classless works, its because players have cool ideas for a character within a game world AND THEN figure out a way to make that character. Yeah?

Yes, it's about having the imagination to create a character in your mind and then use the system to flesh them out... rather than relying on the system to provide the imagination with pre-fab classes.
There's also a lot of differentiation that can come from how you roleplay your character, what sort of personality and quirks you give it.

Quote from: Ashakyre;920746And when classless works, its because players have cool ideas for a character within a game world AND THEN figure out a way to make that character. Yeah?

Right.  Sometimes the basic classes don't take everything into consideration.  Like a Warrior-priest similar to a monk in skills, but with cleric-like spells.  Or a 'warrior' that prefers to fight unburdened because he was a rebel, and knows quite a bit of 'ranger' skills because he survived in exile.

Sounds good. But when I read Stars Without Number the idea that there's only 3 classes and each one has 1 completely unique thing it does.... that captured my imagination. Only Psionics can use Psionic abilities. Experts learn skills way faster. Warriors... can evade an attack every so often. Somehow it makes the gameworld really easy for me to visualize. Does the same thing happen to anyone else?

(Difference example. The Swords and Wizardry Monk's damage table versus the fighter's extra attacks. Similar functions, melee. Completely different mechanics. Each totally different.

Quote from: Ashakyre;920751Sounds good. But when I read Stars Without Number the idea that there's only 3 classes and each one has 1 completely unique thing it does.... that captured my imagination. Only Psionics can use Psionic abilities. Experts learn skills way faster. Warriors... can evade an attack every so often. Somehow it makes the gameworld really easy for me to visualize. Does the same thing happen to anyone else?

(Difference example. The Swords and Wizardry Monk's damage table versus the fighter's extra attacks. Similar functions, melee. Completely different mechanics. Each totally different.

For all of D20 Modern's faults, I did like the idea of 'Fast', 'Tough', 'Strong', or 'Charismatic' heroes as a starting point.

The key is to have more than one model for character advancement and excellence. There are some amazingly good classless games that start with diversity in character types when the power level is low, but everyone funnels into a common type. Original Runequest comes to mind. I don't care where you start in that game; where you are headed is a runelord priest who fights with double iron bastard swords and starts every encounter with Shield 4 and bladesharp 4.

Quote from: Crüesader;920744You start with some Marx, and add a splash of Pol Pot or maybe a bit of Mao.  Then if it doesn't work or just ends up poorly, you say it wasn't real.  

Beat me to it.

Quote from: Crüesader;920752For all of D20 Modern's faults, I did like the idea of 'Fast', 'Tough', 'Strong', or 'Charismatic' heroes as a starting point.

It reminded me of Scooby-Doo.

jg

Classes provide a stereotype that gives players something quick to latch on to and be assured (in a well designed game at least) that their character is going to function well within the setting of the game and maybe have a worthwhile niche they find appealing. This is less important the more knowledge/understanding of the gameworld players have before the game, which is why its almost completely unnecessary in a game set in the modern world (less a specific genre, such as noir or occult underground). There are other ways to achieve this, classes are just one easy route. The opposite end of the spectrum would be, say, a GM starting a game of Tekumel with players who know nothing of the setting, and hands them the GURPs Compendiums and just says "OK, make characters". Even if they are familiar with GURPs, they're pretty guaranteed to be a bit at a loss. There's middle grounds between these extremes, though. Some games use highly customizable templates (I thought WEG Star Wars and Shadowrun 2n Edition handled these quite well). Some games provide options but only those options that specifically apply to the setting (the BESM Sailor Moon or El Hazard games, for example). Ultimately its going to be a balance between the scope of the system, the familiarity of the concept, the buy-in expectations for players.

Quote from: TristramEvans;920767Classes provide a stereotype that gives players something quick to latch on to and be assured (in a well designed game at least) that their character is going to function well within the setting of the game and maybe have a worthwhile niche they find appealing. This is less important the more knowledge/understanding of the gameworld players have before the game, which is why its almost completely unnecessary in a game set in the modern world (less a specific genre, such as noir or occult underground). There are other ways to achieve this, classes are just one easy route. The opposite end of the spectrum would be, say, a GM starting a game of Tekumel with players who know nothing of the setting, and hands them the GURPs Compendiums and just says "OK, make characters". Even if they are familiar with GURPs, they're pretty guaranteed to be a bit at a loss. There's middle grounds between these extremes, though. Some games use highly customizable templates (I thought WEG Star Wars and Shadowrun 2n Edition handled these quite well). Some games provide options but only those options that specifically apply to the setting (the BESM Sailor Moon or El Hazard games, for example). Ultimately its going to be a balance between the scope of the system, the familiarity of the concept, the buy-in expectations for players.

Yeah, it looks like you go could completely classless but include starting characters at various levels with suggestions for progression. That's sort of what Divinity: Original Sin does now that I think of it.

D100 (RuneQuest & Call of Cthulhu) are essentially classless. There it's all about skill pics.

The last D&D Gamma World was classless. Everyone was a mutant, so you were defined by your power choices and skill pics.

Here's a free RPG that may be worth examining:
http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/

In Warrior, Rogue & Mage, you don't have classes. Those are your stats and you pick feats to individualize your PC.

I am surprised the game doesn't have a bigger fandom. It's free and has lots of free additional bits.

There is a fundamental difference between class based and classless systems. A class represents who your character is in a neat capsule. A classless system requires you to fully provide who your character is yourself.

For example, if you play a D&D magic user, then the archetype does most of the work of character identity for you. If you play a character in a classless system who learns some magic then that doesn't make you a "magic user" per se.

Classes provide instant identities and a classless system requires you to construct one. Neither method is superior, everything depends on personal taste.

What makes a classless system "work" depends on what each player responds well or poorly to.

Some players really like archetypes. To have a classless system work for them, you may need to work in archetypes, for example via what GURPS calls Templates, and the GM/game may need to describe them a lot more like classes are described in class-based games.

Some players really don't want to have many choices for character creation and improvement. A classless game can use low/no-choice based systems for character generation and development.

Some players want class niche protection, so they can cherish and rely on always being the most bestest at certain things. A classless game can have rare traits which can't be acquired during play, or require decades of special training, or whatever.

Some players don't want slushy characters or slushy parties, where everyone's abilities seem arbitrary and overlapping. More careful/constrained character design, creation and improvement can handle that, if the GM has enough system mastery. For some systems, it may require some re-working of the rules a bit. Like the niche protection issue but applied to everything, if you have corresponding values for what it takes to gain abilities at various levels, then this can be a non-problem (again, it's a matter of where players draw their problem lines), because although it would be POSSIBLE for a PC to try to study many things that are specialties of other PCs, they are going to be behind by perhaps decades, and ill-suited due to listed attributes, advantages, disadvantages, aptitudes, incompetences, lack of a master to train under, etc etc. Those things being explicit things in GURPS, for example, and not GM excuses why you can't - you CAN, but after a year of study you are still skill level 8 in first aid, whereas the party physician has Physician-18, Surgery-16, Diagnosis-17, etc. You could put that character on hold and have them put money and tuition into medical degrees, but after 8 years' down time, they are going to be a mere resident physician with maybe Physician-12, Diagnosis-13, Biology-13, and an annoying student loan debt. Meanwhile Poondar the Hopeful, who dropped out of adventuring to find someone to teach him magic in the 21st Century, spent 2 years with charlatans before he found an actual wizard, who after a year of apprenticeship determined he didn't have much magical aptitude, so all he knows is some low-level related skills.

That is, classless systems can still have archetypes and specialties, if/when the system and GM put in limits and requirements for learning abilities that make those things have the desired level of difficulty to attain. But it does take a designer and/or GM that set those limits and requirements to match, which isn't that easy to do, especially if you don't yet know what your or your players really want. By comparison, it takes much less effort to just specify classes with limits.