Quote from: jhkim;921093I think classless has worked pretty well for most superhero games and many other cinematic games like Star Wars D6, for example. I also think templates like in D6 and Shadowrun work very well for quickstart.

Except that WEG's D6 doesn't have classes. It has beginning templates but they are not mandatory (it is easy to create characters without any template) and templates have no effect nor are they ever used after character creation. So really not classes.

Quote from: Ravenswing;921097There've been a bunch of answers, from a lot of people I know have great experience with classless systems.  I won't repeat, or secondguess, their point-by-point responses.

But really, how a classless system works best?  For the players and the GM to let go.  Too many people freak out, flailing around in a frantic quest to replicate d20, if only in their heads.  Too many are bewildered at the thought of there being no neat one-word pigeonholes, and too many insist on assigning them anyway: well, what IS your character?  A fighter?  A thief?  Oh, he must be a multi-class fighter-mage, okay!  No, wait, you're patterning after that character?  But they describe him as a thief on page 138!  He must be a thief then!

If the players can't function without the crutch of defined character classes, alright, so be it.  It happens.  (Granted, to me it's like a poker player being unable to wrap his head around blackjack or bridge, but eh.)  Too many such discussions, unfortunately, boil down to "How can we make a classless system LOOK like a class-based system so the players won't have to stretch their minds?"

Otherwise, they need to let go.  Stop thinking in terms of what skills make a "fighter" or a "magic-user," and what ones can't.  Don't try to figure out what Jon Snow's class is, or Tyrion Lannister's, or Arya Stark's -- think of how you'd replicate the skills they seem to possess with what's on offer, or if you're looking at a NPC or a fellow PC, try to figure out by inference instead of by a glance at the top of the character sheet.  (I expect that most people, as happens in GOT, seeing a skinny teensy black-haired girl with a teensy smallsword would regard her much as Arya Stark's regarded: as a silly little chit who's playacting at best.  Spiffy, fair enough.)

This is pretty solid. I suspect as a have more stuff in my game some of these things will work themselves out.

The most important thing is to have it be crystal clear what you need to do to get a character who is good at a certain thing. For example in Shadowrun if you want a sneaky dude do you:
-Get good attributes and skills in sneaky stuff?
-Get some magic that augments your body so you're better at sneaking than normal people?
-Get some magic that allows you to screw with other people's heads so they don't see you?
-Buy lots of tech to make you faster and boost your physical stats?
-Get a lot of edge?

Not really clear.

Whatever else its faults I really liked FATE's pyramid set up where you really clearly prioritize what your character is good at and everything is crystal clear. Well, until later versions muddied the waters with lots of bennies. I also like how the FATE pyramid forces people to not build one trick ponies.

3.5ed was still a class based system but it watered it down to really thin gruel. For example if you want to build a combat bruiser it is a very good idea to buy night sticks. Night sticks give you more turn undead uses. Turn undead uses can be used as fuel for divine metamagic which allows you to boost spells without spending higher spell slots. The best way to use this metamagic is to extent physical buff durations so that they last all day and then your cleric will be better at fighting than the fighter. Healing? Phaw, that's what your golf bag full of CLW wands are for.

That kind of stuff is exactly what you want to avoid.

Also for fuck's sake if you're going to have people spend XP to boost skills choose either flat or escalating costs and use that FOR BOTH CHARGEN AND ADVANCEMENT. Don't punish people for not making one trick ponies in char gen by making them spend more XP over the long haul to get the exact same character.

Luke and Han dressed up as storm-troopers once. No one flinched. Star Wars is the most popular shit movie of all time. So there you go.

Quote from: daniel_ream;921095Although there aren't many explicitly class-based superhero RPGs, most superhero RPGs that have a point buy system often have a list of alleged superhero character "archetypes" (that don't really stand up to scrutiny) that kid of count.

I don't think that templates and/or advice about character types counts as a class system. Doing that just generalizes the concept of "class system" to the point of meaninglessness, where any system can become "class-based" if you tack on a page of advice. If you consider the Hero System to be class-based, then essentially everything is class-based.

The point is that many popular/successful systems in many genres are not class-based - including most superhero RPGs as well as many other genres. Science fiction also tends to not be class-based. I don't think the point fits that class-based is needed for comic-book action.

(Re: Monster of the Week)

Quote from: daniel_ream;921095How so?  In my experience, the source material really isn't stocked with archetypical characters.

I think that the MotW archetypes work pretty well. Urban fantasy is full of archetypes at this point. It doesn't fit perfectly with the source material, but that's also true for all other class-based systems. (i.e. Various arguments over whether Gandalf is a magic-user or not, or whether Lestat is a Tremere.)

Quote from:  jhkimI think classless has worked pretty well for most superhero games and many other cinematic games like Star Wars D6, for example. I also think templates like in D6 and Shadowrun work very well for quickstart.

Quote from: Bren;921105Except that WEG's D6 doesn't have classes. It has beginning templates but they are not mandatory (it is easy to create characters without any template) and templates have no effect nor are they ever used after character creation. So really not classes.

Yes, that's what I said. I suspect you read "classes" when I said "classless". I agree that D6 templates aren't classes, and they work very well. They're a thing of their own, not an attempt to "look like" classes.

Quote from: jhkim;921219I think that the MotW archetypes work pretty well. Urban fantasy is full of archetypes at this point.

I'm honestly not seeing it.  First of all, MotW isn't generic urban fantasy; it's explicitly "monster of the week" urban horror.  The author states very clearly that his primary inspirations were Buffy and Supernatural (though not Angel, curiously).

If you look at MotW's sources, the characters in them don't really fall into nice neat archetypes.  Much like the aforementioned superhero "archetypes", the playbooks in MotW tend to be more "here's how to do this one character in that one book/show/movie you like".

And this is a problem, because (p.5) "Only one hunter of each type is allowed at the same time in any game. That's because you're not just one of that type of hunter: you're the archetype. There may be a whole Agency of professional monster hunters, but there's just one who is The Professional."

Except Mulder isn't just the conspiracy nut (The Flake), he's also an FBI agent (The Professional).  He and Scully can't both be The Professional by RAW, and Scully doesn't really fit any of the archetypes. Before Sam gets corrupted, he and Dean are clearly both the same character type, but which one is it?  Dean wasn't The Wronged, he was just following in their father's footsteps.  If you look at the actual moves and mechanics, the playbook that best fits Dean is...The Professional. Before Willow gets Mary-Sued all to hell, she and Xander are both The Mundane.

MotW's playbooks work fine as game constructs (although I'd relax the only-one-of-each restriction as it leads to lasersharking) but I don't think they do a terribly good job of representing the source material.  Part of the problem is that most of the fiction doesn't distinguish between characters on the basis of what they can do, but rather their personalities, character and values.  MotW doesn't model that.

Quote from: jhkim;921219Yes, that's what I said. I suspect you read "classes" when I said "classless". I agree that D6 templates aren't classes, and they work very well. They're a thing of their own, not an attempt to "look like" classes.

Indeed, I did I misread classless as classes. My bad. You were right the first time. Ignore my comment....carry on...nothing to see here...move along....

Quote from: Ravenswing;921097There've been a bunch of answers, from a lot of people I know have great experience with classless systems.  I won't repeat, or secondguess, their point-by-point responses.

But really, how a classless system works best?  For the players and the GM to let go.  Too many people freak out, flailing around in a frantic quest to replicate d20, if only in their heads.  Too many are bewildered at the thought of there being no neat one-word pigeonholes, and too many insist on assigning them anyway: well, what IS your character?  A fighter?  A thief?  Oh, he must be a multi-class fighter-mage, okay!  No, wait, you're patterning after that character?  But they describe him as a thief on page 138!  He must be a thief then!

If the players can't function without the crutch of defined character classes, alright, so be it.  It happens.  (Granted, to me it's like a poker player being unable to wrap his head around blackjack or bridge, but eh.)  Too many such discussions, unfortunately, boil down to "How can we make a classless system LOOK like a class-based system so the players won't have to stretch their minds?"

Otherwise, they need to let go.  Stop thinking in terms of what skills make a "fighter" or a "magic-user," and what ones can't.  Don't try to figure out what Jon Snow's class is, or Tyrion Lannister's, or Arya Stark's -- think of how you'd replicate the skills they seem to possess with what's on offer, or if you're looking at a NPC or a fellow PC, try to figure out by inference instead of by a glance at the top of the character sheet.  (I expect that most people, as happens in GOT, seeing a skinny teensy black-haired girl with a teensy smallsword would regard her much as Arya Stark's regarded: as a silly little chit who's playacting at best.  Spiffy, fair enough.)

Rulesets are physics engines.  They support how a setting works, or not.  
Some classless systems are more flexible than class systems.  But this very attribute of flexibility can mage them less useful to underpin a game.

Part of the letting go you speak of is on the creative side of setting design.  Looking for a game where niche protection is all about combat equality?  Don't go classless/skill based.  but in many other situations, especially where equality of usefulness is meant to go across many spheres (social/research/politics/underworld/healing/tactics/creation/spheres of magic/intrigue...as well as combat), Classless/skill based can be a superior choice.

I changed into a custom skill based system to underpin my setting back in 83, and really have not looked back.

Quote from: jhkim;921219The point is that many popular/successful systems in many genres are not class-based - including most superhero RPGs as well as many other genres. Science fiction also tends to not be class-based. I don't think the point fits that class-based is needed for comic-book action.

My firm and longstanding belief is that we're dealing with nothing but a shibboleth.  In many ways, the trappings of fantasy RPGs were set in stone four decades ago, and for no better reason than that Gary Gygax wrote them that way.  It's not that all fantasy characterization comes down to easily identifiable archetypes, and that (say) science fiction and supers don't.  Hell, supers have more readily identifiable archetypes than practically any other kind of RPG-worthy fiction.

It's that the first really popular fantasy RPG had character classes, and the first really popular SF and supers RPGs didn't.  Just that simple.  If Champions had had character classes, they'd have been expected of all supers games from there on forward.  If Traveller had had character classes, they'd have been expected of all SF games from there on forward.

Quote from: Ashakyre;921079I can see how what I wrote is confusing. I wanted to switch the discussion over to the aspect of character generation that has nothing to do with skills or abilities. The more fluff part. The backgrounds and motivations or whatever. At that point I just wanted to see what people had to say. Classes can also have a fluff component, and so far I've overlooked that in my classless game, and want to see what people could add.

Classes or classless has fuckall to do with backgrounds or motivations.

To prevent a classless system from getting "mushy," you need to make sure that character generation points are scarce.  You should never be able to build a character who is solidly competent in multiple areas.  Make PCs either concentrate or suck.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;921961To prevent a classless system from getting "mushy," you need to make sure that character generation points are scarce.  You should never be able to build a character who is solidly competent in multiple areas.  Make PCs either concentrate or suck.

It been my experience given enough advancement all classless system wind up making polymaths. The trick is how long until that point is reached. What also matter is the relative jump in power that a single character point gives you.

For example Fudge and Fate games have a scarce number of character points but even a +1 to a skill or attribute is a big deal. A +1 advancement can take a 50-50 contest to 73-27 contest. This is because the bell curve of 4dF has a steep hump in the middle compared to 2d6 or 3d6.

A good classless system is a well-designed super hero game. Envision, then create, with some balance inherent, or the expectation that a GM will be able to keep everyone from choosing "power X" for mechanical reasons.

And when it comes to what "classless" is all about, I think you can ask any 3 members of the RPG site to come together to demonstrate, on any given day, what a "lack of class" looks like. We're ALL up to it, man! :-) (I'll start with the crotch scratching and spitting on the linoleum)

Quote from: cranebump;922050And when it comes to what "classless" is all about, I think you can ask any 3 members of the RPG site to come together to demonstrate, on any given day, what a "lack of class" looks like. We're ALL up to it, man! :-)

I'd really like to disagree....