Quote from: Christopher Brady;924153Of course, I'm playing it the wrong way:  I LIKE THE NEW STUFF, so clearly I must be wrong.  Worse, the tables I run at home or at the Adventure League are ALSO liking it, and since it's not the little brown books, WE must be doing it wrong.

Okaaaayyy :rolleyes: You might want to consider cutting back on chugging Redbulls while typing.

Quote from: JamesV;924085A great classless system has a solid task resolution system with just the right number of skills to emulate the intended gene of the game.

This.

Though I would add that you enjoy a couple of times in that sentence.

Quote from: JamesV;924085A great classless system has a solid task resolution system with just the right number of skills to emulate the intended gene of the game.

Quote from: Sommerjon;924186This.

Though I would add that you enjoy a couple of times in that sentence.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Quote from: Bren;923981There is not one right way, but there certainly are some wrong ways. You said, and I quote:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923797I've been playing D&D incorrectly for the past 31 years.

You said you were playing the wrong way, not me. If you aren't satisfied with the way you are playing D&D then you obviously are playing D&D the WRONG way. Try playing it some other way and see if that is more satisfying.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923797It gets old that I've been playing D&D incorrectly for the past 31 years.

The entire sentence, following complaints that Gronan and the OSR are advocating for one true way to play D&D that differs from his, makes it abundantly clear that what is getting old is being told that he's been playing D&D incorrectly for 31 years.

Quote from: rawma;924383The entire sentence, following complaints that Gronan and the OSR are advocating for one true way to play D&D that differs from his, makes it abundantly clear that what is getting old is being told that he's been playing D&D incorrectly for 31 years.

And yet, that's what he does to us, whenever he claims that it 'wasn't the way it was, and that we're all overthinking it.'

I think there's only two ways a classless system can really work:

1) you have a class-system in all but name, either with 'soft classes' ("occupations", "professions", "training packages", whatever) or semi-rigid archetypes ("backgrounds", etc.) of some kind.

2) the game is of such a narrow focus that everyone is in essence playing the same class.

Quote from: RPGPundit;925255I think there's only two ways a classless system can really work:

1) you have a class-system in all but name, either with 'soft classes' ("occupations", "professions", "training packages", whatever) or semi-rigid archetypes ("backgrounds", etc.) of some kind.

What most people do innately.

Quote from: RPGPundit;9252552) the game is of such a narrow focus that everyone is in essence playing the same class.

This on the other hand is utter bollocks.  Simply because people will MAKE their own 'classes'/archetypes/jobs/occupations/whatever-you-want-to-label-it.  We do it in real life, and what we do in real life, we apply it in our fantasies.

You should probably take a close look at the Lejendary Adventure RPG. A few things the game does that helps out,

1) The skills in LA (what the game calls "Abilities") are really skill-bundles, sort of mini-classes. This means if you are skilled in the Weapons Ability, for example, you not only know how to fight with weapons, you also know how to care for them and can tell a quality sword from a cheap sword. It turns out there's a dual-benefit to this when it comes to character builds. Players are not burdened with having to assign points into logical support skills, which simultaneously prevents the opportunity of re-purposing those points towards maxing out some other prime adventuring skill.

2) Because Abilities are mini-classes, you only get to pick four, which is more than enough. With four, though, you certainly can't be awesome at everything.

3) Initially, they are ranked. So it's not like you get a pool of points and then you can evenly divide them to make a "decent at everything" type of character.

4) Although once you're through character generation, you are allowed to buy up skills any way you choose, whichever one was ranked 1st in importance upon character creation is always considered your character's "First Ability" even if it is no longer the highest skilled. The game offers little bennies for hitting certain benchmarks with your First Ability, so you are encouraged to advance it.

5) Unlike a lot of skill-based games, it doesn't try to cram "diminishing returns" down your throat. Buying a point from the very highest skill echelon costs only twice as many points as buying a point from the lowest echelon. Compare this to GURPS where the cost sometimes doubles with each and every point you advance. A lot of skill-based games discourage specialization by either upping the cost or nerfing the pay-off of high skills.

6) There are also archetypes available in the system. Unlike other games, you don't choose the archetype which in turn dictates your skills. Rather, you choose whatever skills you want and that may qualify you for acceptance into an Order. Order, and rank within it, really define your social station within society. You don't have to be in an order, and that would indicate that you operate outside of social norms, which is fine. But either way, you usually have a clear picture of where your character fits in to overall society.

In playing Lejendary Adventure, I've never run into any of the problems commonly associated with skill-based games. Certainly none of them being cited here. The one thing I feel I'm missing out on that class-based games have is the ability to quickly say something like, "Level 6 Cleric" and knowing instantly what that means. In LA "7th Rank Noble" could mean a lot of different things. Though with how D&D has morphed over the editions, it's not even true that D&D has this feature anymore.

As to mentions of niche protection, I do have to caution that niche protection isn't what class-based systems do. That's a myth, and it's unfortunate that people clearly have designed thinking that myth fact. Classes are archetypes. A niche isn't something you can necessarily plan for. You don't have the niche of "I'm the fightin' guy" in D&D if you're one of 3 fighters in the party. But if Joe and Fred the fighter both rolled max, or near-max hit points and Chuck the fighter rolled crappy, Joe and Fred are too valuable as front-line fighters to do anything else. This gives Chuck a "comparative advantage" as an archer. A system that supported niches would do is allow Chuck some customizing options to begin specializing in his niche as an archer after play has begun once you realized what your role will be within this party. D&D allows that to some degree. Unfortunately you may have to wait a few levels before you get your next feat or proficiency slot.

So skill-based games where you could potentially buy a point after the first session or two are actually superior in this regard. Thus the biggest trick to a good skill-based game is you need a good character creation system. Once you've begun play with a good variety of heroes, the party dynamic will help guide further advancement. As long as you don't start with mush, and as long as the system doesn't try to emulate diminishing returns, you should be good.

Quote from: Lunamancer;925331snip

In playing Lejendary Adventure, I've never run into any of the problems commonly associated with skill-based games. Certainly none of them being cited here. The one thing I feel I'm missing out on that class-based games have is the ability to quickly say something like, "Level 6 Cleric" and knowing instantly what that means. In LA "7th Rank Noble" could mean a lot of different things. Though with how D&D has morphed over the editions, it's not even true that D&D has this feature anymore.
snip

I disagree with the idea that D&D may have lost the simple "level 6 cleric" advantage.
While each edition  has it's individual quirks they do share A large amount of common terminology.
I for example have never played 2e or 1e, but I can recognize the phrase fighter or magic user, and under stand the gist of what they do, even if I do not fully under stand the mechanical differences in the editions in question.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924190Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I will clarify my pat answer with a couple extra details.
1) I think that classless games are about doing things and not making things happen, so it's task, not conflict resolution for me.
2) "The right amount of skills" is a know-it-when-seen kind of thing, but still important since I think that a well made game is aimed at emulating a specific genre well. There should be enough skills to allow players to fit into roles they want. Too many skills would make it harder for players to create the roles, too little would like give every player the same role.

Quote from:  CRKrueger

QuoteQuote Originally Posted by JamesV  
A great classless system has a solid task resolution system with just the right number of skills to emulate the intended gene of the game.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Perhaps that is my issue.
Or why my game ends up with longevity.

I might have to disagree here.  Unless my particular old disaster has a large emulation.  There is some chance that the amount of skills, if done properly and coherently allows for many types of games.

Quote from: LordVreeg;925394I might have to disagree here.  Unless my particular old disaster has a large emulation.  There is some chance that the amount of skills, if done properly and coherently allows for many types of games.

It does look to me like your intent was to have a lot of skills to cover different kinds of games, or do I misunderstand?

For example, in a particular campaign, do the players avail themselves of any and all of the skills, regardless of the campaign's setting and themes, or is there some discrimination going on?

For example, I have the impression that the skill Basic Furrier is not being used unless your game has consistent room for that niche, like for survival or economic purposes.

As always, I am totally prepared to be wrong.

I was agreeing more that you need enough skills to cover the game, not that you should actively curtail skills.  For example, any skill system game could have a near-unlimited list of knowledge skills - lores, histories, religions, cultures, protocols, sciences, rites, arts, crafts, performances, etc...

Even in a Conan campaign, you could have a Nemedian Scholar character.

I don't think it necessary to detail every possible skill beforehand, if you have a skill framework that allows for the definition of skills as they become necessary.  The Lore:Ymir skill might not be on "The List" until someone rolls up an Aesir.

Quote from: JamesV;925399It does look to me like your intent was to have a lot of skills to cover different kinds of games, or do I misunderstand?

For example, in a particular campaign, do the players avail themselves of any and all of the skills, regardless of the campaign's setting and themes, or is there some discrimination going on?

For example, I have the impression that the skill Basic Furrier is not being used unless your game has consistent room for that niche, like for survival or economic purposes.

As always, I am totally prepared to be wrong.

And I don't need to be right.

The rules are set to underpin the physics engine of the world and the type of game I like to Run.  And there are advanced rules we plug in or remove depending on that particular game and the players.

New PCs in a regular game cannot pick advanced skills (everything is set up in trees, some 4-5 levels deep), and since we keep track of experience per skill, Pcs balance taking as many skills as they can (as it is hard to learn them later) with taking enough experience in a skill to be of any use in that skill.  We also break up the experience for artisan skills and language skills in most games, and have a 'lifepath' add on that gives more skills as part of building a background, so those artisan skills do come in quite a bit, and the players are allowed skill addition if they are clever.  
"The GuildSchool game is set up to encourage the clever use of skills.  This often manifests itself as players asking for a bonus on a skill CC or skill use due to a related skill. Since this is a skill based system, one based on thinking players, this is not a thorn in the GM's side.  Rather, this is something that has to be adjudicated personally, situation by situation, but try to encourage the players thinking.  I say this clearly; this is a way to award players for thinking, and should be encouraged"
From here...

So, for example, one of the online groups fought a bear that acted strangely and in a jerky fashion last night (Steel Isle2 game).  A PC could have used basic Fauna skill and asked for a bonus from Furrier (arguing that he'd know by the condition of the fur) if they could figure out what was wrong with it as it attacked them.  (A cultist had sent a spirit into a dead bear, raising a zombie bear, so that you know).

I also set things up to go long.  

I think I agree that it could be that I set up the rules to allow for emulation in many situations.  Last night's game is a real exploration; my long online game is a game where the PCs are first year students in a huge ancient magic school, just hit session 102, and is very non-combat, high social and lore skills.  Maybe that is what you are saying?

Quote from: CRKrueger;925438I was agreeing more that you need enough skills to cover the game, not that you should actively curtail skills.  For example, any skill system game could have a near-unlimited list of knowledge skills - lores, histories, religions, cultures, protocols, sciences, rites, arts, crafts, performances, etc...

Even in a Conan campaign, you could have a Nemedian Scholar character.

I don't think it necessary to detail every possible skill beforehand, if you have a skill framework that allows for the definition of skills as they become necessary.  The Lore:Ymir skill might not be on "The List" until someone rolls up an Aesir.

of course,
but on the other hand, as a GM, to create a framework for the world.  It's not just what the pcs roll up, it is what they see around them, what they see and get attracted to, what befuddles them, etc.  
There is this really ugly 4th commonality combat skill called 'reave'.  It can destroy armor as it hits and damages, and the first time the players ran into that, they freaked, then wanted it.  Similar with spell skills, when the pcs run into a caster who has chosen to work on the spell resistance subskill of a type of magic instead of just working the spell points, it confounds the pcs, but they want it, and the more you have this mapped out, the deeper and bigger the world can seem.  Or that is at least another way to see it.