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.

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

I definitely disagree with this. I think that there are a lot of different classless systems. Out of curiousity, I know that you're fond of Amber Diceless. Which of these would you say that Amber Diceless is? From my games of it, it doesn't feel like everyone is playing the same class, and there doesn't seem to be mechanically soft classes or archetypes. The limited number of powers and the archetypes mean that there are common patterns (heh?) that come up - i.e. the psychic Pattern-master, the shape-shifting spy, the warfare lord, etc.  Still, there are a ton of smooth variations among these.

Personally, I've been fond of RuneQuest and the Hero System, both of which work well as far as character design. Especially the latter has hugely open-ended possibilities. I think Fate also works pretty well, though I'm not a big fan.

Quote from: jhkim;925567I definitely disagree with this. I think that there are a lot of different classless systems. Out of curiousity, I know that you're fond of Amber Diceless. Which of these would you say that Amber Diceless is? From my games of it, it doesn't feel like everyone is playing the same class, and there doesn't seem to be mechanically soft classes or archetypes. The limited number of powers and the archetypes mean that there are common patterns (heh?) that come up - i.e. the psychic Pattern-master, the shape-shifting spy, the warfare lord, etc.  Still, there are a ton of smooth variations among these.

Personally, I've been fond of RuneQuest and the Hero System, both of which work well as far as character design. Especially the latter has hugely open-ended possibilities. I think Fate also works pretty well, though I'm not a big fan.

In theory, you have four main 'classes' (if I remember correctly) but they're labeled as statistics, Endurance, Psyche, Warfare and Strength (IF I'm remember the names correctly) and each player is supposed to favour one of the other three.  So that's a class based system, in so much as it allows you to have a niche you excel in.

Supposedly.

Thanks to jhkim for bringing up Hero System.  That game, especially CHAMPIONS, is a good example of one way of preventing "polymaths," a large starting skill point pool, skills expensive enough that your character is ALMOST what you want it to be, and slow advancement.  You can make both Batman and Green Lantern with 100 points, but the game would have to go on for decades for you to gain enough skill points to turn one into the other.  Doubly true since Bats and GL will both have things they want to spend additional points on to be "More Bats" or "More GL."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;925760Thanks to jhkim for bringing up Hero System.  That game, especially CHAMPIONS, is a good example of one way of preventing "polymaths," a large starting skill point pool, skills expensive enough that your character is ALMOST what you want it to be, and slow advancement.  You can make both Batman and Green Lantern with 100 points, but the game would have to go on for decades for you to gain enough skill points to turn one into the other.  Doubly true since Bats and GL will both have things they want to spend additional points on to be "More Bats" or "More GL."

Personal experience has shown me that the average player in a game that often allows for 'polymaths', like Champions or Mutants and Masterminds or GURPS, players still don't do it.  Like you said, if they make a 'Batman', they will continue to choose things that allow them to keep being Batman but better.  If someone wants to be the Green Lantern, they will spend their points to be more Green Lantern.

Again, in my experience, it's been less the system and more the players.  The ones that want to do it all, are the same that complain about multi-classing in D&D and stuff, for no reason than to be able to do it all.

YMMV.

I would tend to agree it's a player problem more than a system problem.

Like in Star Wars d6, somebody wanted to be a Noble/Cyberspy/Smuggler.  They bellyached because they wanted to be as good a Noble as somebody who was just a Noble, as good a Cyberspy as somebody who was just a Cyberspy, and as good a Smuggler as somebody who was just a Smuggler.

The answer to that is, "No, you don't get to start with three times as many points as everybody else."

I'm playing Final Fantasy 10 at the moment. It has a skill system where are the skills are located on a kind of conceptual map - some are adjacent to each other and paths that connect them. Character development is basically all about following those paths and choosing which skills to take, which to skip, and where to go when it branches.

It seems cumbersome for a pen and paper game, but Instill wonder if it can be utilized.

What it offers is on one hand any character can get any skill, but on the other hand, skills tend to be grouped together in sensible ways.

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.

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

Sorry, Pundit, but I've played and run enough classless games to know that they work without either of these being true. In fact, they work much more readily than class games, IME:).

Quote from: Lunamancer;9253315) 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.

Just to correct a misconception, skill pricing in GURPS 4e doesn't work like that. After the 3rd level in a skill, which is a respectable level, you pay the same for every skill point.
Of course, you don't need to invest much skill points unless it's something you'd be doing a lot and you don't have many skills controlled by the same attribute, otherwise, you're better off just raising the controlling attribute;).

And I just don't get why you need to discourage polymaths, playing one of those means you're only good enough when the opposition doesn't have specialists.

Quote from: AsenRG;926845Sorry, Pundit, but I've played and run enough classless games to know that they work without either of these being true. In fact, they work much more readily than class games, IME:).

I suspect whether or not classless systems work depends mostly on the type of player. If the players are those who like GURPS and HERO with four hundred bazillion options for character generation, pretty much any workable system is going to function acceptably.

If you have players like my players, who said, and I quote "We really don't care which system, as long as it doesn't get in the way of our role-playing", you may have more of an issue unless, as Pundit suggested, you have soft classes or effectively only one class.

In the system I'm writing, you choose which area is your Prime area from Offense, Defense, Skills, Magic (which can be magic, psionics, gadgets, etc), and Hit Points. So you kind of have soft classes of Damage Dealer (DPS), Damage Avoider (Armored Tank), Skilled (thief, doctor, or other specialist), Magic-User/Cleric/Angry-Engineer (magician or mad scientist or tech hero like Batman or Ironman), and Damage Receiver (HP Tank). And then you have two professions. I did this to make it simpler to create the character and cut down on the analysis-paralysis you can get from things like GURPS and HERO. But this still lets you do things like decide to be Gandalf (specialize in Magic and make Offense your second-best area).

Quote from: Tod13;926850I suspect whether or not classless systems work depends mostly on the type of player. If the players are those who like GURPS and HERO with four hundred bazillion options for character generation, pretty much any workable system is going to function acceptably.

If you have players like my players, who said, and I quote "We really don't care which system, as long as it doesn't get in the way of our role-playing", you may have more of an issue unless, as Pundit suggested, you have soft classes or effectively only one class.

Actually, that's exactly how most of my players are. Some fo them find that having a class system gets in the way of their roleplaying, though:).
And please remember that classless doesn't mean you have to have as many options as GURPS or similar games. It only means you can combine whatever options exist more freely;).
I mean, RISUS, Pocket Universe and 5-point Fudge are all classless systems. The rules of all of them combined are about as long as the rules of OD&D.

For that matter, everyone in OD&D is from the same "class", too. The class is just named "adventurer"! "Fighting man", "magic user" and "cleric" are just skill packages for the class you already have, providing some customization.

Quote from: AsenRG;926853
And please remember that classless doesn't mean you have to have as many options as GURPS or similar games. It only means you can combine whatever options exist more freely;).

Yup. I know and agree. My point was more that even systems that might be considered unwieldy or undesirable work well for a lot of people. Meaning, I was talking more about the type of player rather than the type of game system, which seems to get lost in this discussion.

I'm skipping the comment about classes interfering with role-playing based on the belief that is a difference in definition of role-playing that belongs to a different thread.

ETA: I also should have been more specific. My players, because of their lack of interest in specific systems, are unlikely to be willing to invest the time necessary for the more complex classless systems.

Quote from: Tod13;926868Yup. I know and agree. My point was more that even systems that might be considered unwieldy or undesirable work well for a lot of people.

Yes, they work for many people, myself included. I've been running GURPS for years, and am still able to tell you how to create a 150-points character in the system in 15 to 30 minutes:).

But that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about classless systems in general, so arguments that derive from crunchy classless systems being crunchy don't work. It's like me saying that because D&D 4e had certain qualities I found undesirable, all class systems have those.
Nope, crunchy is unrelated to having or not having classes, and neither are those qualities.

QuoteMeaning, I was talking more about the type of player rather than the type of game system, which seems to get lost in this discussion.

Well, I think I got what you mean. But the problem with "bajillion options" is a problem that we experience when crunchy games meet a certain kind of gamers;). It's not related to having or not having classes.

QuoteI'm skipping the comment about classes interfering with role-playing based on the belief that is a difference in definition of role-playing that belongs to a different thread.

Probably for the better. My definition is "acting and making decisions as your character or at least for your character", BTW.

QuoteETA: I also should have been more specific. My players, because of their lack of interest in specific systems, are unlikely to be willing to invest the time necessary for the more complex classless systems.

Exactly, but are you telling me they're going to invest the time necessary for the more complex class-based systems? Because IME, the time required is pretty much the same, and varies mostly based on whether someone else is helping you with the rules:D!

Quote from: Tod13;926850I suspect whether or not classless systems work depends mostly on the type of player.

I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

Quote from: RPGPundit;928142I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

What on earth do you mean? Your responses seem to imply that classes are somehow necessary as a way of defining characters. I call bullshit on that. A character as a collection of stat + skills + equipment does not need to fit some predetermined archetype. I'm not against it as a means to facilitate play, but the idea its inescapable in order to game is just silly.

Quote from: RPGPundit;928142I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

I usually suggest it more in terms of a character-concept. That way, you have direction for how to build your character rather than randomly collecting skills.

I thought of it as character concepts, which I think for most people end up being stuff like Gandalf (fighter magic-user) or Tifa from Final Fantasy 7 (non-weapons fighter). This can sort of be "some kind of class-structure" with an emphasis on structure.

In either case, the part of it, to me, that makes it work is that the character has some sort of design philosophy or boundaries giving direction (or structure) to character growth.

Is that kind of what you meant? Or does it at least fit your concept?

ETA: I'd like to point out I managed to avoid using the Food Network phrase "flavor profile" in this post. Until now.

Quote from: RPGPundit;928142I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

Quote from: TristramEvans;928157What on earth do you mean? Your responses seem to imply that classes are somehow necessary as a way of defining characters. I call bullshit on that. A character as a collection of stat + skills + equipment does not need to fit some predetermined archetype. I'm not against it as a means to facilitate play, but the idea its inescapable in order to game is just silly.

I don't see how Traveller, RuneQuest, GURPS or any other 30-40 year old skill-based system is creating a class-structure unless you mean the guy with the best fighting skills is the fighter, the guy with the best stealth skills is the thief, etc...