Quote from: Bren;930074Dammit. I wanted James Earl Jones. Now I'm afraid I'm going to be stuck with young Mark Hamill whining "I Was Going to Toshi Station to Pick Up Some Power Converters."

Or maybe I could have that guy that narrated the Honey Badger video.

JG

Seriously: Classed roleplay doesn't simulate real life.  It certainly doesn't simulate Swords & Sorcery, or even Tolkien-style High Fantasy.  It simulates D&D.  In High Fantasy or S&S novels, the heroes are usually some type of non-spellcaster character (although sometimes with innate magic abilities or items) and real spellcasting is either EVIL or not combat-efficient.  So since nobody is "classed" as a spellcaster, people are usually somewhere between Warrior and Rogue, with "class" being merely specialization and skills.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;930157Seriously: Classed roleplay doesn't simulate real life.  It certainly doesn't simulate Swords & Sorcery, or even Tolkien-style High Fantasy.  It simulates D&D.  In High Fantasy or S&S novels, the heroes are usually some type of non-spellcaster character (although sometimes with innate magic abilities or items) and real spellcasting is either EVIL or not combat-efficient.  So since nobody is "classed" as a spellcaster, people are usually somewhere between Warrior and Rogue, with "class" being merely specialization and skills.

JG

Depends on the novel, might I add, but the number of the old stories where the hero is afirst and foremost spellcaster is vanishingly small. And even in many of them it's often still evil. (OTOH, the number of stories with fighter characters having some occult skills is quite high, but that doesn't map well to class systems:)).

One would think the older stories recounted by many people would reflect the archetypes better;). They probably do, but that's because the Archetypes aren't Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Thief! (In those stories, every man is a warrior and adventurer, possibly because men were expected to fight when necessary. The archetypes would be more like their paths to greatness. Professional Warrior, Jaded Professional Warrior, Smart Guy, Strong Guy, Angry Guy, Son of a Supernatural Creature, Guy Who Sold His Soul For Power, The Ascetic, The Crippled Warrior and The Chick would be much better choices...BTW: all of them are represented amid the heroes near Troy:p).

And yes, classed RPGs emulate settings that were inspired by D&D to begin with, like R. Feist's novels and the like. While there's nothing wrong with that, you don't get to use self-referential stories as arguments:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;930164Depends on the novel, might I add, but the number of the old stories where the hero is afirst and foremost spellcaster is vanishingly small. And even in many of them it's often still evil. (OTOH, the number of stories with fighter characters having some occult skills is quite high, but that doesn't map well to class systems:)).

One would think the older stories recounted by many people would reflect the archetypes better;). They probably do, but that's because the Archetypes aren't Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Thief! (In those stories, every man is a warrior and adventurer, possibly because men were expected to fight when necessary. The archetypes would be more like their paths to greatness. Professional Warrior, Jaded Professional Warrior, Smart Guy, Strong Guy, Angry Guy, Son of a Supernatural Creature, Guy Who Sold His Soul For Power, The Ascetic, The Crippled Warrior and The Chick would be much better choices...BTW: all of them are represented amid the heroes near Troy:p).

And yes, classed RPGs emulate settings that were inspired by D&D to begin with, like R. Feist's novels and the like. While there's nothing wrong with that, you don't get to use self-referential stories as arguments:D!

The other aspect of using S&S as an analog is that because you don't have a "role" for Healer or Wizard (which really means 'glass cannon') individual characters have to be tougher.  Largely because they don't have magical reliable healing.  So they're less "specialist" in terms of where (say) Fighters in a D20/PF type game don't have much in the way of other skills; characters have to be well-rounded, and in the fiction are often independents unless some much greater threat requires them to join forces.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;930166The other aspect of using S&S as an analog is that because you don't have a "role" for Healer or Wizard (which really means 'glass cannon') individual characters have to be tougher.  Largely because they don't have magical reliable healing.  So they're less "specialist" in terms of where (say) Fighters in a D20/PF type game don't have much in the way of other skills; characters have to be well-rounded, and in the fiction are often independents unless some much greater threat requires them to join forces.

JG

Indeed, and I've always supported that notion. When 3.0 was still new, me and a friend started a thread on a Bulgarian forum saying more or less "Fighters without Spot and Detect Motive as class skills are carricatures".
Still haven't changed said opinion;).

What makes a classless system work is exactly the same thing that makes a system with classes work.

Players and a referee who are smart enough to shit unassisted, and socialized enough to not be utter dickweeds.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930222What makes a classless system work is exactly the same thing that makes a system with classes work.

Players and a referee who are smart enough to shit unassisted, and socialized enough to not be utter dickweeds.

So you're saying neither works, except in theory.

Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930233Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee.

Indeed.

JG

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930222What makes a classless system work is exactly the same thing that makes a system with classes work.

Players and a referee who are smart enough to shit unassisted, and socialized enough to not be utter dickweeds.

Indeed:).
The lack thereof is also what makes them fall.

Quote from: Bren;930232So you're saying neither works, except in theory.

And we're on this site to discuss how to apply the theory efficiently;).

Quote from: AsenRG;930253And we're on this site to discuss how to apply the theory efficiently;).

I find a 2 x 4 works wonders.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930300I find a 2 x 4 works wonders.

Let me amend the above to "efficiently but not violently".

I find people get angry at you and don't want to play if you use a 2 x 4 as an argument. Yes, I know, I also find it weird, but there it is:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;930038Ooo, that's a good one.

Yeah, my life is narrated by the voices of Al Swearengen and Blackbeard. Make of that what you will.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930109...based on extensive classless system play no doubt?

Extensive?  I dunno about that, but I do know that most people I've played with have an idea of what they want to be in a classless system and build towards that.  Polymaths tend to be the exception rather than the norm.

YMMV, as always.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930109Every system it's the players that make it work...for them.  I get the feeling that's not what you mean.

You're right, it's not.

Quote from: TristramEvans;930143Of course.

Oddly enough, the other guy sometimes has a different take on whether their argument is worthwhile or not.  People are funny that way.