There are so (so, so, so...) many OSR systems out there now, I was wondering whether anyone has made one that is clearly core D&D (levels, HP, AC, etc.) but has no classes.
There is clearly some kind of pressure in that direction, when you consider the common arguments against the addition of the thief and other classes in OD&D expansions. And if you are super old-school and loved gaming just with Chainmail, addition of the Cleric feels weird (the only two types of human figures in CM were the warrior/hero/superhero type and the various levels of magic user).
Another thought process that might move you this direction is to consider that the explosion of dozens and dozens of classes and multi-class rules effectively fills in the 'space' created by the half dozen core ones. That is, people have always pushed to create a version of D&D where you are more or less free to pick any imaginable mix of magical and mundane abilities.
So, it seems reasonable to me that a very 'clean' design of D&D would just give you a menu of all the known abilities (casting spells, using swords, picking locks, etc.) and you do a bit of build-a-bear.
Anyway, I've got a file of fantasy heartbreaker house rules along these lines. I recently looked back through it and was trying to remember whether I'ld ever seen anything like it elsewhere. If there is a version someone has officially put out I'ld like to see it. If not, and anyone is interested, I might clean it up and post mine.
While I don't know all the OSR systems out there and can't speak for them all, none of the over 30 I own has a classless system:). I just want through my OSR folder and checked the ones I wasn't sure about.
And yes, I agree with your reasoning that a classless system is a logical, maybe even a necessary development;).
I've never seen any examples of OSR D&D retroclones that omitted classes. Perhaps because the majority, or all of the current OSR publishers consider classes to be "clearly core D&D"?
Doesn't make much sense to me. If I wanted a near-D&D experience that provided the flexibility in chargen to create customizable characters - in your build-a-bear model - with a mixture of mundane and magical abilities free from the boundaries of classes, why wouldn't I just use one of the many skill-based systems that have come out over the past over the past 37 years? From near-D&D 70s games (like RuneQuest), to the 80s (like Stormbringer, or The Fantasy Trip).
Quote from: Larsdangly;837364So, it seems reasonable to me that a very 'clean' design of D&D would just give you a menu of all the known abilities (casting spells, using swords, picking locks, etc.) and you do a bit of build-a-bear.
Whitehack isn't literally class-less, but the interaction of classes and vocations fills some of this space. I see in the thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=32600) you're already aware of it, but you might want to break down and check it out directly.
Added: As far as interest goes, I'm okay with classes, so not a lot. I would check out a build-a-bear system if it went as deep into the math of character and class abilities as ACKS did for the trade system and domain game, then came out the other side with an easy to use game where the math just happened to all work. But short of that, I've already got my retro-clone of choice, so I'm good.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837364There are so (so, so, so...) many OSR systems out there now, I was wondering whether anyone has made one that is clearly core D&D (levels, HP, AC, etc.) but has no classes.
Searchers of the Unknown (a one page old school system) has no classes (or I guess one class that includes all adventurers. I have a variant rule for Microlite74 where everyone is one class "Adventurer". It would probably be fairly easy for me to version of Microlite74 or 81 that did not have classes, but I'd first have to know what was meant by "no classes". Everyone one "class" would be very easy. At the other end, point buy with skills and stuff would pretty hard (and not be anything I'd really be interested in writing).
QuoteSo, it seems reasonable to me that a very 'clean' design of D&D would just give you a menu of all the known abilities (casting spells, using swords, picking locks, etc.) and you do a bit of build-a-bear.
Use Microlite20 and the Microlite20 Ultimate Fantasy (http://microlite20.org/forum/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=171) rules which allows for race/class design from such elements with spells, magic items, and procedures from your favorite OSR game.
Quote from: K Peterson;837378I've never seen any examples of OSR D&D retroclones that omitted classes. Perhaps because the majority, or all of the current OSR publishers consider classes to be "clearly core D&D"?
Doesn't make much sense to me. If I wanted a near-D&D experience that provided the flexibility in chargen to create customizable characters - in your build-a-bear model - with a mixture of mundane and magical abilities free from the boundaries of classes, why wouldn't I just use one of the many skill-based systems that have come out over the past over the past 37 years? From near-D&D 70s games (like RuneQuest), to the 80s (like Stormbringer, or The Fantasy Trip).
The manifestation of this in my own house rules folder is unlike any common skill based systems, both because I wanted to make sure it was strictly compatible with all my 'real' D&D modules, monster manuals, spell books, etc., and because I wanted to vacuum out the 'cruft' that crept into D&D. Basically, all the common things you might describe as skills in a skill based system, plus all the saving throws, are handled with attribute-based rolls, and 'abilities' are just the big or weird things: spell use; ability to fight with a large group of weapons; turning undead; accelerated HP gain. It is more like a 'build a bear' menu of the usually class-based D&D isms than it is a skill system.
I understand the critique that you might as well play a skill based system. Its just that every example of such a system is incompatible with the rest of D&D, so it seems like an impractical approach if you like playing D&D style campaigns and adventures, with all that implies. I just feel like the game you play after you've stripped thieves and rangers and such out of D&D is so close to classless that you might as well take the extra step and boil it down to 0.
You're looking for kludge in all the wrong places, in D&D eyes hoping for traces of meta-system love ...
I don't think it makes much sense to dismember the game and try to patch it together as a "menu" as if everything should work smoothly without the context. It's much better, if you want something so radically different, to build from the ground up (or start with a meta-system in the first place, such as Champions).
Hand-tailoring whatever options one wants -- a variation on a class, for instance -- gets the job done efficiently and well for those occasions when it's called for. That's why such variations proliferate!
People who don't dig the old D&D framework enough to use it move on to something else -- RuneQuest, Hero System, Rolemaster, GURPS, Pathfinder, whatever -- and get on with playing.
Other Dust seemed pretty close. Also, I would look at the back pages of Talislanta 2e (or maybe 3e, not sure) which has a roll-your-own archetype. Combine that with the already-fluid advancement system and the fact that it's rather close to old-school D&D. It may give some ideas.
EDIT: In answer to the original question, yes I would be interested. Really the key once you take out classes per se IMO is that you still have levels as the measure of hit point and attack bonus, and probably also as a standard bonus to known skills. (In Tal, depending on how you read it, the skill bonus only accrues from the point you acquire the skill, so a 5th level character who picks up Tracking and then advances a level will have Tracking 2.) Another key D&Dism is not to have defense rolls (except maybe for special maneuvers). Whether armor makes you harder to hit or absorbs damage is somewhat secondary.
Anyway, the result would be different enough from most pure skill-based games to make it worth it.
I honestly wouldn't know where to start designing a classless game without some sort of skill system. At which point I'd probably default to BRP, Storyteller or Savage Worlds.
What do you have in mind?
It's really not complicated. I am not going to run through the whole thing in a forum post, but the basic notion is:
0 level human: standard 6 stats; HP = Con/3; all common actions and saving throws are equal to d20, roll under, vs. one of the stats/2. No special abilities.
Every level, including first, just pick one ability from a menu that includes stuff like:
- + 1d6 HP
- Level 1 spells of one type (pick again for lvl 2 spells of that type, etc.)
- Tracking
- Pick locks
- Sneaking
- Fighting with one broad category of weapons (swords, etc.)
- Turn undead
Any ability that is resolved as a skill or saving throw just lets you add your level to your success chance (e.g., pick locks would be DX/2 + LVL instead of DX/2 as for everyone else).
Only kludgy thing are attacks, which need a special modifier to make them work out to have average odds like other versions of D&D (e.g., melee attack = ST/2 + (AC-5) + lvl if you have a relevant ability).
That's pretty much it. All the monsters, spells and items are from core D&D. There is a table for converting standard saving throw types to stat rolls, but that is pretty obvious. Success chances are a bit different for some actions at some levels, but overall it is a lot like core B/X D&D in power level and so forth.
So, you've prototyped a new game with bits from the old somewhat arbitrarily jammed in. Now begins the process called "development," to make it all coherent and balanced in the new scheme.
Maybe 40 years from now, someone else will be hacking your game!
Quote from: Phillip;837405So, you've prototyped a new game with bits from the old somewhat arbitrarily jammed in. Now begins the process called "development," to make it all coherent and balanced in the new scheme.
Maybe 40 years from now, someone else will be hacking your game!
Maybe! Though, honestly, I don't have such a grandiose view of my little house rules. A close reading of OD&D and various osr pastiches will show you nearly everything has been tried on for size; sometimes 'officially' and sometimes unofficially. I would say the notion of stat based rolls is a lot less radical than the 'alternate combat system' added part way through OD&D. And going from 2 classes in chainmail to 1 class in my fantasy hearbreaker is less of a big deal than the expansion from 2 to dozens of classes that happened in the 70's. Whenever a game looks and smells like D&D at the table, I call it D&D with a few house rules. That's what I think my little rules set is.
I've thought about turning Dark Passages three into a very minimalist skill system. Fighting, Shooting, Magic, and Crafts including woodcraft and skullduggery. Experience doubling would be shifted to the skill : challenge axis making 1000xp per level standard all the way up.
The levels would give bonuses to actions and results just like stats so you would have +5 to hit and damage with fighting or shooting level 10. Of course you'd still be able to shift any to hit bonus to AC or split it between multiple attacks as usual.
At tenth level you could learn and cast fifth level spells. But I think I'd allow preparation of level + Intelligence or Wisdom bonus spell levels.
Hit Dice would be an interesting question, they're already Size based but I'd probably make a die type boost standard for Fighting and a downshift standard for magic. Only the highest skill level would gain a hit dice. Going Fighting 4 Magic 3 wouldn't get you 7 HD.
On the other hand the OSR field is really crowded and I have other projects that interest me more. If I had the money to manufacture a couple sprues of plastic miniatures I might get back to it but with Cryptowall 3 eating my files I've had to start from scratch and I'm finding it oddly liberating. Re-writing Galaxies in Shadow from scratch right now. Which puts Dark Passages on the back burner for now.
Mutant Future (and by extension Gamma World 1st) is classless unless you consider "mutant," "pure strain human," "Android," etc. classes.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837396Every level, including first, just pick one ability from a menu that includes stuff like:
- + 1d6 HP
- Level 1 spells of one type (pick again for lvl 2 spells of that type, etc.)
- Tracking
- Pick locks
- Sneaking
- Fighting with one broad category of weapons (swords, etc.)
- Turn undead
Not all of these abilities are of equal value.
Maybe group abilities into major abilities and minor abilities, then let players choose one major ability or a couple of minor abilities.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837396It's really not complicated. I am not going to run through the whole thing in a forum post, but the basic notion is:
Looks like a solid core. I wouldn't be interested myself, since I usually default to non-D&D systems when I specifically want a classless game, but I'd be genuinely curious as to how that would work out in actual play.
Quote from: Cave Bear;837417Not all of these abilities are of equal value.
Maybe group abilities into major abilities and minor abilities, then let players choose one major ability or a couple of minor abilities.
I'm personally not very sympathetic to the whole value balancing business. I figure if everyone in the party would like to gain 1d6 hp or be able to cast 1st level cleric spells rather than become expert at tracking, that is their business. So, I just jammed all the abilities you find in core D&D into a list and said 'pick what you actually want'. If you care a lot about ability balance you'd obviously do something else. But I honestly don't care, and so it doesn't bother me.
Ah, the classless system...where everybody can make a Fighter Mage! Or maybe a Mage Thief?
My thought is, that is what everyone seems to want to do anyway, so why not just make it straightforward instead of making up hybrid class after hybrid class. I actually think making people choose between HP and abilities is a good way to keep folks honest. A 5th level character who has a couple levels of wizard spells, a couple thief abilities and a level of cleric spells might sound pretty cool. But what if he only has 4 hit points? Not so cool any more. Your fighter with no abilities but 30 hit points will likely think he made a decent choice. Perhaps a bit weird (like most house rules we all have floating around our hard drives!). But it seems less 'broken' than most of the hybrid classes I can think of, which generally just amount to have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too grade inflation.
You mean like Traveller? Or Call of Cthulhu? Aren't there already a ton of classless systems? Or do you mean it has to be yet another D&D ripoff but without classes?
Quote from: Matt;837441You mean like Traveller? Or Call of Cthulhu? Aren't there already a ton of classless systems? Or do you mean it has to be yet another D&D ripoff but without classes?
Exactly. It isn't straightforward to run Tomb of Horrors with Traveller.
sigh...hostile much?
I don't think codifying your house rules or ideal D&D are ripoffs. I'd even argue that fairly strait lifts of specific editions are more about the owners of the game abandoning the fans than the fans abandoning the owners.
Now, if you go to press with your game, it gets iffy, but in terms of discussing or codifying the parts you want or fixing the parts you don't, well, if you aren't doing that you're not playing D&D right anyhow.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837427I'm personally not very sympathetic to the whole value balancing business. I figure if everyone in the party would like to gain 1d6 hp or be able to cast 1st level cleric spells rather than become expert at tracking, that is their business. So, I just jammed all the abilities you find in core D&D into a list and said 'pick what you actually want'. If you care a lot about ability balance you'd obviously do something else. But I honestly don't care, and so it doesn't bother me.
Okay.
Instead of one ability per level, why not 1d4 per level?
The whole point of D&D is the classes.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;837493The whole point of D&D is the classes.
Nope. There is a long list of things that make D&D what it is, and classes are somewhere near the end.
Quote from: Cave Bear;837474Okay.
Instead of one ability per level, why not 1d4 per level?
How about this for boiled down: there are no abilities, beyond supernatural things like spell casting and turn undead. Every level you choose one of the following:
• +1d4 HP and one level worth of one type of spell using ability (Turn Undead is a unique power that can be taken once instead)
• +1d6 HP and +1 to any stat
• +1d10 HP
Everything other than spell casting is just a roll vs. a stat, thus you will get better at whatever you sink your stat points into.
Quote from: David Johansen;837456sigh...hostile much?
I don't think codifying your house rules or ideal D&D are ripoffs. I'd even argue that fairly strait lifts of specific editions are more about the owners of the game abandoning the fans than the fans abandoning the owners.
Now, if you go to press with your game, it gets iffy, but in terms of discussing or codifying the parts you want or fixing the parts you don't, well, if you aren't doing that you're not playing D&D right anyhow.
Sigh...taking rules someone else wrote 40 years ago and pretending you've authored a new game is exactly what a ripoff is. OSR often seems to stand for "Outright Stealing & Ripoffs."
Quote from: Larsdangly;837500How about this for boiled down: there are no abilities, beyond supernatural things like spell casting and turn undead. Every level you choose one of the following:
• +1d4 HP and one level worth of one type of spell using ability (Turn Undead is a unique power that can be taken once instead)
• +1d6 HP and +1 to any stat
• +1d10 HP
Everything other than spell casting is just a roll vs. a stat, thus you will get better at whatever you sink your stat points into.
Okay.
Why?
I'm not going to argue about the point of house rules in D&D, or whether everyone is 'ripping off' the original game. Only on internet forums can you find dipshits who misunderstand the hobby on these issues, and they never respond to reason anyway.
But I will explain why I like this particular style of house rules (whatever the details might be).
- 40 years worth of grognards have correctly noted that every time you add a new class you implicitly narrow the view of what every other class can do. The classic example is the thief's appropriation of being sneaky, climbing and opening stuff, but you could argue the same thing about nearly any class you want to name. So, why not just say 'fuck it' to all of them and let every character try what they want? The strong characters will be good at feats of strength; the smart ones will succeed at things that call for cleverness, and so forth.
- Class expansion and re-definition is the main mechanism of grade inflation in D&D, which I consider lame.
- Most of the parallel but different systems of dice rolling mechanics are pointless; the game is the same if you resolve all the saves, attacks, etc. with one sort of roll. Of course it does no harm to keep them all, but there is no reason to fetishize them. For fuck's sake, the original edition says: 'resolve combat like this. Or, if you like, instead do something completely different. Or add hit locations. Or don't. Or whatever. Anyway, on to the important bits..." (I paraphrase).
- The rules are actually the least interesting thing about D&D, so why not make them as short and transparent as possible?
Quote from: Larsdangly;837513I'm not going to argue about the point of house rules in D&D, or whether everyone is 'ripping off' the original game. Only on internet forums can you find dipshits who misunderstand the hobby on these issues, and they never respond to reason anyway.
But I will explain why I like this particular style of house rules (whatever the details might be).
- 40 years worth of grognards have correctly noted that every time you add a new class you implicitly narrow the view of what every other class can do. The classic example is the thief's appropriation of being sneaky, climbing and opening stuff, but you could argue the same thing about nearly any class you want to name. So, why not just say 'fuck it' to all of them and let every character try what they want? The strong characters will be good at feats of strength; the smart ones will succeed at things that call for cleverness, and so forth.
- Class expansion and re-definition is the main mechanism of grade inflation in D&D, which I consider lame.
- Most of the parallel but different systems of dice rolling mechanics are pointless; the game is the same if you resolve all the saves, attacks, etc. with one sort of roll. Of course it does no harm to keep them all, but there is no reason to fetishize them. For fuck's sake, the original edition says: 'resolve combat like this. Or, if you like, instead do something completely different. Or add hit locations. Or don't. Or whatever. Anyway, on to the important bits..." (I paraphrase).
- The rules are actually the least interesting thing about D&D, so why not make them as short and transparent as possible?
Cool.
In the future:
https://youtu.be/sioZd3AxmnE
The additions to ability scores is now a bit like TFT.
But the freeform growth is a little too freeform for me.
In any case I'd get rid of the random hit points unless you keep track of your total HD and either
A) roll again each time you add a die, taking the higher total (as in SineNomine's games), or
B) roll all your HD periodically, as in carcosa
I think b is kind of nuts but it would be preferable to choosing 1d10 and rolling a 1.
If you wanted to go the TFT route then make the choice:
+1 HD
+1 attribute (but probably remove CON, and make sure there's a use for all the others
Gain a skill or spell
Some skills or spells have prereqs
Spells can't be used unless known. Some skills can be used at "untrained" but at a penalty such as 1/2 attribute or worse.
If you want to complicate it further then say that not all skills/spells have the same cost to learn. Give N points of "learning" instead of "learn a spell or skill".
Finally if like me you would like to preserve some class separation, then require people to pick a focus and then spells/skills outside the focus cost X*N. Or have the first prereq for some skills/spell trees be rather costly, but let anyone have a free prereq at 1st level.
Quote from: Cave Bear;837514Cool.
In the future:
https://youtu.be/sioZd3AxmnE
I thought my OP at the top of this thread says pretty much the same things.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837455Exactly. It isn't straightforward to run Tomb of Horrors with Traveller.
Decades ago for shits and giggles, either myself or another GM in our crew decided to use a D&D module when we were playing Traveller.
It was most awesome.
I can't remember which of us nutters started it, but it became a thing with our group (possibly because I'd been mixing D&D and Gamma World), but we ran several D&D classics using Traveller.
It was our proto-RIFTS!
Quote from: Matt;837501Sigh...taking rules someone else wrote 40 years ago and pretending you've authored a new game is exactly what a ripoff is. OSR often seems to stand for "Outright Stealing & Ripoffs."
Ripping off old stuff is how new stuff is created. If you rip off obscure stuff, you are called a genius. If your ripoff makes lots of money, you are called an innovator.
Maybe there is a market for classless D&D? We won't know until somebody tries!
Oh, I get it now. Literally D&D without classes, not modifications to the "engine" that made classless games like Metamorphosis Alpha or Gamma World's early editions. Man, the thread title confused me. I thought it was a more general question.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837513- 40 years worth of grognards have correctly noted that every time you add a new class you implicitly narrow the view of what every other class can do. The classic example is the thief's appropriation of being sneaky, climbing and opening stuff, but you could argue the same thing about nearly any class you want to name. So, why not just say 'fuck it' to all of them and let every character try what they want? The strong characters will be good at feats of strength; the smart ones will succeed at things that call for cleverness, and so forth.
Dissatisfied with classes and wanting a more skills-based approach, I came up with a variant on the way classes were implemented, but it turned out looking something like Tunnels and Trolls...Warriors can't cast spells, wizards can, and rogues can, but not as well. I also added a "hunter" class which is even less adept at casting, but better at fighting. So I ended up with tiers for weapons, armor, spells, and skills...somehow turning into an archetypical class system.
If you can break out of this circularity, I'd certainly like to see the end result.
As long as you have levels, you're going to go around the same circle again and again.
Levels where you get X whatevers per level mean you are capped at how far you can gain per level, so the template of what you want to be good at is going to have certain things that are going to "need" to be taken, leaving very little for non-core role advancement, and you end up with de facto classes again, even if they are custom-designed.
D&D really must be level-less if it's going to be truly classless.
BAB or THACO
Saves
Skills
Special Abilities
Hit Points
All of those are bought with experience differently.
You could mimic Rolemaster in that "classes" simply defined access and rate of skill gain, or go true level-less like RuneQuest.
Any way you look at it, one hell of a lot of work.
I don't think it is as difficult as all that. Just imagine: all skills, gone. All abilities other than spell casting and turning undead, gone. All of the things one normally rolls dice to resolve - attacks, climbing, save vs. spells, picking locks, etc - are handled by a d20, roll under mechanic, vs. a stat/2. A couple of things need modifiers to yield close to the same odds we're used to, but otherwise it will be quite similar to the standard system.
Most people will choose to take 1d6 HP plus a stat point when they level up - as this is the only way to improve at your success chances. e.g, people who like knocking heads will mostly sink this into ST. Those who really like getting into every fight will drop in a d10 HP level now and then to jack up their HP total.
Balanced types who want to track, fight, sneak, etc. will end up distributing points among several stats.
Magicians will take 1d4 HP and a level of spell casting most of the time, occasionally taking 1d6 and a point of INT or WIS when they need to get access to the highest level spells.
It sounds weird, but in nearly every instance you will end up with characters with HP totals that look pretty familiar, and chances of succeeding at various things that look pretty familiar.
The only thing that looks strange on the character sheet is high level characters can have very high stats (a la T&T or Pendragon). But the effect of those stats is on scale with the way D&D is always played, so it doesn't really matter.
This set of D&D house rules makes the game look like some kind of funny T&T/TFT/D&D hybrid. But the retention of AC, HP and levels, plus all the meat of D&D (spells, monsters, items), means it is essentially D&D at the table.
Kinda sounds like the OP is seeking a OSR version of True20.
I'm not a D20 fan, but I enjoyed True20.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837364There are so (so, so, so...) many OSR systems out there now, I was wondering whether anyone has made one that is clearly core D&D (levels, HP, AC, etc.) but has no classes.
There is this game based on D&D, but without classes.
Wayfarers-RPG (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/59182/Wayfarers-Original-2008-version)
I got it a long time ago, but it was not to my RPG tastes, and I found it rather complicated to use.
CRKrueger has some good points.
Quote from: CRKrueger;837649D&D really must be level-less if it's going to be truly classless.
I can comment from my experience developing my own system, Explore. I wanted it to be purely skill based, but with classes as an option if you want a predetermined mix of skills, and levels if you want a predetermined rate of improvement. An attempt to be the "best of both worlds".
Quote from: CRKrueger;837649As long as you have levels, you're going to go around the same circle again and again.
Levels where you get X whatevers per level mean you are capped at how far you can gain per level, so the template of what you want to be good at is going to have certain things that are going to "need" to be taken, leaving very little for non-core role advancement, and you end up with de facto classes again, even if they are custom-designed.
D&D really must be level-less if it's going to be truly classless.
In Explore you can opt to add an extra skill instead of increasing one of them, so it is possible, but I expect anyone who does would prefer to switch to the pure skills version. So most of the time, when you have levels, you do indeed just have custom-designed classes like you say.
Quote from: CRKrueger;837649BAB or THACO
Saves
Skills
Special Abilities
Hit Points
All of those are bought with experience differently.
I agree also that these might have to be bought differently. I don’t having to spend points on things which aren't "my character is training to be better at x" e.g. saves, so I've actually had them derived from a level purely based upon the experience points. The level is not used for anything else.
Quote from: CRKrueger;837649Any way you look at it, one hell of a lot of work.
Yes, I’d totally agree with that! There have been a lot of ideas and rules discarded along the way.
My warning is that radical changes whilst remaining compatible to D&D make it even harder, and you can end up with an over complex system. My design only truly succeeded once I jettisoned making it compatible with D&D. (It’s tricky for a system to be compatible with D&D if it hasn't got hit points!).
Edit: To clarify, I mean it's a lot of work to create good rules, not that good games require writing a lot of rules!
Quote from: Turanil;837767There is this game based on D&D, but without classes.
Wayfarers-RPG (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/59182/Wayfarers-Original-2008-version)
I got it a long time ago, but it was not to my RPG tastes, and I found it rather complicated to use.
I have the newer version split into two books, and it's decent. The magic system is really neat, the other stuff not so much. Good resource for ideas, but yeah, I don't think I'd ever play it. The PDF is worth $3.45 for sure.
Quote from: CRKrueger;837649As long as you have levels, you're going to go around the same circle again and again.
Levels where you get X whatevers per level mean you are capped at how far you can gain per level, so the template of what you want to be good at is going to have certain things that are going to "need" to be taken, leaving very little for non-core role advancement, and you end up with de facto classes again, even if they are custom-designed.
I can see a modified 5e D&D where each base level gives you 4HP (the extra hit points are a class feature), occasional proficiency bonuses, feat or ability increase every four levels, and damage increases in combat cantrips, and the rest is feats/class features/etc bought with the same N points per level that everyone gets. Balancing out costs would be a lot of work. Even if you do end up with de facto classes, I like that they arise naturally rather than being designed.
Classless OSR? Easy as fuck.
You just make every character belong to one class: "adventurer".
d6 hit die (+1 hp per level after name level), magic-user attack table, cleric saving throw table, fighter experience table. Characters are proficient in the use of all weapons and armor.
Every time you gain a level, pick a "perk", as follows:
Fighting skill: add +2 hp, +1/2 to attack rolls, and +1/4th to saving throws. (Fractional bonuses mean nothing until they add up to a full point.) A character who's taken this perk eight times, for example, nets a total +16 hp, +4 to attacks, and +2 to saves. A character may reap the full benefits of this perk ten times; from the eleventh time onward that it is chosen, the core benefit drops to +1 hit point, +1/8th to attack rolls and +1/16th to saving throws. In any event, you gain +1/2 an attack per round for every six total times this perk has been taken (3/2 the 6th time, 2 attacks per round the 12th time, 5/2 the 18th time, 3 per round the 24th time...).
Spell ability: the first time you take this perk, you gain the ability to learn and cast 1st level spells, magical and clerical alike, with one spell per day. You keep a spell-book, which contains the "read magic" spell; any other spells that you want to learn, magical, clerical, druidic, whatever, have to be found and copied into your spell-book. Thereafter, every time you take this perk again, your spells-per-day and access to spell levels improves according to the magic-user spell progression table. Your caster level is still equal to your actual experience level, not the number of times you've taken the spell ability perk.
Turn undead: you can take this perk once; it grants you the ability to turn the undead as a cleric of equal level.
Expertise: Each time you take this perk, pick a skill, any skill, off the list of thief skills or from the skill chapter in the Rules Cyclopedia. You can perform that skill with ninja-like perfection if you roll a successful ability check on 1d20 against the relevant ability. Relevant abilities include Strength for climbing walls, Dexterity for moving silently, Wisdom for hearing noise, Intelligence for finding traps, and so forth. (Or you can learn to backstab instead of picking up a skill.) From 9th level onward, if desired, a character may choose to master a known skill rather than learn a new one when taking this perk. This grants advantage on the d20 roll when checking the skill (roll two dice, take the better result). (Improving backstab just raises the damage multiplier.)
Mysticism: The first time you take this perk, you gain the ability to cause 1d4 damage with your bare fists and to attack twice per round with fists or weapons if not wearing any armor. Thereafter, subsequent improvements to mysticism alternate between even-numbered picks and odd-numbered picks. On the 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc., even-numbered times you take this perk, your unarmored AC drops by 1 point and you gain a mystical ch'i power (in the order that mystics or monks normally gain such powers). On the 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc., odd-numbered instances, your unarmed damage improves by one die-step (1d6, 1d8, 1d10...), your base speed improves by 10' (from 120' initially to 130', 140', 150'...), and you add one-forth of an unarmed attack per round (from two unarmed attacks initially to 9/4, 5/2, 11/4, 3/1...)
Quote from: John Quixote;837909Classless OSR? Easy as fuck.
Take a 10th level Fighter-Magic User in that system with 5 levels as Fighter and 5 as Magic User and they'd be useless as a magic user. To be any good as an MU they'd need to be useless as a fighter.
Or how about a 10th level fighter who takes 1 level in Cleric and is now uber-brilliant at turning undead?
Quote from: JoeNuttall;837910Take a 10th level Fighter-Magic User in that system with 5 levels as Fighter and 5 as Magic User and they'd be useless as a magic user. To be any good as an MU they'd need to be useless as a fighter.
Hardly "useless" as either -- at least not in my campaigns. They would, of course be much less powerful in either ability as one who specialized in magic or combat for all ten levels, but they were be more versatile.
QuoteOr how about a 10th level fighter who takes 1 level in Cleric and is now uber-brilliant at turning undead?
No different than a standard cleric at 11th level. The standard cleric would have spells and could only use a few weapons. Your 10+1 fighter would not have spells but could still use all weapons -- seems okay (at least for my campaigns) to me.
Note that is is probably not the rules I'd use to do this, but I don't see these rules as so broken that wouldn't work okay at many tables.
Quote from: RandallS;837919Note that is is probably not the rules I'd use to do this, but I don't see these rules as so broken that wouldn't work okay at many tables.
That's hardly a glowing endorsement of them! The difficulty is making a good set of rules, not ones that aren't completely broken...
Anyway, isn't your system pretty much D&D3E multiclassing?
Quote from: JoeNuttall;837920That's hardly a glowing endorsement of them! The difficulty is making a good set of rules, not ones that aren't completely broken...
First, I don't endose rules I've never playtested. I was simply saying that the issues you pointed out did not really seem to be problems to me.
QuoteAnyway, isn't your system pretty much D&D3E multiclassing?
Hardly. In Microlite74, dual-classing (which is an optional rule) is from first level and the xp cost for the character is the total of the two classes plus a bit more as an advantage cost.
The Microlite74 version of the single "Adventurer" class is also an optional rule from the first M74 Companion volume as follows:
QuoteAdventurer Class
For a less complex game where all characters can do everything, replace the standard classes with the Adventurer class.
Adventurers can wear any kind of armor, can use all weapons and may use shields. Physical Combat Bonus is equal to their class level/3, rounded up. Magical Combat Bonus is equal to their class level/3, rounded up. Experience Base is 30. They select one save for a +2 bonus and a second save for a +1
bonus. They add +1 to all attack and damage rolls. This increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.They can cast spells from scrolls at the normal HP cost plus 1HP for every bonus point of armor they are wearing. They can use all magic items. They can permanently learn a spell from a scroll
by expending XP equal to the HP cost to cast the spell. Adventurers are considered a "Fighting Class."
Version Suitability: Any.
Notes for the GM: This optional rule is good for swords & sorcery style campaigns where magic is fairly rare and actual wizards and other magic using specialists are even less common. If used, the Adventurer class should be the only class used in the game, except for rare NPC mages or
clerics. Using the optional Talents and/or the optional Advantages and Disadvantages rules will allow some mechanical customization of characters.
The above quoted text is open game content under the OGL. And this isn't "how I would do multiclassing or a single Adventurer class in general", just how I do them for Microlite74.
Quote from: RandallS;837923Hardly.
I don't understand - your multiclassing rules here (not the Microlite74 rules) sound *exactly* like D&D3E. How is it so different?
On the other hand your Microlite74 rules appear to be a completely different multiclassing system, basically AD&D multiclassing.
Quote from: RandallS;837923First, I don't endose rules I've never playtested.
A good stance - I wish more people did that!!
Quote from: JoeNuttall;837926I don't understand - your multiclassing rules here (not the Microlite74 rules) sound *exactly* like D&D3E. How is it so different?
I'm confused. I haven't posted any multiclassing rules other than the ones for M74 in this thread. I think that 3.x "you can pick a different class every time you level up" system of multiclassing is one of the worst features of WOTC D&D.
Quote from: John Quixote;837909Classless OSR? Easy as fuck.
...
Exactly. Whatever details most appeal to you, that is the spirit.
Quote from: RandallS;837930I'm confused. I haven't posted any multiclassing rules other than the ones for M74 in this thread. I think that 3.x "you can pick a different class every time you level up" system of multiclassing is one of the worst features of WOTC D&D.
I got you confused with John Quixote - sorry!
As penance I've downloaded a copy of your Microlite74 rules to read.
I meant that the rules John Quixote's presented just a few posts ago were in effect the 3.x "you can pick a different class every time you level up" system reskinned as being "classless".
I hope my comments make more sense now...
I can't really see a classless DnD until you shove in a load of skills into the game that hand you out features. Though here is my thoughts on it.
Level 1- You get wound equal to CON score.
- You get spirit equal to WIS score. (For games I make I often have a physical and mental/spirit hit points.)
- You get ten heroic points. (aka HP/MP, Vitality/Mana, Buffer Health/Energy Pool)
- You get 10 + INT mod of skill points.
- You get your race features.
- You get your background features. (Because I love backgrounds.)
- You get your starting languages.
- You get your starting gear.
Level 2 to 10- You get +1 heroic per level up.
- You get 2 + INT mod of skill points per level up. (min of 1)
Level 11 to 20- You get +1 heroic per level up.
- You get INT mod of skill points per level up. (min of 1)
Level 21 and Beyond (cause I hate level caps)- You get +1 heroic per level up.
- You get 1 skill point per level up.
Now the thing with skill points is that they range from 0 (trained) to 8 (mythical). The cost of a skill purchase would be 1 skill point for a skill rank increase, or three skill points for a brand new skill.
I'm sure a game of that sort could work fine, though it is more complex than appeals to me. I think D&D is best suited to no skills whatsoever — just base die rolls on stats (and perhaps level, if that is not already influencing stats). I figure, your sheet already has 6 complex numbers that lie on a spectrum not so far from that of a d20 die roll, why not use them for something?
Quote from: Larsdangly;837947I'm sure a game of that sort could work fine, though it is more complex than appeals to me. I think D&D is best suited to no skills whatsoever — just base die rolls on stats (and perhaps level, if that is not already influencing stats). I figure, your sheet already has 6 complex numbers that lie on a spectrum not so far from that of a d20 die roll, why not use them for something?
Just have Fighters, Magic Users, and Clerics. Use roll under Stat + level. Try it out. See whether it needs more complex rules. Add them, stir. Try it. Take them out, stir. Repeat. At the very least you'll have fun!
Here's the skeleton of how I've thought of doing it:
Every level each (N)PC gets:
X or 1dX hp. Pick a flat number, or roll a die type. I'd go with whatever monster hit dice default to. These are both hit points and spell points. You use hit points to power spells, as in some OSR-ish games. Personally I like take the better of "add one dice to the existing total" and "reroll all the dice" method, since you are guaranteed to be a bit better off, but can still make up for a bad early roll. X/level is simpler though.
X number of class/character/whatever-you-want-to-call-them points.
These can be spent on:
1. A combat level. Your total combat ability is equal to the number of combat levels you buy, not your current level. I also look at this as extra dice, not +1 on the roll, e.g. 5 combat levels mean +5 dice, or 6 dice/round, which can be spent on attack, defense, initiative, damage, or special effects, rather than +5 on one roll of a die.
2. A casting level. Your total casting ability is equal to the number of casting levels you buy, not your current level.
3. A professional level, e.g. burglar, commando, ranger, knight, ratcatcher, bascially anything in WFRP or BoL. This is a bonus to rolls to do something. If you're basing rolls on stats, then add it to the relevant stat. For example, if you have 2 levels of burglar, you add 2 to dex to sneak around, 2 to cha to find a fence, 2 to str to climb a tower, 2 to wis to spot a trap, etc.
3.1 You could optionally have some abilities set at a base check = 1/2 stat (or disadvantage), in which case the first level of profession would allow you to use it at full stat.
3.2 If so, then you could also have expertise in subskills, e.g. pick locks, that only applies to that subskill, rather than getting the full burglar profession.
4. Special abilities. Here I'm thinking of things like how Thief abilities have sometimes been described, i.e. move silently means you cannot be heard at all, hide in shadows means you are effectively invisible, etc. Essentially permanent magical effects that can be used at will in the appropriate circumstances, e.g. invisible while in shadows and not moving, leave no tracks, totally silent movement, racial abilities like flight, night vision, etc.
The various categories would then cost different amounts of points, with the proviso that it be impossible to buy both a casting level and a combat level in the same level gain.
So for example:
5 character points/level,
+1 combat level = 3 points,
+1 casting level = 4 points,
+1 professional level = 2 points, (except mage/priest/etc. that is the basis of a magical profession, which would be 1 point if you also buy a casting level, 2 otherwise)
+1 expertise = 1 point,
+1 special ability = variable, 1 for something minor like an at will non-damage cantrip (light fire, candlelight, zap mosquito, etc.), maybe more than a levels worth for really powerful abilities (e.g. permanent shape-shift), but for the most part in the 2-3 range depending on whether it seems appropriate to get one with a combat level or with a professional level.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837947I'm sure a game of that sort could work fine, though it is more complex than appeals to me. I think D&D is best suited to no skills whatsoever — just base die rolls on stats (and perhaps level, if that is not already influencing stats). I figure, your sheet already has 6 complex numbers that lie on a spectrum not so far from that of a d20 die roll, why not use them for something?
Well here is the thing. You are trading away classes which actually simplifies the process. Every thing with the class is already figured out with you. Going classless means your gonna have to deal with some complexity to get the exact character that you want.
Quote from: Snowman0147;837971Well here is the thing. You are trading away classes which actually simplifies the process. Every thing with the class is already figured out with you. Going classless means your gonna have to deal with some complexity to get the exact character that you want.
I don't really understand why you think that. Other than being able to cast spells, what could you possibly have a character do that isn't covered by one of their attributes? Every non-magical class ability I can think has a pretty obvious connection to one of the 6 core attributes. So, there is no need to mold the character you want - you already have him or her as soon as you define your attributes.
I don't understand why you think attributes is all you need for d20? Even WotC had added in proficency, skills, and tools for 5th edition. Not to mention those skills can grant class features. I mean there is a difference between a paladin from a fighter. There is a difference between a paladin from a cleric. It is not just fluff, better attack roll, and divine magic. These are things called class features.
Drawing on example ideas posted above:
Fighter: take mix of d10 and d6 plus stat increases every level, sinking stats into ST, and possibly DX or CON. Ends up good at melee combat with lots of HP
Paladin: like fighter, but devote 1 or 2 levels to d4 plus an increment of magic, devoting the magic to successive levels of cleric spells and/or the turn undead ability.
Cleric: mix of d4 plus magic and d6 plus stat increase levels, sinking stats into Wisdom and ST, and possibly Charisma, and sinking magic into turn undead and successive levels of clerical magic.
Any distinctions between what I just wrote and canonical classes are distinctions without a difference.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837990Any distinctions between what I just wrote and canonical classes are distinctions without a difference.
Possibly, but try and make an AD&D Fighter-MagicUser, or a B/X Elf with that system.
Quote from: CRKrueger;837649As long as you have levels, you're going to go around the same circle again and again.
The problem with classless isn't levels it is the fact that certain abilities are tied to level. For example spell slot. There is no way to fingle the the spell slot system outside of saying at X level you get to cast X spells of various levels.
Of course you could do away with vancian spells slots but that just takes the game further away from classic D&D.
In my opinion the overall design of D&D 3.X is the best way to handle character customization and still keep the game D&D. Treat each level as a package of skills and abilities that you are able to mix and match.
Now what can be done is take the d20 design but plug in classic D&D numbers and abilities instead of what they got now.
Scale the save, slot levels, the base attack bonuses to match your favorite classic edition. Limit the classes to the traditional four or even the the three of OD&D. Omit feats and perhaps even skills.
Gah! Why does this seem so hard? Perhaps the ideas I've suggested are not clear. In any event, it seems trivial to me:
Fighter/MU or Elf: I would suggest a sub-equal mix of taking [1d4 HP+spell level], [1d6 HP+stat point] and [1d10 HP] level ups, such that a 6th level character would have something on the order of 23 HP (on average), be capable of casting 2nd level magic user spells, and have increased a favored stat or stats by +2, with attendant improvements to-hit, etc. That's not so different from an average 1E Fighter/MU with an equivalent experience point total.
Spell slots are the one thing that demands its own sub system equivalent to RAW D&D. I would suggest one table that applies to anyone who has one or more spell casting levels. If you have spell casting levels in two or more different types of magic (MU, Clerical, Druid, etc.), just treat them as separate pools of respective spells.
Quote from: Larsdangly;838054Gah! Why does this seem so hard? Perhaps the ideas I've suggested are not clear. In any event, it seems trivial to me:
Fighter/MU or Elf: I would suggest a sub-equal mix of taking [1d4 HP+spell level], [1d6 HP+stat point] and [1d10 HP] level ups, such that a 6th level character would have something on the order of 23 HP (on average), be capable of casting 2nd level magic user spells, and have increased a favored stat or stats by +2, with attendant improvements to-hit, etc. That's not so different from an average 1E Fighter/MU with an equivalent experience point total.
Err... yes it is very different. At F/MU in your system has the magic casting abilities of an MU half the level. A 1E F/MU & B/X Elf has magic casting abilities of an MU the level below. The only thing that's trivial is how trivial it is to see the difference ;-)
Quote from: Larsdangly;837427I'm personally not very sympathetic to the whole value balancing business. I figure if everyone in the party would like to gain 1d6 hp or be able to cast 1st level cleric spells rather than become expert at tracking, that is their business. So, I just jammed all the abilities you find in core D&D into a list and said 'pick what you actually want'. If you care a lot about ability balance you'd obviously do something else. But I honestly don't care, and so it doesn't bother me.
Quote from: Spinachcat;837435Ah, the classless system...where everybody can make a Fighter Mage! Or maybe a Mage Thief?
And that's what will happen. Without 'balancing' you get cookie cutter builds because someone will hit on it, find the best choices, and everyone else will copy, because it's most efficient. It's how Gamers work.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;838074Err... yes it is very different. At F/MU in your system has the magic casting abilities of an MU half the level. A 1E F/MU & B/X Elf has magic casting abilities of an MU the level below. The only thing that's trivial is how trivial it is to see the difference ;-)
Did you compare them at the equivalent number of experience points (say, assuming a classless system would have requirements that look like the average of all the common classes)?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;838075And that's what will happen. Without 'balancing' you get cookie cutter builds because someone will hit on it, find the best choices, and everyone else will copy, because it's most efficient. It's how Gamers work.
This is the only criticism of a classless system that I think is significant. The example I think of is Runequest. An amazing game filled with fascinating options for developing characters in distinctively, culturally rich ways ... yet always seems to produce the same fucking rune-lord-priest with iron plate armor and two bastard swords casting the same fucking spells before every fucking battle.
One way in which one could mitigate against this is by making attributes strongly influence ability and making sure everyone is honest about their stat generating process. If you start play with STR 7 and INT 9 you are not going to try to make yourself a fighter mage because you will suck at it forever, no matter how hard you focus on that goal.
Quote from: Larsdangly;838092This is the only criticism of a classless system that I think is significant. The example I think of is Runequest. An amazing game filled with fascinating options for developing characters in distinctively, culturally rich ways ... yet always seems to produce the same fucking rune-lord-priest with iron plate armor and two bastard swords casting the same fucking spells before every fucking battle.
One way in which one could mitigate against this is by making attributes strongly influence ability and making sure everyone is honest about their stat generating process. If you start play with STR 7 and INT 9 you are not going to try to make yourself a fighter mage because you will suck at it forever, no matter how hard you focus on that goal.
The issue with D&D as opposed to other games, is that Magic always works. Yes, I've said this multiple times, but in D&D the spell system is 100% successful, with no chance of repercussions. Even better, the utility spells often make the skill system secondary and often pointless. What's the point of athletics if you can cast Spider Climb or Levitate for the same process but with no chance of ever failing?
Personally, to make D&D 'classless' and work, you'd need to figure out what costs more than some of the other abilities.
That's simple. In any real form of D&D, limitations on spells per day mean it is a resource, like HP, and you need to think carefully about when you 'fire' your bolt. The omnipotence of spells is only a problem in this sense when you are playing an edition that grade-inflates its way to handing 1st level spell casters the ability to constantly do all kinds of advanced shit.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;838075And that's what will happen. Without 'balancing' you get cookie cutter builds because someone will hit on it, find the best choices, and everyone else will copy, because it's most efficient. It's how Gamers work.
- Or you could roll for what you get when you level - that way you don't get the optimized build again and again. Just let the dice balance stuff out.
Quote from: Larsdangly;838091Did you compare them at the equivalent number of experience points (say, assuming a classless system would have requirements that look like the average of all the common classes)?
Yes.
An Elven F/MU in OD&D and AD&D to get to level n/n needs as much XP as level n in Fighter and level n in Magic User. In B/X it's very similar to this (4000 XP for second level instead of 2000 + 2500). Since XP doubles every level, that means you'll always be one level behind in spell casting and fighting. This system is criticised for making multiclassed people too strong, and is best mitigated by (as per your suggestion) making stats matter a lot. The downside of that is unless you have a balanced system for stat generation you end up with some characters *much* better than others, and unless you have a random system for stats, you can end up with very similar characters. If you look at my blog you'll see this is the path my game Explore has taken for its classes as skills system.
Your system is like D&D3E where each level you get to level up as a particular class, where you end up with magic use at half your level, which is criticised for making multiclassed characters massively underpowered. I don't know how many people like this system, but I get the impression that it's partially this system that's responsible for the plethora of classes and the introduction of things like Prestige classes.
One thing to note is you put your Turn Undead ability keyed to your overall level, not your level as a Cleric. Most systems would make such abilities be linked to your level as a Cleric, else taking one level in that class gives you too much of a benefit and you find everyone takes it.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;838146The downside of that is unless you have a balanced system for stat generation you end up with some characters *much* better than others
Is that a problem ? I've played AD&D 1e Thieves who can't succeed at their craft till mid level, MUs with 1HP etc
3d6 in order, no messing about, then roll for gain when levelling.
Balance delivered via Player ability, not char sheet
hardcore, you know the score
Quote from: JoeNuttall;838146The downside of that is unless you have a balanced system for stat generation you end up with some characters *much* better than others
Quote from: Sean !;838152Is that a problem ? I've played AD&D 1e Thieves who can't succeed at their craft till mid level, MUs with 1HP etc
3d6 in order, no messing about, then roll for gain when levelling.
Balance delivered via Player ability, not char sheet
hardcore, you know the score
We were talking about a particular system – the issue at point was that if you allow people to multiclass and have fighter / magicusers to powerful and mitigate this by making stats count for more, I was pointing out that if stats count for more you have a character rolling high stats they will count for more, and you end up with an uber-character.
This is the same issue where OD&D (LBBs only) with 3d6 in order works fine because of the small ability bonuses – it's only with Greyhawk's ability bonuses or AD&D's equivalent that I think it becomes a potentially big problem.
I don't think in general people like things being wildly unbalanced (hence why in AD&D DMG it introduced all the alternative stat rolling methods), I think they *hate* the solutions presented for balance – e.g. point buy – and hence they embrace unbalance as a reaction.
Here's my hardcore credentials – in my opinion OD&D without the supplements is the best version of D&D - that's the version of D&D for the game I'm playing in at the moment.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;838159We were talking about a particular system .
Yep, I should have read more carefully. Ha, I should just shut up and write the game.
JoeNuttall, you make interesting points. I think the main issue is that when we talk about 'classless classes' in D&D, everyone assumes a generic class that, through some sort of specialisation system, can do a full-on Fighter, AND a full-Thief, AND a full-on Magic User, AND a full-on Cleric, AND any blend of these, AND all of this with equal efficiency. All the ideas and proposals we've seen in this thread so far attempt to do this, and they all run into the problems you've laid out in your previous two posts or so.
Now, I've come to the same conclusion before, and one particular pet project I'm considering (but haven't gotten around to actually doing yet) would be a possible solution: decrease the possible scope of PC concepts, while increasing the granularity of customisation.
What I have in mind is a campaign which is very specifically sword & sorcery, where all PCs are assumed to be generally Conanesque adventurers. NO Magic Users, NO D&D-style Clerics, NO mixtures with either of these (though some minor dabbling in sorcery might be okay). Instead, the "generic adventurer" class runs the Fighter-Fighter/Thief-Thief continuum. In exchange for the narrower scope, customisation will be more varied than "Okay, you can choose either the Fighter option or the Thief option when you level up". You'll still be picking options when gaining a level, but they will be smaller one: improve your Hit Die to a better one (several times, up to d12), improve your attack rolls from Cleric-equivalent to Fighter-equivalent, gain a few extra skills/proficiencies, make it so one of your Saving Throw categories improves at a better rate, take one type of specialisation (better attacks, better damage, more likely criticals) to one of several weapon types, etc.. If a player wants to expand a bit outside the basic options (say, dabbling with magic, or becoming a sort of wrestler/strangler, or a martial arts monk), then they can get extra options if they 'earn' them in-game.
I think a setup like that would solve the problem underlying the symptoms you mention, which all stem from trying to cram too many vastly different options into a single package.
Quote from: Premier;838203All the ideas and proposals we've seen in this thread so far attempt to do this, and they all run into the problems you've laid out in your previous two posts or so.
Not true. I suggested approaches based on Talislanta, TFT, and (implicitly) Dragonquest, but none of them got any traction. Yet I don't think they have these issues. The only real issue is that they all could be accused of reintroducing classes by encouraging specialization.
Quote from: Premier;838203JoeNuttall, you make interesting points. I think the main issue is that when we talk about 'classless classes' in D&D, everyone assumes a generic class that, through some sort of specialisation system, can do a full-on Fighter, AND a full-Thief, AND a full-on Magic User, AND a full-on Cleric, AND any blend of these, AND all of this with equal efficiency. All the ideas and proposals we've seen in this thread so far attempt to do this, and they all run into the problems you've laid out in your previous two posts or so.
I was actually only saying that (1) it's tricky, and (2) the approach suggested seemed able to model D&D3E multiclassing, not OD&D/BX/AD&D multiclassing and thus made magic users a bit underpowered in comparison.
In particular, if I said what you think I was saying, then I'd be criticising my own system!
Quote from: Premier;838203If a player wants to expand a bit outside the basic options (say, dabbling with magic, or becoming a sort of wrestler/strangler, or a martial arts monk), then they can get extra options if they 'earn' them in-game.
That's a very interesting idea, I like it.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837406Maybe! Though, honestly, I don't have such a grandiose view of my little house rules. A close reading of OD&D and various osr pastiches will show you nearly everything has been tried on for size; sometimes 'officially' and sometimes unofficially. I would say the notion of stat based rolls is a lot less radical than the 'alternate combat system' added part way through OD&D. And going from 2 classes in chainmail to 1 class in my fantasy hearbreaker is less of a big deal than the expansion from 2 to dozens of classes that happened in the 70's. Whenever a game looks and smells like D&D at the table, I call it D&D with a few house rules. That's what I think my little rules set is.
Does it matter whether it's "D&D with house rules", or "D&D variant" or "a system that's specially constructed to allow classless play and using the classic adventures, by feeding on and inputting roughly the same numbers"? And is there a meaningful difference?
Who cares, as long as at least some people think it would be a good idea and would help them?
In short, I'd find it useful. Other people might not. That is, it would share the same fate as absolutely any other system out there, from D&D 5e to Traveller 5 and Polaris.
Quote from: nezach;837408Mutant Future (and by extension Gamma World 1st) is classless unless you consider "mutant," "pure strain human," "Android," etc. classes.
If "Elf" and "Dwarf" can be classes, why not:D?
Quote from: David Johansen;837456sigh...hostile much?
Matt? Hostile?
Perish the thought:p!
Quote from: Larsdangly;837500How about this for boiled down: there are no abilities, beyond supernatural things like spell casting and turn undead. Every level you choose one of the following:
• +1d4 HP and one level worth of one type of spell using ability (Turn Undead is a unique power that can be taken once instead)
• +1d6 HP and +1 to any stat
• +1d10 HP
Everything other than spell casting is just a roll vs. a stat, thus you will get better at whatever you sink your stat points into.
Quote from: Larsdangly;837729I don't think it is as difficult as all that. Just imagine: all skills, gone. All abilities other than spell casting and turning undead, gone. All of the things one normally rolls dice to resolve - attacks, climbing, save vs. spells, picking locks, etc - are handled by a d20, roll under mechanic, vs. a stat/2. A couple of things need modifiers to yield close to the same odds we're used to, but otherwise it will be quite similar to the standard system.
Most people will choose to take 1d6 HP plus a stat point when they level up - as this is the only way to improve at your success chances. e.g, people who like knocking heads will mostly sink this into ST. Those who really like getting into every fight will drop in a d10 HP level now and then to jack up their HP total.
Balanced types who want to track, fight, sneak, etc. will end up distributing points among several stats.
Magicians will take 1d4 HP and a level of spell casting most of the time, occasionally taking 1d6 and a point of INT or WIS when they need to get access to the highest level spells.
It sounds weird, but in nearly every instance you will end up with characters with HP totals that look pretty familiar, and chances of succeeding at various things that look pretty familiar.
The only thing that looks strange on the character sheet is high level characters can have very high stats (a la T&T or Pendragon). But the effect of those stats is on scale with the way D&D is always played, so it doesn't really matter.
This set of D&D house rules makes the game look like some kind of funny T&T/TFT/D&D hybrid. But the retention of AC, HP and levels, plus all the meat of D&D (spells, monsters, items), means it is essentially D&D at the table.
That's close to my preferred version of the rules (admittedly, right now my preferred version of the rules is Dragon Age RPG, but that's besides the point)! Just add some "skill focuses" as an optional rule. The first removes the -3 penalty on whatever it is you're attempting, the second focus gives you +2 to the roll, you get the same number of those no matter what:).
If you also go to the Chainmail rules and make it d6 based, you'd be golden and I might promise to post bi-weekly reports for a while (assuming no emergency prevent the sessions)!
Quote from: Turanil;837767There is this game based on D&D, but without classes.
Wayfarers-RPG (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/59182/Wayfarers-Original-2008-version)
I got it a long time ago, but it was not to my RPG tastes, and I found it rather complicated to use.
How close is it to D&D? I mean, does it use the same 6 stats, same level progression and so on?
Quote from: JoeNuttall;837770In Explore you can opt to add an extra skill instead of increasing one of them, so it is possible, but I expect anyone who does would prefer to switch to the pure skills version. So most of the time, when you have levels, you do indeed just have custom-designed classes like you say.
If you think of anyone who can cast a spell and has above average skill with a sword as a "gish", sure.
But the point is, getting just the right combo of skills for your fighter-magic user can take several splatbooks full of classes. I know, I've tried (though it was a roguish fighter).
Isn't it better to just have those rules and let people custom-design whatever classes they're going to want anyway?
Does the game gain anything from me having to play a ranger who gets priest spells that I don't want, and only some of the skills I want, just because the DM is new and isn't sure how to adapt the ranger class;)?
Quote from: Larsdangly;838054Gah! Why does this seem so hard? Perhaps the ideas I've suggested are not clear. In any event, it seems trivial to me:
Fighter/MU or Elf: I would suggest a sub-equal mix of taking [1d4 HP+spell level], [1d6 HP+stat point] and [1d10 HP] level ups, such that a 6th level character would have something on the order of 23 HP (on average), be capable of casting 2nd level magic user spells, and have increased a favored stat or stats by +2, with attendant improvements to-hit, etc. That's not so different from an average 1E Fighter/MU with an equivalent experience point total.
Spell slots are the one thing that demands its own sub system equivalent to RAW D&D. I would suggest one table that applies to anyone who has one or more spell casting levels. If you have spell casting levels in two or more different types of magic (MU, Clerical, Druid, etc.), just treat them as separate pools of respective spells.
That makes lots of sense to me, FWIW;).
Quote from: Arminius;838228Not true. I suggested approaches based on Talislanta, TFT, and (implicitly) Dragonquest, but none of them got any traction. Yet I don't think they have these issues. The only real issue is that they all could be accused of reintroducing classes by encouraging specialization.
Shouldn't lifepaths be an easy solution to that?
CRKrueger posted
Quote from: CRKrueger;837649Levels where you get X whatevers per level mean you are capped at how far you can gain per level, so the template of what you want to be good at is going to have certain things that are going to "need" to be taken, leaving very little for non-core role advancement, and you end up with de facto classes again, even if they are custom-designed.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;837770In Explore you can opt to add an extra skill instead of increasing one of them, so it is possible, but I expect anyone who does would prefer to switch to the pure skills version. So most of the time, when you have levels, you do indeed just have custom-designed classes like you say.
Quote from: AsenRG;838373If you think of anyone who can cast a spell and has above average skill with a sword as a "gish", sure.
But the point is, getting just the right combo of skills for your fighter-magic user can take several splatbooks full of classes. I know, I've tried (though it was a roguish fighter).
Isn't it better to just have those rules and let people custom-design whatever classes they're going to want anyway?
Does the game gain anything from me having to play a ranger who gets priest spells that I don't want, and only some of the skills I want, just because the DM is new and isn't sure how to adapt the ranger class;)?
Sorry I don't follow you. What did you think I was saying that you disagreed with?
Quote from: JoeNuttall;838449Sorry I don't follow you. What did you think I was saying that you disagreed with?
Well, maybe it was me misunderstanding you, so let's try to clear it out.
Basically, CRKrueger posted that due to the fact that we have limited "point values", you end up with de facto classes again, just custom-designed.
You basically agreed that it happens most of the time, if I'm getting you right.
I pointed out that it's the "custom" part that matters. I might have 3 supplements with classes and not find the kind of fighter-rogue I want, which is exactly what happened the first time I was playing. Or I might have a system that allows me to custom-design my "class", and avoid all the hassle.
Quote from: AsenRG;838472Well, maybe it was me misunderstanding you, so let's try to clear it out.
Basically, CRKrueger posted that due to the fact that we have limited "point values", you end up with de facto classes again, just custom-designed.
You basically agreed that it happens most of the time, if I'm getting you right.
I pointed out that it's the "custom" part that matters. I might have 3 supplements with classes and not find the kind of fighter-rogue I want, which is exactly what happened the first time I was playing. Or I might have a system that allows me to custom-design my "class", and avoid all the hassle.
CRKreuger said that with level-based skill systems you get custom-designed classes, and I agreed that this was often the case. I wasn't complaining about custom-designed classes - I think they're cool and I hate splat books. My system has either freeform skills or custom designed classes.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;838490CRKreuger said that with level-based skill systems you get custom-designed classes, and I agreed that this was often the case. I wasn't complaining about custom-designed classes - I think they're cool and I hate splat books. My system has either freeform skills or custom designed classes.
Yes, but he pointed them as a problem. Or rather, as a "what's the point then", unless I've misunderstood him:).
Hence me pointing out that the point is in the "custom" part;).
Several years ago on teh TLG forums, Serleran broke down all the classes in C&C and made a point buy system for making your own character. It was pretty nifty and I thought I had it saved, but alas, I cannot find it. You can ask him over on Dragonsfoot.
Quote from: AsenRG;838542Yes, but he pointed them as a problem. Or rather, as a "what's the point then", unless I've misunderstood him:).
Hence me pointing out that the point is in the "custom" part;).
Aha - I see :-)
It would be tremendously easy to do a classless OSR game; but classes are one of the best things about D&D!
Quote from: RPGPundit;839310It would be tremendously easy to do a classless OSR game; but classes are one of the best things about D&D!
As far as I'm concerned, they aren't even close to the top:). Close to the bottom is a more apt descriptor of my feelings, in fact.
Of course, even if the OP creates such a game, there would be enough games and clones for those that share your feelings;).
Quote from: RPGPundit;839310It would be tremendously easy to do a classless OSR game; but classes are one of the best things about D&D!
I think that is true unless the options were very minimal. It lets the designer try and balance classes against each other, often in subtle ways, without creating a single best option.
Some games can do it (Savage Worlds seems to have several optima rather than one) without being excessively complex.
Otherwise I would almost rather do the R&PL Alice approach, where everyone is different by chance. But we already have that with ability scores.
Embodying archetypes is one of the things that makes D&D feel like D&D.
Quote from: RPGPundit;840065Embodying archetypes is one of the things that makes D&D feel like D&D.
The game I just started is a quasi-classless OSR kind of thing sort of based on Microlite20/74ex and I basically broke down the class features of the various classes into a surprisingly short list and then when we had conversations about what the characters were like, we ended up giving each character two of them.
The end result: Everyone embodies archetypes anyway. The process produced those type of characters anyway.
I'm note sure what direction to go with in terms of an D&D type OSR game that has a classless system that still has class feature like elements that wouldn't simply produce the normal D&D archetypes (and some variants) depending on how you combined them.
The only real abnormal thing would be if someone ended up with a character with both wizardry and priestly magic. They wouldn't have any more spell points and armour makes wizardry cost more, but they'd have more options when it comes to spellcasting. It'd probably still feel pretty archetypal in terms of being the magic man.
Quote from: RPGPundit;840065Embodying archetypes is one of the things that makes D&D feel like D&D.
You must be using some different archetypes from the ones I can think of.
IME, classes tend to prevent embodying archetypes from happening. That's usually because of niche protection, and because each new class skills require either doing something extraordinary, or restricting other classes from doing something everyone could attempt before the new class was devised.
As the person who started this thing, I will agree that one challenge of any classless game that aims at a D&D sort of game play is that characters in most classless games blur together into a blob of fighter/mage/thief sameness. You could say the same thing about versions of D&D that make multiclassing too easy and beneficial.
I think the reason these sorts of games turn out this way is that character advancement tends to let you mold any starting character to turn into something else, so everyone aims at the same spot that seems ideal under that game's rules.
I suspect if you wanted to make a classless D&D that still has a diversity of character types, the key is probably to make attributes quite important (so you will always be best at whatever set of things are covered by your highest stat), and to make sure the advancement rules don't let you fill in the gaps to smooth yourself into a pasty mush of sameness.
Quote from: Larsdangly;840150As the person who started this thing, I will agree that one challenge of any classless game that aims at a D&D sort of game play is that characters in most classless games blur together into a blob of fighter/mage/thief sameness. You could say the same thing about versions of D&D that make multiclassing too easy and beneficial.
I think the reason these sorts of games turn out this way is that character advancement tends to let you mold any starting character to turn into something else, so everyone aims at the same spot that seems ideal under that game's rules.
I've played lots of classless systems - way more than I've played class systems, in fact, especially since the majority of my game group has very strong opinions on the idea of classes as a mechanic - and that's simply not true.
Most people tend to come to the table with the idea of an archetype they want to play. In some rare cases, these are taken from D&D-like sources, like WoW. These are the only cases when they would map well to the normal class system.
In the majority of cases, though, people want to play an archetype that's simply not well represented by the usual classes.
"I want to play a wizard like Gandalf...what do you mean, I suck with swords? And talking with animals is about druids and rangers?"
"I want to play a character like Old Shatterhand, except in a fantasy variant...what do you mean I've got to be a ranger? He hasn't grown up in the wilderness, just like Old Shatterhand hasn't grown there. And I've got to be a monk to really have a chance to drop someone with one punch?"
"I want to play a barbarian like Conan." 'Nuff said.
"I want to play a samurai, except a fantasy one...so that's a fighter. What do you mean, I probably suck at detecting traps and ambushes? These guys are actually fairly well-known for not falling for that, not to mention having special precautions against sucker chopping baked into their etiquette!"
"I want to play a nobleman...what do you mean, it's an NPC class?"
"I want to play a wizard that throws fireballs! Yes, like the one I'm playing in WoW!"
Guess which character was the only one easy to accommodate within the rules:D?
For a game that's trying to make it easy to play archetypes, the actual classes of D&D are notoriously bad for accommodating the archetypes most people can think of. The one exception are archetypes derived by D&D itself.
But "play these archetypes because these are the archetypes that people had decided make for good niche protection" is how it looks when the hobby is disappearing up its own ass;)!
Quote from: RPGPundit;840065Embodying archetypes is one of the things that makes D&D feel like D&D.
Not so sure about that. But maybe I dont have as many sacred cows as others
Quote from: AsenRG;840129You must be using some different archetypes from the ones I can think of.
There are three archetypes in Fantasy:
The Fighting Man. He's often a knight, a swordsman or other melee expert, but archers, slingers, gunners or or bare handed types can fit in this archetype. Woodsmen, holy warriors also fit into this.
The Expert. This one can be many, many, many things, from thief and assassin to merchant to bard and entertainer, but his area of expertise is typically knowledge, lore, nominally noncombat abilities. Noblemen and women, seducers. Some of these will also know how to use weapons, but it's not their focus.
The Magic User. This one is self-explanatory, but in case it's not, these are the master of the arcane, the manipulation of reality in ways no one but each other can understand.
D&D split the Magic User into two roles, with a Healer, but those three are the archetypes you can put any character. Yes, yes, I know there are 'exceptions', but even then, most of those, various heroes can fit mostly into one archetype over another. For example, Fafrd was mostly a Fighting Man, despite being a capable thief and sometime caster, and the Grey Mouser was mainly an Expert (thief), again, despite being a master swordsman and sorcerer's apprentice.
I feel it is somewhat unusual for sword-and-sorcery protagonists to be as neatly pegged into an "archetype" as D&D characters tend to be. Elric is a capable swordsman, even if dependent on the eldricht nourishment provided by a cursed blade, as well as an accomplished sorcerer. Conan is a thief, a reaver and a slayer, among others. Fafhrd is a big burly sword-swinging northerner who's also a thief, and trained as a skald. The Mouser dabbles in wizardry in addition to being a thief and a swordsman. And so on.
The saving grace of classes, to me, has little to do with Jungian smoke and mirrors and everything to do with offering new players an easy role to latch into. You're a thief, you skulk around, steal stuff, pick locks, scout ahead and stab people in the back. You're a fighter, you take point and bash things. You're a wizard, you and your pointy hat stand behind the fighter and cast spells.
The cleric is admittedly an odd one, equal parts Knight Templar, combat medic and Abrahamic miracle-worker. But it's become ubiquitous enough in modern pop culture and fantasy that most newbs can grok it. You heal, buff and emergency-tank, to put it in MMO terms.
Quote from: NathanIW;840085The game I just started is a quasi-classless OSR kind of thing sort of based on Microlite20/74ex and I basically broke down the class features of the various classes into a surprisingly short list and then when we had conversations about what the characters were like, we ended up giving each character two of them.
The end result: Everyone embodies archetypes anyway. The process produced those type of characters anyway.
You might want to take that as a hint...
Quote from: RPGPundit;840608You might want to take that as a hint...
This may not be the hint that you meant, but what I take away from it is that a flexible or classless game is fine as long as the elements are there to produce the archetypes people want. People don't have to be locked into a preset configuration of class features to still embody the archetypes they are interested in. For example, the rogue like character in my current doesn't have any sort of back stab/sneak attack mechanic but is still very much The Expert at skulduggery.
I always thought the special role of classes in D&D stems from the structure and purpose of the game, which is problem solving. Managing your resources is a major kind of problem solving in D&D, and so is composing a party so its collective ability is greater than what any one character type could do alone. This is why it isn't a 'problem' that D&D lacks nuanced, realistic combat or other sorts of fiddly bits that seem necessary in other rpg's: It is a game that wants to be a game, and wants to make you try to play skillfully under constraints.
That doesn't mean I don't think classless D&D could be a cool game. Its just that I 'get' the value of doing it the normal way. The only thing that drives me ape shit about classes is their pointless proliferation in most editions.
Quote from: AsenRG;840159In the majority of cases, though, people want to play an archetype that's simply not well represented by the usual classes.
"I want to play a wizard like Gandalf...what do you mean, I suck with swords? And talking with animals is about druids and rangers?"
"I want to play a character like Old Shatterhand, except in a fantasy variant...what do you mean I've got to be a ranger? He hasn't grown up in the wilderness, just like Old Shatterhand hasn't grown there. And I've got to be a monk to really have a chance to drop someone with one punch?"
"I want to play a barbarian like Conan." 'Nuff said.
"I want to play a samurai, except a fantasy one...so that's a fighter. What do you mean, I probably suck at detecting traps and ambushes? These guys are actually fairly well-known for not falling for that, not to mention having special precautions against sucker chopping baked into their etiquette!"
"I want to play a nobleman...what do you mean, it's an NPC class?"
"I want to play a wizard that throws fireballs! Yes, like the one I'm playing in WoW!"
Guess which character was the only one easy to accommodate within the rules:D?
For a game that's trying to make it easy to play archetypes, the actual classes of D&D are notoriously bad for accommodating the archetypes most people can think of.
Depending on how picky a player is, none of these is very hard in D&D 5e.
Wizard like Gandalf? Choose elf as race (proficiency with longsword), or take the weapon master feat, or a single level in Fighter at some point. (When did Gandalf talk to animals, other than Shadowfax? But you could take a feat to get Speak with Animals, or use the Sending spell once you're high enough level.)
Old Shatterhand? Rangers don't have to have grown up in the wilderness; survival skill might be enough anyway. 16, 18 or 20 strength gives enough damage bonus to an unarmed strike to drop a commoner, even without the Tavern Brawler feat. (I don't know enough about the character to say more.)
Barbarian like Conan? Um... Barbarian?
Samurai who detects traps and ambushes: good Wisdom for perception, backed up with Alert or Observant feats (or both).
Nobleman? It's a background.
If you don't have very specific mechanics in mind, it doesn't seem too hard to match a lot of fantasy archetypes. I think I might prefer a near-classless system--feats give you some indication of the relative value of various features, although some of the more significant class features would be tricky. So, a basic flavorless class with extra points to buy feats or more hit points or more spell casting or whatever. I think you'd end up with some of the same classes: wizards who put every point into a race to the highest level spells; fighters who put every point into combat effectiveness; roguebards who put lots of points into skills. But you'd lose some of the less focused classes as just a point on the continuum of characters with some combat and some magic or whatever.
Quote from: NathanIW;840616This may not be the hint that you meant, but what I take away from it is that a flexible or classless game is fine as long as the elements are there to produce the archetypes people want. People don't have to be locked into a preset configuration of class features to still embody the archetypes they are interested in. For example, the rogue like character in my current doesn't have any sort of back stab/sneak attack mechanic but is still very much The Expert at skulduggery.
I meant it as a hint that your particular gaming group might actually like working with the archetypes classes provides.
Absolutely. Though not having class features prebundled has let them concentrate on the elements that interest them without being saddled with elements other people have associated with the archetypes. Like not having to be about backstabbing/sneak attacking as a rogue or turning undead as a priest. And the cleric in question is all about wielding a trident rather than the usual blunt weapons only thing.
Quote from: NathanIW;841059Absolutely. Though not having class features prebundled has let them concentrate on the elements that interest them without being saddled with elements other people have associated with the archetypes. Like not having to be about backstabbing/sneak attacking as a rogue or turning undead as a priest. And the cleric in question is all about wielding a trident rather than the usual blunt weapons only thing.
Yeah, but you can still have the above without getting rid of the class system. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Well, except for the baby hasn't been thrown out. The players did end up getting archetypes after all. It's not truly classless though. It's more like build you own class.
I'm not doing anything crazy here. It's basically an adventurer class with d6 HP, choose 2 class features from fighting, skulduggery, lore, interaction, athletics, back stab, turn undead/demons, arcane talent, divine blessing or folk magic. At level 5 get another. At name level get another.
The skill sounding ones are like secondary skills. Sort of a "this character is truly good at this" reminder for adjudication.
So far:
A cleric with Fighting, divine blessing
A rogue with Skulduggery, and athletics
A mage with arcane talent and lore
A noble warrior with fighting and interaction
A savage warrior with fighting and athletics
A ranger with fighting and folk magic
A hedge wizard with arcane talent and folk magic
At first I thought taking a secondary skill in place of something like spellcasting would never be as good, but the player who took two of them is doing just fine. We've had some character deaths and a bit of consideration for being great at hiding can go along way when you're a level 1 character in a game with no "appropriate encounter level" safety rails.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;840288There are three archetypes in Fantasy:
The Fighting Man. He's often a knight, a swordsman or other melee expert, but archers, slingers, gunners or or bare handed types can fit in this archetype. Woodsmen, holy warriors also fit into this.
The Expert. This one can be many, many, many things, from thief and assassin to merchant to bard and entertainer, but his area of expertise is typically knowledge, lore, nominally noncombat abilities. Noblemen and women, seducers. Some of these will also know how to use weapons, but it's not their focus.
The Magic User. This one is self-explanatory, but in case it's not, these are the master of the arcane, the manipulation of reality in ways no one but each other can understand.
D&D split the Magic User into two roles, with a Healer, but those three are the archetypes you can put any character. Yes, yes, I know there are 'exceptions', but even then, most of those, various heroes can fit mostly into one archetype over another. For example, Fafrd was mostly a Fighting Man, despite being a capable thief and sometime caster, and the Grey Mouser was mainly an Expert (thief), again, despite being a master swordsman and sorcerer's apprentice.
Oh please... If that's your list, you really, really want a system with only three classes that don't include cleric, or a classless system.
And all of your examples support a classless system.
Quote from: The Butcher;840321I feel it is somewhat unusual for sword-and-sorcery protagonists to be as neatly pegged into an "archetype" as D&D characters tend to be. Elric is a capable swordsman, even if dependent on the eldricht nourishment provided by a cursed blade, as well as an accomplished sorcerer. Conan is a thief, a reaver and a slayer, among others. Fafhrd is a big burly sword-swinging northerner who's also a thief, and trained as a skald. The Mouser dabbles in wizardry in addition to being a thief and a swordsman. And so on.
The saving grace of classes, to me, has little to do with Jungian smoke and mirrors and everything to do with offering new players an easy role to latch into. You're a thief, you skulk around, steal stuff, pick locks, scout ahead and stab people in the back. You're a fighter, you take point and bash things. You're a wizard, you and your pointy hat stand behind the fighter and cast spells.
The cleric is admittedly an odd one, equal parts Knight Templar, combat medic and Abrahamic miracle-worker. But it's become ubiquitous enough in modern pop culture and fantasy that most newbs can grok it. You heal, buff and emergency-tank, to put in MMO terms.
And let's not forget, Conan reads ancient scripts and performs a ritual that chases away an ensorcelled pursuer...
When the big three (Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser and Conan) examples of genre characters are outside the limits of a class system, it's time for a classless one.
Quote from: NathanIW;840616This may not be the hint that you meant, but what I take away from it is that a flexible or classless game is fine as long as the elements are there to produce the archetypes people want. People don't have to be locked into a preset configuration of class features to still embody the archetypes they are interested in. For example, the rogue like character in my current doesn't have any sort of back stab/sneak attack mechanic but is still very much The Expert at skulduggery.
Bingo:D!
Quote from: Larsdangly;840641I always thought the special role of classes in D&D stems from the structure and purpose of the game, which is problem solving. Managing your resources is a major kind of problem solving in D&D, and so is composing a party so its collective ability is greater than what any one character type could do alone. This is why it isn't a 'problem' that D&D lacks nuanced, realistic combat or other sorts of fiddly bits that seem necessary in other rpg's: It is a game that wants to be a game, and wants to make you try to play skillfully under constraints.
That doesn't mean I don't think classless D&D could be a cool game. Its just that I 'get' the value of doing it the normal way. The only thing that drives me ape shit about classes is their pointless proliferation in most editions.
IMO, there's only one class of characters. It's the PCs class.
The rest of them are NPCs, or should be. And the system should reflect that.
Quote from: rawma;840716Depending on how picky a player is, none of these is very hard in D&D 5e.
Wizard like Gandalf? Choose elf as race (proficiency with longsword), or take the weapon master feat, or a single level in Fighter at some point. (When did Gandalf talk to animals, other than Shadowfax? But you could take a feat to get Speak with Animals, or use the Sending spell once you're high enough level.)
Gandalf is consistently described as a human, so elf is right out.
The other option requires two feats. Can I even afford it as a starting PC?
Let's skip the next, because you said you don't know him well.
QuoteBarbarian like Conan? Um... Barbarian?
With barbarian rages, Read ancient script, Perform Rituals with impromptu tools and being sneakier than a thief, and able to kill a major enemy with a knife, as long as you can get surprise, which suggests a sneak attack mechanic?
You honestly think the Barbarian class covers that?
QuoteSamurai who detects traps and ambushes: good Wisdom for perception, backed up with Alert or Observant feats (or both).
Good. And he gets more observant with experience, right? That's a major part.
If so, good on that account. I kinda doubt the 5e combat reminds of kenjutsu duels, but that's not the fault of the classes.
QuoteNobleman? It's a background.
Do you really mean said background makes me richer, better trained at least in social skills, lore and possibly in occult matters, and gives me a cadre of bodyguards? If not, that's not a nobleman.
QuoteIf you don't have very specific mechanics in mind, it doesn't seem too hard to match a lot of fantasy archetypes.
I don't think in mechanics, I think in character abilities. Way too often, you can't get those with a starting character, because the designer had a different idea about the class. So you need a variant class, thus, class proliferation.
Not a problem with classless systems for obvious reasons.
But I get it, 5e is obviously better at it. I reserve judgement about whether it's good enough until after I finish reading it (I stopped in order to switch to reading something else, I think it was 13th Age, and didn't come back, so I only remember the combat system left me just as uninspired as the previous edition's combat). Still, I'd like an OSR classless system. Because it's a different kind of system, and sometimes I want the more freeform approach of OSR.
QuoteI think I might prefer a near-classless system--feats give you some indication of the relative value of various features, although some of the more significant class features would be tricky. So, a basic flavorless class with extra points to buy feats or more hit points or more spell casting or whatever. I think you'd end up with some of the same classes: wizards who put every point into a race to the highest level spells; fighters who put every point into combat effectiveness; roguebards who put lots of points into skills. But you'd lose some of the less focused classes as just a point on the continuum of characters with some combat and some magic or whatever.
And I'd prefer a classless system where you buy the extra HP or the spellcasting.
Maybe I should switch to working on my hack for a classless AGE system.
Quote from: RPGPundit;841334Yeah, but you can still have the above without getting rid of the class system. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
What's the bonus of classes we're throwing out? If people are still playing archetypal characters, it's not that!
Quote from: AsenRG;841407And let's not forget, Conan reads ancient scripts and performs a ritual that chases away an ensorcelled pursuer...
When the big three (Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser and Conan) examples of genre characters are outside the limits of a class system, it's time for a classless one.
(...)
With barbarian rages, Read ancient script, Perform Rituals with impromptu tools and being sneakier than a thief, and able to kill a major enemy with a knife, as long as you can get surprise, which suggests a sneak attack mechanic?
You honestly think the Barbarian class covers that?
I'll play devil's advocate, since I guess my position is obvious from the post you've quoted.
Conan does pick locks and read scrolls, like a thief. He does not necessarily does these things
well. Or, at any rate, as skillfully as a "classed" thief or wizard.
So I wouldn't necessarily assume that a proper a Conan-emulating Barbarian class
need specific class abilities to cover these things.
Nevertheless, like I said, I think the "genericness" of D&D classes is a cool trade-off as it offers players, particularly new ones, an immediate "hook" on which to hang their gameplay; an obvious role to fill.
When I want to bypass the restrictions of D&D's archetypal classes, or just about any fantasy game that doesn't quite hew to the universe D&D implies, I default to a skill-based system; Runequest 6 for a bells-and-whistles deal, Openquest or Savage Worlds for a no-frills thing.
I think there's an important distinction between "hard" and "soft" class systems.
"Hard classes", as I call them, are defined by their exclusive abilities - in old-school D&D, ONLY fighters can use all types of weapons, ONLY thieves can use thief skills, ONLY wizards can cast their kinds of spells, etc.. Even when you get into the various AD&D 1st ed. and Unearthed Arcana classes, the trend remains, so you have some dozen classes with some sort of strong niche protection for each. The more hard classes you have, the more specific their special ability loudout becomes (and consequently, the less archetypal they are), while the game's philosophy slides further and further away from "if the rules don't forbid it, you can do it" towards "if the rules don't explicitly allow it, you can't", since more and more things are "reserved" for some class' special ability. D&D is traditionally very much about hard classes (which, in turn, pretty much necessitated the abandonment of the original "if it's not forbidden" rules philosophy.
However, you can also have a class system with "soft classes", where there are very few (if any) class-exclusive abilities, and differences are defined by how well a given class can do something - without declaring that other classes can't do that thing at all. In order to deliberately cite a D&D-derived game, Other Dust is very much like this. Each class does have a single exclusive ability, but they're defined at least as much by their gradual differences - Slayers have a better attack bonus, Survivors have more HP, each class has a different list of class skills (everyone can learn any skill, but class skills are cheaper, so you're more likely to concentrate on those).
Obviously, these sorts of differences can and do also exist in, D&D's hard classes, but the important distinction is that they're not the definitive factor there. If a newbie asks an AD&D player about the difference between a Magic User and a Fighter, the answer won't be "the magic user has fewer hit point, worse attacks, and better saving throws in certain categories"; it will be "the magic user can cast M.U. spells and the Fighter can't", because that's the definitive difference. Whereas in Other Dust, the answer likely won't be "The Slayer can automatically hit once per combat while the Speaker can automatically convince an NPC of something once per day", it will be "the Slayer is better in a fight and is generally beteter at combat-oriented skills".
Now, with all this mind, I think most people who argue against the possibility or feasibility of a "one size fits all" character class OSR game are doing it with their thinking firmly entrenched in the hard class mindset. And sure enough, if you insist or implicity assume that classes must be primarily defined by their exclusive abilities, creating an "omniclass" will be impossible. However, that's a pretty silly thing to assume.
Quote from: The Butcher;841422I'll play devil's advocate, since I guess my position is obvious from the post you've quoted.
The Devil has an army of lawyers already. Check "Beyond the Black River", though.
Quote from: Premier;841445I think there's an important distinction between "hard" and "soft" class systems.
"Hard classes", as I call them, are defined by their exclusive abilities - in old-school D&D, ONLY fighters can use all types of weapons, ONLY thieves can use thief skills, ONLY wizards can cast their kinds of spells, etc.. Even when you get into the various AD&D 1st ed. and Unearthed Arcana classes, the trend remains, so you have some dozen classes with some sort of strong niche protection for each. The more hard classes you have, the more specific their special ability loudout becomes (and consequently, the less archetypal they are), while the game's philosophy slides further and further away from "if the rules don't forbid it, you can do it" towards "if the rules don't explicitly allow it, you can't", since more and more things are "reserved" for some class' special ability. D&D is traditionally very much about hard classes (which, in turn, pretty much necessitated the abandonment of the original "if it's not forbidden" rules philosophy.
However, you can also have a class system with "soft classes", where there are very few (if any) class-exclusive abilities, and differences are defined by how well a given class can do something - without declaring that other classes can't do that thing at all. In order to deliberately cite a D&D-derived game, Other Dust is very much like this. Each class does have a single exclusive ability, but they're defined at least as much by their gradual differences - Slayers have a better attack bonus, Survivors have more HP, each class has a different list of class skills (everyone can learn any skill, but class skills are cheaper, so you're more likely to concentrate on those).
Obviously, these sorts of differences can and do also exist in, D&D's hard classes, but the important distinction is that they're not the definitive factor there. If a newbie asks an AD&D player about the difference between a Magic User and a Fighter, the answer won't be "the magic user has fewer hit point, worse attacks, and better saving throws in certain categories"; it will be "the magic user can cast M.U. spells and the Fighter can't", because that's the definitive difference. Whereas in Other Dust, the answer likely won't be "The Slayer can automatically hit once per combat while the Speaker can automatically convince an NPC of something once per day", it will be "the Slayer is better in a fight and is generally beteter at combat-oriented skills".
Now, with all this mind, I think most people who argue against the possibility or feasibility of a "one size fits all" character class OSR game are doing it with their thinking firmly entrenched in the hard class mindset. And sure enough, if you insist or implicity assume that classes must be primarily defined by their exclusive abilities, creating an "omniclass" will be impossible. However, that's a pretty silly thing to assume.
I get the same impression, and soft classes are much closer to WFRP2 or Maelstrom careers!
Quote from: AsenRG;841407Oh please... If that's your list, you really, really want a system with only three classes that don't include cleric, or a classless system.
And all of your examples support a classless system.
The Cleric is a D&D invention. Very few casters in fantasy literature (previous to 1980) were divinely granted powers, a lot of them (not all, but a lot of them) were sorcerers before they joined a church or worshiped a god. And there are a lot of Priestly types that don't ever gain magical power.
And I'm not saying that a 'classless' game system is pointless, what I'm saying is that fantasy heroes tend to gravitate towards a primary method of dealing with problems.
And I'd argue that Conan was actually just a 'fighting man'. Yes, he's learned, but just about every real world or fantasy fighter in most non-game based media was educated in some fashion. And a lot of his 'thieving' involved climbing a tower and looting, I don't recall him ever picking a lock, and climbing and looting isn't all that hard to do for most human beings, I'd posit that most of us here has climbed a tree when we were younger?
Also, stealth is a relatively simple skill to pick up. I'm pretty sure a lot of us still use a modicum of it from time to time, like when we don't want to wake our S.O. to get that glass of water or go to the bathroom. We take it slow, and measure our steps, avoid that creaky board on the floor that we know about.
Here's the thing, I've found I can figure out which 'archetype' that a Fantasy Hero is by seeing/reading what the most common response to a conflict occurs in the story in question. If they draw a weapon, or is combative, likely a Fighting Man, if they are more likely to cast an augury or other mystical means, then Magic User, if they're more likely to think their way through it, by either smarts, guile or cunning, then they're probably an Expert.
The Archetypes are very, very broad, but they've always been there when I've read fantasy novels.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;841511The Cleric is a D&D invention. Very few casters in fantasy literature (previous to 1980) were divinely granted powers, a lot of them (not all, but a lot of them) were sorcerers before they joined a church or worshiped a god. And there are a lot of Priestly types that don't ever gain magical power.
Indeed.
And in a classless game you could have exactly those, again.
QuoteAnd I'm not saying that a 'classless' game system is pointless, what I'm saying is that fantasy heroes tend to gravitate towards a primary method of dealing with problems.
That's the whole point!
They tend to gravitate towards a primary method. They aren't locked out of other methods, as class based PCs are.
Going classless would solve that.
QuoteAnd I'd argue that Conan was actually just a 'fighting man'. Yes, he's learned, but just about every real world or fantasy fighter in most non-game based media was educated in some fashion.
He also performed a magical ritual. Most Fighting Men would be forbidden by the rules to do so, or the ritual wouldn't work.
And picking locks is about as hard as sneaking. I certainly have had an easier time with opening a padlock that needed opening than I have climbing.
That's because I've got a better attribute score in one than in the other, of course, since I'm untrained at both. Conan would be different, but still, the ritual is more telling about the range of his abilities.
And his sneaking puts most thieves to shame, given that he can sneak in chain armour.
Quote from: AsenRG;841519Indeed.
And in a classless game you could have exactly those, again.
Or (in the case of 5e) you pick whatever class you want and pick the right background.
Quote from: AsenRG;841519That's the whole point!
They tend to gravitate towards a primary method. They aren't locked out of other methods, as class based PCs are.
Going classless would solve that.
No, it wouldn't. Sometimes a focus in a direction is necessary. Sometimes have no direction stalls more than it helps.
Quote from: AsenRG;841519He also performed a magical ritual. Most Fighting Men would be forbidden by the rules to do so, or the ritual wouldn't work.
And picking locks is about as hard as sneaking. I certainly have had an easier time with opening a padlock that needed opening than I have climbing.
That's because I've got a better attribute score in one than in the other, of course, since I'm untrained at both. Conan would be different, but still, the ritual is more telling about the range of his abilities.
And his sneaking puts most thieves to shame, given that he can sneak in chain armour.
Conan's first response to any conflict is to draw his weapon and smite it. This makes him a Fighting Man, anything else is superfluous. You want your fighting man to do a magic ritual? Fine, make something up. That's what D&D exists for.
Quote from: AsenRG;841407Gandalf is consistently described as a human, so elf is right out.
The other option requires two feats. Can I even afford it as a starting PC?
Gandalf was closer to elf than human as a race. You said "like Gandalf"; do you want an archetype or a Xerox copy? (I note that he also did talk with giant eagles but I think they spoke the common tongue?) Why would you expect your starting PC to match one of the most powerful characters in Middle Earth?
QuoteWith barbarian rages, Read ancient script, Perform Rituals with impromptu tools and being sneakier than a thief, and able to kill a major enemy with a knife, as long as you can get surprise, which suggests a sneak attack mechanic?
You honestly think the Barbarian class covers that?
Um... yes? (If you really want that backstab mechanic for your clone, three levels of Rogue (Assassin) would increase damage significantly in the surprise situation. I'd be satisfied that a raging barbarian can kill anything with whatever weapon is at hand. You can get stealth from several different backgrounds; Read ancient script might just be a History check, and some Barbarians in 5e can cast a ritual as a class feature--take a feat for more generality.)
QuoteAnd he gets more observant with experience, right? That's a major part.
Yes, if he's proficient in Perception then his bonus rises with level, and he can also increase his Wisdom ability and add the supporting feats as he gains levels.
QuoteDo you really mean said background makes me richer, better trained at least in social skills, lore and possibly in occult matters, and gives me a cadre of bodyguards? If not, that's not a nobleman.
Your notion of a nobleman is more restrictive than a D&D class! History and Persuasion are the basic skills for the Noble background; you can get Arcana from your class or just have a higher INT ability. The background can give you retainers but not bodyguards (they don't fight for you; I think that's as much a game balance issue as anything else); you could recruit other PCs to be bodyguards. Also for game balance Noble characters don't get higher income; Nobles who adventure are either from houses that have fallen on hard times or consume their stipend on their lavish lifestyles or are too removed from their estates to benefit from their wealth.
QuoteI don't think in mechanics, I think in character abilities. Way too often, you can't get those with a starting character, because the designer had a different idea about the class. So you need a variant class, thus, class proliferation.
You list specific mechanisms and you expect starting characters to match up with Gandalf and Conan. :rolleyes:
I do think 5e does a pretty good job without any house rules. The most difficulty I've had with an archetype was a shapechanger like Beorn; I ended up with a Moon Druid but some of the class features didn't match my conception (Druidic? general spell casting?); my solution is to not use those where they don't match my idea of the character. So my character is weaker than the same class using all of the abilities available. You seem hung up on making characters more powerful, not more in tune with an archetype. And a classless system where everything is up for sale would indeed be just the thing for the min-maxing you seem to want.
Quote from: rawma;840716So, a basic flavorless class with extra points to buy feats or more hit points or more spell casting or whatever.
Quote from: AsenRG;841407And I'd prefer a classless system where you buy the extra HP or the spellcasting.
There's no functional difference between a "classless" system and a system with one class. The one class is "Character".
There have been endless arguments about what class is this fictional character and what class is that fictional character. Invariably the characters in question will do or be something exceptional or something that doesn't fit in a given class. People will go to great lengths to justify their assessments when the fact that they have to should serve as a stark reminder that fiction is not D&D and D&D is not fiction. 3.x reinvigorated these arguments with its robust multiclassing mechanics. And sometimes the arguments go one step further and people want to argue about just what level the characters are. Or alignment. That's another favorite.
Perhaps we should consider letting this shit go. D&D classes will not map 1 to 1 with every fictional character. And that's okay. For many the divisions it makes are the categories they want. For others D&D has taught them to see its classes and other characteristics in every bit of fiction they read (to the point of reading them into the stories when they are not there). Others see where things don't line up and wish they would.
D&D is a game, not a story. Not a tool for literary analysis. It doesn't need to map one to one with every possible story in order to justify its mechanics. It's also okay if different D&Ds map to different elements depending on the goals of the rules writer or people playing the game.
From what I understand the cleric class was invented as a counter to a cheesy vampire character called Count Fang who had gotten out of hand. The earliest monk was inspired by the song "Kung Fu Fighting" by Carl Douglas. People were having fun making shit up. They weren't doing some dissertation on applying analytical tools to the entire body of fantasy literature to come up with the perfect categories into which all protagonists must invariably fall.
We really need to stop pretending that D&D is a grand theory of everything when it comes to categorizing characters from fantasy stories. Be it by class, by level or alignment. It's so fucking ridiculous. Just stop for a second and imagine Count Fang facing off against a holy warrior for the first time while Carl Douglas punches an ogre in the balls in the next room. Woho-oh... Woho-oh...
Thank you, Nathan. Said it better than I could.
I'll just emphasize a couple points.
First, I don't know who started to refer to "archetypes" in D&D, and not being too familiar with Jungian theories I can't say whether D&D classes have any relation to those. But I found the word illuminating in that it made me realize that D&D classes as originally conceived are not professions. They are character types. From that view, the idea of multiclassing in a fashion where you take a level of this and a level of that is pretty ridiculous. You are what you are; character growth in the mechanical sense just means you're a more epic version of what you are. In the context of the mechanics, a random Game of Thrones dude is a tadpole and Conan is a frog, but in fiction they're different species--tadpole and great white shark, say.
Of course this idea is subverted immediately by Gygaxian Naturalism, if not by the rules of OD&D then certainly by AD&D. The fact that you move from tadpole to shark by acquiring something called "experience" shows that the notion of class and level was already seen in terms of "professional development."
In short there's a contradiction from the start which is basically resolved in the same way as the hit point conundrum: it works if you don't examine it too closely.
If you try to reform the system by tweaking the mechanics, chances are you're just going to make an abomination. Best to go back to first principles.
Quote from: Arminius;841605D&D classes as originally conceived are not professions. They are character types. From that view, the idea of multiclassing in a fashion where you take a level of this and a level of that is pretty ridiculous.
Of course this idea is subverted immediately by Gygaxian Naturalism
Thank you, Eliot, for reminding me
why I like S&W so much better than AD&D (and 3e, and 4e, and 5e...)
Not that I am against a classless take on D&D but then it shouldn't mix and match design principles. NathanIW's example upthread is a pretty good start.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;841618Not that I am against a classless take on D&D but then it shouldn't mix and match design principles. NathanIW's example upthread is a pretty good start.
So far it's been working. Only had 12 or so hours of actual play with 6 people. It pretty much is the build a bear approach Larsdangly mentioned in the original post. Or the type of play Randall was talking about.
For anyone worried about ideas like archetypes, the approach will maintain them as long as the player interested in one can make it out of the pieces available.
For anyone interested in "niche protection," well, I don't have much respect for such ideas. I don't want one character class being able to do X to ever mean every other one can't. And I certainly have no use for rules that protect a player's interest in how their character is special.
The other thing I've noticed is that "balance" hasn't been an issue either. I'm using gaming material for the normal assumptions of character power level and things are fine. I have some monsters from the S&W SRD. A dungeon from a Judge's Guild publication and some other stuff I've grabbed from here and there and everything is working fine. Maybe things will start being problematic by level 5, but that can often be the case in games like AD&D where one wrong magic item can ruin the game.
I did end up using a spell point system so if someone takes two spell casting class features, they still have the same pool of points to spend, but just with more spells to choose from. I need to double check my math, but I may be giving too many spell points per level. It hasn't yet become a problem, but I'll be sure to double check how I'm doing that before the next character levels up.
The other thing I've done is normalize experience and base it off exploration. The game is explicitly about exploring the mythic underworld, so a character gets an XP for each room or adventure area they visit/survive/explore. The type of area that merits an entry in a key for a map. This, like the old GP = XP, makes wondering monsters a real threat rather than an opportunity for rapid advancement. To figure out how many XP are needed per level I just took the XP and Treasure of a normal dungeon and figured out on average how many rooms would have to be visited to level up once you divided the XP and GP as XP between the characters. I rounded it up and got 25, 50, 100, etc.,. So far in 12 hours of play 27 adventure areas have been visited. I don't know if that's fast or slow compared to normal D&D expectations, but part of having no classes is figuring out how to deal with how characters level up. The PDF of Philotomy's musings were very useful in working this out.
Love it; sounds cool!
Quote from: NathanIW;841593Perhaps we should consider letting this shit go. D&D classes will not map 1 to 1 with every fictional character. And that's okay. For many the divisions it makes are the categories they want. For others D&D has taught them to see its classes and other characteristics in every bit of fiction they read (to the point of reading them into the stories when they are not there). Others see where things don't line up and wish they would.
This is a good point. It's also worth noting that a lot of things that D&D characters do are completely impossible in literature. I was reading a blog today that retold a story about PCs preferring to have their heads cut off and placed in a bag of holding (to be resurrected later) than to surrender (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37527/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-player-characters-and-surrender)
If you follow any historical examples, nobody would ever have done this and there are few (if any) fiction universes where this can happen. Just think of Game of Thrones -- where this is never an option no matter how desperate the stakes. In the same vein, the teleport spell does a lot of damage to world building assumptions. Some universes, like Wheel of Time, can handle it but it would be completely out of genre in Conan or Lord of the Rings.
It is also true you can't make Superman in D&D, either.
So D&D cannot emulate all genres. That's okay.
That head in a bag thing is hilarious.
That sounds like something out of Irish myth. (Come to think of it, the Celts had a thing for cutting off heads, and I think that may be a theme of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. But the humorous/self-parodying aspect seems Irish.)
Quote from: NathanIW;841624For anyone interested in "niche protection," well, I don't have much respect for such ideas. I don't want one character class being able to do X to ever mean every other one can't. And I certainly have no use for rules that protect a player's interest in how their character is special.
My understanding of niche protection is that a character should not be completely overshadowed by another character, not that no other character can do the thing they do. So I care about niche protection so that a player doesn't feel their archer character is worthless because the mages can sling better damage with their cantrips, not because they invested anything special in it but just as a side effect of learning real magic; or the thief gets put out of work by divination spells. I don't care if one fighter is +2 relative to another, because the player with the weaker fighter isn't going to say, "Oh, no reason to play a fighter!".
It does help to have lots of archetypes or skills or colleges of magic or deities or whatever so that every player has a good chance of being a little bit better than the rest of the party at something, not so that they have a monopoly on their specialty. But I'm not enforcing that with any rules. And most things a character can do help the party just by quantity: more spell slots, more hit points, more attacks are good even if they're weaker than what other characters have.
Quote from: Votan;841655I was reading a blog today that retold a story about PCs preferring to have their heads cut off and placed in a bag of holding (to be resurrected later) than to surrender (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37527/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-player-characters-and-surrender)
If you follow any historical examples, nobody would ever have done this and there are few (if any) fiction universes where this can happen.
How could this happen historically, since it depends on having resurrection spells? I don't understand the decapitation, since it seems to be a D&D-ish game (wouldn't you need the whole body to raise them from the dead? or just a small amount of flesh for a clone spell?)
For a fictional example, there's Fred Saberhagen's Empire of the East; one of the characters asks his wife to cut his head off so that she can put a collar on his severed neck so that his head and body would be transported by the robotic medics for healing, which might not work anyway - but no other way to get the collar on.
Maybe some mass cult suicides were motivated by the same reasoning (believing they would be brought back to life).
Quote from: rawma;841792So I care about niche protection so that a player doesn't feel their archer character is worthless because the mages can sling better damage with their cantrips
This doesn't really sound like a situation present in an OSR system. The ones that even do have 0th level spells usually have things like no damaging ones or maybe a wimpy ray of frost that deals 1d3 or something while the bow does 1d6. And usually the cantrips that do exist in OSR games are not unlimited.
What you are saying sounds more like niche protection concerns for a game of Pathfinder.
QuoteIt does help to have lots of archetypes or skills or colleges of magic or deities or whatever so that every player has a good chance of being a little bit better than the rest of the party at something
This is the part of niche protection I don't really have any interest in. I'm not really interested in games where people sitting down to play have a good chance of having a character that is a little bit better at something than anyone else sitting down there already. If you join, you start at 1st/0th level like everyone else did. Want to be a little better than the rest of the party at something? You better survive and make smart player choices and get there. And you may need to accept that you'll never catch up or out shine the veterans. Or maybe when a veteran warrior sacrifices his life so the rest of the party can escape certain death you'll learn what shining really is about.
This may putting it too strongly, but if someone's fun is contingent on being special in comparison with other players, there's something wrong with their approach to RPGs. The Referee is going to describe some pretty dangerous situations and the players should be focused on surviving and thriving in that environment rather than having a special snowflake contest every time there's a fight.
Quote from: AsenRG;841407And let's not forget, Conan reads ancient scripts and performs a ritual that chases away an ensorcelled pursuer...
It would be easier to just assume that ANYONE could have read that ritual. Because clearly Conan never went to magic school.
QuoteWhen the big three (Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser and Conan) examples of genre characters are outside the limits of a class system, it's time for a classless one.
None of those are outside the limits of a class system.
QuoteGandalf is consistently described as a human, so elf is right out.
Actually, Gandalf is canonically an angel. Or the Middle-Earth equivalent of one, in any case.
QuoteWith barbarian rages, Read ancient script, Perform Rituals with impromptu tools and being sneakier than a thief, and able to kill a major enemy with a knife, as long as you can get surprise, which suggests a sneak attack mechanic?
You honestly think the Barbarian class covers that?
Barbarian rages is purely roleplay. Read ancient script entirely depends on what languages you know; all this shows it that Conan is probably a high-INT barbarian. Perform rituals is probably something any character could have done in that case, just like there are magical books that it's implied any character could read, in AD&D 1e.
And everyone get's a sneak attack in D&D: it's +2 against unaware opponents, usually. Between that and surprise, and a STR bonus, it wouldn't be surprising that Conan could kill a major enemy. Of course, if we're talking DCC instead of D&D, it could also be a Mighty Deed.
QuoteI don't think in mechanics, I think in character abilities. Way too often, you can't get those with a starting character, because the designer had a different idea about the class. So you need a variant class, thus, class proliferation.
Not a problem with classless systems for obvious reasons.
No, classless systems have WAY worse problems than "I can't be exactly the special snowflake I envision from the start". Like the potential for min-maxing abuse, longer character-creation times from a glut of options and beancounting point-expenditure processes, and having melange characters that end up looking like nothing and symbolizing nothing.
QuoteWhat's the bonus of classes we're throwing out? If people are still playing archetypal characters, it's not that!
People in classless systems are often not playing Archetypal characters. That quickly becomes the exception rather than the rule as soon as players find out that by turning their character into some kind of nonsensical jack-of-all/no-trades, they can game the system.
So besides archetypes, which are SUPER-important for a number of reasons (how quickly newer players understand what they're supposed to be, for one, but also for symbolic reasons of tapping into concepts bigger than yourself), there's also all of the above: it avoids delays in character creation, confusion, and player abuse of the system. In games with classes, you worry about Class, not about mechanics. Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever; classless games will have people thinking less about who their character is in the world, and more about what's the best stuff to start with.
RPGPundit, I'll show you enough respect to not answer that post. Because I would need to disagree with almost every statement in it, and honest, I'm sure you also have better things to do with your time. I'm sure busy reading a new setting that I'm already running.
To everyone who recommended 5e, thank you, but it really isn't what I'm looking for, combat system-wise. And since it's a thread for classless OSR and not how to loosen up 5e's class system, no need to give more 5e examples, is there?
Nathan, I agree with your point that D&D doesn't map to any piece of literature except those it spawned itself.
I disagree that this isn't a problem. New players, or at least those that I've found most likely to be interested at all in RPGs these days, are often using literary characters as their archetype examples. Thus, a classless take on it is quite desirable for gaining new players.
I'd much rather ditch D&D for another system than go with a D&D that doesn't fit my needs. Don't know why it's so hard to get for some people in this thread, but it sure seems to be. So I'm stating it clearly: the choice isn't between D&D with or without classes. It's between a classless option and me and my groups, versus a class-purist D&D without me and my players.
My point about using D&D as a grand framework for literature is about only one way being a problem. When people start seeing class, alignment, level, D&D magic as the way to talk about literature. As if D&D is more than a game but some grand literary criticism tool.
I disagree with the Pundits assertion that non-archetypal play suddenly becomes the norm and all players try to figure out the strongest possible combination of character elements. I think only a small subset of RPGers would immediately try to figure out the best possible combination. Most would want to play what sounds cool to them. What grabs them.
As well, there's one very, very simple way to totally prevent Pundit's concerns from happening that is very much in keeping with OSR sensibilities.
Make it random. Stats 3d6 in order. Roll twice on this chart to see what your character is good at (reroll duplicate results). Start playing.
Myra Cartwright AC 10 [9] HP 5
STR 11 DEX 7 (-1) CON 12 INT 7 (-1) WIS 9 CHA 12
Skulduggery
Athletics
Good luck in the underworld Myra! You may be The Rebel and The Explorer in terms of archetypes, but you lack a bit in the way of natural talent.
Aldwin Brathe AC 9 [10] HP 2 SP 4
STR 11 DEX 10 CON 8 (-1) INT 10 WIS 7 (-1) CHA 7 (-1)
Folk Magic
Interaction
Good luck in the underworld Aldwin! You're The Shaman. With 2 HP be careful of dangerous creatures!
Iago Montera AC 8 [11] HP 5 SP 3
STR 11 DEX 13 (+1) CON 11 INT 5 (-1) WIS 15 (+1) CHA 11
+1 attack & damage
Divine Blessing
Good luck in the underworld Iago! You're The Hero. Do what you can and trust your gods.
I have only read the original question and RPGPundit's last post and your response, but you could take a look at The Fantasy Trip, and/or the current Dark City Games clone.
It's a circa-1980 design (and out of print, but findable) which is classless but is only not still my favorite system because I'm a simulationist detail freak and we wanted more detail and realism after a few years' play. I have played it recently with house rules, and it actually stood up quite well. There's still a small Internet forum of people who continue to play TFT and prefer it over everything.
It does not satisfy your requests for D&D mechanics, as it does not use levels and armor reduces the damage of each blow but doesn't make you harder to hit. It also uses hex-based tactical combat, and hit points stay in a low range, so if you want to tank, you need heavy armor and/or magic protection to usually keep you from getting injured, not a pile of hitpoints.
It is a simple point-buy system. Three attributes to spread points between (ST, DX, IQ), choose to be a wizard or not, race, gender, and then you can pick spells or talents to learn with your 8-16 IQ points. Enough experience lets you add a point to an attribute.
I can pick the stats of a non-wizard character from rules memory in well under a minute, and maybe another minute to write it down, e.g.:
Zog the Orc, Male
ST 11 DX 12 IQ 9
Talents: Ax/Maxe Shield Swimming Climbing Orcish Human
Smallaxe 1d+2
Large Shield (stops 2 damage, -1DX)
Cloth Armor (stops 1 damage, -1DX)
Dagger 1d-1
So, it doesn't suffer from RPGPundit's problem of taking long to make a character, and I don't find that there is much/any problem with munchkin minimax designs, as the most effective designs tend to work because they make sense anyway, and there isn't a lot to be done that would be weird and effective. The only example of that I can think of are ninja halflings with throwing stars (which are an optional rule anyway), but that's easily disallowed by not having the halfling ranged weapon bonus stack with throwing talent, or other simple tweaks (including just having halflings stay in character and not have throwing stars).
Being a classless system, yes it's possible to make non-archetypal characters, and weird characters. Or you can choose characters that make sense, including being archetypal, if you want that. I always felt this was an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Only a fairly small number of talents can be taken and they are pretty basic, so it doesn't tend to confuse people or make things very weird unless you're trying or the player is particularly confused. I tend to find D&D-style classes and their abilities much less natural, myself, though of course it's not what I usually play.
Quote from: Skarg;842174I have only read the original question and RPGPundit's last post and your response, but you could take a look at The Fantasy Trip, and/or the current Dark City Games clone.
I just went acd downloaded the DCG clones. The sci-fi one looks very functional without that much of a departure from the fantasy version. I also grabbed all the sample modules. Thanks for letting me know about Dark City Games.
QuoteIt does not satisfy your requests for D&D mechanics, as it does not use levels and armor reduces the damage of each blow but doesn't make you harder to hit. It also uses hex-based tactical combat, and hit points stay in a low range, so if you want to tank, you need heavy armor and/or magic protection to usually keep you from getting injured, not a pile of hitpoints.
As a huge BRP/d100/Call of Cthulhu fan I'm okay with all those things, even if it's not what the original poster was talking about.
QuoteThree attributes to spread points between (ST, DX, IQ)
. Despite having the classic six ability scores in my examples above, the game I'm actually running uses STR, DEX, MIND from Microlite74 so that's pretty much the same thing as ST, DX, IN. I find it's enough to have three stats. I also do a talk about your character thing and basically you get +1, 0, 0 to place in the three stats. If during the course of the three minute conversation the player actually ddescribes their ccharacter as dumb, weak, clumsy, etc., then the appropriate stat gets a -1 and another stat gets a further +1. I don't actually use the normal 3-18 scores in the game, just a -1 through +2 modifier.
Quote from: NathanIW;842157My point about using D&D as a grand framework for literature is about only one way being a problem. When people start seeing class, alignment, level, D&D magic as the way to talk about literature. As if D&D is more than a game but some grand literary criticism tool.
I disagree with the Pundits assertion that non-archetypal play suddenly becomes the norm and all players try to figure out the strongest possible combination of character elements. I think only a small subset of RPGers would immediately try to figure out the best possible combination. Most would want to play what sounds cool to them. What grabs them.
As well, there's one very, very simple way to totally prevent Pundit's concerns from happening that is very much in keeping with OSR sensibilities.
Make it random. Stats 3d6 in order. Roll twice on this chart to see what your character is good at (reroll duplicate results). Start playing.
Myra Cartwright AC 10 [9] HP 5
STR 11 DEX 7 (-1) CON 12 INT 7 (-1) WIS 9 CHA 12
Skulduggery
Athletics
Good luck in the underworld Myra! You may be The Rebel and The Explorer in terms of archetypes, but you lack a bit in the way of natural talent.
Aldwin Brathe AC 9 [10] HP 2 SP 4
STR 11 DEX 10 CON 8 (-1) INT 10 WIS 7 (-1) CHA 7 (-1)
Folk Magic
Interaction
Good luck in the underworld Aldwin! You're The Shaman. With 2 HP be careful of dangerous creatures!
Iago Montera AC 8 [11] HP 5 SP 3
STR 11 DEX 13 (+1) CON 11 INT 5 (-1) WIS 15 (+1) CHA 11
+1 attack & damage
Divine Blessing
Good luck in the underworld Iago! You're The Hero. Do what you can and trust your gods.
So the version above is probably fine. You are picking 2 perks, that help create a theme for the character. That's fine and it's a nice intermediate zone between classed and classless (after all, you can't take bad stuff to get more good stuff, for example). What I think helps, a lot, is that the choices are likely to be structured and balanced (which when you have a list and every one has to be balanced is easier than a system where features have varying power levels).
What gets messy is when you have many different customizations. Look at the create your own class tables in 2nd Edition DMG or the skills and powers sourcebook. I can do terrible, terrible things with those systems.
Equally true is that randomization is the best enemy of min-maxing. Zak Smith's Red and Pleasant Land has an Alice class with random features upon leveling up. Many of the worst abuses involve stacking and combinations. This could also be done in a classless system way, perhaps with sub-tables.
But classes get you to "interesting and meaningful choice" very quickly. I can imagine trading that "for discovery of the world and the creation of options" but most of the time you end up with some pretty optimal choices.
O
Quote from: Votan;842207(after all, you can't take bad stuff to get more good stuff, for example).
This is such a good point. The worst part of the many games that have points systems where you can take flaws to get more perks is that the flaws are a giant train wreck when it comes time to address them in play. The best case scenario is that they are ignored and don't come up in play and then they were just free points. Or it comes up as a relatively meaningless nod or mention that doesn't take the spotlight. The worst case scenario is that play becomes about them and everyone is just sort of sitting there while play is about Joe's character's drug addiction that not even he cares about because he just took it for points to spend on perks.
The whole premise is often ridiculous as well. As if being really afraid of spiders someone gives you more resources towards learning weapon smithing or having a meth addiction makes you a better ER surgeon.
I do have one take a penalty to get a bonus. In the stats. You take a -1 to one of three stats to get a +1 to another. But this isn't 3-18, but -1 to +2. And only if you describe your character as being exceptionally weak or stupid or clumsy or whatever. How is it going to matter in play? Well, you're going to have less HP, a worse AC or be more vulnerable to mind effecting magic, fear, enchantments, etc.,.
QuoteEqually true is that randomization is the best enemy of min-maxing. Zak Smith's Red and Pleasant Land has an Alice class with random features upon leveling up. Many of the worst abuses involve stacking and combinations. This could also be done in a classless system way, perhaps with sub-tables.
I may be running a regular Dungeon Crawl Classics open table for a local store and I've noticed this "confounding min-maxing through randomness" is definitely part of that design as well. I think it's a great approach. Except for one thing...
QuoteBut classes get you to "interesting and meaningful choice" very quickly. I can imagine trading that "for discovery of the world and the creation of options" but most of the time you end up with some pretty optimal choices.
I've played a ton of B/X and one thing I do remember doing is thinking "this time I'd like to try being a cleric" during character generation. If everything is random all the time you may have incredibly long runs of the character you are interested in not coming up for play. For example, in my game having both divine spell casting and the ability to turn the unholy will only both be present on the same character sheet 0.5% of the time. It's simply not what a typical priest/cleric looks like in my game. So if someone is doing the random thing rather than the conversation thing, it's very, very unlikely to come up as a character with both abilities.
As for the conversation method, I think it works really well as it concentrates on what's important to the player about their character rather than trying to combo off with character elements to break a system. In a published format though, I would see it as just another system to try to break for the power gamer. If I say this as an answer to this question and then this as an answer to that question, I'll get X and Y which then I can combine by saying the right thing to get Z and so on.
Done in an honest way though, I find it works fine.
Quote from: Votan;842207But classes get you to "interesting and meaningful choice" very quickly. I can imagine trading that "for discovery of the world and the creation of options" but most of the time you end up with some pretty optimal choices.
About half the time I do random chargen, class games make me play a class I don't even like. Thus, they limit me to "choices I could care less about". It might become a problem if the GM doesn't allow rerolling.
Sure, the same can happen in a classless game with random chargen. The difference is, I know I can develop the character the way I wanted to, so I have something to look forward to, at least!
With a class game, I have the death of the botched character to look forward to, which isn't conducive to roleplaying in any way, shape or form that I can imagine.
But in short, I have no issues with minmaxers. I just get them to the endgame of influence brokering that much faster. That's the ultimate solution, while randomness just makes for more randomisation!
Quote from: NathanIW;841867This doesn't really sound like a situation present in an OSR system.
It's a single example. The usual old-school problem is that some supplement introduces, in a game that had classes X, Y and Z, a new class that's basically uber-X; all of the players who chose class X are annoyed, and all of the rules that describe class X turn out to be a waste of space. It's fine when a new class has a different set of tradeoffs; the problem is when every significant class feature is better in the new class.
In a classless system, this usually happens because some clever combination of features cheaply overshadows an entire area. I'll refrain from an example because you seem unable to generalize from anything specific.
QuoteThis is the part of niche protection I don't really have any interest in. I'm not really interested in games where people sitting down to play have a good chance of having a character that is a little bit better at something than anyone else sitting down there already. If you join, you start at 1st/0th level like everyone else did. Want to be a little better than the rest of the party at something? You better survive and make smart player choices and get there. And you may need to accept that you'll never catch up or out shine the veterans. Or maybe when a veteran warrior sacrifices his life so the rest of the party can escape certain death you'll learn what shining really is about.
This may putting it too strongly, but if someone's fun is contingent on being special in comparison with other players, there's something wrong with their approach to RPGs. The Referee is going to describe some pretty dangerous situations and the players should be focused on surviving and thriving in that environment rather than having a special snowflake contest every time there's a fight.
You completely misunderstand my point, which has nothing to do with niche protection or with level. I'm saying that a positive result of having more skills is that, by chance or design, you can have a better bonus in something, however obscure, and your starting character doesn't feel like a sidekick to another starting character who rolled better.
Quote from: rawma;842682It's a single example. The usual old-school problem is that some supplement introduces, in a game that had classes X, Y and Z, a new class that's basically uber-X; all of the players who chose class X are annoyed, and all of the rules that describe class X turn out to be a waste of space. It's fine when a new class has a different set of tradeoffs; the problem is when every significant class feature is better in the new class.
In a classless system, this usually happens because some clever combination of features cheaply overshadows an entire area. I'll refrain from an example because you seem unable to generalize from anything specific.
Both of these are known as bad design. What's the point of focusing on examples of what happens if you botch the game design?
Better focus on not botching!
Quote from: rawma;842682In a classless system, this usually happens because some clever combination of features cheaply overshadows an entire area. I'll refrain from an example because you seem unable to generalize from anything specific.
Because I'm not interested in broken play that doesn't work. So you'd be describing an example of a problem
I am in no way interested in having. So I'm only interested in ways that the combinations of features that do not do that and means of keeping it from occurring from the word go.
So far I have three strategies that I know work from actual play. Conversation based character generation and random character generation make up the first two. Specifically avoiding any point buy system where you can get additional points by taking disadvantages. Or any class building system where points are a spent as a resource in its own character creation resource management game. CharOp* is definitely a thing I'm not interested in.
The third strategy in and oldy but a goody. You have a person there (maybe like some sort of referee or judge or game master or something) who might notice a player is attempting to CharOp and then that person tells them what they are doing is inappropriate for the game. And if they can't adjust they may have to find another group that would fit them better.
QuoteI'm saying that a positive result of having more skills is that, by chance or design, you can have a better bonus in something, however obscure, and your starting character doesn't feel like a sidekick to another starting character who rolled better.
And I think that having more skills leads to people to be more likely to view their skill list as a menu of things they can do and, even worse, shouldn't even try. To quote the original poster:
Quote from: Larsdangly;837364There is clearly some kind of pressure in that direction, when you consider the common arguments against the addition of the thief and other classes in OD&D expansions.
and
Quote from: Larsdangly;83751340 years worth of grognards have correctly noted that every time you add a new class you implicitly narrow the view of what every other class can do. The classic example is the thief's appropriation of being sneaky, climbing and opening stuff, but you could argue the same thing about nearly any class you want to name. So, why not just say 'fuck it' to all of them and let every character try what they want?
This isn't really about trying to make a expansive menu of character options that people can use during the game. It's about the opposite. About opening up the real options of play by having less classes. Down to one/zero. The approach that gets you there is simply not going to be one where you can CharOp the character creation system to get the best possible character. Why? The real game options are not the powers on your character sheet. They are the things you can describe doing in response to what the referee describes.
Furthermore, I still see special-snowflake-itis in what you are advocating. Saying "your starting character doesn't feel like a sidekick to another starting character who rolled better" definitely strikes me as something someone who's enjoyment is contingent on the power level of their character would say.
This is not a new argument. I'm sure there were people in the 70s who were annoyed that they had to start at level 1 when they joined a game where everyone else is at level 4-6.
I do not share those concerns.
*CharOp is a process (and sub forum on the wotc forums) where people figure out the best possible options to take during character creation and at each level to maximize the effectiveness of a character. Including having metrics like DPR (damage per round), average HP healed per spell level expended and a variety of other means of evaluating character effectiveness in order to maximize it. For many it is a fun separate resource management game that you don't even have to be in an RPG session to play.
Quote from: AsenRG;842687Both of these are known as bad design. What's the point of focusing on examples of what happens if you botch the game design?
Better focus on not botching!
It's like the old therapy joke. The only reason to dwell on your problems is that you are planning on continuing to have them. :D
Quote from: NathanIW;842696It's like the old therapy joke. The only reason to dwell on your problems is that you are planning on continuing to have them. :D
Not sure about therapy, since I'm not qualified, but it seems logical when applied to game design, doesn't it?
Quote from: AsenRG;842698Not sure about therapy, since I'm not qualified, but it seems logical when applied to game design, doesn't it?
Definitely.
To use rawma's examples, it's best to simply not use the supplement that introduces "uber-X" or use a game with a classless system that produces the bad results he's talking about. And if you're writing the game, it's best to not design uber-x and not design a classless system built to produce a best possible combination of chosen elements that an optimizer can discover.
Quote from: AsenRG;842687Both of these are known as bad design. What's the point of focusing on examples of what happens if you botch the game design?
Better focus on not botching!
Quote from: NathanIW;842694So you'd be describing an example of a problem I am in no way interested in having.
Caring nothing for a problem, and not even understanding what it is, is a sure-fire proven method of not having it! :rolleyes:
QuoteSo far I have three strategies that I know work from actual play. Conversation based character generation and random character generation make up the first two. Specifically avoiding any point buy system where you can get additional points by taking disadvantages. Or any class building system where points are a spent as a resource in its own character creation resource management game. CharOp* is definitely a thing I'm not interested in.
The third strategy in and oldy but a goody. You have a person there (maybe like some sort of referee or judge or game master or something) who might notice a player is attempting to CharOp and then that person tells them what they are doing is inappropriate for the game.
Boring limited design and shut down anyone who deviates from the exhaustively enumerated set of allowed characters. This is sizing up as a wonderful example for how not to design a game!
:popcorn:
QuoteAnd I think that having more skills leads to people to be more likely to view their skill list as a menu of things they can do and, even worse, shouldn't even try.
Hmm; eliminate all skills, or make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level. I wonder which one would be a worse design? :confused:
QuoteThis isn't really about trying to make a expansive menu of character options that people can use during the game. It's about the opposite.
:jaw-dropping: Wonder no more; why close the barn door when you can just kill all the livestock? The total number of possible characters will apparently be less than the number of classes in some games!
QuoteFurthermore, I still see special-snowflake-itis in what you are advocating.
I'm not "advocating" anything; just warning about one thing that will make your game bad and unpopular, which you clearly don't understand. I probably shouldn't have bothered.
Quote*CharOp is a process ...
:rolleyes: This project will be so far below a fantasy heartbreaker that a new term will have to be invented. Fantasy dead letter, anyone? Be sure to blame the players who don't like it; maybe you can call them brain damaged, as that has a proven track record of making designs more popular.
Quote from: rawma;842818Caring nothing for a problem, and not even understanding what it is, is a sure-fire proven method of not having it! :rolleyes:
What you are talking about isn't a single problem, but a whole set of interrelated problems. But seriously, your less than agreeable style of discussion makes it much less than fun to discuss them with you, personally.
And since I'm on this forum for fun, I'm not planning to.
Quote from: AsenRG;842889What you are talking about isn't a single problem, but a whole set of interrelated problems.
And the capstone of this problem construct relies on a foundation that simply isn't present in most OSR games. And especially isn't present in 0E/S&W/M74. In order to even have the possibility of having the problem he's hung up on, we'd have to first introduce a variety of other problems on which it could rest.
For example, the lack of "level appropriate encounters" in most OSR play has an interesting effect on characters of differing power levels. Be they from being drastically different levels or from character creation. And while it's not OSR, anyone who has run ongoing games of RIFTS knows that characters of varying power levels is not a game breaker.
QuoteBut seriously, your less than agreeable style of discussion makes it much less than fun to discuss them with you, personally.
And since I'm on this forum for fun, I'm not planning to.
The Pundit brought up a similar concern to one of rawma's and managed to present it without all of rawma's insults and jeering. And he was far more coherent and focused. I'm still thinking about his points whereas I will give rawma's drama little additional thought. Well, I'm an easy going fellow, so if he gives reading and replying to our last few posts another shot, I'll read what he has to say and respond if it merits it more than his last post.
Though what rawma has demonstrated clear ignorance of is an interesting paradox. That what he has referred to as "limited design" actually maximizes available options during actual play. Larsdangly was getting at that very topic right from the original post.
As for what this game is. It's not a project. Or a product. It's just a few pages of notes I use to run my games. Bits of 0E, S&W, M74, some vestigial M20 bits and ideas from Philotomy's Musings combined with a single adventurer + options "class". The conversation based character generation would take a bit of explaining I suppose.
If I ever do decide to put it into actual paragraphs and maybe make a PDF of it, it'll be after I've run it a lot more. It'll be an M74 variant as it is M74 at its core. Randall did such a good job with that series of games. I'm 17 hours in with 6 players and so far it's working great. We've decided that it'll be ongoing weekly game rather than just being a miniseries.
Quote from: NathanIW;842157My point about using D&D as a grand framework for literature is about only one way being a problem. When people start seeing class, alignment, level, D&D magic as the way to talk about literature. As if D&D is more than a game but some grand literary criticism tool.
And I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. D&D was created using (among other things) popular fantasy literature. The creators of the game (Not just Mr. Gygax and Arneson, but the players as well) took a look at whatever novel, movie or even somewhat historical figure and built a class system around their choices. So D&D is not some grand tool to discuss literature, but rather created D&D by using literature as it's base.
Also, D&D is not the only game system to use my claim of popular archetypes. Before I get into that, let me explain what I mean by archetypes. These are not small, hyper-focused niches that are exclusionary, but rather malleable and yes, relatively broad, even vague groupings of characters you see in just about all sorts of media. The Fighting Man covers both Knights, Warrior Monks and Archer/Ranged experts, among other types for example, depending on how they deal with potential conflict. Others straddle a line in the sand, the alchemist can be both Magic User or Expert, again depending on how they deal with potential conflict (and by conflict I'm not talking just combat here, but any issue that pits the character against a difficulty of some sort.) I want to stress that it's the primary focus of the character in question that is one of those three archetypes, and again, it's not exclusionary.
Other games that used the three Archetypes are Green Ronin's failed True20, their Fantasy AGE system, HERO's Fantasy Hero line of games, MRQ, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, among I'm pretty sure others. D&D did
not create these three major fantasy archetypes, it just
uses them more openly. Players of RPGs gravitate towards one of those three, because they're familiar and we've all seen them before in various forms of entertainment.
I can't find anything to disagree with in that. I think you're right that concentrating on how some people extrapolate from D&D is the wrong way to look at it.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that I think the three broad archetypes you have identified are good ones to support in terms of character creation/options and will be reviewing my notes with that in mind.
Quote from: NathanIW;842901rawma's insults and jeering
I explained my point calmly, and you continued to not only misunderstand it but to misrepresent it and to insult me. So you got back what you gave.
As to the substance of the discussion: I played OD&D (well, already with Greyhawk when I began) and a number of other 70s RPGs in the 70s. In real life, there are people who are good at two or more things; either your game won't represent that or you have to give some thought to how being good at two things interacts, whether it's in the rules or in the rulings. It's not special snowflakes, it's not min-maxing, it's not roll-playing instead of role-playing, nor any other insulting slogan you want to throw at it. Really.
Quote from: rawma;842989In real life, there are people who are good at two or more things; either your game won't represent that or you have to give some thought to how being good at two things interacts, whether it's in the rules or in the rulings.
For the purposes of my discussion with you, let's just say the game won't represent it. That the types of dungeoneers that go on adventures will be sufficiently similar in abilities not covered by the rules that the referee can rely on checks or rulings modified by ability scores as needed.
If you think that's bad, I'm totally okay with that. It would be foolish of me to run my game to please you. I have a very low opinion of your preferences and know through actual play that what you present as problems or short comings really aren't matters of concern. They simply aren't connected to the reality of actual play.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;842917Other games that used the three Archetypes are Green Ronin's failed True20, their Fantasy AGE system, HERO's Fantasy Hero line of games, MRQ, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, among I'm pretty sure others. D&D did not create these three major fantasy archetypes, it just uses them more openly. Players of RPGs gravitate towards one of those three, because they're familiar and we've all seen them before in various forms of entertainment.
I'd say the three are also a product of D&D, namely the thief class. You look at the relevant lit before D&D and it was guys with swords (or other weapons) and guys with spells (usually in addition to swords, unless they were bad guys). If you had a "thief" type, they were still weapon masters.
Quote from: apparition13;843061I'd say the three are also a product of D&D, namely the thief class. You look at the relevant lit before D&D and it was guys with swords (or other weapons) and guys with spells (usually in addition to swords, unless they were bad guys). If you had a "thief" type, they were still weapon masters.
Ah, but here's the thing, at some point (And the OG Gronan might be able to shed some light as to when exactly) players figured they needed a 'skilled expert' for opening locks and disarming traps, who quite frankly, was terrible at straight up combat, which they pulled from I'm thinking, popular literature, like Lord Of The Rings (among others.)
Like I said, D&D was created with a plethora of influences, but those influences have the three archetypes in them.
These archetypes are not something I created, they're not new, they've been in Fantasy Literature since the beginning of Fantasy. Most writers know about them at least peripherally when they create characters that they want their stories to revolve around.
Like I said, D&D just uses them more openly, is all.
Quote from: NathanIW;842265I've played a ton of B/X and one thing I do remember doing is thinking "this time I'd like to try being a cleric" during character generation. If everything is random all the time you may have incredibly long runs of the character you are interested in not coming up for play. For example, in my game having both divine spell casting and the ability to turn the unholy will only both be present on the same character sheet 0.5% of the time. It's simply not what a typical priest/cleric looks like in my game. So if someone is doing the random thing rather than the conversation thing, it's very, very unlikely to come up as a character with both abilities.
How about letting players choose the first "skill/class/ability/feat" and roll the second one randomly? (Plus 3d6 in order.)
Then a player interested in a cleric can choose which part of "cleric-ness" is more important to him, the divine spells or the fighting undead angle.
Quote from: rawma;842989In real life, there are people who are good at two or more things; either your game won't represent that or you have to give some thought to how being good at two things interacts, whether it's in the rules or in the rulings.
But Nathan's game
is producing characters that are good at two things.
A cleric with Fighting, divine blessing
A rogue with Skulduggery, and athletics
A mage with arcane talent and lore
A noble warrior with fighting and interaction
A savage warrior with fighting and athletics
A ranger with fighting and folk magic
A hedge wizard with arcane talent and folk magic
And this one is a true expert in his field, or very dedicated to his cause:
A cleric with Divine blessing and turn unholy
Quote from: NathanIW;842901The Pundit brought up a similar concern to one of rawma's and managed to present it without all of rawma's insults and jeering. And he was far more coherent and focused.
That's my problem, when anyone manages to be more insulting than the Pundit, the information/rudeness ratio is not favourable to a conversation.
Quote from: rawma;842989As to the substance of the discussion: I played OD&D (well, already with Greyhawk when I began) and a number of other 70s RPGs in the 70s. In real life, there are people who are good at two or more things; either your game won't represent that or you have to give some thought to how being good at two things interacts, whether it's in the rules or in the rulings. It's not special snowflakes, it's not min-maxing, it's not roll-playing instead of role-playing, nor any other insulting slogan you want to throw at it. Really.
Yes, and classless design pretty much guarantees the PCs would be like that. Sure, you must think about the way it works. Then again, the same applies to all elements of the game.
Quote from: apparition13;843061I'd say the three are also a product of D&D, namely the thief class. You look at the relevant lit before D&D and it was guys with swords (or other weapons) and guys with spells (usually in addition to swords, unless they were bad guys). If you had a "thief" type, they were still weapon masters.
Actually, there were only two archetypes, heroes and non-heroes. Most heroes had used some occult solutions at some point in their careers. All of them have skills, and I can't remember a single one that wasn't efficient in combat.
To me the Cleric is the class without a real literary antecedent. Sure, there are priests with powers in S&S but not as adventurers and definitely not in the mold of the cleric.
I think some of the thief comes from The Eyes of the Overworld and some from The Hobbit.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;843074...players figured they needed a 'skilled expert' for opening locks and disarming traps, who quite frankly, was terrible at straight up combat, which they pulled from I'm thinking, popular literature, like Lord Of The Rings (among others.)
So Bilbo...
Quote from: AsenRG;843103Actually, there were only two archetypes, heroes and non-heroes. Most heroes had used some occult solutions at some point in their careers. All of them have skills, and I can't remember a single one that wasn't efficient in combat.
and thinking on it more, not when you include fairy tales. Then you also have the clever hero, the one who wins based on wits. Rapunzel, Red Riding Hood, Puss in Boots and the like, and maybe even Bilbo.
Quote from: AsenRG;843103That's my problem, when anyone manages to be more insulting than the Pundit, the information/rudeness ratio is not favourable to a conversation.
You're probably right. He seems very dedicated to ways to mechanically differentiate characters to a great degree and having something in place to ensure characters are balanced against one another so no one feels like a side kick and everyone at the table has their niche protected. 5e, 3.x/PF, and 4E all accomplish that quite well, but I'm not sure his concerns are relevant to an OSR thread. They seem like design goals for a different approach to gaming.
QuoteYes, and classless design pretty much guarantees the PCs would be like that. Sure, you must think about the way it works. Then again, the same applies to all elements of the game.
I want all characters who are appropriate to the types of adventuring the game is about to be sufficiently similarly skilled in a variety of tasks that they can be handled by the referee through some sort of cveck or ruling modified by attributes. I think rawma would prefer a game where each character is mechanically distinct even in terms of their eyesight, ability to climb, what they know about animals, what they know about history, etc.,. And one where all that is codified into a skill system in advance.
The other side to all this is the balancing effect of the types of situations the players will have to deal with. If one character is at level 3 and another a 0th level peasant (I have a one shot planned with a DCC style funnel adventure) and they're facing a room that permanently magically blinds people who walk close enough to a statue near the other exit, there's very little on anyone's character sheet that will help them overcome the challenge by appealing to a mechanic in the game rules. Instead they'll have to describe what their characters are doing.
Another base assumption I'm starting to write down in my notes is that all magic must be found through adventuring. A character with arcane talent starts with no spells and a character with divine blessing starts with no cleric spells. I have also decided to change Turn Unholy into a spell and replace iit with Archery as a character option. I am very generous with opportunities to learn Magic and will be writing down the ratio of spells as treasure once I iron it out. In my last session a new player wanted to be a sorcerer. From reading scrolls and taking power from a magic scroll he had three spells by the end of the first session. The warrior with divine blessing has learned five different invocations so far. They declined to make an offering at a demonic blood alter to learn a sixth.
If I had characters start with spells, I'd go with DCC's approach and have it be completely random.
Quote from: Arminius;843117To me the Cleric is the class without a real literary antecedent. Sure, there are priests with powers in S&S but not as adventurers and definitely not in the mold of the cleric.
I've been thinking about melding together divine blessing, folk magic and arcane talent into a single magic ability and then having things differentiated based on where the magic comes from and how it is learned.
Not sure though. I'm not going to do it for my current campaign but if the upcoming oneshot ends up with enough players asking for more maybe I'll go for a more unified sword and sorcery type magic for that.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;843076How about letting players choose the first "skill/class/ability/feat" and roll the second one randomly? (Plus 3d6 in order.)
Then a player interested in a cleric can choose which part of "cleric-ness" is more important to him, the divine spells or the fighting undead angle.
Right now I'm using a conversation based character creation system. One player asked to go random. I see no reason a hybrid approach wouldn't work great.
QuoteBut Nathan's game is producing characters that are good at two things
3 attributes and 2 abilities is just not enough for rawma, regardless of how many possible combinations there are and regardless of how the limited nature of the design actually opens up options during actual play. Check out his tantrum post for more info.
So I wanted to revisit Pundit's take on the problems of a classless approach. I'm going to give them some more thought, but I've listed them here for now. The point in doing this is not to have some argument about whether or not a given point has merit but to ensure the negative aspects are simply not present when actually sitting down and playing.
I'm sure some of these items are things that just don't follow or are based on certain types of classless approaches. For example, points based GURPS vs RQ2 classless characters. Similarly I imagine some just won't be about an OSR classless game unless you go classless by bolting on a particular kind of character creation.
- potential for min-maxing abuse
- longer character-creation times from a glut of options and beancounting point-expenditure processes
- melange characters that end up looking like nothing and symbolizing nothing.
- not playing Archetypal characters so you can game the system.
- Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever;
- classless games will have people thinking less about who their character is in the world, and more about what's the best stuff to start with.
So that's what my future posts will be dealing with.
EDIT: Also I have decided that for my games ritual magic can be performed by anyone and the key concern for any ritual performer is whether or not they can actually do the rite and pay the cost demanded by the magic. For example part of a ritual might include a feat of great strength like bending a bar into a ring. Another might require blood sacrifice. Another might require chanting the names of twenty three of the target's ancestors, and so forth.
Quote from: apparition13;843119So Bilbo...
Bilbo wasn't useless in a straight up fight. He just didn't like killing, but ask some giant spiders about his nimbleness with a blade and thrown stones.
Quoteand thinking on it more, not when you include fairy tales. Then you also have the clever hero, the one who wins based on wits. Rapunzel, Red Riding Hood, Puss in Boots and the like, and maybe even Bilbo.
Fairy tales are a whole different matter from epic legends. I said "heroes". Think Iliad and Odissey, Ivan Tzarevitch, Mabinogion and the like.
The two genres have radically different "target auditories".
Quote from: NathanIW;843137You're probably right. He seems very dedicated to ways to mechanically differentiate characters to a great degree and having something in place to ensure characters are balanced against one another so no one feels like a side kick and everyone at the table has their niche protected.
I don't really care one way or another, but I should point out that how differentiated the characters are mechanically and how balanced is totally orthogonal to the question of classes or no classes.
Risus is classless and not much differentiation is going on. Hero is classless and differentiated. OD&D is class-based and has next to no differentiation, while the Dragon Age RGP is class-based and has a decent amount of differentiation.
Do I really need to give examples of game balance? Suffice it to say, classes and classless systems alike can be balanced or not.
Quote5e, 3.x/PF, and 4E all accomplish that quite well, but I'm not sure his concerns are relevant to an OSR thread.
3e/PF actually fail miserably at the "balanced so nobody feels like a sidekick" part. Other than that, yes, I agree it's not relevant to the OSR thread.
QuoteI want all characters who are appropriate to the types of adventuring the game is about to be sufficiently similarly skilled in a variety of tasks that they can be handled by the referee through some sort of cveck or ruling modified by attributes.
Funny, but T&T and Fantasy AGE both accomplish that much.
QuoteI think rawma would prefer a game where each character is mechanically distinct even in terms of their eyesight, ability to climb, what they know about animals, what they know about history, etc.,. And one where all that is codified into a skill system in advance.
He should try Artesia, Sengoku or Legend of the Wulin, then (assuming you're right). I like them all, personally, but when I want an OSR game, they're not what I'm looking for!
It's really that simple. Larsdangly suggested the idea of a classless OSR game. Me and other people said it's a great idea. A whole bunch of people tried to explain how classes are a sacred cow that shouldn't be killed, and how other systems that aren't OSR do exactly the same thing...except in a different way.
My answer is two-fold.
First, "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill Buddha!" If anyone doesn't know where this is from, google it.
Second, I have already plenty of games that do it in the ways specified about 5e, and the like. I don't want a new version of what I already have, and especially don't want the baggage that's coming with it (like D&D 5e's heavy-duty combat system).
Admittedly, I could design my own, probably by stripping Fantasy AGE to its core and making it classless. Maybe I will do that in the end.
Quote from: AsenRG;843161.Risus is classless and not much differentiation is going on. Hero is classless and differentiated. OD&D is class-based and has next to no differentiation, while the Dragon Age RGP is class-based and has a decent amount of differentiation.
I think one of the foundational ideas of this thread is that lowering differentiation actually increases options at the table. And taking D&D and going "build a bear" with the class features might be a means of accomplishing this.
So far it's working for me. The all weapons do d6 of OD&D definitely opens up weapon choices based on more practical matters like reach and fragility. Similarly I've been finding allowing everyone to use whatever Armour they want with it causing magic use to be less efficient and its weight and noise being a concern has been working.
Quote3e/PF actually fail miserably at the "balanced so nobody feels like a sidekick" part.
I've played in a very CharOped game where everyone had huge amounts of system mastery. You pretty much have to know how to game character options to avoid the pitfall. I don't play those games anymore, but I suspect it would be easy to become a sidekick in a more casual approach to those games. 3.x, for example, did have intentional trap choices for feats.
QuoteOther than that, yes, I agree it's not relevant to the OSR thread.
This is the crux of it.
QuoteFunny, but T&T and Fantasy AGE both accomplish that much.
I think I have a copy of T&T somewhere. I'll give it another look for ideas. I don't know much about Fantasy AGE but will search for info on it.
QuoteLarsdangly suggested the idea of a classless OSR game. Me and other people said it's a great idea. A whole bunch of people tried to explain how classes are a sacred cow that shouldn't be killed, and how other systems that aren't OSR do exactly the same thing...except in a different way.
It has been a strange thread.
QuoteMy answer is two-fold.
First, "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill Buddha!" If anyone doesn't know where this is from, google it.
Second, I have already plenty of games that do it in the ways specified about 5e, and the like. I don't want a new version of what I already have, and especially don't want the baggage that's coming with it (like D&D 5e's heavy-duty combat system).
Admittedly, I could design my own, probably by stripping Fantasy AGE to its core and making it classless. Maybe I will do that in the end.
If someone wanted to play an OSR type classless game right now I'd point them to Microlite74 Sword & Sorcery edition. It technically has two classes, but it's easy enough to drop the sorcerer and make magic something you only find during play (and largely the perview of evil sorcerers and demons).
Quote from: Phillip;837384You're looking for kludge in all the wrong places, in D&D eyes hoping for traces of meta-system love ...
I don't think it makes much sense to dismember the game and try to patch it together as a "menu" as if everything should work smoothly without the context. It's much better, if you want something so radically different, to build from the ground up (or start with a meta-system in the first place, such as Champions).
Hand-tailoring whatever options one wants -- a variation on a class, for instance -- gets the job done efficiently and well for those occasions when it's called for. That's why such variations proliferate!
People who don't dig the old D&D framework enough to use it move on to something else -- RuneQuest, Hero System, Rolemaster, GURPS, Pathfinder, whatever -- and get on with playing.
Champions/HERO System and especially Fantasy Hero was OSR before that was even a thing. It has the same 6 primary characteristics with essentially the same scale (0-20). A starting character has a base BODY characteristic of 10 (somewhat equivalent to a beginning D&D character's first dice of hit points being maxed). The fact that the primary combat resolution system happens to work from a "to the stunned/knocked-out" first and "to the death" secondary is a bonus depending on how you look at it. Classes and Levels from a strict sense are just pre-mapped advancement paths tied to the Hit-Point system. I agree with those who said that getting rid of Classes practically demands getting rid of Levels as well.
The real irony here is that I believe that HERO character creation can benefit greatly when the Player goes the extra mile by creating the character they 'can' to begin with
and what they envision that character becoming in the future and sharing this with the GM. It doesn't have to be contract set in stone but it is a useful way to start the discussion before XP is given out. Everyone basically creates their own custom "Class" as a result. Archetypes exist in HERO but they work in a similar fashion to the base characteristics of the Amber Diceless RPG since everything about them is relative. A character is only defined as a 'Brick/Fighter' or 'Rogue/Speedster' when compared to other characters in the setting. To work well, the GM should be involved in all PC advancement. The D&D family of games seems like it tries to automate the advancement process to the point that the DM is not needed which is where the disconnect seems to occur.
Alright. First up is potential for min max abuse.
This can be a problem if discovering meaningful differences in power level of different combination of character options is a viable tactic.
I believe there are six strategies that can work well at ensuring this doesn't become a problem.
The first is random or semi random character generation. It's hard to choose a combination of abilities when you don't choose some or all of them.
The second is a conversation between the referee and the player about what the character is like and the referee selects the options based on what they describe. While it's certainly possible for someone to figure out how the conversation will map to different options in order to target their desired combination, they will have to come up with a coherent description of their character in order to do so. The player will also largely be denied playing a resource allocation game by spending points as they'll, like in play, be limited to using natural language to describe things. Then questions can also be designed to integrate the setting and appropriate character options right into them.
The third is to not have broken combinations. The more differentiation in the game the more likely the dials and jobs of the character can be set to maximize the power level of a given character. Furthermore the fewer the options the easier it is to survey all the possible combinations for problems.
The fourth strategy iis to have a variety of threats and challenges in the game. A character optimized to do X might be really bad at Y or Z. Similarly if you have regular challenges that cannot be overcome with a game mechanic, the minmaxing abuse becomes a waste of time. Part of this is not having safety rails. There should be no expectation of level appropriate encounters except in that ddelving deeper into the dungeon or going further and further into the wilderness increases the likelihood of death and danger. We know from decades of play that the right sort of challenges add threats ccan make play with characters of different levels work, so accommodating fluctuations in starting character power should represent no real challenge.
The fifth is to concentrate on description and using natural language in play. And keeping the responsibility for system calls entirely in the hands of the referee or judge. The players describe what the characters do and the referee can call for die rolls as needed or desired. Minmaxing abuse derives much of its power from environments or games where the players can invoke mechanics or appeal to the system. If a player ever starts talking system talk and rolling dice without being asked the judge can simply disregard it and ask them to describe what they do. The player should get their traction in the game not by using the rules but by paying attention to and making description.
The sixth is the classic advice given to judges and referees over the decades. That they should remove, reverse or disallow things that are making the game not work. If a given combination somehow slips through the previous four strategies, it should be house ruled away on a case by case basis. Ideally this shouldn't ever occur, but defining the roles of the participants is part of the game, so it's okay to explicitly give the judge the authority to deal with problems. It's also possible that this type of game is not what a given player is looking for and it's the responsibility of everyone at the table to identify such mismatches in expectations before they become a problem and for the referee to explain what the particular game at hand is about.
Quote from: NathanIW;843163I think I have a copy of T&T somewhere. I'll give it another look for ideas. I don't know much about Fantasy AGE but will search for info on it.
It's the game Green Ronin used for their Dragon Age RPG. I call it "3d6 D&D done right":).
QuoteIt has been a strange thread.
I see nothing strange in it. It was totally predictable that something like that would happen, so I tried to be as polite as I could.
It just didn't help much people wanting a classless OSR game.
QuoteIf someone wanted to play an OSR type classless game right now I'd point them to Microlite74 Sword & Sorcery edition. It technically has two classes, but it's easy enough to drop the sorcerer and make magic something you only find during play (and largely the perview of evil sorcerers and demons).
I'll check it again. I've read it, but I don't remember what exactly made me decide it's based on 3.5 a bit too much for my tastes.
Quote from: NathanIW;843177Alright. First up is potential for min max abuse.
This can be a problem if discovering meaningful differences in power level of different combination of character options is a viable tactic.
(snipped)
It's also possible that this type of game is not what a given player is looking for and it's the responsibility of everyone at the table to identify such mismatches in expectations before they become a problem and for the referee to explain what the particular game at hand is about.
In fact, I believe that if it's a viable tactic, it's obviously the game we wanted to play! Otherwise, we'd have houseruled it away if it wasn't, right? (In my case, high rules mastery is expected, so stuff rarely surprises us).
But yes, some people are looking for a game where character building mastery is rewarded, or maybe a game where character building skill doesn't matter. Neither one is an issue. Both can become an issue when this isn't the game we want to play.
I find the best solution to be the seventh option: the GM talking with the player, and I mean with every single player, about the expected approach to character optimisation. Do that, and inform them what you intend to run. If they don't want to play that, you can point them to another game.
And I seriously mean "point them to another game". As long as you have a network of contacts with other GMs, you should be able to help. And who knows, maybe the next game you run would be like the one that player was looking for?
Anyway, this went so far up over the edge that separates classes from classless systems, I'm not sure why we're even discussing it;)!
Quote from: AsenRG;843209It's the game Green Ronin used for their Dragon Age RPG. I call it "3d6 D&D done right":).
I grabbed the quick start rules for Dragon Age and I think I've seen people play it on youtube.
QuoteI see nothing strange in it. It was totally predictable that something like that would happen, so I tried to be as polite as I could.
It just didn't help much people wanting a classless OSR game.
I must admit that I did find the differing priorities of play and misconceptions about the foundational idea of the thread (limited design = greater options during actual play) help me rapidly clarify what I want out of my game and put some not yet articulated aspects into words.
QuoteI'll check it again. I've read it, but I don't remember what exactly made me decide it's based on 3.5 a bit too much for my tastes.
Microlite20 definitely has a more 3.5 feel. It has the universal rules mechanic of stat modifier + skill modifer + d20 vs DC. I ran about half a session with Microlite20 as a base before I called for a break and went with M74 and the Swords & Wizardry monster book. I just didn't need the stat + skill roll vs DC to figure out checks and whatnot.
Oh. I remember now. The Adventurer definitely has a "feats" vibe. Every second level you pick from a list of stuff. I'm not a huge fan of that either, but I don't recall that being in the regular M74. Maybe M74 or S&W where everyone is a fighting man and magic is something found during play would be the way to go instead.
The way to get magic into the hands of everyone is to have trappings. The wizard was reading from a scroll or book. Or waving a wand about. Or an orb or clay tablet or whatever. The players can just get their hands on the trapping and describe how they are making it work. While the NPC evil sorcerers might be more practiced and get effects reliably, there's probably some great fun in characters just trying their best and getting crazy or dangerous effects as a result.
QuoteI find the best solution to be the seventh option: the GM talking with the player, and I mean with every single player, about the expected approach to character optimisation. Do that, and inform them what you intend to run. If they don't want to play that, you can point them to another game.
And I seriously mean "point them to another game". As long as you have a network of contacts with other GMs, you should be able to help. And who knows, maybe the next game you run would be like the one that player was looking for?
It's been a slog networking here. I have about thirty people I can blast an email out to saying "Joe is looking for a game where..." and I tend to end up with a waiting list for everything I run, but actually getting some of the online social networking going has been rough. There have been some issues about moronic store loyalty and edition warring and all that and I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the people who end up finding players and joining games through such avenues are the type of people who are left over while all the functional types have just been happily gaming.
QuoteAnyway, this went so far up over the edge that separates classes from classless systems, I'm not sure why we're even discussing it;)!
It's very much like Pundit has issues with how some class free games have done things and then extrapolated that all class free games must work like that.
I think having less differentiation solves almost all of his issues. I'm going to keep posting about each one of them as they are real problems with some classless games. I just don't think they're real problems with all classless games and especially not ones based on OSR D&Ds.
The second issue Pundit raised was longer character-creation times from a glut of options and beancounting point-expenditure processes.
The first and obvious strategy for avoiding this pitful is... don't have a points system. No beancounting. No trying to eek out the 7th point you need to buy an advantage. "I could take an extra level of drug addiction or maybe a single point sleep disorder..." How about instead we don't bother with any of that?
The second thing to deal with is a glut of options. One of the foundational notions of this thread is that limiting classes opens up options during actual play. So again, we can to bypass this pitfall through the magic of non participation in the problem. We can keep the options few in number.
As AsenRG talked about, we're dealing with an axis of differentiation that is actually orthogonal to class vs class free. One of the hallmarks of OD&D is low differentiation. Larsdangly put it so well that I decided to make it my forum signature. So if we want less differentiation in order to maximize the available options to be described in natural language during play, we'll get the side benefit of fast character creation.
My sixth and most recent player was the longest in terms of character creation. I started up the conversation method and every question I asked was met with a "what do you mean by that?" and "what are you getting at by asking that?" and "how should I answer that in a way that makes sense with the setting material?" until another player said that he could literally say anything he wanted. That if something he came up with didn't fit with the game, we'd all just talk it out right there. Then three minutes later he had his character. So instead of taking two or three minutes, we took about 6 minutes.
On the opposite side of the spectrum was the player who wanted random. So about a minute later he had the idea that his character was physically strong and had some experience as a mob enforcer and had recently received a vision from the gods that it was time to turn his life around and help rather than hurt people. STR +1 DEX 0 MIND 0 Fighting and Divine Blessing. AC 11 + armor bonus HP 5 Spell Points 3.
I remember some versions of D&D having starting equipment packages that can also heavily speed up the initial shopping spree that sometimes happens in those games. Package A, pick the one item of choice, pick your weapon, roll 3d10 or whatever for left over money. Get playing.
No points buy. No huge list of options (keep them small and iconic). Keep the early D&D strengths of fast character generation.
Quote from: NathanIW;843223I grabbed the quick start rules for Dragon Age and I think I've seen people play it on youtube.
Almost there. Will Wheaton has been running his campaign with the Fantasy Age rules, which is like the core rulebook without the Dragon Age setting:).
QuoteI must admit that I did find the differing priorities of play and misconceptions about the foundational idea of the thread (limited design = greater options during actual play) help me rapidly clarify what I want out of my game and put some not yet articulated aspects into words.
If there was no use in forum posts, I'd have left forums behind already.
QuoteMicrolite20 definitely has a more 3.5 feel. It has the universal rules mechanic of stat modifier + skill modifer + d20 vs DC. I ran about half a session with Microlite20 as a base before I called for a break and went with M74 and the Swords & Wizardry monster book. I just didn't need the stat + skill roll vs DC to figure out checks and whatnot.
Oh. I remember now. The Adventurer definitely has a "feats" vibe. Every second level you pick from a list of stuff. I'm not a huge fan of that either, but I don't recall that being in the regular M74. Maybe M74 or S&W where everyone is a fighting man and magic is something found during play would be the way to go instead.
The way to get magic into the hands of everyone is to have trappings. The wizard was reading from a scroll or book. Or waving a wand about. Or an orb or clay tablet or whatever. The players can just get their hands on the trapping and describe how they are making it work. While the NPC evil sorcerers might be more practiced and get effects reliably, there's probably some great fun in characters just trying their best and getting crazy or dangerous effects as a result.
That's interesting. I'm doing something quite similar in my Silent Legions-Tekumel crossover (and you don't want to know what the rules are, as they're best described as an amalgam of whatever I've found useful).
QuoteIt's been a slog networking here. I have about thirty people I can blast an email out to saying "Joe is looking for a game where..." and I tend to end up with a waiting list for everything I run, but actually getting some of the online social networking going has been rough. There have been some issues about moronic store loyalty and edition warring and all that and I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the people who end up finding players and joining games through such avenues are the type of people who are left over while all the functional types have just been happily gaming.
Online networking is always interesting, not always in the positive sense. Then again, my opinion is that it's very much worth it.
QuoteIt's very much like Pundit has issues with how some class free games have done things and then extrapolated that all class free games must work like that.
Well, I can't speak for Pundit's thought processes. To me, it looked like he had some problems with players.
QuoteI think having less differentiation solves almost all of his issues. I'm going to keep posting about each one of them as they are real problems with some classless games. I just don't think they're real problems with all classless games and especially not ones based on OSR D&Ds.
On this, we agree. Just keep in mind that what seems like a problem to you might well be the reason some groups are playing;).
It's a refreshing thought, and helps us from feeling too self-important, in my experience:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;843232Almost there. Will Wheaton has been running his campaign with the Fantasy Age rules, which is like the core rulebook without the Dragon Age setting:).
I haven't been able to find nearly as much about that and don't see an equivalent to the quick start rules yet.
QuoteWell, I can't speak for Pundit's thought processes. To me, it looked like he had some problems with players.
I think you might be on to something. For example, his next criticism was:
melange characters that end up looking like nothing and symbolizing nothing.
I've played my share of classless games. From GURPS and Fudge to SLA Industries to some White Wolf games, loads of Call of Cthulhu, RQ and various d100 games and others and I have never, ever, ever encountered what he's talking about here.
It really does look like a problem that might be idiosyncratic to a handful of players that I've never encountered. I encounter the opposite. Players that comb the rules for character creation in an attempt to find a character that is more special. That really look like something during play.
The only thing I'm going to take from his concern is that the elements need to be sufficiently iconic. So that if someone ends up with any two of them they'll actually be something that their character is about.
Which brings us to not playing Archetypal characters so you can game the system.
This strikes me as a hybrid of the concerns over minmaxing abuse and the characters who don't symbolize anything.
I think the way to avoid this pitfall is to identify what archetypes you want present and make sure they arise from combining different character elements. A while back I had three randomly generated characters and identified their archetypes in Jungian (or perhaps post-Jungian) terms. The rebel. The explorer. The shaman. The hero. There are many more and they are easy to identify as they tend to really grab with people and speak to them.
If you reduce it to two or three archetypes out of fantastic fiction like fighting man, sorcerer and expert (even if the expert is debatable) it becomes even easier. The base adventurer competency takes care of the fighting man. If that's not enough there's fighting and archery and athletics that can be appropriate as well. And having three magic options takes care of the sorcerer type character. The four secondary skills borrowed from Microlite20 (even though I'm not doing 3.x style skill checks) cover most things (though very broadly) that an expert might be interested in.
I've already dealt with "game the system" at length in a previous post. I suspect this too might be a player issue. A mismatch of expectations.
So that leaves the last two:
5. Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever;
6. classless games will have people thinking less about who their character is in the world, and more about what's the best stuff to start with.
I'm going to deal with 6 first.
I think the second one has to do with the type of points buy systems with a glut of options that simply isn't OSR appropriate. That you'll spend all your character creation time worry about how to balance points in the best possible way and not think about your character in terms of the setting, genre, focus of the game, etc.,.
Either way the best way to zero in on who a character is in the world is to talk about is as an explicit part of character creation. The conversation method I've been using is very interested in what the character was doing right before pivotal events changed the world. And how things changed for the character in the years that followed.
--
That brings us to number 5. I think number 5 is really off base. As class or classless simply doesn't have anything to do with the player trying to apply mechanical elements to the described situation. You can have games with well defined mechanical elements that the player can invoke directly that are the product of a class based approach. This issue has literally zero to do with whether or not the character is in a class or is the product of a classless character creation system.
If I were to stretch for a strategy to safeguard against this pit fall, it would be lower differentiation and vary the kinds of threats or challenges the players will face (as described in an earlier post). When you stick to describing things in terms of natural language and keep the calling of the system in the hands of the referee. If the player invokes a system element and starts rolling I'm going to stop and ask them to instead describe what their character is doing. And possibly remind them that the way to have traction is through description in natural language and not through trying to invoke the system and roll dice.
The fact that the solution has absolutely nothing at all to do with class/class free leads me to believe the pitfall didn't really either. I think this has been a trend in a lot of the criticism of the idea of a "classless' OSR game" that has showed up in this thread.
Quote from: NathanIW;843223Oh. I remember now. The Adventurer definitely has a "feats" vibe. Every second level you pick from a list of stuff. I'm not a huge fan of that either, but I don't recall that being in the regular M74. Maybe M74 or S&W where everyone is a fighting man and magic is something found during play would be the way to go instead.
In Microlite74 Swords & Sorcery? It started out an optional rule but the playtesters really did not like playing without that rule and no one else objected so it became a standard rule for the Swords & Sorcery edition of M74. The actual idea came from an article somewhere (a blog? Fight On!?) although the originator probably would not recognize what it turned into.
Quote from: RandallS;843252In Microlite74 Swords & Sorcery? It started out an optional rule but the playtesters really did not like playing without that rule and no one else objected so it became a standard rule for the Swords & Sorcery edition of M74. The actual idea came from an article somewhere (a blog? Fight On!?) although the originator probably would not recognize what it turned into.
It looks neat and fun enough. It's certainly not the massive list of feats across multiple volumes that a 3.x/PF/4E fighter player has to deal with. It's very manageable. And it's just a little extra oomph. I can see how it might feel more 3.Xish though.
I started out with M20 as the basis for my game but M74 took over very, very rapidly. It's a game that values the inverse relationship between mechanical differentiation and available options during play. Or to put it more plainly, it's a game where the rules never get in the way of the fun. Using it also opened up the S&W monsters and SRD whereas (from what I understand) M20 was designed for compatibility with 3.x era modules and adventures.
Thanks for the game and I really enjoy your blog!
The Fantasy Age game link (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/153066/Fantasy-AGE-Basic-Rulebook?src=sub&site=&manufacturers_id=536#_=_) that Wil Wheaton is using for his Science Fantasy game on YouTube.
Quote from: NathanIW;843249So that leaves the last two:
5. Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever;
6. classless games will have people thinking less about who their character is in the world, and more about what's the best stuff to start with.
Actually, I take these two answers, and raise them a Beyond the Wall and a Traveller. Lifepath character generation often helps players see the PCs as more of a real person.
As you can notice, one of them is a class-based one, while the other is skill-based system, so again, that's irrelevant.
Quote from: AsenRG;843314Actually, I take these two answers, and raise them a Beyond the Wall and a Traveller. Lifepath character generation often helps players see the PCs as more of a real person.
As you can notice, one of them is a class-based one, while the other is skill-based system, so again, that's irrelevant.
Lifepath character creation is a great idea. I'm sort of doing it with the conversation approach. I think I may have to get more explicit about it.
Beyond the Wall even has a rumour and campaign generation system. Where players talk about what they might have heard about different locations and the GM checks to see just how accurate that really is.
Quote from: rawma;842818Hmm; eliminate all skills, or make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level. I wonder which one would be a worse design? :confused:
Given the distance of a bit of time I decided to actually respond to a small portion of your insulting post.
The answer, for the goals of this game, is to eliminate all skills. Easily the better design. Why? The goal it accomplishes is to allow all players with all player characters to describe anything without worry about mechanical concerns.
When you have a system that has skills and then makes it explicit that anyone can try a skill at default level, they often won't. Especially if failure might have a cost. I've played a ton of games like RuneQuest, 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Rifts, etc., that have exhaustive skill systems where all sorts of things are defined. Across a few different cities. And I've noticed it is a consistent trend. That a list of skills becomes a menu people order from during play. It's natural. It's also fun for those games and works great. Those games have different goals than my current OSR classless game.
And if you notice the language of that last paragraph, borrowed from your post: "make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level." I don't want players to "try a skill at default level." I want them to describe what their character does. In real words. Using natural language.
So yes. Eliminate the skill system is definitely the better design for that goal. Though even then, that's a caricature. I'm not actually eliminating the skill system but allowing it to generalize and atrophy. Until it's just four different words that describe groups of possible actions during adventuring. That remind the referee to make calls or checks with the character being better than average at that sort of action kept firmly in mind.
And again, I can't help but notice how not one single bit of this has to do with class/class-free characters.
I think attributes are the most under-utilized part of core D&D rules, and that one can draw an important lesson here from the old Melee/Wizard rules: In these earliest forms of 'The Fantasy Trip/GURPs' style games, characters have only 2 or 3 attributes and no skills, and all events are resolved as rolls vs. an attribute score. If one simply expanded this approach to apply to the 6 stats of D&D, and then layered on the concept of levels and HP, I don't think there would be any need for skills or other complications. Of course some people always want that next level of complexity, but that isn't who I'm aiming at with this thought.
Quote from: Larsdangly;843431I think attributes are the most under-utilized part of core D&D rules, and that one can draw an important lesson here from the old Melee/Wizard rules: In these earliest forms of 'The Fantasy Trip/GURPs' style games, characters have only 2 or 3 attributes and no skills, and all events are resolved as rolls vs. an attribute score. If one simply expanded this approach to apply to the 6 stats of D&D, and then layered on the concept of levels and HP, I don't think there would be any need for skills or other complications. Of course some people always want that next level of complexity, but that isn't who I'm aiming at with this thought.
Well, the next level of complexity isn't "separate skills for everything". It's "have a +3 to your attribute if you take a Skill Focus, everybody gets 5 on the first level and further 2 per level", which is fully manageable:).
Both options are bearable if you ask me;).
Quote from: Larsdangly;843431I think attributes are the most under-utilized part of core D&D rules, and that one can draw an important lesson here from the old Melee/Wizard rules: In these earliest forms of 'The Fantasy Trip/GURPs' style games, characters have only 2 or 3 attributes and no skills, and all events are resolved as rolls vs. an attribute score. If one simply expanded this approach to apply to the 6 stats of D&D, and then layered on the concept of levels and HP, I don't think there would be any need for skills or other complications.
The 3/DX type checks really do make a good basis for a game. It's likely better than my use of just modifiers. And the highest without going over mechanic makes for easy resolution of opposed actions.
I also recently read Dark Heritage which is a cthuloid m20 variant that has classless magic. I may go that route and have the arcane talent, divine blessing and folk nature magic just be more about efficient use of spell points and resistance to potential negative effects when casting inside their area of expertise.
Though I may also add some sort of price of power type limitation for learning new spells. Something that makes it a tough choice.
Quote from: NathanIW;843405Given the distance of a bit of time I decided to actually respond to a small portion of your insulting post.
Thanks. I don't have the energy to respond to even a fraction of your insulting posts.
QuoteWhen you have a system that has skills and then makes it explicit that anyone can try a skill at default level, they often won't.
I notice this theme in your comments, that putting something in the rules in clear and certain terms will result in ... people taking it to mean the opposite. Since you seem eager to speculate about my preferences (incorrectly), I speculate that you experienced bad players who always went to the mechanics directly and a bad GM who agreed with it or at least didn't rein it in. More rules won't fix bad players/GMs; nor will less rules. With your gloomy outlook, you might as well go totally free form, which I've played and which works if you have a good GM. I ran a home-brew for a while that had four characteristics - physical, mental, awareness and interaction - and pretty much no other skills; it wasn't very different from games with skills.
QuoteAnd if you notice the language of that last paragraph, borrowed from your post: "make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level." I don't want players to "try a skill at default level." I want them to describe what their character does. In real words. Using natural language.
That was probably just clumsily phrased; the notion that skills a character might "have" aren't cut off from those who don't "have" them (ranks, proficiency, whatever). You probably still need to explain that to players; e.g., that not having "fighting" listed doesn't mean they can't fight.
QuoteAnd again, I can't help but notice how not one single bit of this has to do with class/class-free characters.
I'd say your system clearly has classes (around ten, if I remember correctly; there was later mention of changing the list); starting players get two, and add two more at various later levels. I am reminded of Peter Knutsen's Multiclass RPG (http://www.sagatafl.org/multiclass.htm); interesting, although substantially heavier than what you've described.
I would like to see how AsenRG's list of archetypes that can't be done in D&D, all of which are nearly standard in D&D 5e until he demanded a level of detail and mechanics that you want to avoid, would be represented in your system. For some of them he wanted a starting character with what for your system would be three or more choices.
Quote from: rawma;843951Thanks. I don't have the energy to respond to even a fraction of your insulting posts.
At least your latest post is better than the tantrum you threw earlier in thread, so thanks for that.
QuoteI notice this theme in your comments, that putting something in the rules in clear and certain terms will result in ... people taking it to mean the opposite.
When it comes to specific skill definitions covering a wide variety of skills, yeah they will. They'll look down their long list of skills and see some at +8 and others at maybe 0 or +1 and be far, far less likely to try the latter. If you think I've magically come across a string of bad players spanning multiple cities on two continents or that something about how I referee creates that effect, I'm cool with that. I don't think that's the case as I have played very different games with many of these people and I know from first hand experience that you are simply wrong on that count.
An idea that's pretty much been central to this thread is the inverse relationship between breadth of rules and options in play. In your tantrum you insultingly referred to it as "limited design" while such limits in design actually open up options in play. So it's more than trying to avoid the pitfalls of an expanded skill system. It's about embracing the type of play that maximizes options without giving up the OSR feel of play.
As for why not go full free form? Consistency. There are going to be described actions that are very similar to previously described actions. And actions that are occur frequently during play. In this case, exploring a dangerous underworld. One of OD&D's strengths is that it has rules for the most common sorts of things that might come up in play without going overboard.
QuoteI'd say your system clearly has classes (around ten, if I remember correctly; there was later mention of changing the list); starting players get two, and add two more at various later levels.
Please see the original post for the idea of a build-a-bear approach Larsdangly put forward. Throughout this thread people have been ragging on what this thread is not about. Like Pundit's points about bean counting points and having a glut of options.
So I'm totally okay if you want to call it having 10 classes. At least we'd finally actually be talking about what this thread is actually about. So with that agreement, I'll now ask you if you have anything to contribute towards the topic of having interest or examples of a game like what was described in the original post. I don't care if you agree or disagree with the central idea of this thread or even understand it (see the quote in my signature if you still need help). Do you actually have anything to contribute?
As for archetypes, I think they were largely a red herring that sent this thread careening off into the abyss. As I pointed out to the Pundit, the build-a-bear approach has produced archetypes in actual play. So it is totally irrelevant what archetypes do or don't show up in 5e (or any other version of. D&D). They *do* show up in the type of game that this thread is about.
Quote from: rawma;843951I would like to see how AsenRG's list of archetypes that can't be done in D&D, all of which are nearly standard in D&D 5e
I also pointed out that D&D 5e isn't an OSR game, which is what the topic is about. If I want a game that works in a largely similar way to 5e, I've got those already, what I'm looking for is a classless OSR game, so any 5e suggestions are anything but helpful.
Did you miss that post?
Quote from: NathanIW;843405When you have a system that has skills and then makes it explicit that anyone can try a skill at default level, they often won't. Especially if failure might have a cost. I've played a ton of games like RuneQuest, 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Rifts, etc., that have exhaustive skill systems where all sorts of things are defined. Across a few different cities. And I've noticed it is a consistent trend. That a list of skills becomes a menu people order from during play.
Maybe the foks you play with are less rational, but in my experience the difference between having a poor chance and having a great chance is what matters, regardless of how you define it in stats. With
no such convenient ratings, people will still notice that Willy Mays is better at baseball than Irving Forbush.
Some games, because what's applicable is (perhaps intentionally) vague, boil down to players making arguments for why an Expert Hairdresser (class, cliche, trait, whatever) should give an edge in landing a jumbo jet.
The only real mechanical solution is to make everyone equally competent at everyryhing, since the problem is different competence at anything.
Alternatively, you can get players who find such diversity not a problem but a pleasure.
As for treating stats as a menu of what one can do, that's a matter of a particular culture -- one in which it is typically an
accurate representation of what the GM will allow. That's the cause, not some arbitrary distinction of 'skills' from other things. (WotC-D&D 'feats', magic spells and other explicitly exclusive powers are another matter.)
QuoteIt's natural. It's also fun for those games and works great. Those games have different goals than my current OSR classless game.
And if you notice the language of that last paragraph, borrowed from your post: "make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level." I don't want players to "try a skill at default level." I want them to describe what their character does. In real words. Using natural language.
So yes. Eliminate the skill system is definitely the better design for that goal. Though even then, that's a caricature. I'm not actually eliminating the skill system but allowing it to generalize and atrophy. Until it's just four different words that describe groups of possible actions during adventuring. That remind the referee to make calls or checks with the character being better than average at that sort of action kept firmly in mind.
And again, I can't help but notice how not one single bit of this has to do with class/class-free characters.
Anyway, what's supposed to be 'OSR' about Wayne the Meth Addled High School Dropout being just as good at brain surgery and regression analysis as Dr. Doktorow?
I'm actually going to answer that at face value. In an OSR game that actually had brain surgery come up in play I'd rule that it's a damned specialized field and pretty much anyone attempting it would automatically fail. It'd be the type of thing for which a full time NPC surgeon would be required.
Now if having those skills is part of the scope of the game, then I see no problem with having them. If I was doing a Star Trek TOS OSR build-a-bear game I'd probably have "medical" as one of the elements. Along with "engineering" and a few other game appropriate elements.
There is simply no reason to concern ourselves with such things for a dungeon crawl though.
I posted the following earlier in the thread:
That the types of dungeoneers that go on adventures will be sufficiently similar in abilities not covered by the rules that the referee can rely on checks or rulings modified by ability scores as needed.
I think that's a time tested approach worth using.
Quote from: Phillip;844018Maybe the foks you play with are less rational
...
which it is typically an accurate representation of what the GM will allow. That's the cause, not some arbitrary distinction of 'skills' from other things.
From my post immediately preceding yours:
"If you think I've magically come across a string of bad players spanning multiple cities on two continents or that something about how I referee creates that effect, I'm cool with that. I don't think that's the case as I have played very different games with many of these people and I know from first hand experience that you are simply wrong on that count."
Again, this isn't some grand conundrum I'm trying to solve. It's just been an attempt to explain some of the strengths of OSR approaches having a lower volume of rules in a possibly futile attempt to actually deal with the subject matter of the thread (one can dream).
I have another session of my game in a few hours. Apparently the players have been talking about it and I'm getting emails from friends of friends asking to join in. I may be having to make some sort of wait list for the game. I suppose that's a good problem to have. Going forward my interest in this thread will be ways of making this ttype of play even better. I think I've spent enough energy on answering concerns.
So do you have any interest in or examples of an OSR game that does away with set classes? Perhaps with a build-a-bear approach like Larsdangly talked about. Or maybe with a single adventurer class like some of Randall's design work? Perhaps another idea?
Quote from: Larsdangly;843431I think attributes are the most under-utilized part of core D&D rules, and that one can draw an important lesson here from the old Melee/Wizard rules: In these earliest forms of 'The Fantasy Trip/GURPs' style games
I've given this some thought and I think you're right. I'm going to be implementing this tonight. Attribute checks are time tested and while I liked the die roll + bonus vs target number idea, I think there's more utility in the X/DX approach of Fantasy Trip. Though I'm definitely keeping d20 attack rolls and saving throws as they are iconic of a D&D experience.
Quote from: NathanIW;844056I've given this some thought and I think you're right. I'm going to be implementing this tonight. Attribute checks are time tested and while I liked the die roll + bonus vs target number idea, I think there's more utility in the X/DX approach of Fantasy Trip. Though I'm definitely keeping d20 attack rolls and saving throws as they are iconic of a D&D experience.
In 5e, everything is an Attribute check, though. Yes, some abilities get a bonus, via Proficiency, but the main focus is the attribute.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;844154In 5e, everything is an Attribute check, though. Yes, some abilities get a bonus, via Proficiency, but the main focus is the attribute.
Yeah. I think that was a good move on behalf of the designers.
I had another session of the game using Xd6 checks under attributes as my go to way of resolving things. I think I like it better than d20 + modifiers vs target number. The distribution of results from 3d6 is definitely less swingy tthan the d20. Especially given how small the modifiers I was using were. The size of the modifiers relative to the die range was just too small.
Personally, I always had a thing against attribute checks: they don't factor in levels.
It seems self-evident to me that, for instance, a 15th level adventurer with a Dexterity of 15 should be much better at sneaking, pickpocketing, swinging on a chandelier or jumping out of the path of a rolling boulder than a 1st level adventurer with the same Dexterity. The idea that characters get better at everything as they gain experience (and thus, levels) is one of the fundamental assumptions of D&D, and attribute checks fail to represent it.
Quote from: NathanIW;844260Yeah. I think that was a good move on behalf of the designers.
I had another session of the game using Xd6 checks under attributes as my go to way of resolving things. I think I like it better than d20 + modifiers vs target number. The distribution of results from 3d6 is definitely less swingy tthan the d20. Especially given how small the modifiers I was using were. The size of the modifiers relative to the die range was just too small.
I like Xd6 better, myself. Not only can you roll 4d6 for harder tasks and 2d6 for stuff that should be trivial, but you can also make it 4d6 take worse 3 or 4d6 take best 3, or 5d6 take best 4 for situations that are hard, but something is working in your favour:).
Quote from: Premier;844264Personally, I always had a thing against attribute checks: they don't factor in levels.
It seems self-evident to me that, for instance, a 15th level adventurer with a Dexterity of 15 should be much better at sneaking, pickpocketing, swinging on a chandelier or jumping out of the path of a rolling boulder than a 1st level adventurer with the same Dexterity. The idea that characters get better at everything as they gain experience (and thus, levels) is one of the fundamental assumptions of D&D, and attribute checks fail to represent it.
What prevents you from rolling under Attribute+Level/2, then;)?
Quote from: Premier;844264Personally, I always had a thing against attribute checks: they don't factor in levels.
It seems self-evident to me that, for instance, a 15th level adventurer with a Dexterity of 15 should be much better at sneaking, pickpocketing, swinging on a chandelier or jumping out of the path of a rolling boulder than a 1st level adventurer with the same Dexterity. The idea that characters get better at everything as they gain experience (and thus, levels) is one of the fundamental assumptions of D&D, and attribute checks fail to represent it.
Isn't this the idea (sort of) behind proficiency in 5e? Ie if it's a thing you "do", you get better at it. Otherwise not.
I suppose you have trouble with the "otherwise not" part but I like the concept.
Quote from: Premier;844264Personally, I always had a thing against attribute checks: they don't factor in levels.
Good point. I think I will factor in levels next session. I'm thinking AsenRG's idea of level/2 is probably good.
Quote from: AsenRG;844292I like Xd6 better, myself. Not only can you roll 4d6 for harder tasks and 2d6 for stuff that should be trivial, but you can also make it 4d6 take worse 3 or 4d6 take best 3, or 5d6 take best 4 for situations that are hard, but something is working in your favour:).
It really is very flexible. One thing that resulted immediately is that the cleric's divine guidance spell became add a die drop the highest.
Another thing I noticed is that I have fairly bounded attributes as a result of the conversation based character creation. The range is 7 to 15 across the entire party. So I found the distribution of 3d6 worked really well with that. When I made the call to go to the dice add not just have autosucess it felt like it wasn't a foregone conclusion. And at the same time it wasn't as wildly unpredictable as d20 + small modifiers vs DC.
Quote from: Premier;844264Personally, I always had a thing against attribute checks: they don't factor in levels.
It seems self-evident to me that, for instance, a 15th level adventurer with a Dexterity of 15 should be much better at sneaking, pickpocketing, swinging on a chandelier or jumping out of the path of a rolling boulder than a 1st level adventurer with the same Dexterity. The idea that characters get better at everything as they gain experience (and thus, levels) is one of the fundamental assumptions of D&D, and attribute checks fail to represent it.
Honestly, I agree. Even 'untrained' people get better at doing things. And frankly, the fact that no one ever gets any more skills outside of special cases in 5e is a bit of a bother for me.
Quote from: NathanIW;844036I'm actually going to answer that at face value. In an OSR game that actually had brain surgery come up in play I'd rule that it's a damned specialized field and pretty much anyone attempting it would automatically fail. It'd be the type of thing for which a full time NPC surgeon would be required.
Now if having those skills is part of the scope of the game, then I see no problem with having them. If I was doing a Star Trek TOS OSR build-a-bear game I'd probably have "medical" as one of the elements. Along with "engineering" and a few other game appropriate elements.
There is simply no reason to concern ourselves with such things for a dungeon crawl though.
I posted the following earlier in the thread:
That the types of dungeoneers that go on adventures will be sufficiently similar in abilities not covered by the rules that the referee can rely on checks or rulings modified by ability scores as needed.
I think that's a time tested approach worth using.
That makes more sense than what was actually being said. Presumably players will do the same deal as ever with poor vs. great "ability scores" (which may be quite faithful role-playing). If they've been trained to think they
can't do something even though it makes common sense that they could (even if poorly), then you just have to retrain them.
"OSR" or not, I like a sword-n-sorcery game in which none of the pcs is a professional sorcerer, but all are in the same league as swordsmen (or axe-swingers, or whatever style of mayhem each favors). However, they can have various other specialties: Cyrano the poet, Aramis the Machiavellian sometimes-abbé, Galahad the paragon of chivalry, Mouser the sneak (and tyro magician), Tarzan the interlocutor with monkeys and elephants, Groo the oblivious and disastrous, what have you.
Quote from: NathanIW;843977They'll look down their long list of skills and see some at +8 and others at maybe 0 or +1 and be far, far less likely to try the latter.
So your present players prefer stuff their characters are bad at? And you call this good role-playing? I truly haven't seen much of what you complain of in a wide cross section of D&D 5e players (game stores, convention, home, long-time players and complete newbies) or in the past RPGs I've played, and it's really up to the GM to stop this, not the rules.
QuoteAn idea that's pretty much been central to this thread is the inverse relationship between breadth of rules and options in play.
You keep saying this. Repeating it does not make it any more true than the other assertion. If you really believe this, then you should have no rules and thus infinite options.
QuoteThroughout this thread people have been ragging on what this thread is not about. Like Pundit's points about bean counting points and having a glut of options.
People are pointing out the problems. You've avoided the interaction one by having very few options for your build-a-bear, but still there's a special rule for characters who can do both kinds of casting; they don't get to add together their total spell slots/points/whatever, so no more spells cast than a single kind of caster.
QuoteSo I'm totally okay if you want to call it having 10 classes. At least we'd finally actually be talking about what this thread is actually about. So with that agreement, I'll now ask you if you have anything to contribute towards the topic of having interest or examples of a game like what was described in the original post.
I suggested Peter Knutsen's Multiclass already; it seems very similar to what you're doing if you ignore the crunchy skill system underneath the class choices.
I liked The Fantasy Trip a lot; it's already been mentioned. It has two classes (hero and wizard) but they really only determine the costs of talents versus spells. Effectiveness in encounters depends a lot on the ability scores, which stand in for level.
GURPS Ultra-Lite (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ultra-lite/) seems to match what you are doing quite closely; not sure it adds much.
QuoteAs for archetypes, I think they were largely a red herring that sent this thread careening off into the abyss. As I pointed out to the Pundit, the build-a-bear approach has produced archetypes in actual play. So it is totally irrelevant what archetypes do or don't show up in 5e (or any other version of. D&D). They *do* show up in the type of game that this thread is about.
It's not build-a-bear; it's choose a bear from the catalog of 540 bears. If you really allowed real build-a-bear choices, you would end up with all the problems the Pundit told you about.
Quote from: AsenRG;843989I also pointed out that D&D 5e isn't an OSR game, which is what the topic is about. If I want a game that works in a largely similar way to 5e, I've got those already, what I'm looking for is a classless OSR game, so any 5e suggestions are anything but helpful.
Did you miss that post?
Your assertion was that D&D can't do these things; you were wrong. No, I didn't miss the post where you demanded specific mechanics and backpedaled furiously.
D&D 5e is quite old school; it would be easy to put backgrounds into any OSR game, and maybe bolster its class list a little. When I first started playing D&D, we had some house rules: a shapechanger class, "expertises" at each level just before your combat bonus increased (not as powerful as feats in 5e, but the same idea), and many of the classes that 5e has (not Barbarian, Warlock and Sorcerer) from supplements and Strategic Review, so even then I could have done almost all of your list (Barbarian would have been Fighter-Thief probably, but with no mechanic for rages; Nobleman was a high level Fighter so not a starting character, although you could have characters who were the heirs of some high level Fighter characters).
Quote from: rawma;844626Your assertion was that D&D can't do these things; you were wrong. No, I didn't miss the post where you demanded specific mechanics and backpedaled furiously.
Nope, at least a couple of the examples were still impossible, or impossible for a starting character.
And yes, I grew bored of discussing a game I didn't finish reading (and likely wouldn't finish, ever). For some reason, any discussion where fans of 5e bring up 5e ends up with me feeling like discussing religion with sect members...which I've done, too. And I stopped for similar reasons.
Which is probably at least a part of why I'm not in any haste to finish reading 5e. Some fans really aren't doing any service to the games they're fans of. You're very much included among those fans.
QuoteD&D 5e is quite old school;
What I'd read of its mechanics was enough that this makes me grin.
At best you can say that you have a game that's trying to not prevent you from running games in an old school way. How well it succeeds is up for this discussion - but not in this thread.
Also, this thread is kinda answered now. Yes, there is some interest in classless OSR game. Nobody was able to come up with an example (unless we consider Mongoose Traveller or Zenobia part of the OSR, which we probably should).
Quote from: rawma;844626So your present players prefer stuff their characters are bad at? And you call this good role-playing?
No, I don't. But many games do have such skill system. And I'm sure proponents of such system would argue that knowing their characters' shortcomings helps with roleplaying. It's not what I'm looking for in a game right now though.
QuoteI truly haven't seen much of what you complain of in a wide cross section of D&D 5e players
I actually think 5e is on the lighter side when it comes to skills, so I'm not surprised.
QuoteYou keep saying this. Repeating it does not make it any more true than the other assertion. If you really believe this, then you should have no rules and thus infinite options.
I *just* explained in my last post to you why I don't go freeform.
Anyone who wants to know about the inverse relationship between mechanical breadth and options in play can discover it for themselves by running a game with a large number of specific skills and a game with far less (or none) and actually pay attention to what the players do and say.. 5e is not a good candidate for the large number of specific skills game. Though Trail of Cthulhu on the lots of skills side and 5e on the few skills side should get the point across.
QuoteI liked The Fantasy Trip a lot; it's already been mentioned. It has two classes (hero and wizard) but they really only determine the costs of talents versus spells. Effectiveness in encounters depends a lot on the ability scores, which stand in for level.
The marriage of its approach with the basic ideas from 0e/S&W/m74 produced the best session I've had so far with this game. I'm glad I didn't keep the skill system from M20 that I had for a session as the attribute check system that FT and 5e have works better for me.
QuoteIt's not build-a-bear; it's choose a bear from the catalog of 540 bears.
I did the math and the conversation based character creation can produce 1800 different results. And without any of the problems the Pundit raised. That's good enough for me.
Quote from: AsenRG;844648Nope, at least a couple of the examples were still impossible, or impossible for a starting character.
No, you were just wrong. You did backpedal at an amazing rate for someone dragging goalposts with him.
QuoteAnd yes, I grew bored of discussing a game I didn't finish reading (and likely wouldn't finish, ever). For some reason, any discussion where fans of 5e bring up 5e ends up with me feeling like discussing religion with sect members...which I've done, too. And I stopped for similar reasons.
Which is probably at least a part of why I'm not in any haste to finish reading 5e. Some fans really aren't doing any service to the games they're fans of. You're very much included among those fans.
Correcting wrong information is worth the loss of one dishonest, goalpost-moving clown. If I ever have a need for such, I guess I'll have to settle for the second stringers.
Quote from: rawma;844626D&D 5e is quite old school;
Quote from: AsenRG;844648What I'd read of its mechanics was enough that this makes me grin.
Here's another opinion for you from someone with more complete knowledge:
Quote from: RPGPundit;782361A Brief Review of 5e D&D From an Old-School Perspective
[...]
So first, it's clear that the PHB is not in and of itself an OSR game. But it is certainly informed by a strong old-school feel.
Quote from: rawma;844626D&D 5e is quite old school
Not in my book. 5e is more like a toned down 3.5 with some 4e concepts reflavored. It can be played more like old school than 3.x or 4e, but to really play it old school, you'd need to make a number of changes to the rules. Somewhat deeper changes than most of those suggested in the 5e DMG.
Quote...it would be easy to put backgrounds into any OSR game, and maybe bolster its class list a little.
I've had player-created (with GM approval, of course) backgrounds in my game since the late 1970s. The background a character has is treated just like the character's class for determining what he can do. In "modern terms", a character's class and background are two very board "skills" that the character is assumed to start fairly competent in and get more competent as his level increases. A character's background can literally be anything that makes sense in the setting and is almost independent of class (the only real restriction is that a background cannot duplicate a class). I much prefer my system to the 5e system. It's less limiting and does not require pages and pages of background writeups.
Quote from: RandallS;8447785e is more like a toned down 3.5 with some 4e concepts reflavored.
It feels to me like the OD&D and AD&D I played in the late 1970s, and the differences are ones I like.
QuoteI've had player-created (with GM approval, of course) backgrounds in my game since the late 1970s. The background a character has is treated just like the character's class for determining what he can do. In "modern terms", a character's class and background are two very board "skills" that the character is assumed to start fairly competent in and get more competent as his level increases. A character's background can literally be anything that makes sense in the setting and is almost independent of class (the only real restriction is that a background cannot duplicate a class). I much prefer my system to the 5e system. It's less limiting and does not require pages and pages of background writeups.
So some actual old school games had backgrounds? That's very cool. We described characters, and sometimes that could be quite elaborate, but it was really only a role-playing and sometime DM discretion thing.
I do find 5e more verbose than necessary. There is also very limited scope to advance outside of classes; some races get abilities or increase certain abilities at specified levels, and you could add feats relevant to your race or background, but the feats come because of class levels. And that's about it. But I would also say that's a more old school aspect.
Quote from: rawma;844776No, you were just wrong. You did backpedal at an amazing rate for someone dragging goalposts with him.
It's your problem how you see it. To me, half the examples I was given, just sucked.
QuoteCorrecting wrong information is worth the loss of one dishonest, goalpost-moving clown.
Indeed:). So go ahead, get lost!
QuoteHere's another opinion for you from someone with more complete knowledge:
I didn't agree with Pundit in this thread, why do you suddenly decide that I'd take his opinion as the authoritative source on 5e now?
Clearly, he and I have differences in opinion. Just like you and me. Unlike you, he manages to present those differences in at least a somewhat tolerable way;).
Quote from: RandallS;844778Not in my book. 5e is more like a toned down 3.5 with some 4e concepts reflavored. It can be played more like old school than 3.x or 4e, but to really play it old school, you'd need to make a number of changes to the rules. Somewhat deeper changes than most of those suggested in the 5e DMG.
Yeah, this is my impression as well. And it's why I'm unlikely to ever finish reading it. I mean, I tried 3.5, tried 4e, and neither was to my taste, although I had different degrees of tolerance for them.
In related news, I like neither vanilla, nor mint icecream, and the idea of trying out vanilla and mint icecream sounds like yet another thing I'm not going to like:D!
When I was contemplating starting up a D&Dish game (in addition to the Call of Cthulhu game I play in) I gave 5e a serious look. Free basic rules. Why not? Then I noticed the cost of the three hard backs. Thanks to a Kickstarter stretch goal Swords and Wizardry Complete is a free PDF for everyone. Microlite74 and the companions are also free and if you want to contribute something it goes towards paying off the cost of cancer treatment (and you get extra goodies):
http://www.retroroleplaying.com/content/retroroleplaying-cancer-fund-special-downloads
Legends of the Ancient World (Fantasy Trip type game) was also free. And when someone does make an interesting OSR product they can usually be supported directly. There's a real by gamers for gamers approach that I like.
It's really been a no brainer for me to avoid the commercial versions of D&D for this game. While 5e has some call backs to older versions of D&D, it's actually best played for its own merits rather than serving as a basis for an OSR class free game. $120+ for a game I'm going to hack apart anyway? Nah.
Quote from: AsenRG;844883I didn't agree with Pundit in this thread, why do you suddenly decide that I'd take his opinion as the authoritative source on 5e now?
Clearly, he and I have differences in opinion. Just like you and me. Unlike you, he manages to present those differences in at least a somewhat tolerable way;).
When RPGPundit commented on your archetypes list, disagreeing with you as strongly as I did, you claimed you didn't have the time to debate with him; apparently your more pressing business was twelve further posts to this thread. Clearly you prefer to argue with me. So, I figured (and correctly as it turns out) that the quickest way to end my argument with you was to quote him and that you would fold like a house of cards.
You don't like D&D, fine; lots and lots of people don't. But don't claim deficiencies the game doesn't have.
For the record, I want to point out (again, maybe) that I am not opposed to a 'classless' game, as long as there are archetypes to be chosen, for people who either are uninterested in making an Elric of Melnibone wannabe (or other type of character) or are simply not able to.
Quote from: rawma;844980When RPGPundit commented on your archetypes list, disagreeing with you as strongly as I did, you claimed you didn't have the time to debate with him; apparently your more pressing business was twelve further posts to this thread. Clearly you prefer to argue with me. So, I figured (and correctly as it turns out) that the quickest way to end my argument with you was to quote him and that you would fold like a house of cards.
Yeah, I never have time for arguments that are going to go nowhere. That includes arguments with you, obviously:).
QuoteYou don't like D&D, fine; lots and lots of people don't. But don't claim deficiencies the game doesn't have.
Oh, I do like D&D. I dislike just some versions of it, a feeling that's actually quite popular on this forum;)!
Liking D&D doesn't mean I'm going to pretend the game doesn't have the deficiencies it actually does, I'd rather leave that to you:D!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;844981For the record, I want to point out (again, maybe) that I am not opposed to a 'classless' game, as long as there are archetypes to be chosen, for people who either are uninterested in making an Elric of Melnibone wannabe (or other type of character) or are simply not able to.
Aside from Elric being an archetype by himself, I'd agree that this is a good idea for any game out there.
Quote from: AsenRG;845049Aside from Elric being an archetype by himself, I'd agree that this is a good idea for any game out there.
Believe it or not, he's more of a Fighting Man than anything. Most of the time, he either killed with Stormbringer, or summoned demons too powerful for him to control, so he ended up killing them with Stormbringer.
Quote from: AsenRG;845049Oh, I do like D&D.
You know so little about D&D that you're not really qualified to have an opinion about it, let alone a discussion. So, just a concern troll.
And it seems the issue has resolved itself, except not by the hands of the OSR:). Still, I thought I should mention it, since Dragon Warriors is nothing if not "old-school", and has been like that since the 80ies, with the newedition still using "rolls in order" to create characteristics.
Mind you, Dragon Warriors is still a class system, but the latest supplement now adds the "Paths" mechanic, allowing you to modify your class abilities and even add abilities from another class, which is basically the amount of flexibility the setting needs;).
Quote from: NathanIW;843158...
- potential for min-maxing abuse
- longer character-creation times from a glut of options and beancounting point-expenditure processes
- melange characters that end up looking like nothing and symbolizing nothing.
- not playing Archetypal characters so you can game the system.
- Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever;
- classless games will have people thinking less about who their character is in the world, and more about what's the best stuff to start with.
...
It seems to me (as someone who's mostly played classless point-but systems, TFT and GURPS in particular) that these are potential issues, but that they mainly apply only to the character creation process, and to inexperienced or messed-up players. For actual play with good players, they are mostly not something that comes up much, and/or that can be addressed by a skilled GM and optional or house rules. Also, they mostly read like the concerns of players used to class-based RPGs and RPGs which don't give much choice about character creation.
That is, yeah new players and munchkins may think it makes sense to have a GURPS character who is a dylexic deaf albino with all his points in one weapon skill, who will be so uber. The D&D equivalent is something like letting your party pick any character and class and race and telling them nothing about the world or intended party type or adventure, and getting a party with a paladin and a drow and a troll vampire druid/thief/ranger, or the D&D players who sometimes ask if they can convert their D&D character to play in my GURPS campaign, who has two four-button swords and flaming daggers and immunity to 7 different kinds of attacks, and bla bla bla what what what?
In practice on those six points:
- I review and revise player-made characters to have them make sense and not be silly, and use house rules, templates, and pre-made characters.
- Making characters can take a while, but for good experienced players this is about making an interesting and fun character and is enjoyable, and not about beancounting. A good GURPS GM designs a sub-set of available traits and skills and provides suggestions and templates to make it easy enough to create appropriate characters.
- Good experienced players, and players aided by good experienced GMs, don't make melange characters (unless maybe there's a reason for them). Symbolic characters can be made just as easily, and are not restricted to a published set of symbols, and can express whatever symbol you might like. But I don't particularly agree that I want characters to be symbolic - I like them to be more like actual humans, with some themes but not being stereotypes.
- Again, people may try to game the system, but good players and GMs won't want to to unless that's what they're agreeing to do. That being opposed to archetypes, and archetypes being a great desired thing, are slightly foreign to me.
- I don't find that skills and traits have players thinking less in terms of the world, particularly because both the GM and players can and should be relating traits and skills to their origins in the world and in the characters' stories. Sure, it can be a pitfall for new/silly players to focus on buying abilities rather than what sort of person they're describing, but that's just a gamey approach to playing.
- Again, it doesn't have to be that way. I can see how classes and choiceless character design can be used as a barrier to prevent gamey play, but good point-buy players don't need that crutch.
It feels like the reaction of someone used to class-based choiceless chargen systems. I could give a similar rant from the opposite perspective against class-based systems, about how they force characters into needless archetypes, restrict choices in silly forced ways, stifle creativity, interfere with roleplaying, and dehumanize characters, etc. I expect experienced class-based players would have a similar "oh no we don't have those problems" list for me. They're different approaches with different strengths, weaknesses and styles, and either can be played skillfully and interestingly, or clumsily and sillily / annoyingly.
Dragon Warriors was awesome. I don't know much about more recent versions but have fond memories of the small books from back in the day.
My weekly game is still ongoing. I ended up dropping the magical talent "class" feature and now anyone who learns how to either invoke gods or demons or learns how to perform a given act of sorcery can do so. I've been doing more and more FT style attribute checks.
I ended up going with armour only interfering with magic that directly harms others. I'm using a magic point system and so far it's worked well for the one player who wanted to become a magical knight. He walks around in heavy armour and can do a bunch of helpful things but avoids directly hexing his enemies because of how potentially draining (or damaging as when you run out of spell points you automatically pay the shortfall in life points) it can be.
One premise of my game is that the mythic underworld changes all those who enter it. It's really the only place you can reliably gain magical power but almost always at a price. One character got claws and can see in the dark, another got his spirit replaced by that of a long dead priest of a strange god. Another can only feed by killing other sentient creatures with a cursed dagger but never needs to sleep or eat and has stopped aging. So far it's worked for us that all the cool comes from what you do and find in game and not from preselected character classes and their features.
Quote from: NathanIW;858823Dragon Warriors was awesome. I don't know much about more recent versions but have fond memories of the small books from back in the day.
My weekly game is still ongoing. I ended up dropping the magical talent "class" feature and now anyone who learns how to either invoke gods or demons or learns how to perform a given act of sorcery can do so. I've been doing more and more FT style attribute checks.
I ended up going with armour only interfering with magic that directly harms others. I'm using a magic point system and so far it's worked well for the one player who wanted to become a magical knight. He walks around in heavy armour and can do a bunch of helpful things but avoids directly hexing his enemies because of how potentially draining (or damaging as when you run out of spell points you automatically pay the shortfall in life points) it can be.
One premise of my game is that the mythic underworld changes all those who enter it. It's really the only place you can reliably gain magical power but almost always at a price. One character got claws and can see in the dark, another got his spirit replaced by that of a long dead priest of a strange god. Another can only feed by killing other sentient creatures with a cursed dagger but never needs to sleep or eat and has stopped aging. So far it's worked for us that all the cool comes from what you do and find in game and not from preselected character classes and their features.
OK,
now you have me interested!
Just had a really simple idea. For a dark fantasy, horrific S&S sort of game.
Start with LotFP, chuck out the cleric and the demihumans. Fold some or all cleric spells into magic-user spell list (the ideal approach here, for me, would be to come up with an entirely new magic system, but for now let's keep it simple). So now we have three classes, the Fighter, the Magic-User and the Specialist.
Characters start out as 0-level and use a given amount of xp (say, 750 for Specialist, 1000 for Fighter and 1250 for Magic-User) to buy the first level in any one class.
Henceforth, they can, and may indeed, be expected to multiclass, 3e style, by buying levels. Each level costs precisely the xp needed to reach it, i.e. buying your 3rd level in fighter costs 2000xp (4000xp is the treshold 3rd level - 2000xp the treshold to hit 2nd level).
Example: Everard the 0-level human scrounges together 750xp and is now a 1st-level Specialist, as per LotFP rules. After acquiring another 1500xp he can get that 2nd level in Specialist... or, for 1000xp, a 1st-level in Fighter complete with better HD and to-hit bonus, and save the remaining 500xp left to use later.
To further make things simple:
# Each level in Fighter buys you 1d8hp and +1 to hit.
# Each level in Specialist buys you 1d6hp and 4 skill points.
# Each level in Magic-User buys you 1d4hp and the ability to work increasingly powerful magic.
What do you think?
Quote from: The Butcher;862811To further make things simple:
# Each level in Fighter buys you 1d8hp and +1 to hit.
# Each level in Specialist buys you 1d6hp and 4 skill points.
# Each level in Magic-User buys you 1d4hp and the ability to work increasingly powerful magic.
What do you think?
It sounds cool. Are there any default abilities for those 0 level characters, to help them get to their first level in something?
I would expect the effectiveness of the system would be very closely bound to issues like the usefulness of skills versus spells. I.e. the task of making each level up choice a meaningful one.
But I'd play it. :)
Quote from: Majus;862818It sounds cool. Are there any default abilities for those 0 level characters, to help them get to their first level in something?
Didn't really think about it. Maybe 1d4hp and 4 skill points? I like 'em squishy.
Quote from: Majus;862818I would expect the effectiveness of the system would be very closely bound to issues like the usefulness of skills versus spells. I.e. the task of making each level up choice a meaningful one.
Again, for a dark fantasy/S&S game, the ideal would probably be a whole new magic system, with predominantly ritual casting, and harsh spell failure mechanics.
But you could also keep the classic magic system, and make Magic-User levels much, much more expensive than Specialist or Fighter levels.
Quote from: Majus;862818But I'd play it. :)
Thanks :)