So I've been looking over Worlds Without Number, and I'm curious about the implementation of broad classes in practice. I'm familiar with the generic class concept from Call of Cthulhu D20, D20 Modern and True20.

• Call of Cthulhu D20: two classes = Offensive and Defensive
• D20 Modern: six classes = Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
• True20: three classes = Expert, Adept, Warrior

In all of these systems, I saw the class system as a holdover getting in the way. It seemed more straightforward to just go with a skill-based system like Savage Worlds or OpenD6. In Savage Worlds, you have skills and edges. In True20, you have skills and feats - and the class mechanics are another mechanical layer in addition. To me, it didn't seem to be adding anything.

Are the broad generic classes in Worlds Without Number different in practice? Or do people who like WWN's broad generic classes also like them in these earlier systems?

I can't speak to the specifics of any of those games.  I only played d20 Modern once, a long time ago.  In general, I prefer games that are more specific than generic, though I don't at all mind generic widgets in the mechanical toolkit.  That said, generic classes ought to provide something important to the game.  For me, it's usually niche protection.

If a Strong Hero and Tough Hero can gain about half the possible levels, and by that time be identical, then the classes probably haven't added anything to the system that can't be done another way.   If there is still clear differences, then the generic class is adding something, however slight.  Otherwise, they are just templates, and might as well be called out as such.

There's also some value in guiding the player to an ideal, but the devil is in the details when assessing that.

I'm not familiar with WWN myself, but I guess GURPS and Traveller both attempt to get rid of classes as we understand them in D&D specifically.

The thing is, I don't think you can ever really get away playing any of these games without classes as a concept.

Traveller allows you to determine most of your character features by reacting to results against random tables, but the career framework is largely a collection of ungrouped sub-classes. Much of the homebrew stuff for that system will have a Journalist career, yet this is a further variation on the Citizen career that's already core to the game. There are also more risks in taking more than one career over the character's life, but there are narrative justifications for having more than one. However, you can't normally just look at a Marine and then immediately understand that he could also be a Scientist or Merchant without other identifiers like chosen gear or other mannerisms.

GURPS grants you nigh-entire customizability--even more so than Traveller--but having an attribute system at all, even at the minimalist that GURPS enforces, will largely create an "emergent class" simply because you will want to choose character features that play to the strengths of the attributes that you have scored. More importantly, when you describe your character to another hobbyist, you might list some of the features that imply your character's unique combination of combat or social tactics, but you will ultimate summarize this character as a "soldier" or "engineer" regardless of derivations, because that makes the character you've built easier to understand by the other hobbyist regarding your overall strategy for play. This will also be true with Traveller to a very important extent, as combinations of careers still requires one to be prioritized over others in accordance with the strength of your attribute scores, and in a manner of speaking, your skill set still demonstrates a plumber from an electrician from a carpenter from a stonemason.

"Classes" are an inevitable feature of a roleplaying game due to this combination of role (i.e. strategy), features (i.e. tactics) attribute statistics (i.e. raw aptitudes) because they help translate and convey what you even intend to do with the dice during the encounters that you may participate in. Trying to purge classes as hard as possible from these games is to lack consideration for human psychology and communication.

The discussion is valid as to how rigid or flexible, how ornate or minimalist, even how reserved or expressive that you want your classes to be, but I think the game largely becomes unintelligible without them, like trying to demonstrate the extremely subtle personalities between two gelatinous cubes. I doubt that intelligent non-humanoids could play such a game without them, either.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:54:59 PM
So I've been looking over Worlds Without Number, and I'm curious about the implementation of broad classes in practice. I'm familiar with the generic class concept from Call of Cthulhu D20, D20 Modern and True20.

• Call of Cthulhu D20: two classes = Offensive and Defensive
• D20 Modern: six classes = Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
• True20: three classes = Expert, Adept, Warrior

In all of these systems, I saw the class system as a holdover getting in the way. It seemed more straightforward to just go with a skill-based system like Savage Worlds or OpenD6. In Savage Worlds, you have skills and edges. In True20, you have skills and feats - and the class mechanics are another mechanical layer in addition. To me, it didn't seem to be adding anything.

Are the broad generic classes in Worlds Without Number different in practice? Or do people who like WWN's broad generic classes also like them in these earlier systems?

Of those 3 True20 comes closest to WWN IMHO but not enough.

Modernd20 doesn't have 6 classes, it has 6 BASIC classes and then you multiclass.

Personally I preferr a game that gives me the classes for it over build your own class stuff like GURPS/Hero/OpenD6, for one it's way faster to start playing, and then you have the omnipresent prebuilt classes/templates in those systems too because it's not intuitive how to build the class you want to play.

WWN SWN & CWN? not only have the "generic" classes they also have the backgrounds to customize them and some skills on top.

If I HAD TO choose among all of the above I would go for SWN/WWN/CWN 100% of the time. IMHO GURPS/Hero are great for source materials and nothing more.

Also consider that while Savage Worlds is skill-based, in Savage Worlds Pathfinder, they created "Class Edges" which pulled in the tropes of D&D Classes *and* their traditional assumptions as well.

So the Fighter Class Edge mimics the Pathfinder fighter ability to "use any Feat" as an ability to use and "Combat Edge", etc. It's still a Skill-based game, but it emulates what the traditional class does as well as leaving you to your own skill-progression.

Ironically it's also optional. You don't have to pick a Class Edge at all. Which, to me, only underscores the arbitrariness of Classes in general. In Core Savage Worlds, I could make a D&D Wizard that can still wear armor, and swing Battle Axes, and grapple like an anaconda, as long as I put my points into those skills and abilities.

In general I prefer skill-based to class-based systems.  But while I can deal okay with most class-based stuff, there's a special place in hell for class-based systems with indistinct, mediocre classes.

In Cities without number they go downright classless. So there is some truth to that.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:54:59 PM
So I've been looking over Worlds Without Number, and I'm curious about the implementation of broad classes in practice. I'm familiar with the generic class concept from Call of Cthulhu D20, D20 Modern and True20.

• Call of Cthulhu D20: two classes = Offensive and Defensive
• D20 Modern: six classes = Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
• True20: three classes = Expert, Adept, Warrior

In all of these systems, I saw the class system as a holdover getting in the way. It seemed more straightforward to just go with a skill-based system like Savage Worlds or OpenD6. In Savage Worlds, you have skills and edges. In True20, you have skills and feats - and the class mechanics are another mechanical layer in addition. To me, it didn't seem to be adding anything.

Are the broad generic classes in Worlds Without Number different in practice? Or do people who like WWN's broad generic classes also like them in these earlier systems?

I'm a big fan of the class system (a.k.a. "skill bundles") but as you phrased your question I have to agree with you. Classes like "Fast Hero" gives me zero motivation to play that character. What I like most about classes that you get a general feel for the character type based on the class. "I am a wizard" tells me a lot and starts my creative juices, and I like knowing generally what wizards can do.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
I'm not familiar with WWN myself, but I guess GURPS and Traveller both attempt to get rid of classes as we understand them in D&D specifically.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
This will also be true with Traveller to a very important extent, as combinations of careers still requires one to be prioritized over others in accordance with the strength of your attribute scores, and in a manner of speaking, your skill set still demonstrates a plumber from an electrician from a carpenter from a stonemason.

"Classes" are an inevitable feature of a roleplaying game due to this combination of role (i.e. strategy), features (i.e. tactics) attribute statistics (i.e. raw aptitudes) because they help translate and convey what you even intend to do with the dice during the encounters that you may participate in. Trying to purge classes as hard as possible from these games is to lack consideration for human psychology and communication.

I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Are you saying:

1) GURPS and Traveller are failures because they attempt to get rid of classes, and doing that is a bad idea?
or
2) Traveller and GURPS are fine as systems, but they still have groupings of characters that could be called classes?

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 04:24:24 PM

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
I'm not familiar with WWN myself, but I guess GURPS and Traveller both attempt to get rid of classes as we understand them in D&D specifically.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
This will also be true with Traveller to a very important extent, as combinations of careers still requires one to be prioritized over others in accordance with the strength of your attribute scores, and in a manner of speaking, your skill set still demonstrates a plumber from an electrician from a carpenter from a stonemason.

"Classes" are an inevitable feature of a roleplaying game due to this combination of role (i.e. strategy), features (i.e. tactics) attribute statistics (i.e. raw aptitudes) because they help translate and convey what you even intend to do with the dice during the encounters that you may participate in. Trying to purge classes as hard as possible from these games is to lack consideration for human psychology and communication.

I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Are you saying:

1) GURPS and Traveller are failures because they attempt to get rid of classes, and doing that is a bad idea?
or
2) Traveller and GURPS are fine as systems, but they still have groupings of characters that could be called classes?

Second one, sorry about that. Just went haywire, finarvyn winds up saying what I was trying to say in four lines:

Quote from: finarvyn on February 03, 2023, 04:16:33 PM
I'm a big fan of the class system (a.k.a. "skill bundles") but as you phrased your question I have to agree with you. Classes like "Fast Hero" gives me zero motivation to play that character. What I like most about classes that you get a general feel for the character type based on the class. "I am a wizard" tells me a lot and starts my creative juices, and I like knowing generally what wizards can do.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 07:58:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 04:24:24 PM
I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Are you saying:

1) GURPS and Traveller are failures because they attempt to get rid of classes, and doing that is a bad idea?
or
2) Traveller and GURPS are fine as systems, but they still have groupings of characters that could be called classes?

Second one, sorry about that. Just went haywire, finarvyn winds up saying what I was trying to say in four lines:

Quote from: finarvyn on February 03, 2023, 04:16:33 PM
I'm a big fan of the class system (a.k.a. "skill bundles") but as you phrased your question I have to agree with you. Classes like "Fast Hero" gives me zero motivation to play that character. What I like most about classes that you get a general feel for the character type based on the class. "I am a wizard" tells me a lot and starts my creative juices, and I like knowing generally what wizards can do.

No problem. Yeah, that sums up my current take on it. I've warmed up to class-based systems more over the past decade. Previously I've mostly tended towards skill-based like Call of Cthulhu, but I've had fun with some D&D 5E and PbtA games like Monster of the Week. But the strength of the class-based systems is getting a quick hook into character concept. It's intentionally limiting, but the classes give strong flavor that fits the genre.

Broad generic classes haven't done anything for me.

EDITED TO ADD: Clarified phrasing.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 08:39:31 PM
...

No problem. I've warmed up to class-based systems more over the past decade. Previously I've mostly tended towards skill-based like Call of Cthulhu, but I've had fun with some PbtA games like Monster of the Week and D&D 5E. But the strength of the class-based systems is getting a quick hook into character concept. It's intentionally limiting, but the classes give strong flavor that fits the genre.

Broad generic classes haven't done anything for me.

I do see what you mean, "Tough" or "Fast" heroes seem kind of flavourless unless you can overlay a robust background system to them, at the very least, but not all that heroic sounding.

Traveller and Call of Cthulhu look really interesting as far as skill-focused systems go, I'd like to play them someday.

If 5thE D&D is PbtA that has gone far above and over my head... The 5thE background system is cool and all but nothing close to what PbtA does with their bonds system as a gameplay mechanic.

I'll take (and prefer) the third option: classes that are absolutely tropes, with a bit of wiggle room for customization and interpretation, and there being a whole ton of them.

To be more specific, in my 5e homebrew nonsense, I've got over 60 classes (and I don't use anything core). Every class is meant to be iconic of some trope or image from folklore or whatever. No, we don't have fighters and rogues. We have PALADINS and WITCHES and DETECTIVES (and no small number that are a bit more "out there" in concept). And sure, there's a ton and sometimes the balance gets a bit off or maybe the flavor is a bit wonky on a few and some maybe don't quite embody the concept I have in my brainpan, but I've found it tremendously helpful for players to have these archetypes to work with, and they really help sell the notion that each class is unique and feels legitimately different, even if there is (intentional) overlap in the roles they can play in a group.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on February 03, 2023, 10:03:08 PM
I'll take (and prefer) the third option: classes that are absolutely tropes, with a bit of wiggle room for customization and interpretation, and there being a whole ton of them.

To be more specific, in my 5e homebrew nonsense, I've got over 60 classes (and I don't use anything core). ... but I've found it tremendously helpful for players to have these archetypes to work with, and they really help sell the notion that each class is unique and feels legitimately different, even if there is (intentional) overlap in the roles they can play in a group.

People do complain when there's no cleric or rogue in the party...

I am really torn on this issue, and flip flop periodically. Personally, I slightly prefer skills-based over classes and especially if character creation involves those skills being the result of a prior career (ala Traveller). On the other hand, in practice, I have been very frustrated with many of my players as a DM when using skill- based game systems, because players will too often tend to play the character sheet rather than the character, and will waste time scouring their sheet for the best number and which skills they can use. This is annoying both regarding the verisimilitude as well as just concerning the efficiency of play. Using classes arguably can get you around this, as you can just tie a difficulty success roll against whether their class helps and very simple modifiers—the players are forced to argue that their class means they can do something, rather than reading their sheet. (It doesn't HAVE to be this way, but it just seems it turns into this situation with too many players.)

Frankly, a class based system that then uses skills, like D&D 3e-5e, I find annoying as it is the worst of both worlds. Enough skills that you need to decide between them, but not enough such that you need to fall back on the class distinctions. I prefer using something like Traveller or CoC, on the one hand, or a more OSR-style class system, on the other, and not mix the two.