Quote from: xech;747816The way you answered you brought it up. What you said was that you do not need different mechanics because combat mechanics cover it up for you. Which leaves us with no clear understanding of what you think about classes.
This is why people told you the OP is not about what you think you need but about what you want.

I don't think you're having the same conversation as everyone else.

the OP was clearly talking about mechanical differences within the class itself.  So when I replied talking about "mechanics", that was the context in which I was using.  Seems like you're the only one who thought I was talking about mechanics in general.

Quote from: Bobloblah;747813Bwa-? Maybe in Bizarro World that's what the OP meant. But, back here in the real world, the OP is talking about no mechanical differentiation within a class, as opposed to no mechanical differentiation (e.g. everything resolved by rolling D6 without modifiers).  In fact, this topic has come up many times since the advent of 3.x and Feats. Never once in that time have I heard anyone argue for no mechanical differentiation, so if that's what you're juxtaposing, who the hell are you arguing with?

Huh?
I am sorry you totally missed me. Is my english so difficult to understand or is it so complicated what I am asking Sacrosant here which is to help us understand what he really thinks about classes (does he like having classes at all, does he like the mere existence of classes with no internal differentiation thus perhaps tons of them, or if not then what?)

To the OP, prefer some mechanical differentiation within a Class. ACKS hits this sweet spot for me (it looks like Next will be in the same ballpark), even though it follows the model of more distinct Classes (as opposed to fewer broad archetypes).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;747822I don't think you're having the same conversation as everyone else.

the OP was clearly talking about mechanical differences within the class itself.  So when I replied talking about "mechanics", that was the context in which I was using.  .

Yup, you still have not answered the OP. This is what I am trying to parse to you.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;747822Seems like you're the only one who thought I was talking about mechanics in general

Which is in fact what you did as I still have not understood what you think about classes.

Quote from: xech;747824Huh?
I am sorry you totally missed me. Is my english so difficult to understand or is it so complicated what I am asking Sacrosant here which is to help us understand what he really thinks about classes (does he like having classes at all, does he like the mere existence of classes with no internal differentiation thus perhaps tons of them, or if not then what?)

Oh, didn't miss you, you just missed the OP. To whit:

Quote from: One Horse Town;747722How much flexibility is just right for you in generating characters?

What part of that is unclear, particularly considering the thread topic? Sacrosanct (and more or less everybody other than you) responded to that.

Quote from: xech;747803Ok, what is the difference if a class offers the option of different mechanics in the class itself or another system that the class is specifically tailored for it (combat in our case)?

Which is an interesting question in and of itself, but isn't what the OP asked.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747722How much flexibility is just right for you in generating characters?

Depends on the game.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747722Are you ok with 2 fighters being almost identical mechanically or do you prefer the option to make an almost infinite amount of different fighters?

I like options, but I dislike the charop that almost inevitably seems to come with detailed character building.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747722Are mechanics important in differentiating between characters of the same sort?

I think the most interesting differentiation is actually in *who* the character is.  If the mechanics are around those areas, then sure.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747722What if your choice of classes is so large that in effect, your chances of playing the same character twice are next to zero even if there is little difference between members of the same class. Would that suite you if you like greater flexibility normally?

For a game like older D&D, it's kind of relevant.  You're playing a guy, and his specialness is based on what happens to him, not based on the character idea you had.  So, sure, whatever.

For a game where it's actually more about creating a specific character, it's more about whether I can express that specific character.  In some ways, few, broad classes are better for that than than many specific ones.

Quote from: Bobloblah;747829What part of that is unclear, particularly considering the thread topic? Sacrosanct (and more or less everybody other than you) responded to that.

No, not really. I am sorry but what the fuck did Sacrosanct respond? What he said is that he likes flexibility in his game irrelevantly of what classes do. So what the fuck does he think about classes? It still seems that he does not think of classes anything at all which is  not a direct answer to the question of the OP, at least not in a way I can understand it.

Quote from: Bobloblah;747829What part of that is unclear, particularly considering the thread topic? Sacrosanct (and more or less everybody other than you) responded to that.


.

Pretty much.  OP asked how we feel about mechanical differentiation within the class itself, and I answered.

Not sure where to go from here other to just let it drop I guess.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;747836Pretty much.  OP asked how we feel about mechanical differentiation within the class itself, and I answered.

Not sure where to go from here other to just let it drop I guess.

No you did not answer. You said the OP does not matter to you because you find the differentiation you like in combat mechanics.
If you said something else about what you think regarding classes please make it more clear.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747817Well, it's something to talk about on a discussion forum mate!

Nothing wrong with idle curiosity, I guess.

-clash

To answer the OP:

I prefer a system to have the flexibility that allows me to design the character I'm in the mood to play. This is why I tend to prefer point-buy systems such as GURPS and Hero.

For example with fighters:
If I want to design a wild barbarian I can.
If I want to design a Roman Legionnaire I can.
Or a Mongolian horse archer.
Or a fencer who can target any body part with ease.
Or a martial artist who can disarm anyone quickly.
Etc.

Their differences aren't just psychological or a minor stat change. Their skills and special training are different. The system should support that beyond the title "Fighter/Warrior". I want my character to be "better than average" in some skill set than others of the same job description. +3 to Riding and Archery skills or +4 to disarm and bare-hand attack.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote from: One Horse Town;747807I agree, which was why i started the thread.

I'll put you down as a 'want mechanical differences within class' then.

Sure! :cool:

Quote from: One Horse Town;747807Also, to be clear I mentioned fighter as an example rather than strictly focus on them solely, but they are a good example.

To expand that example, would people prefer a Fighter class with mechanical doo-dads withing that class or say, 12 classes that might be described as 'fighty' but have their own strictly unchangeable suite of abilities.

1) Fighter with mechanical differentials baked into the class for the player to choose as he likes

versus

2) Hoplite, Gladiator, Skirmisher, Legionnaire, etc with a set suite of abilities that are specialties already baked into the class.

Much likey 1 over 2
I like Fighter as the vague base Archetype, then through your preference of suites of abilities turn your character into Hoplite, Gladiator, Skirmisher, Legionnaire, etc.  
Compared to the sword&board fighter/archer skirmisher the other peeps were talking about where all they have to do is switch weapons and armor and they function the same. I no likey that.

I have a love/hate relationship with character flexibility. It appeals to me at a visceral, fat-kid-in-a-candy-store level, but as a GM, but it can turn character creation and development into a frickin' nightmare.

I think upfront complexity in character building offers diminishing returns. I am fine with playing, say, OD&D, in which the only thing to tell Ulfric the Berserker apart from Sir Godfrey the Knight-Errant or Louis-Philippe the Duelist are arms, armor and "fluff" like appearance and personality.

Nevertheless, I like it when class-based character creation systems offer maybe one or two other choices beyond class and/or race. ACKS has Proficiencies which are essentially Feats without Feat trees or "builds" plus Secondary Skills a la AD&D. Numenera has the adjective-noun-verb thing (Learned Nano who Talks to Machines! Charming Jack who Murders! Rugged Glaive who Rages!) that feels a lot of fun. And of course, having a lot of different classes (e.g. Duelist, Knight, Berserker in the example above) is another way of doing this. All of which are fun, but like I said, the absence of these mechanical tools is no dealbreaker for me.

Quote from: Doughdee222;747844Their differences aren't just psychological or a minor stat change. Their skills and special training are different. The system should support that beyond the title "Fighter/Warrior". I want my character to be "better than average" in some skill set than others of the same job description. +3 to Riding and Archery skills or +4 to disarm and bare-hand attack.

This is pretty much me as well.

I can play a Fighting Man who robs people, and this will be different than a Fighting Man of another personality. Still, it's nice to have the added option of being a Thief instead - and have different abilities to the standard Fighting Man. Likewise, I can play a Fighter who likes being in the wilderness as part of his personality, and this will be different. However, if I have the Ranger option, then I can successfully track creatures and other abilities, which changes how my character comes across and feels in play.

Usually I prefer non-class-based systems, but I'm fine with class-based ones that give a bunch of options. Given options, though, I do prefer character generation to be as fast and easy as possible.

I got my start in pen-and-paper RPGs with GURPS and 2nd Edition D&D, so I have always enjoyed mechanical differeneces between characters that have the same general type or class.

As I have gotten older, I prefer for those differences to be less and less complex. I would rather have Fighter -- master of offensive melee combat -- and Guardian, master of defensive melee combat, as two different classes.

The reason is simple - I want the class to do exactly what it says on the tin. I am tired of RPGs where the best bowman isn't the Archer class but instead some bizarre arrangement that would only be arrived at from looking over a Char-Op guide.

As for differences between two Warriors nowadays I prefer the option to give them different Vocations. The Warrior Thief is much different from the Warrior Soldier who is much different from the Warrior Sage. There also is the added advantage of speeding up character creation.