Does anyone know of any? The only one I can think of off-hand is True20. I'm wondering especially if there are any that use specific classes, more along the lines of D&D than True20, but I doubt that, although I would love to be proved wrong.
As a secondary topic, given that virtually all generic systems are skill-based, how viable are generic class-based systems?
As far as viability goes, True20 works pretty well.
D20 Modern.
The six classes are based around a single main attribute. Various settings have their own prestige classes. It's flexible enough to handle a wide variety of settings.
d20 Modern indeed.
Grim Tales (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5246) is the translation of d20 Modern-type mechanics to a low-magic generic fantasy style.
QuoteFrom the back cover blurb: "Grim Tales is the high adventure, low magic campaign sourcebook for fantastic roleplaying in your favorite pulp genres, from the dawn of Atlantis to the apocalyptic future of a dying planet. Players will enjoy nearly limitless combinations of classes, feats, skills, and talents to create their characters, while GMs can pick and choose from a wide variety of design mechanics, variant rules, and campaign trappings to create exactly the setting he wants to challenge and entertain his players."
Grim Tales is a sourcebook for running low-magic d20 games using core classes tied to attributes (the Strong Hero, the Fast Hero, etc.) and a magic system that puts the potential to cast spells in the hands of anyone willing to risk the attendant physical drain. Although it doesn't come with a detailed setting of its own, there are three example campaign outlines and most parts of the book give descriptions for three broad "eras": archaic, modern, and apocalyptic.
Dream Park.
Alternity did it the best I think.
D20 Modern by WotC is what you are looking for, IMHO.
Quote from: J Arcane;333996Alternity did it the best I think.
Alternity's is pretty good.
For the OP:
Alternity's basic system has four classes - Combat Specialists, Free Agents, Diplomats, and Tech Specialists. They're very broad, and they mainly determine your starting skills and give you a special ability. Free Agent is the only class that isn't obvious from its name - they're basically generalists with a slight emphasis on sneakiness.
You have to remove all the flavor from it for this to work, but I find Star Wars SAGA edition makes a better d20 modern than d20 modern. Just remove all the Star Wars and use the base mechanics. Reflavor all the weapons into modern equivalents. Hell, you can even rename force powers magic/psionics. Most of the feats and talents are easily reflavored.
Quote from: The Worid;333978I'm wondering especially if there are any that use specific classes, more along the lines of D&D than True20, but I doubt that, although I would love to be proved wrong.
I'm not surprised, the more specific the classes are the less generic the game is, it's self-defeating.
Unless I'm completely wrong.
Well, there's Rolemaster...no seriously!
Anyhow, universal classes and levels? That's what the Ultramodern Rules Kernal will be.
True20 would be my go-to for Class + Level + Generic.
As for viability, do you mean in the commercial marketplace?
Personally, I doubt I would buy another Generic. Savage Worlds scratches most of my needs for a Generic system when I'm not in the mood to hash out my own stuff from some other system.
Quote from: The Worid;333978As a secondary topic, given that virtually all generic systems are skill-based, how viable are generic class-based systems?
Class based systems are designed to emulate a genre, and the classes support not only niche protection, but genre emulation. I would say a class based generic system is something of a paradox. The classes are really a discount skill package, so you have a skill based system underlying them, generally. I am not entirely convinced a generic class based system would work exceptionally well.
Quote from: StormBringer;334086Class based systems are designed to emulate a genre, and the classes support not only niche protection, but genre emulation. I would say a class based generic system is something of a paradox. The classes are really a discount skill package, so you have a skill based system underlying them, generally. I am not entirely convinced a generic class based system would work exceptionally well.
I would agree with that statement. Classes are very specific when they are the focus. Generalizing classes waters them down in most cases.
Quote from: StormBringer;334086Class based systems are designed to emulate a genre, and the classes support not only niche protection, but genre emulation. I would say a class based generic system is something of a paradox. The classes are really a discount skill package, so you have a skill based system underlying them, generally. I am not entirely convinced a generic class based system would work exceptionally well.
Yet a skill-based system usually conforms to a genre as well. The design choices made as to what skills are important affect what sort of list you get; so a game with a combat focus gets separate skills for each type of sword (in an extreme example) and then might only have one skill for socializing.
My point is that having classes be only for certain genres is an assumption borne of most games being built that way. I'm not saying that their isn't logic to it (skills usually make multi-genre systems easier) but it's wrong to say that such a thing is when it's barely been tried.
My thought in making this thread was, what if you have a system that didn't use extremely generic classes? Like a class-based counterpart to GURPS, that uses fairly-specific classes that one took in combinations. For example, a Paladin that was a Fighter 1/Cleric 1. I'm curious as to whether or not it's a pipe dream, and I was wondering if any games like this existed. Thanks for the responses so far; I have d20 Modern, and I was looking back at it again because of the suggestions.
@Spinachcat: I meant viable as in could one make a good game like this, not would it sell well. I should have clarified that.
Quote from: The Worid;334095Yet a skill-based system usually conforms to a genre as well. The design choices made as to what skills are important affect what sort of list you get; so a game with a combat focus gets separate skills for each type of sword (in an extreme example) and then might only have one skill for socializing.
It really depends on the scope for a socializing skill. Broadly enough, it may be appropriate. Too narrow, and it will not find enough use at the table. What you would really have to decide is whether skills provide abilities, or modify extant abilities. You can have both in the same list, but it would be best to have some way to identify the differences. Weapon skills don't really provide a new ability, they just extend the combat ability, and negate penalties for using an unfamiliar weapon, or provide a bonus for the weapon another character without the skill lacks.
QuoteMy point is that having classes be only for certain genres is an assumption borne of most games being built that way. I'm not saying that their isn't logic to it (skills usually make multi-genre systems easier) but it's wrong to say that such a thing is when it's barely been tried.
There is probably a good reason it hasn't been tried very often. Namely, genre emulation is what class based systems are really good at. It's easy to deny Oriental Adventures classes in your quasi-European game to keep players from bringing in their ninjas and samurai if you don't want those. It's harder to stop someone from building a ninja with skills. Sometimes, you just don't want a ninja in your game.
QuoteMy thought in making this thread was, what if you have a system that didn't use extremely generic classes? Like a class-based counterpart to GURPS, that uses fairly-specific classes that one took in combinations. For example, a Paladin that was a Fighter 1/Cleric 1. I'm curious as to whether or not it's a pipe dream, and I was wondering if any games like this existed. Thanks for the responses so far; I have d20 Modern, and I was looking back at it again because of the suggestions.
Well, that is just multi-classing really. The more generic you make the classes, the more they resemble discount skill packages that you would just have to customize anyway, hence, the closer you get to a skill based game.
You can make something of a hybrid system, like D&D has been since 3.0, but those are of varying effectiveness as well. For starters, it would work best if you figured out all the skills a class would have even if you 'encapsulate' those into a class rather than allow them into the general skill list. You can still have skills that modify abilities or even class abilities, but it can be tricky. A skill that modifies combat abilities, for example, will be far more useful for warrior classes than arcane classes. For arcane classes, in fact, it would be of varying detriment to take those skills. On the one hand, it is unlikely to really boost their combat abilities significantly, and at the same time, it takes up a slot they could use for arcane skills to boost their class effectiveness.
Not that a wizard that wants to be a fighter (and by extension, not very good at either) isn't a valid characterization to pursue. But the pitfall is for the player that wants to be a good wizard and a decent combatant finding out they are neither after taking a few combat related skills. And vice versa; the fighter that wants a few magical boosts may discover they are less effective than their fighter peers, and start to fall behind the rest of the party, too. As I recall, the 3.0 authours mentioned there were a number of skills and feats that laid a similar trap in D&D.
Quote from: The Worid;334095Yet a skill-based system usually conforms to a genre as well. The design choices made as to what skills are important affect what sort of list you get; so a game with a combat focus gets separate skills for each type of sword (in an extreme example) and then might only have one skill for socializing.
It really depends on the scope for a socializing skill. Broadly enough, it may be appropriate. Too narrow, and it will not find enough use at the table. What you would really have to decide is whether skills provide abilities, or modify extant abilities. You can have both in the same list, but it would be best to have some way to identify the differences. Weapon skills don't really provide a new ability, they just extend the combat ability, and negate penalties for using an unfamiliar weapon, or provide a bonus for the weapon another character without the skill lacks.
QuoteMy point is that having classes be only for certain genres is an assumption borne of most games being built that way. I'm not saying that their isn't logic to it (skills usually make multi-genre systems easier) but it's wrong to say that such a thing is when it's barely been tried.
There is probably a good reason it hasn't been tried very often. Namely, genre emulation is what class based systems are really good at. It's easy to deny Oriental Adventures classes in your quasi-European game to keep players from bringing in their ninjas and samurai if you don't want those. It's harder to stop someone from building a ninja with skills. Sometimes, you just don't want a ninja in your game.
QuoteMy thought in making this thread was, what if you have a system that didn't use extremely generic classes? Like a class-based counterpart to GURPS, that uses fairly-specific classes that one took in combinations. For example, a Paladin that was a Fighter 1/Cleric 1. I'm curious as to whether or not it's a pipe dream, and I was wondering if any games like this existed. Thanks for the responses so far; I have d20 Modern, and I was looking back at it again because of the suggestions.
Well, that is just multi-classing really. The more generic you make the classes, the more they resemble discount skill packages that you would just have to customize anyway, hence, the closer you get to a skill based game.
You can make something of a hybrid system, like D&D has been since 3.0, but those are of varying effectiveness as well. For starters, it would work best if you figured out all the skills a class would have even if you 'encapsulate' those into a class rather than allow them into the general skill list. You can still have skills that modify abilities or even class abilities, but it can be tricky. A skill that modifies combat abilities, for example, will be far more useful for warrior classes than arcane classes. For arcane classes, in fact, it would be of varying detriment to take those skills. On the one hand, it is unlikely to really boost their combat abilities significantly, and at the same time, it takes up a slot they could use for arcane skills to boost their class effectiveness.
Not that a wizard that wants to be a fighter (and by extension, not very good at either) isn't a valid characterization to pursue. But the pitfall is for the player that wants to be a good wizard and a decent combatant finding out they are neither after taking a few combat related skills. And vice versa; the fighter that wants a few magical boosts may discover they are less effective than their fighter peers, and start to fall behind the rest of the party, too. As I recall, the 3.0 authours mentioned there were a number of skills and feats that laid a similar trap in D&D.
In d20 Modern's case, it clearly emulates a genre. We could call it archetypal, or comic-like, where you have some characters that are clearly good at "something".
The Strong Hero, the Smart Hero, etc. Multiclassing is strongly encouraged in d20 Modern. It's mostly a matter of specialization, of finding a particular "schtick" for your Strong Hero, say, like Martial Arts or Paramilaty experience. It's not only a matter of Skills there, but most importantly of selections of Talents and Feats that represent what your character is really good at.
d20 Modern will emulate TV series like the A Team really well, for instance.
Quote from: Benoist;334100In d20 Modern's case, it clearly emulates a genre. We could call it archetypal, or comic-like, where you have some characters that are clearly good at "something".
How well one defines that 'something' depends largely on what genre one is trying to emulate.
QuoteThe Strong Hero, the Smart Hero, etc. Multiclassing is strongly encouraged in d20 Modern. It's mostly a matter of specialization, of finding a particular "schtick" for your Strong Hero, say, like Martial Arts or Paramilaty experience. It's not only a matter of Skills there, but most importantly of selections of Talents and Feats that represent what your character is really good at.
Talents and Feats are really skills by another name. So, you pick a somewhat siloed package of skills, then customize it with skills available to all. But again, the Smart Hero won't benefit as much from skills that help the Strong Hero, and may take a penalty for doing so.
Multiclassing, in the case of 'generic' classes, is almost a requirement, since the classes themselves will generally not be specific enough to emulate any particular genre.
Quoted20 Modern will emulate TV series like the A Team really well, for instance.
I would propose aligning the classes with the tropes of that particular show would work better.
Quote from: StormBringer;334103Talents and Feats are really skills by another name. So, you pick a somewhat siloed package of skills, then customize it with skills available to all. But again, the Smart Hero won't benefit as much from skills that help the Strong Hero, and may take a penalty for doing so.
If by this you mean to say there are sub-optimal choices for character creation and progression, there are, for sure.
Quote from: StormBringer;334103Multiclassing, in the case of 'generic' classes, is almost a requirement, since the classes themselves will generally not be specific enough to emulate any particular genre.
Absolutely. You do that with d20 Modern by selecting the Advanced Classes (aka Prestige Classes by another name) available in your game. Which really should also be the case with PrCs and D&D, in the sense that PrCs emulate the style, feel and particulars of the setting by the type of groups, organizations and various specialties characters may choose to be linked to in the campaign.
In d20 Modern, if you want to have an X-File game with Psychic characters, you allow Psychic Advanced Classes of some types. If you want to have more of a Buffy type of game play, you go with Arcane Spellcasting and such. And so on, so forth.
Quote from: StormBringer;334103I would propose aligning the classes with the tropes of that particular show would work better.
You do that with the selection of Advanced Classes you put into play. See above.
Quote from: StormBringer;334097It really depends on the scope for a socializing skill. Broadly enough, it may be appropriate. Too narrow, and it will not find enough use at the table. What you would really have to decide is whether skills provide abilities, or modify extant abilities. You can have both in the same list, but it would be best to have some way to identify the differences. Weapon skills don't really provide a new ability, they just extend the combat ability, and negate penalties for using an unfamiliar weapon, or provide a bonus for the weapon another character without the skill lacks.
All of that is true of any game. However, a universal game has the responsibility to minimize the problem as much as possible. The purpose of the example was to show that both classes and skills fall into the trap of emulating a certain genre, rather than being wholly universal.
Quote from: StormBringer;334097Well, that is just multi-classing really. The more generic you make the classes, the more they resemble discount skill packages that you would just have to customize anyway, hence, the closer you get to a skill based game.
What I'm suggesting here is to not make classes more generic, just make enough classes to cover anything you might want. Yes, that could be problematic if you made too many, but I'm not convinced that it's impossible.
Quote from: StormBringer;334097You can make something of a hybrid system, like D&D has been since 3.0, but those are of varying effectiveness as well. For starters, it would work best if you figured out all the skills a class would have even if you 'encapsulate' those into a class rather than allow them into the general skill list. You can still have skills that modify abilities or even class abilities, but it can be tricky. A skill that modifies combat abilities, for example, will be far more useful for warrior classes than arcane classes. For arcane classes, in fact, it would be of varying detriment to take those skills. On the one hand, it is unlikely to really boost their combat abilities significantly, and at the same time, it takes up a slot they could use for arcane skills to boost their class effectiveness.
I'm not suggesting a hybrid system here, at least not with ranked skills (a 4E/Saga-style skill feat system might be acceptable). That defeats the point.
Quote from: Benoist;334105If by this you mean to say there are sub-optimal choices for character creation and progression, there are, for sure.
Not precisely. More accurately, what I am saying is, 'generic' classes still need additional support in the form of skills, whether they are called that, or they are called Talents or Feats. The Smart Hero may be good at 'smart things', but those still need to be defined somehow, and that is with skills. Same with the Strong Hero. They should be good at 'brick' or 'fighter-y' things, but those still need to be defined. Being good at 'weapons' is a bit powerful, as the same character can pick up a club, a sword, or a 15 watt heavy MASER and have the same results. Additionally, it rather freezes others out from having weapon skills if you don't list them. If you simply assume they are simply not as good at weapons as the Strong Hero, not only do you negate the niche for Strong Heroes, simultaneously, you transform everyone into the 'Less Capable Fighter' class by default, with a package of skills for a different class added in.
QuoteAbsolutely. You do that with d20 Modern by selecting the Advanced Classes (aka Prestige Classes by another name) available in your game. Which really should also be the case with PrCs and D&D, in the sense that PrCs emulate the style, feel and particulars of the setting by the type of groups, organizations and various specialties characters may choose to be linked to in the campaign.
I was never super jazzed with Prestige Classes. Except for a few bonus Feats, they never seemed to do much more than add some descriptive fluff to a base class, and there are other ways to do that. Essentially, you are simply adding some additional skill package choices to the base class with a number of prerequisites.
QuoteIn d20 Modern, if you want to have an X-File game with Psychic characters, you allow Psychic Advanced Classes of some types. If you want to have more of a Buffy type of game play, you go with Arcane Spellcasting and such. And so on, so forth.
The ability to limit class choices to support genre emulation is one of the strengths of a class based system, and that is really what you are talking about here. Specifically designed classes to support a genre, like X-Files or Buffy. The base classes, the 'generic' ones, don't support a particular genre, so other classes have to be added in to support those. That is the exact reason a 'generic' class based system is very difficult to implement.
As you have demonstrated, working against the strengths of a class based system - genre emulation - is an uphill battle.
With True20, the system gives you the tools to create your own classes. it's extremely easy to do and makes it very easy to mold the game to the particular setting/ genre you are going for.
Quote from: The Worid;334107All of that is true of any game. However, a universal game has the responsibility to minimize the problem as much as possible. The purpose of the example was to show that both classes and skills fall into the trap of emulating a certain genre, rather than being wholly universal.
Except that anyone can add skills to emulate a genre, where making a class is quite difficult. Especially if the underlying 'skills' for a class are opaque, as they are prior to D&D 3.x.
QuoteWhat I'm suggesting here is to not make classes more generic, just make enough classes to cover anything you might want. Yes, that could be problematic if you made too many, but I'm not convinced that it's impossible.
I don't think anyone has claimed it is impossible. But you have already hit on the major problem. Making new classes. The new classes to 'cover anything you might want' are, by definition, not generic. The most transparent system for this is CyberPunk 2020, with pseudo-classes representing skill packages and one class specific skill.
The game supplies a number of defined packages (Solo, Media, Netrunner) but encourages players to come up with their own. The pseudo-class packaging reasonably protects a niche, with the single 'class skill' bearing most of the load for niche protection. A Netrunner can forgo computer skills and concentrate on gun skills, possibly having scores in line with a Solo. But they will be very ineffective as Netrunners, and the Solo's Combat Sense will trump equal weapons skills, as the Solo will generally go first in any combat. Conversely, the Solo can neglect their weapon skills in favour of computer and netrunning skills, but they will be a poor Solo, and much like the previous example, an actual Netrunner will get the jump on them every time with the Interface skill.
QuoteI'm not suggesting a hybrid system here, at least not with ranked skills (a 4E/Saga-style skill feat system might be acceptable). That defeats the point.
But again, whether they are ranked or not, Feats are still a form of skills. They very well could be binary, either you have the feat or you can't do it. But that tends to penalize everyone equally. In other words, if you can't even swing a sword without the Feat, you are crippling everyone that isn't a Fighter, unless you give them additional selections for weapons, in which case you don't need them as Feats.
I know what you
aren't talking about, the question is, what
are you talking about? What are some examples of this system you envision?
Quote from: Aos;334115With True20, the system gives you the tools to create your own classes. it's extremely easy to do and makes it very easy to mold the game to the particular setting/ genre you are going for.
I'm not familiar with True20. How are classes created?
Quote from: StormBringer;334116But again, whether they are ranked or not, Feats are still a form of skills. They very well could be binary, either you have the feat or you can't do it. But that tends to penalize everyone equally. In other words, if you can't even swing a sword without the Feat, you are crippling everyone that isn't a Fighter, unless you give them additional selections for weapons, in which case you don't need them as Feats.
I know what you aren't talking about, the question is, what are you talking about? What are some examples of this system you envision?
When I say skill, I mean a ranked bonus given to a certain type of action. I do not mean anything that could be called a feat, for the purposes of this discussion.
I'm not certain why this thread is evoking such a vehement response from you. I like skill-based systems as much as you apparently do; my favorite games are Traveller, GURPS, WHFRP, and Mutants and Masterminds. I generally avoid class-based systems. All I'm wondering is if there are any, or could be any, class systems that work well outside of a single genre.
I thought of an example, though. Barbarians of Lemuria. Essentially class-based: take levels of various professions. It isn't perfect (the way they hand attack bonuses makes no sense to me; how come Soldier doesn't let me hit?) but it's moving in the direction that I'm talking about.
Honestly, Stormbringer's ranting is pretty well disproven by the existence of *gasp* exactly the generic class systems he claims are "impossible". I suspect this is just a lot of smokescreen for another "3e sucks" rant, probably triggered by the mention of D20 Modern.
Alternity, True 20, D20 Modern, hell, I think Traveller pretty well counts in my book as well. It's essentially 4 background classes, with an additional "catch-all" class, that are just groups of possible random results.
Quote from: StormBringer;334111Not precisely. More accurately, what I am saying is, 'generic' classes still need additional support in the form of skills, whether they are called that, or they are called Talents or Feats. The Smart Hero may be good at 'smart things', but those still need to be defined somehow, and that is with skills. Same with the Strong Hero. They should be good at 'brick' or 'fighter-y' things, but those still need to be defined. Being good at 'weapons' is a bit powerful, as the same character can pick up a club, a sword, or a 15 watt heavy MASER and have the same results. Additionally, it rather freezes others out from having weapon skills if you don't list them. If you simply assume they are simply not as good at weapons as the Strong Hero, not only do you negate the niche for Strong Heroes, simultaneously, you transform everyone into the 'Less Capable Fighter' class by default, with a package of skills for a different class added in.
Sure, but I don't quite see how this plays against genre emulation, unless you really frame your game experience into a very specific pigeon hole, like say playing a game of military guys surviving in the Vietnamese jungle, where a Strong Hero/Survival-type character clearly would have a upper hand.
All games emulate a genre, in the end, be it some genre out of some other medium, or its own genre, as is the case with D&D for instance, or d20 Modern, in this instance.
What I'm trying to say is: purely generic games don't exist. They always emulate something. GURPS for instance does emulate a genre of its own with its brakets of character powers with a given number of points and so on. Classes in the instance of d20 Modern are just a way to have pre-spent character points in the way the class is built, when you think about it.
Quote from: StormBringer;334111I was never super jazzed with Prestige Classes. Except for a few bonus Feats, they never seemed to do much more than add some descriptive fluff to a base class, and there are other ways to do that. Essentially, you are simply adding some additional skill package choices to the base class with a number of prerequisites.
That's when Prestige Classes are used the wrong way, though. The purpose of PrCs is to link the characters to the game world by giving them mechanical ways to be part of it. You belong to a group or organization, and there's a PrC to reflect the specificities of that group or organization. At their worse, PrCs are what you describe, and there's been a bad trend of this going on with all sorts of 3PP game materials and WotC sourcebooks, that's for sure.
Now, I'm not making this up. That's something I got from Monte Cook. That's the way they thought of Prestige Classes when designing them for third edition. As a tool to flesh out the game world mechanically and link the PCs to it. We all know that's not what ended up happening in further game designs, but there's still a personal choice a DM can make to use PrCs as they were intended to be used.
Quote from: StormBringer;334111The ability to limit class choices to support genre emulation is one of the strengths of a class based system, and that is really what you are talking about here. Specifically designed classes to support a genre, like X-Files or Buffy. The base classes, the 'generic' ones, don't support a particular genre, so other classes have to be added in to support those. That is the exact reason a 'generic' class based system is very difficult to implement.
As you have demonstrated, working against the strengths of a class based system - genre emulation - is an uphill battle.
I disagree, in the sense that you can have a relatively generic class-based system, along with the tools provided for you to carve the specific genre emulation you are searching for out of it. It's not a paradox to me, but a process that starts with the system, goes through the GM's intent and campaign designs, to end up as the genre emulation GM and players were searching for, specifically.
Quote from: J Arcane;334125Honestly, Stormbringer's ranting is pretty well disproven by the existence of *gasp* exactly the generic class systems he claims are "impossible". I suspect this is just a lot of smokescreen for another "3e sucks" rant, probably triggered by the mention of D20 Modern.
Alternity, True 20, D20 Modern, hell, I think Traveller pretty well counts in my book as well. It's essentially 4 background classes, with an additional "catch-all" class, that are just groups of possible random results.
It seems to me that Alternity only has a veneer of classes, as they don't really determine all that much about your character's abilities, and is for the most part skill based. Of course, I've only ever really skimmed the book, so I may be in error.
Traveller only uses anything like a class during character creation, so I don't think it counts.
Quote from: The Worid;334123When I say skill, I mean a ranked bonus given to a certain type of action. I do not mean anything that could be called a feat, for the purposes of this discussion.
Ok, I can understand that, but for mechanical purposes, skills and Feats serve much the same purpose.
QuoteI'm not certain why this thread is evoking such a vehement response from you. I like skill-based systems as much as you apparently do; my favorite games are Traveller, GURPS, WHFRP, and Mutants and Masterminds. I generally avoid class-based systems. All I'm wondering is if there are any, or could be any, class systems that work well outside of a single genre.
It's not vehemence, it just takes a good deal to explain. I could simply say "No, class based systems don't work well outside of a genre", but then I would have to explain what that meant. Which is what I am doing. It's simply a complex topic that can't be distilled to 'yes' or 'no'.
You are wondering, I am responding. What were you expecting?
QuoteI thought of an example, though. Barbarians of Lemuria. Essentially class-based: take levels of various professions. It isn't perfect (the way they hand attack bonuses makes no sense to me; how come Soldier doesn't let me hit?) but it's moving in the direction that I'm talking about.
If the Soldier profession doesn't provide bonuses in combat, I would say there is a fundamental problem with the profession. But again, usually 'professions' are discount skill packages, so we are back around to a more or less skill based system. I'm not familiar with Barbarians of Lemuria being described as a 'generic system', either. The entire introduction, in fact, drives the game into being a very solid class based system. The professions aren't really useful as skills
per se; they offer knowledge of almost anything related to the profession. They are more similar to secondary skills in 2e AD&D, which are there to provide some background information for the character more than add anything really useful mechanically.
Quote from: J Arcane;334125Honestly, Stormbringer's ranting is pretty well disproven by the existence of *gasp* exactly the generic class systems he claims are "impossible". I suspect this is just a lot of smokescreen for another "3e sucks" rant, probably triggered by the mention of D20 Modern.
You will need to point out where I said it is 'impossible', otherwise your premise is false, hence, the rest of your argument is wholly unsupported.
QuoteAlternity, True 20, D20 Modern, hell, I think Traveller pretty well counts in my book as well. It's essentially 4 background classes, with an additional "catch-all" class, that are just groups of possible random results.
Traveller is almost entirely skill based, with the pseudo-classes being discount skill packages. Similar to the rest of the games you mention.
Quote from: StormBringer;334132Ok, I can understand that, but for mechanical purposes, skills and Feats serve much the same purpose.
Good, then we have an understanding.
Quote from: StormBringer;334132It's not vehemence, it just takes a good deal to explain. I could simply say "No, class based systems don't work well outside of a genre", but then I would have to explain what that meant. Which is what I am doing. It's simply a complex topic that can't be distilled to 'yes' or 'no'.
You are wondering, I am responding. What were you expecting?
Then I withdraw my statement of vehemence. It is hard to tell over a forum, and it looked like that when I read it; sorry.
Quote from: StormBringer;334132If the Soldier profession doesn't provide bonuses in combat, I would say there is a fundamental problem with the profession. But again, usually 'professions' are discount skill packages, so we are back around to a more or less skill based system.
Yes, I see it as a major flaw in the system as well. However, BoL does fit the criteria of the first post. What professions "usually" are is irrelevant; what matters is what they mean here.
Quote from: StormBringer;334132I'm not familiar with Barbarians of Lemuria being described as a 'generic system', either. The entire introduction, in fact, drives the game into being a very solid class based system. The professions aren't really useful as skills per se; they offer knowledge of almost anything related to the profession. They are more similar to secondary skills in 2e AD&D, which are there to provide some background information for the character more than add anything really useful mechanically.
BoL has already been converted into "Barbarians of the Aftermath" for post-apocalyptic settings, so I think many people see it as suitable for generic use.
Also, I notice that you say "'generic system'", but then seem to contrast it with "class based". Am I meant to interpret it that way?
QuoteYou will need to point out where I said it is 'impossible', otherwise your premise is false, hence, the rest of your argument is wholly unsupported.
Cute, but pathetic. It assumes I'm not aware of what the definition of a "paradox" is, which is pretty damn insulting, really. I should probably just call you an idiot now, balance the scales and get the inevitable ad hominem out of the way.
QuoteTraveller is almost entirely skill based, with the pseudo-classes being discount skill packages. Similar to the rest of the games you mention.
Redefining things to suit your argument is not really much of an argument at all.
The fact of the matter is, there are games that do what the OP wanted, and instead of recommending them, you go off on some soapbox rant for hundreds of words about how they're a "paradox", and playing fast and loose with what's allowed to be called a class to support your bogus argument.
They're here, they exist, get over it. Just because they don't fit with your own very peculiar definition of the term doesn't make them magically go away just to support your bogus ranting.
Quote from: StormBringer;334117I'm not familiar with True20. How are classes created?
Each class has a core ability-
You make up a new one. Very easily done.
you then assign (there's a very simple, balanced system for this) combat progression, save progression, skill progression and (if the game has supernatural powers) feat access, power progression. Most of these are done with a simple point buy- and I do mean simple. Any class can buy any skill. Individual characters get skill ranks based upon their class.
The whole thing can be done in twenty minutes or less if you have a strong idea of what you're going for.
The book even gives you the break down of how the three original classes are created and several examples of new classes.
Quote from: J Arcane;334138Cute, but pathetic. It assumes I'm not aware of what the definition of a "paradox" is, which is pretty damn insulting, really. I should probably just call you an idiot now, balance the scales and get the inevitable ad hominem out of the way.
"Something of a paradox". You should read what is posted before you decide to flip out on some personal vendetta.
QuoteRedefining things to suit your argument is not really much of an argument at all.
Then why are you trying to re-define the meaning of 'class'?
QuoteThe fact of the matter is, there are games that do what the OP wanted, and instead of recommending them, you go off on some soapbox rant for hundreds of words about how they're a "paradox", and playing fast and loose with what's allowed to be called a class to support your bogus argument.
According to the OP:
Quote from: The Worid;334128It seems to me that Alternity only has a veneer of classes, as they don't really determine all that much about your character's abilities, and is for the most part skill based. Of course, I've only ever really skimmed the book, so I may be in error.
Traveller only uses anything like a class during character creation, so I don't think it counts.
You should probably verify these things before presuming to speak for someone else.
QuoteThey're here, they exist, get over it. Just because they don't fit with your own very peculiar definition of the term doesn't make them magically go away just to support your bogus ranting.
Benoist has some reasonable doubts, but so far the original poster and Brett seem to be in agreement with me. You appear to be taking some contrary position based on your own definition, itself seemingly at odds with the rest of us.
Depending on the size of a party, a generic class game might have:
Leader
Face
Brick
Sneak.
Some add into that specialized roles: Blaster, and Speedster (which I use the superhero version, but they exist in other formats too, just the least clunky words for them.
Example: A-Team (Leader, Brick, Face, Speedster (Vehicle) )
Of course these can map to D20 Modern Cha-Leader, Str-Brick, Cha-Face, Dex-Speedster
I always thought that the major weakness of True20 was that the classes really don't SAY much. Their too generic.
AFAIAC, the whole point of a class is to encapsulate a concept or a role. Though you can generalize that somewhat, it comes off a lot weaker in a "generic game" without at least some concept to write too.
Well, you can make your own classes and say as little or as much as you want what you want.
I think I would have to argue that all classes are simply predefined and constrained lists of skills even if these are only implied rather than listed as abilities, feats, or what have you.
Quote from: Aos;334157Each class has a core ability-
You make up a new one. Very easily done.
you then assign (there's a very simple, balanced system for this) combat progression, save progression, skill progression and (if the game has supernatural powers) feat access, power progression. Most of these are done with a simple point buy- and I do mean simple. Any class can buy any skill. Individual characters get skill ranks based upon their class.
The whole thing can be done in twenty minutes or less if you have a strong idea of what you're going for.
The book even gives you the break down of how the three original classes are created and several examples of new classes.
I wasn't ignoring your response, just having a few real life crises to deal with at the moment.
At any rate, this sounds a lot like the class creation options in the 2e DMG. It is something like constructing a class from Legos, which isn't bad in and of itself. The progression charts are certainly not skills, so that is a point in favour of The Worid's original inclusion of True20. As I don't have it in my sweaty little paws, I have no way to determine if there are glaring holes in the procedure. Based on The Worid and your own experiences, however, I will assume there are not, or two astute gamers such as yourselves would have uncovered them.
The case of True20, however, would be the exception that proves the rule, more or less: Generic class based systems are very difficult to design and implement. To a degree, True20 is even evidence that creating a generic class based system depends on the definition of strong classes to begin with. As they are described, True20 classes are simply transparent enough to allow mixing and matching. As I recall, that was one of the requirements I mentioned eariler for making a class based system more generic.
In the case of True20, I presume (correct me if I am wrong) that the 'combat progression' one can purchase is based on existing classes or archetypes; ie Fighter Combat Progression (or a more generic Warrior Combat Progression), Wizard or Arcane Combat Progression, and so on. Of course, they may not be specifically labeled as such. Perhaps Combat Progression Table A, or B. In the latter instance, while not directly tied to an archetype or class, it shouldn't be too difficult to determine which is appropriate for a Warrior and which for a Rogue. Essentially, however, all classes are modular. In rough programming terms, you are 'encapsulating' (collecting/protecting) the 'functions' (progressions) into a 'class' (errr...class - they have about the same meaning :) ). Seems like a pretty good way of doing things, but the burden falls to the designer in making the modules for the classes numerous enough to serve most purposes, broad enough to encompass most needs, or - barring those - versatile enough to fit most concepts.
Other than the True20 method, I don't see too many ways of doing things that don't amount to a 'covert skills' system.
Quote from: The Worid;334136Good, then we have an understanding.
It seems so. :)
QuoteThen I withdraw my statement of vehemence. It is hard to tell over a forum, and it looked like that when I read it; sorry.
No apologies necessary. These things are somewhat inherent with limits of forum communication; I appreciate that you brought up your concerns rather than make assumptions, as I am wont to do. ;)
QuoteYes, I see it as a major flaw in the system as well. However, BoL does fit the criteria of the first post. What professions "usually" are is irrelevant; what matters is what they mean here.
Certainly. I only brought up their usage in other games to demonstrate the difference in use to which they were put in True20.
QuoteBoL has already been converted into "Barbarians of the Aftermath" for post-apocalyptic settings, so I think many people see it as suitable for generic use.
Hmmm... Well, you can convert your AD&D characters to Boot Hill and Gamma World right from the DMG. I wouldn't call AD&D a 'generic system'. :)
I think I take your meaning, but I haven't seen the conversion. I have no way to compare the original to the adaptation for the post-apoc genre, hence, I would not be able to mount any kind of reasonable counter-argument. I will accept that if you are convinced the conversion is not a drastic change from the original, then BoL is more suitable for conversion to another genre than some others (further clarification below).
QuoteAlso, I notice that you say "'generic system'", but then seem to contrast it with "class based". Am I meant to interpret it that way?
I had to go back and re-read what I was talking about. :)
In that instance, I was using 'generic' inaccurately, perhaps. I was referring to the genre emulation focus. BoL itself seems to be somewhat resistant to a 'genre-less' gaming experience. The classes they present are fairly representative of the Lemuria millieu. In that sense, the BoL system is not really a 'generic' system, in the sense that you would have a somewhat difficult time ripping the character rules out and using them with a different setting. Nehwon, for example, or Buffy.
Which rather brings us back around to the difficulties in making a class based system more generic, both in terms of underlying mechanics and genre emulation. By itself, I am presuming BoL has no mechanics for modern firearms or futuristic laser weapons or anything like that. I am sure BoA did a find job of adding those on; but it was exactly that, an add on. Minor changes, to be sure. A ranged weapon that does some amount of damage and has ammo. In a strictly mechanical sense, a laser isn't really different than a long bow (except if the designer adds on some special effect like the ability of a laser to set things on fire).
Looking over the careers in BoL, however, a few stand out. Alchemist presumes Alchemy, which may not be present in a different genre. Naturally, that can be substituted for Chemist, so not a huge problem. Magician? Priest/Druid? Those are starting to make some bigger assumptions about the game world. Of course, those can simply be ignored as well. The real problem is in coming up with new professions. BoL itself leans more towards an 'interpretive' system, where the actual benefits of the profession are up to the players and the GM. There is nothing particularly wrong with this
per se, but translating this to other genres could cause problems.
Buffy, for example, would need a profession for the main vampire slayer character. Naturally, you could create a profession called Vampire Slayer, or Chosen One, or what have you. But what reasonable set of skills would that encompass? Buffy is able to perform any number of near-impossible gymnastic stunts, but should that be included in a profession called Vampire Slayer? Would it be meaningful to have another profession called Gymnast or Amateur Gymnast to cover those skills instead? Another example: Should Jedi be a profession? Would it be enjoyable for the other players at the table if the Jedi character can just whip up any magic effect they can think of?
It appears that even in BoL, it is assumed that the professions adhere rather strictly to the genre being emulated, and that the players also adhere to that. This would, in turn, result from both the GM and the players being very familiar with the genre in question. Dropping a life-long Traveller player (by extension, that has never played anything but sci-fi) into the nearest dungeon or Cthulhulian investigation seems like a recipe for near disaster without a set of defined skills or abilities for them to work from. "You can do Barbarian stuff" would hardly be a foundation from which such a player could grasp the genre. Even someone from a more generic fantasy game might struggle a bit coming to terms with exactly what Magician stuff they can or should be doing.
I don't think these are insurmountable problems, but they can make things a bit rough for the first few sessions. I mean, hell, I have played Nobilis, and I still can't quite wrap my head around the concepts in Exalted. Let alone the appeal. :)
I need rest; I'll take this back up in the morning. I worked up a couple (very rough) sample classes in the style that I'm envisioning:
QuoteSoldier
Core Ability: Sharpshoot: Spend 1 Action Point: Re-roll a ranged attack check; take the higher result.
Primary Skills: Firearms, Athletics
Secondary Skills: Close Combat, Throwing, Paramedics, Tactics
Class Foci:
Sniper: +2 to Sniper Rifles, Ignore 1 level of cover with Firearms
Grenadier: +2 to Grenade Throwing, +5 Effective Range with Grenades
Heavy Weapons: +2 to Heavy Weapons
Medic: +2 Paramedics
QuoteSorceror
Core Ability: Channel Bloodline: Spend 1 Action Point: Regain a use of a Lineage power.
Primary Skills: Concentration
Secondary Skills: Occult, Geneology
Class Foci:
Dragon-Blooded: Access to Draconic spell list.
Faerie-Blooded: Access to Fae spell list.
Angel-Blooded:Access to Angelic spell list.
Chaos-Blooded: Access to Chaotic spell list.
For the purposes of this class, the system is roll vs. DC 1d20. "Skill" here means something that you get to add your level to; "Primary" means you add your whole level, and "Secondary" means you add half of it. Ability scores generate the rest of your numbers (HP and such). You get an action point that regenerates when you have time take a rest, and you get to pick one focus when you take the class.
The idea is that there would be a fairly extensive list of these in the core book, with specialized one by setting; the specialized ones would use the logic of prestige classes and represent culturally-peculiar professions and institutions.
Yes, it involves what are essentially skill packages. However, the driving concept is that generic systems might benefit from niche protection as more concentrated games do. Perhaps such a thing would be better served with a sort of important feat put into a completely skill-based system that made you intrinsically better at a certain thing, like the "core ability" put into the above classes.
Quote from: The Worid;334128It seems to me that Alternity only has a veneer of classes, as they don't really determine all that much about your character's abilities, and is for the most part skill based. Of course, I've only ever really skimmed the book, so I may be in error.
Traveller only uses anything like a class during character creation, so I don't think it counts.
I wouldn't say that Alternity only has a "veneer of classes", but they aren't as strict as in other class-based games like D&D or Earthdawn. They affect the cost rather than the choice of skills, and each provides a single special ability that the others don't. It's a very good implementation of a mixed skill/class system IMHO, and it remains one of my favourite generic gaming systems.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;334265I wouldn't say that Alternity only has a "veneer of classes", but they aren't as strict as in other class-based games like D&D or Earthdawn. They affect the cost rather than the choice of skills, and each provides a single special ability that the others don't. It's a very good implementation of a mixed skill/class system IMHO, and it remains one of my favourite generic gaming systems.
"Veneer" wasn't meant as a value judgment, just a statement about how much they affect character creation. However, by your description, they sound like more than a veneer, so I suppose I was ill-informed.
Quote from: The Worid;334273"Veneer" wasn't meant as a value judgment, just a statement about how much they affect character creation. However, by your description, they sound like more than a veneer, so I suppose I was ill-informed.
No worries, mate.
Quote from: The Worid;334273"Veneer" wasn't meant as a value judgment, just a statement about how much they affect character creation. However, by your description, they sound like more than a veneer, so I suppose I was ill-informed.
Indeed, you were. Class strongly impacts your choices of skills. Given the low number of skill points and the wide difference between "class appropriate" and "class inappropriate" skills...
The same basic mode is used in Rolemaster and Spacemaster.
I must be tired, for a moment I read this as "Class-B (ie. second rate) Generic Games".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;334341I must be tired, for a moment I read this as "Class-B (ie. second rate) Generic Games".
RPGPundit
You mean our True20 campaign was second rate?