How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?
Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?
TL;DR version: I like classes (and levels) when I want niche protection. When I want niche protection, the design and scope of the classes then becomes a mechanical and thematic compromise.
I think there are two camps that value classes:
1. Classes as shortcut to archetypes
2. Classes as niche protection
Naturally, some people like both. There's also a drive for classes as simplification system, but you can get that with "templates" in a game without classes. So I don't count that one. (It's a valuable goal for some people, but not restricted to classes.)
My personal opinion is that there are multiple directions to go with classes for archetypes. Which way is chosen should depend on the other goals and widgets in the overall system, and thus can't be pinned down abstractly. (That is, it's more practical than theoretical.) For example, if it is intended that the system not use "skills" or at least minimize them, but instead have a large list of classes, then archetypes tend to be more specific. Whereas if the goal is that "archetypes are inherently broad", then we are half-way already to "skills" or some analogous mechanic, and there should only be a few broad classes. By the time you take that down to only 2 or 3 classes, I think it's vestigial, and might as well be dropped entirely.
I used to think that classes should not have archetypes at all, largely because no matter how broad or specific you make the archetypes, there are always compromises that someone isn't going to much like. Or maybe more clearly, you'll either over-complicate things or leave gaping holes in the design. Now, I've come around to the idea that a limited set of classes, say 4-8, maybe even around 10-12 if you want to finesse it, can sit in some fertile middle ground between effectively no classes and going crazy, and still be useful from the archetype perspective--but only within limits.
That brings me to niche protection, which as far as I'm concerned is the answer for whether to have classes or not: Do you want overt, enforced niche protection in the system or not? Yes, use classes. No, don't. If yes, then start weighing the archetypes and other factors.
It is, of course, possible to build niche protection into a game without classes. All you need is a way to gate some "effects" behind cost that escalate rapidly enough that picking A pretty much closes off B, C, and D. At some, point, however, that starts to circle back around to something a whole lot like classes. For example, this is what Dragon Quest does with it's "professions" like ranger, healer, assassin, etc. that have little to do with weapons or spells but gate certain skill-based abilities in packages that achieve different "ranks" (AKA levels) such that you can have more than one, but the opportunity costs bite really quick.
So I suppose it's more accurate for me to say that if want strong, clear niche protection, and then you also want some hint of archetypes, and always want to limit complexity of what passes for skills in the system (or exclude them entirely), then classes/levels start to seem really attractive. The stuff past niche protection isn't perfect, but at least you aren't fighting it completely.
Also, I don't always want the player to make the character they want. Rather, I want the system to guide them in making a character that works in the system and the setting that they are happy to play--even if it isn't an exact fit for what they imagined when we started talking about the game. And generally, I don't want the player to have to learn the system backwards and forwards in order to do that or expect me to hold their hand while they do it, either.
I also prefer niche protection in my D&D-like games because the unit of play is the party, not the character.
An interesting topic for me, because I'm working on such a system currently.
As to "why classes?" I think for me the answer is foremost "because archetypes", and more specifically "because universal archetypes from the shared subconscious are inspiring and immersive". That said, I see no reason why a classless system couldn't offer archetypes as easy-to-use templates which simply implement the skill-choice system in a particular way.
Perhaps secondarily for me is the ol' "niche protection" -- something I find really works nicely through the course of a campaign to help characters feel unique, but isn't immediately attractive to players during the character generation phase.
The trap with classless is that only one set of skill-choices works "best", and once players figure this out, all characters tend to be similar to one another. I think complexity and specificity are primary culprits in this regard; if so, a highly generalized rules-lite classless system can potentially work well to avoid this trap. Games like WyRM and Knave are on the right track here.
Mythras Classic Fantasy: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/180255/Classic-Fantasy--TDM500
Quote from: Zalman on July 18, 2022, 11:23:20 AM
An interesting topic for me, because I'm working on such a system currently.
As to "why classes?" I think for me the answer is foremost "because archetypes", and more specifically "because universal archetypes from the shared subconscious are inspiring and immersive". That said, I see no reason why a classless system couldn't offer archetypes as easy-to-use templates which simply implement the skill-choice system in a particular way.
Perhaps secondarily for me is the ol' "niche protection" -- something I find really works nicely through the course of a campaign to help characters feel unique, but isn't immediately attractive to players during the character generation phase.
The trap with classless is that only one set of skill-choices works "best", and once players figure this out, all characters tend to be similar to one another. I think complexity and specificity are primary culprits in this regard; if so, a highly generalized rules-lite classless system can potentially work well to avoid this trap. Games like WyRM and Knave are on the right track here.
Classes aren't universal archetypes. They're very specifically copied from specific fictional characters that appealed to Gygax and co. Eventually writers just started making stuff up and forcing it into the game. Rangers are Aragorn, Barbarians are Conan, Rogues are Grey Mouser, Clerics are Van Helsing, etc. D&D's popularity helped to make some of their original classes, like bards and paladins, into crpg clichés.
Like, before D&D and video games popularized it, how often did you have D&D bards and paladins in fantasy fiction? Universal archetypes they are not.
Yeah - that's the whole point right? Classes *aren't* universal. They're archetypal within parameters but largely for DnD Fantasy.
@Steven Mitchell - love the response. I'll have a reply later, lots to think about there.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 18, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Like, before D&D and video games popularized it, how often did you have D&D bards and paladins in fantasy fiction? Universal archetypes they are not.
Paladins
are an established archetype--Galahad, Percival, Holger Carlsen. Bards and clerics, not so much. :)
Greetings!
Well, I like and prefer Classes.
I have played with classless game systems before--and in my mind, classless systems hype and promise different and unique characters, but in the end, what is offered is really greyish goo. ;D
There *seems* to be endless choices, endless scope for creating special, unique characters--but it is all an elaborate illusion. I'm not assigning malice to any particular game designers or game systems, but rather my assessment is based upon the mechanical dynamics involved.
For example, WHFRP, 1E. Essentially a "Classless" system, where your character can learn any skill, and do anything! All along, your character is special and unique.
Story-wise, in truth, of course many characters in such a game arrive at an experienced tier in unique and typically humorous ways and journeys--it is WHFRP after all--however, mechanically, by the time a character has 6 or 8 or more "Careers" in their portfolio--all of the characters look essentially the same, with the same profile scheme, the same skills, and the same abilities. Generally speaking, there is some distinctiveness between Magical Characters and Non-Magical Characters, but the distinctions pretty much end with that. Magical Characters all look alike to each other, within the umbrella of good vs evil. Likewise, the Non-Magical Characters all gradually grow into being virtually identical.
In contrast, Class-based systems provide a landscape where different classes of characters are different and distinct at Level One--but remain distinctly different all the way through to higher levels of experience and achievement.
It is kind of ironic that many critics of Class-based systems have, in the past, often claimed that for example, "All D&D Fighters are the same! Going Classless is the way to be truly unique and different!" Ultimately, the D&D Class-system *preserves* distinctions and uniqueness of characters--while the Classless approach ultimately provides a greyish goo, a cookie-cutter form that every character eventually grows into, thus abandoning any distinctiveness that such characters started the game with.
So, I stick with traditional Class-based approach.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?
Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?
I used to prefer mainly classless systems, but I've come to accept classes as easier for most players. It simplifies the conceptual side of character creation, which many players find difficult. It's mostly not mechanical simplicity as that having a premade archetype helps players get a concept to work with. I think most people find it easier to pick an archetype and customize rather than build towards a given archetype.
What would you consider "classless Dnd" as opposed to classless fantasy in general? There's RuneQuest, The Fantasy Trip, and Warhammer Fantasy among others.
One of my first reactions reading through 5E was that they should have just dropped classes entirely for the direction that's going in. It's a pretty decent skill-based system. This is in stark contrast to old school D&D/AD&D in which I think classes have massive utility.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 11:19:52 AM
I think there are two camps that value classes:
1. Classes as shortcut to archetypes
2. Classes as niche protection
And neither of these camps have anything to do with the utility I find in classes. In fact, I think #2 isn't even true. I think niche protection is a myth. There's no such thing. There's archetype enforcement, which classes are good for. And then there's niche specialization which I think skill-based systems tend do better of. The reason being, those things that game designers sometimes write and call niches aren't really niches. Niches aren't some thing you can pre-define into a game's rules. Niches emerge organically through interaction. "On the market," as it were. You throw a party together and figure out the role each character takes in that unique team. Once each character figures out what they bring to the team, going forward they can make choices that enhance their abilities within their niche.
You get this a little bit with old school D&D. You can pick up a proficiency every few levels. Maybe when it comes time to divvy loot, you pick a magic item that enhances your shtick. But it's really limited. Whereas most skill-based games are like, "Oh, I did a lot of shooting with my bow in this adventure, think I'll buy a point of archery." Some games, like CoC, even nudge you into doing that, giving you advancement in the skills you actually use.
The value I find in classes has to do with being able to see something like "C6" in a stat block and the massive amount of information that is effectively communicated in a simple two-letter code. Streamlined stat blocks are important because there's only so many notes I can have in front of my eyeballs at one time. The tighter the stat blocks, the more information about the adventure and the world I can have in front of me. The more complex and varied the characters, the more bloated the stat blocks become, the less complex and varied the adventure and world my notes are able to communicate. So there's a bit of a balancing act there. Being able to cram a whole bunch of stats and abilities into two letters is like getting to have a little slice of cake and eating it, too.
Paladins are a subset of warriors, as are rangers and barbarians. I don't think of them as archetypes, but as specific (if perhaps popular) roles or professions related to the warrior archetype. Fighters are warriors by another name—generic compared to other warrior classes and focused entirely on combat. They're the closest thing to a true archetype in the game.
Clerics are a type of mystic with secondary combat elements and (originally) a focus on healing, protection and hunting undead. It has some elements of the warrior archetype, but it's primarily a mystic and has become more of a mystic (while failing to drop the warrior elements or special abilities originally granted to it to help offset its lack of magic focus compared to mages) with every passing edition. I was making a 5e Sorceress the other day and realized 5e clerics have so much firepower and combat spell compared to a mage now I wondered WTF was the point.
Wizards are mystics through and through, but they lack healing magic cuz "niche protection"—a niche protection that no longer applies to them given the increased number of decent combat spells clerics and (specially) druids have now. Still, pretty close to a mystic archetype, and lacking combat abilities or armor like actual mystic in myth and fiction outside of D&D.
Thieves/rogues are sneaky sneaks close to what I would call the "scout" archetype, though there probably better names for it. They're generic enough that you can use them to build a bunch of different "scoundrel" types, as well as detectives, assassins and agility "swashbuckler" fighting types that aren't quite warriors despite their combat focus. So I'd say they're pretty close to an archetype, though, they're probably more combat oriented than some concept that usually use the class.
Bards are a mishmash of roles and concepts. Monks are mystical warriors with truncated combat abilities. Warlocks and Sorcerers are artificially distinct wizards by another name.
So that's three archetypes: Warrior, Scout (?) and Mystic. And a bunch overly specific professions/roles that could just be folded into those three archetypes, then granted "points" or Feats, whatever to customize them however you want and turn all specialized class abilities into "feats".
On the actual topic, I'm not sure that classes are that important beyond facilitating character creation and progression. I personally don't care about "niche protection" and that's barely a thing in 5e anymore (outside of mages, who still lack healing or combat abilities despite clerics and druids being able to do almost everything they can), which is perhaps the most popular edition of D&D. I like mixing and matching, and customization, but classes and niche protection get in the way of that, and freeform systems are far better at handling customization than multiclassing could ever be.
The part where freeform (classless) systems fail, IMO is speed of character creation and progression, and overall accessibility. It usually takes far longer (and vastly more system knowledge) to freeform build a character from scratch than simply taking a class or template that already has at least 80%+ of every single ability you're ever (EVER no matter original you think you can be) going to pick freeform style anyways. Cuz let's face it, you only get a certain amount of "points" (or whatever) in any freeform system and you can only use those limited points to build a certain number viable "builds" no matter how you slice it. And those base builds almost invariably come down to some variation of Warrior, Scout/Specialist or Mystic. Depending on the setting, Specialist types could probably be further broken down into Scouts/Sneaky types, Diplomats/Face/Social types, Academics or Techies, and maybe Craftsmen, though those rarely fit into an adventure, but they technically exist in every game world.
So IMO, even from the point of view of preferring freeform/classless systems I still think you need some templates built around core archetypes or generic roles to facilitate character creation at the very least. But I don't think classes are important to any genre, cuz if you try to build your character around almost ANY actual character in any genre of fiction classes will ALWAYS get in the way (ALWAYS without fail). There isn't a single character from a D&D novel (not even fantasy in general, but specifically D&D) that you can build 1/1 using classes alone, even with multiclassing. Specially if that character is called Drizzt. And that to me is an indictment on classes.
Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2022, 01:05:56 PM
The value I find in classes has to do with being able to see something like "C6" in a stat block and the massive amount of information that is effectively communicated in a simple two-letter code. Streamlined stat blocks are important because there's only so many notes I can have in front of my eyeballs at one time. The tighter the stat blocks, the more information about the adventure and the world I can have in front of me. The more complex and varied the characters, the more bloated the stat blocks become, the less complex and varied the adventure and world my notes are able to communicate. So there's a bit of a balancing act there. Being able to cram a whole bunch of stats and abilities into two letters is like getting to have a little slice of cake and eating it, too.
For early D&D, I agree that this is a huge benefit of how the system is made. I disagree that this is an inherent result of using classes and levels. Rather, classes and levels are two of the most important system components, and happen to be two in those systems that can be reduced down to the a simple nomenclature. Unlike, say, the full list of spells or equipment available or even ability scores (though notably all of these are also simpler than later versions). You make a system simple enough in the mechanical widgets available for players to use making a character, the stat blocks tend to be correspondingly easy to use. We can just as easily state that the earliest D&D having no distinctions in weapon damage and such a limited list of weapons radically simplifies recording equipment--because it does. Likewise, it's easy to have classes that are so complicated as to largely lose this benefit.
Try Knave by Ben Milton. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250888/Knave . for $2.99.
Highlights include:
High compatibility with OSR games.
No classes.
All rolls are based off characteristics.
Optional player-facing rolls.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License:
and Designer commentary.
At seven pages, I find it a refreshing, simple take on BX adjacent rules.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?
They have for LARPS like the NERO System. http://www.neromass.com/uploads/3/4/3/7/34372607/nero_rule_book_9th_ed.pdf
Yes they have classes that modify the point costs of various skills and abilities. But it can easily be all one cost. Even figured out a way to deal with acquiring spell slots and how to deal with the few level based attributes like hit points (1 level per 10 character points).
However, the biggest problem with point-based design is coming up with the point costs. Not in terms of balance because fuck that shit. But rather in terms of the feel you are going for even with a generic system. It is somewhat like balance but it weighs stuff in terms of how one views the genre or setting.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?
In my Majestic Fantasy RPG, my classes are based on my notes for the various templates I made from when I ran my Majestic Wilderlands using GURPS. And those templates are largely based on what players did when they wanted to be X within the setting when I used GURPS. Like this one for a Myrmidon of Set.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Gods%20-%20Set,%20Myrmidon%20Template.pdf
Classic D&D is nowhere as mechanically detailed but I incorporated the important elements as class abilities. And apportioned them among the levels based on what I thought a novice (1st) should have a newly trained professional (3rd) and an experienced professional (6th) and so on should have.
The reason for all of this is because just like in life when you want to do X over and over again it becomes evident that learning certain skills and abilities is a prerequisite for doing X in the first place. A class is a package of abilities that allows one to do X.
For most players this all they want out of something they do as a hobby. WIth GURPS often the first thing a novice asks I want to be a fighter, a thief, a wizard, or something like that guy on that show. If it comes up often enough then having template, package, or class saves time and clarifies things for the player.
Like any game element classes can be designed well or badly. So the question I find more interesting in is what do you find lacking? What are you not able to have your character do? And is that more a criticism of a specific system or class design in general?
For example in my campaigns players often do things other than fighting and casting magic. Moreso they want to be better at these things. Also beyond fighting and spell casting the first part of the list of "other things" they want to do is pretty consistent among players in a campaign but varies by genre. In the fantasy campaigns I run I have observed that players care about being able to sneak around, to be more aware of their surroundings as their characters. And what to become better at those things as they level. Beyond this list, it varies a lot but is still a finite number.
So what I did for my Majestic Fantasy RPG I tacked on a skill system on top of something that started out as OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. I call them abilities because unlike most skill system a character has a reasonable chance of success even if they don't put a +1 into it.
The list is fairly short about 20 items including an omnibus Professional(type) skill and Area Knowledge (type) skill to cover the outliers. The 20 items include the common and uncommon choices based on what I see players attempt to do in my various Majestic Wilderlands campaign using various systems. Finally each class has abilities they always get and gain additional bonuses in as they level. But I have a bucket of free bonus points they can apply to any ability including picking a proficiency in a specific weapon outside of their class list.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf
I do this because this is how on average things shook out in my GURPS campaign. Where if a player wanted to fight they put so much in attributes, so much in specific weapons skills, took Combat Reflexes and so on. The same with mages except it was stuff like Magery they always picked up. When Hero System was my main system the same pattern was also present.
As for the remaining outliers I covered it either by making a subsystem like my Merchant rules or just worked it out as a character background detail like one player wanting to be an heir to a kingdom.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Merchant%20Adventures%20Rev%2004.pdf
While it not D&D I did designed a rough draft of a Fantasy Fudge/Fate RPG and playtested it a few times. The main issue was that +1 on 4dF is way too generous of a bonus. I got wrapped up in other projects but may circle around back to it using 3d6. It helped crystallize my thought on skill based versus class design. My ideal currently is to have the system basically skill based but also have a list of template for common character types so people know what to pick.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?
Someone has. The game is called "GURPS" by SJ Games dot com. And this game came out quite some time ago.
GURPS is all skills all the time. And ALL of the skills.
And if you want guidance and "classes" check out "GURPS Fantasy" . . .
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 18, 2022, 11:45:28 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 18, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Like, before D&D and video games popularized it, how often did you have D&D bards and paladins in fantasy fiction? Universal archetypes they are not.
Paladins are an established archetype--Galahad, Percival, Holger Carlsen. Bards and clerics, not so much. :)
Knights are an established archetype. Knights with magic powers granted by a combination of devotion to God and personal charisma are not.
Classes are important for niche protection and clear purpose, as others have said.
I like systems that start you with an archetype and let you go classless from there. You start with a class, but when you improve, you can diverge into whatever you like, as long as rules and prerequisites are followed. TW 2000 4ed. does this. Aquelarre is similar. It starts you with a profession and does a point buy with reduced cost for your profession's primary skills. You are encouraged to stick with the primary skills, but don't have to. You can be that one soldier who knows some magic, but it will cost you. Once you start getting XP, you're off leash and can improve any skill you used.
I would like to see a classless system that takes this one step further. You start with an archetype/profession, you can diverge from there, BUT you always get some benefit when honing the old skills from your formative years. This would be the ultimate hybrid approach, IMO.
I feel like the niche protection goal has long ago fallen apart. D&D 5e has a dozen core classes and numerous subclasses (and a number of these subclasses are adapted from base classes from earlier editions). It feels bloated and I think a skill-based approach would be better.
For example, imo Spheres of Power is a better approach to caster classes because it separates class features from casting tradition.
Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2022, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?
Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?
I used to prefer mainly classless systems, but I've come to accept classes as easier for most players. It simplifies the conceptual side of character creation, which many players find difficult. It's mostly not mechanical simplicity as that having a premade archetype helps players get a concept to work with. I think most people find it easier to pick an archetype and customize rather than build towards a given archetype.
What would you consider "classless Dnd" as opposed to classless fantasy in general? There's RuneQuest, The Fantasy Trip, and Warhammer Fantasy among others.
woo you guys move fast!...
Heh, see my problem is that once the non-stop debate about "established archetypes" hits the mat, then everyone starts dogpiling on the minutiea of what constitutes that specific archetype, then all the permutations of each different flavor of that archetype, then we start bickering about all the editions of the game and what those classes meant... etc etc.
When in reality we're *only* talking about the "class" as some demarcation of a package of accepted tropes that are indemic TO DnD. And every class has gone through it's periods of having to historically and fictionally back up their tropes until the "Class" itself has become the trope.
And that's where we are. We're post-Meta-Trope. When people will say shit like "My favorite Striker Class is the Warlord!" and "I wish 5e did the Warlock Class - especially Bloodline <X>" when these are all exist outside of any meaningful context.
Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible, rather than a pre-packaged gob of skills and abilities that constrain a player throughout play.
Runequest is an excellent example (though I'm more familiar with Mythras). But I made this thread as a reference to the Savage Worlds Pathfinder thread, where a lot of SW GM's are keenly aware that the addition of Classes via Pathfinder add nothing to the game. But they exist only to make DnD fantasy-players new to SW "feel good".
Warhammer likewise is uniquely tied to its setting. While I'm happy to use any of these systems as an exemplar - the real root of the question is this:
Why not break DnD down to only the required skills. Then divide up all Special Abilities (including spellcasting) into their own box(es), and create a method for players to build as-they-go? You could unify a LOT of the derived stats (To Hit Bonuses, AC, even HP) while retaining the traditional d20+stat mod task resolution system.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 18, 2022, 04:29:48 PM
I feel like the niche protection goal has long ago fallen apart. D&D 5e has a dozen core classes and numerous subclasses (and a number of these subclasses are adapted from base classes from earlier editions). It feels bloated and I think a skill-based approach would be better.
For example, imo Spheres of Power is a better approach to caster classes because it separates class features from casting tradition.
Agreed.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?
Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?
Classes are not...archetypes are. With classless games I play (Savage Worlds, GURPS, and Mythras (very little Mythras under the belt...) I like for the players to have characters that have a specialty of a sort and sort of expect them to build strength in that specialization. I do also like that classless systems allow for the characters to branch out enough that no character has to be a one trick pony. IME though this is largely a consideration (classless or class) of people who are GMs, even if they also play. People who just play and never GM seem to not really care, and if given a choice like having a class to see where the "level ups" (I suspect this is from video game influence...which was influenced by D&D....so it seems an endless cycle) and "power ups" are in different points of their development. Players drive the RPG market economically IMO, and players also tend to buy FAR fewer books than GMs. So I think Classless is never really going to catch traction. Two very popular iterations of SW had classes worked into them (I know frameworks and edges, but they are classes by another name with lots of flexibility in development and growth) and I think part of that popularity was as much from making SW more palatable to people more used to a "traditional" appearance of a character (having a class) as much as anything else.
Quote from: swzl on July 18, 2022, 02:06:47 PM
Try Knave by Ben Milton. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250888/Knave . for $2.99.
Highlights include:
High compatibility with OSR games.
No classes.
All rolls are based off characteristics.
Optional player-facing rolls.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License:
and Designer commentary.
At seven pages, I find it a refreshing, simple take on BX adjacent rules.
Knave is a good classless game. There are also several Knave hacks out there that let PCs choose feats/special abilities to basically build their own classes. That's what I did with my Knave hack, and my players enjoyed the flexibility and options for their PCs without being locked into a Class.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 04:53:55 PM
woo you guys move fast!...
Heh, see my problem is that once the non-stop debate about "established archetypes" hits the mat, then everyone starts dogpiling on the minutiea of what constitutes that specific archetype, then all the permutations of each different flavor of that archetype, then we start bickering about all the editions of the game and what those classes meant... etc etc.
When in reality we're *only* talking about the "class" as some demarcation of a package of accepted tropes that are indemic TO DnD. And every class has gone through it's periods of having to historically and fictionally back up their tropes until the "Class" itself has become the trope.
And that's where we are. We're post-Meta-Trope. When people will say shit like "My favorite Striker Class is the Warlord!" and "I wish 5e did the Warlock Class - especially Bloodline <X>" when these are all exist outside of any meaningful context.
Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible, rather than a pre-packaged gob of skills and abilities that constrain a player throughout play.
...
Why not break DnD down to only the required skills. Then divide up all Special Abilities (including spellcasting) into their own box(es), and create a method for players to build as-they-go? You could unify a LOT of the derived stats (To Hit Bonuses, AC, even HP) while retaining the traditional d20+stat mod task resolution system.
I agree that is the way that classes usually go. That's not the way they have to be, though. The answer is right in your post. Don't take the pre-established tropes from what has gone before, but go back further. Take boundaries of the class from what the setting and the game is about instead. If it's a fantasy game about, maybe, high adventure, with a certain amount of zero to hero in it, then they'll be some overlap with D&D. That can't be helped. However, all the interesting stuff on class system design happens at the boundaries of the classes. (The interesting parts of the classes in play happen where they classes are centered, which is analogous but not exactly the same.)
I think I've got to the point where I'd really like your opinion on my class design in my own system--not because I think you'd like it, but to see how close I made it to answering your objections despite not going for the purely skills-based. Especially considering your last sentence above. That's more or less what I did--except I unified the bones of the system in six classes that provide the basis for the character and somewhat guide where it goes, but doesn't fully constrain it. Then other mechanical elements are layered on top of that, some as discrete skills, some as heftier packages. Among other things, this lets me toss multi-classing clear out the window onto the pavement six stories below. But then, my classes by themselves are mechanical first, flavor second.
I'm losing some of the economy of expression that Lunamancer admires. On the other hand, I'm getting a fair amount of real mechanical differences in character customization without going for the overhead of full skills-based. Instead of Wizard 2, I need something more like Sorcery Wizard 2, Hedge Witch, but that's a very different character than Holy Wizard 2, Healer. The archetype gets expressed in the combination. The "Wizard" part just means your bedrock is a more powerful caster than anyone else, with relatively little weapons ability and only so-so adventuring skills. However, the player could later tack on, say Warrior or Thief or Hunter when their level gets high enough, instead of doubling down on Hedge Witch or Healer, and take the character in a new direction. Or they could have done that out of the gate. Yeah, I've got some skills on top of that. But the skills don't need to do everything.
I will also say that IMO, a big part of bad class design stems from doing classes in a vacuum or refusing to make them part of an overall consistent design. For example, the "ability scores" that the system uses sets boundaries too, and it's impossible to do good class design without fitting them not only to the setting but also to the mechanics around them. Having an explicit "Perception" ability score changes the list of potentially good classes in my design.
Interesting..... I've been riffing on the Warrior Rogue Mage concept, of using those 3 "Character Concepts", as 3 Ability Scores. But I've also pondered simplifying that a little more still, down to Single Focus characters, or Dual Focus characters.
A single focus character has advantage on everything in one of the three areas of focus, and no disadvantage in the other two areas.
A dual focus character has advantage in two areas, but disadvantage in the remaining area of focus.
Simple Character Creation. Get to running a one shot or short campaign fast. The players make their character focus choice, then the DM describes the situation, and then the players choose their path. A game is underway.
1d6 for standard rolls. Roll high. Target number range is 4, 5, or 6. With Advantage, roll 2d6 and take the better. With disadvantage, roll 2d6 and take the worse.
Talk about simple. Minimalism. Run the whole game with 2d6.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 04:53:55 PM
When in reality we're *only* talking about the "class" as some demarcation of a package of accepted tropes that are indemic TO DnD. And every class has gone through it's periods of having to historically and fictionally back up their tropes until the "Class" itself has become the trope.
Perhaps except for those of us who playtested our stuff over multiple campaigns with multiple people. Then adjust based on what they actually do rather than what the author thought they ought to be doing.
Quote from: Mark Caliber on July 18, 2022, 03:20:49 PM
And if you want guidance and "classes" check out "GURPS Fantasy" . . .
I played GURPS for 20 years and three editions (2nd to 4th). Great game but it is overkill for what it does in regards to D&D style adventures.
We play The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge) and it is essentially classless. You can build whatever you want on a point-buy system. I like it and liked it for my players, but I have to say they were a little lost without classes. They tended to stay within the "example" characters that were in the Core Rulebook. And in session zero they were essentially figuring out, "who would be the tank, who would be the healer, the rogue, etc."
This is our second iteration in TDE so they were a little better at embracing the "open" nature of the game, but still stuck to archetype classes. Treat it as an evolution as not everyone will be ready to embrace it outright.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 04:53:55 PM
Why not break DnD down to only the required skills. Then divide up all Special Abilities (including spellcasting) into their own box(es), and create a method for players to build as-they-go? You could unify a LOT of the derived stats (To Hit Bonuses, AC, even HP) while retaining the traditional d20+stat mod task resolution system.
Mmm you are basically describing 3e where each level of every class is stacked on top of each other.
Also, there was Generic Class.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm
But there is a major issue. As you will soon see to make any OSR style D&D classless system you will have to chop away and reorganize the system to the point where it is unrecognizable as being any related to any edition. It will effectively be its own thing although if done right it will be compatible with classic edition adventures if you can establish an equivalent level mechanic. In much the same way that Castles & Crusades is its own thing but works with AD&D adventures using C&C NPC/Monster stats.
The other route is what I call the Blood & Treasure route (an older OSR RPG) where you take some of the ideas behind the d20 SRD and make it more minimalist. But there you are effectively reinventing a simpler Fantasycraft. But one that is compatible with classic edition adventures as opposed to D20 adventures.
Side NotesA key element of this would be to keep the monsters as is. In classic editions a NPC can be stated out like a monster or it could be stated out as a character. This works because 1 HD effectively means 1 level. With a skill based system you will have to be careful to define what 1 HD is in relation to how character are defined.
In most classic edition there are only a handful of spells that are impacted by the spell caster's level. This is easily solved by adapting the 5e mechanic to make a rule that the spell's effect is based on the highest level spell that the character can cast.
Wrapping it upI get that you are anti-class as a principle of RPG design. Especially when it comes to D&D. The trick as I found is to start with something that is closest to an ur-D&D as you can get and build from there. For me that was Swords & Wizardry Core. Then playtest the changes a lot in actual play with many different people. Keeping mind that character in 3 LBBs of OD&D were not all that different from each other. They all fought the same at 1st level. The hit point differences were minimal (variations of a d6 roll). Hell they even did the same damage (1d6 on a successful hit). Every change starting with the Greyhawk supplement perverted that original setup. Making things ever more out of whack in regards to the classes.
Some changes are good in my opinion like variable weapon damage. Some are not like higher strength percentages. The variable hit dices between classes. AD&D made all these worse. If you want something like how characters start out in GURPS, Savage World, Runequest, then OD&D 3 LBBs + selected Greyhawk elements is the starting point.
ReferenceYou have the following elements in OD&D/Swords & Wizardry. The other classic editions are just as quirky.
To hit bonus: for example, fighters get +1 to hit per level.
Hit dice: d8, d6, d4.
Allowed Weapons
Allowed Armor
Spell Slots
Specific Spell Lists
Saves
Skills (typically only Thieves and Assassins have them)
Abilities for example Paladins can Cure disease.
Traditionally all of these were scattered amid the different levels in pretty a whimsical fashion. But most of the abilities were front-loaded at 1st level.
Using OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry up to 5th level we have
Assassins1st Level: Disguise Self, Poison Use.
1st Level and higher: Thieving Skills, Backstab
Cleric1st Level: Save Bonus vs Paralyzed or Poisoned
1st Level and higher: Spell Casting (Cleric), Turn Undead.
Druids1st Level: Save Bonus versus Fire, Secret Language
1st Level and higher: Spell Casting (Druid)
5th Level: Shape Change, Immune to Fey Charms
Fighters1st Level: Parry, High Strength Score Bonus
1st Level and higher: Multiple Attacks (effectively kicks at 2nd)
Magic-Users1st Level: Save Bonus versus Spells
1st Level and higher: Spell Casting (magic-user)
Monks1st Level: Alertness, Deadly Strike, Deflect Missiles, Saving Throw Bonus,
1st Level and higher: Thieving Skills
2nd Level and higher: Weapon Damage Bonus
4th Level: Speak with Animals
5th Level: Slow Fall
6th Level: Multiple Attacks
6th Level and higher: Mastery of Mind
Paladins1st Level: Parry, High Strength Score Bonus, Divine Favor, Immune to Disease, Warhorse
1st Level and higher: Multiple Attacks (effectively kicks at 2nd), Lay on Hands
Rangers1st Level: Parry, High Strength Score Bonus, Alertness,
1st Level and higher: Multiple Attacks (effectively kicks at 2nd), Track, Bonus Damage versus Giants/Goblin types.
8th Level: Followers
Thieves1st Level: Saving Throw Bonus versus devices
1st Level and higher: Thieving Skills, Backstab
3rd Level: Read Normal Languages
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PM
I agree that is the way that classes usually go. That's not the way they have to be, though. The answer is right in your post. Don't take the pre-established tropes from what has gone before, but go back further. Take boundaries of the class from what the setting and the game is about instead. If it's a fantasy game about, maybe, high adventure, with a certain amount of zero to hero in it, then they'll be some overlap with D&D. That can't be helped. However, all the interesting stuff on class system design happens at the boundaries of the classes. (The interesting parts of the classes in play happen where they classes are centered, which is analogous but not exactly the same.)
I think you're being WAY too reasonable, LOL. But I think you're saying the same thing that I am but I feel you're holding onto the "class concept" a little tighter than I am. I have no problem whatsoever with how you defined it. The problem is not alleviated (but I agree it could be*) if we don't put some necessary constraints on the *reasons* why classes exist.
The Boundaries of Class - as you describe (correct me if I'm wrong) above is describing what I mentioned in my post as "Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible." Those boundaries are the context of the setting. To be more specific - if you Steve said, "Tenbones, you're going to play in my setting, it's a quasi-Iron Age affair and we're playing in a Romanesque analog fantasy Empire." An appropriate class might be a Centurion as opposed to a "Fighter". Likewise you might also have a Gladiator etc.
The "issue" as such, would be that eventually someone would be "I want to play a Auxilliary that's a former Centurion" or a specific type of Gladiator ("I wanna be a Retarius! or whatever) and either the system will let you pivot in terms of other mechanics, or like DnD does - you make a whole new class. Of course the downstream issues is that the constant splitting of hairs and "class bloat" would theoretically (and probably occur). And it makes the system less agile if you want PC's to shift focus in the middle of a campaign.
Let me pivot slightly - and what if you had a "Fighting Man" class? And then your system had a bunch of skills, abilities that could let us create a specific type of "Fighting Man" of that setting. That might be where the sweet spot is - by having a 'class template' that informs sub-systems and derived stats but whose abilities are setting specific?
Another option is tight niche-protection where the context of the game is specific - Dungeon Crawling, Outdoor Hexcrawling, or whatever, where Classes do very specific jobs tied to Combat, and Non-Combat task-resolution.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PMI think I've got to the point where I'd really like your opinion on my class design in my own system--not because I think you'd like it, but to see how close I made it to answering your objections despite not going for the purely skills-based. Especially considering your last sentence above. That's more or less what I did--except I unified the bones of the system in six classes that provide the basis for the character and somewhat guide where it goes, but doesn't fully constrain it. Then other mechanical elements are layered on top of that, some as discrete skills, some as heftier packages. Among other things, this lets me toss multi-classing clear out the window onto the pavement six stories below. But then, my classes by themselves are mechanical first, flavor second.
This sounds plausible. Certainly doable. Of course the devil's in the details! I'd be happy to look and give you an opinion.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PM
I'm losing some of the economy of expression that Lunamancer admires. On the other hand, I'm getting a fair amount of real mechanical differences in character customization without going for the overhead of full skills-based. Instead of Wizard 2, I need something more like Sorcery Wizard 2, Hedge Witch, but that's a very different character than Holy Wizard 2, Healer. The archetype gets expressed in the combination. The "Wizard" part just means your bedrock is a more powerful caster than anyone else, with relatively little weapons ability and only so-so adventuring skills. However, the player could later tack on, say Warrior or Thief or Hunter when their level gets high enough, instead of doubling down on Hedge Witch or Healer, and take the character in a new direction. Or they could have done that out of the gate. Yeah, I've got some skills on top of that. But the skills don't need to do everything.
See? This is where things get REALLY hairy really fast. Right off the top - if the "archetype" is merely a bunch of tropes you like, but either 1) don't scale high enough on their own to <x> power level, 2) you're looking for a narrative and mechanical reason to justify your uber-archetype.
Magic is a tough nut to crack because looking at things at a class-first discussion I think gets the fundamentals wrong - and I think I came to this later than I should have. I had this realization many years ago playing MSH, because ultimately "magic" was just superpowers under a different name. But yet I never considered applying this concept to DnD, despite having having played many other games that did effects-based magic systems. The *fundamental* issue is that "magic" task resolution was almost always a separate function of "normal" task resolution for other actions.
This is where Savage Worlds really slammed it home for me. Because Magic, like in MSH, is just powers and the "flavors" of what is a Witch, Wizard, Druid etc. is handled as Trappings and Powers Lists. What this did was allow players to customize their magic's "appearance" within a the context of the setting without forcing the system to make spellcasters some special exception vs. non-casters to the normal rules of task-resolution. It's pretty brilliant. So much so that even in Savage Worlds Pathfinder's where all the DnD Classes are present, it still uses this system while maintaining the differentiation of not only those respective classes, but of class specializations (Invoker, Abjurer etc) as well as different types of Clerics and Druids.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PM
I will also say that IMO, a big part of bad class design stems from doing classes in a vacuum or refusing to make them part of an overall consistent design. For example, the "ability scores" that the system uses sets boundaries too, and it's impossible to do good class design without fitting them not only to the setting but also to the mechanics around them. Having an explicit "Perception" ability score changes the list of potentially good classes in my design.
I think the latter is more prevalent than the former (but they're both important and correct). With clear demarcations of what "Skills" and "Abilities" are, including how their distinctions plug into the core mechanics, Classes (if properly built) interact with those skills/abilities to define the classes.
In Savage Worlds - Stats are *only* caps to how high you can develop your Skills without penalties of cost. In this way Skills operate mechanically exactly the same for non-casters as Casters. Imagine if DnD (or any other Class-based system) did this? And there ARE iterations of DnD/d20 which actually do this - Fantasycraft does this.
In Fantasycraft, spellcasters Wisdom bonuses determine How Many spells you know. Intelligence bonuses determine your bonus to your Spellcasting skill, and Charisma bonuses affect the saving-throw penalty to your targets. So that meant all spellcaster required all three stats to be "good" - much like Warriors need Strength, Con and Dex to be good respectively at what they do.
(Fantasycraft is, and I've said it many times, a beautiful fantasy heartbreaker, that in another reality would have become 4e... but alas).
Or course the trick is to make sure that the interactions between Class and Subsystem AND core Task Resolution layers are discrete yet integrated contextual to setting. That's harder trick to pull off design-wise than removing the Class portion and integrating that into the Subsystem layer. Can it be done? Yes. But I think it's unnecessary unless there are other unspoken claims about the game - like purposeful niche-protection, which is a fair point to stand on.
Yeah I'd be happy to look at your stuff.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?
Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?
Dragon had a technically classless system presented for BX. A freeform build your own character system.
2e had in the PHB or DMG a less elegant version that worked. But not as straightforward.
This question comes up all to often. Fans of more freeform chargen. Sometimes freeform snobs who get summarily dismissed to the village idiot line. And I do like the Dragon version of that and tinker with it now and then as chance allows.
Freeform systems can be great when what is presented does not quite match what you want. Or to just have fun seeing what you can come up with. Or to tailor something to what stats you rolled. And some some games it works better than a class system would. Shadowrun being a prime example of this.
Do I think freeform is better than class systems. No. Its just different and from experience players have a tendency to just recreate classes anyhow. But in the hands of a creative player it can shine.
What bugs the hell out of me with freeform are the snobs and the morons who preach about the superiority of freeform. And then they all fall into the same damn char/op cookie cutter character. Thats when I hit my limit and say fuk you. You are using classes because you dont have the mental capacity to actually use a freeform system.
My own book way back used a bit of both. You selected from a base that gave you some starter skills and a base combat ability playing off this. But after that the player could if they so desired branch out into about anything of they put some effort into figuring out how. So you might select barbarian and get the light armour fighting skill and proficency with martial weapons. But from there you could say learn exotic weapons, or pick up some magic, or thievery tricks. Or upgrade to being able to fight well in heavy armour. Or just keep building on the barbarian base.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 11:46:26 PM
The Boundaries of Class - as you describe (correct me if I'm wrong) above is describing what I mentioned in my post as "Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible." Those boundaries are the context of the setting. To be more specific - if you Steve said, "Tenbones, you're going to play in my setting, it's a quasi-Iron Age affair and we're playing in a Romanesque analog fantasy Empire." An appropriate class might be a Centurion as opposed to a "Fighter". Likewise you might also have a Gladiator etc.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 11:46:26 PM
The "issue" as such, would be that eventually someone would be "I want to play a Auxilliary that's a former Centurion" or a specific type of Gladiator ("I wanna be a Retarius! or whatever) and either the system will let you pivot in terms of other mechanics, or like DnD does - you make a whole new class. Of course the downstream issues is that the constant splitting of hairs and "class bloat" would theoretically (and probably occur). And it makes the system less agile if you want PC's to shift focus in the middle of a campaign.
This is theorycrafting at its worse. The place to start is to define what is important about the different elements of the setting. In the example what makes a centurion a centurion? What makes a Retarius different? Then see what not covered by a particular edition.
Using the examples given
The Centurion
The centurion is defined by training. It wouldn't be a class in the first place. It would be a rank. Specifically, it is a rank within the Roman Army mostly a commander of a century unit. The class if needed would represent a Roman Soldier. Or better yet Soldier in general. Why do soldiers need a distinction? Because beyond learning how to use weapons they learn how to cooperate together as a unit. So class abilities would reflect that distinction compared to ordinary fighters. I view the distinction as important enough to warrant creating a Soldier class for my own RPG. The abilities of a Soldier are modest compared to an ordinary Fighter but through playtesting a group of Soldiers can operate more effectively as a unit than a comparable group of fighters.
But what about a Roman Soldier. A culture's soldier is defined by what training they received and the weapons they are equipped with. For the most part, if Roman gear and weapons are part of the system, then Roman tactics follow provided that the character operates as a Roman Unit. Which is basically a Shortsword, Large Shield, Two Javelins (or Spears depending on the era) that can be wielded or thrown. Default D&D in most editions has what is needed except for one specific of the Roman Spear the Pila. The fact that it bent when it hit a shield. So you will have to make a new weapon type. The Pila as an option can be thrown to strike the target's shield and if the target fails their save the shield is fouled and can no longer be used. Or the shield can have a separate save.
There was a Roman system of combat training called Armatura. But in most editions of D&D combat doesn't go into that level of detail to account for the fact that the training involved a lot of thrusting towards the vital parts, feints, and learning to keep a good grip on one's weapon.
As for a Retiarius, he is an ordinary fighter with the right equipment; a net, a trident, and a dagger. Typically those with high dexterity would be trained as they only wore light armor. And in order to represent important elements of the fighting style makes sure the description of the net match how they were used. The Trident wasn't particularly special other than it was long enough to strike from a distance. As for the net a successful strike requires the target to make a save or become entangled. Or it can be used to disarm a weapon or foul a shield.
What is the level of detail being targeted here? What are the elements that need mechanics? This would more productive than theorycrafting about vague debates over the virtues of class versus classless.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 01:30:59 PM
For early D&D, I agree that this is a huge benefit of how the system is made. I disagree that this is an inherent result of using classes and levels.
It's always easier to do something less good. Yeah. I agree. Most class-based RPGs, especially later editions of D&D, have completely lost what was perhaps the best thing about classes. When you're doing them well, though, these benefits are there.
Where a lot of RPGs go wrong is trying to stack on too many options and add-ons. Those whittle away at the meaning of C6. But another thing I see a lot of is too many classes. As the number of classes increase, the chances that a reasonably experienced DM will have total recall of all the class features starts to dwindle. And so that also loses a lot of the utility of classes.
Which has a lot to do with my thinking that 5E should have just gone full on skill-based. I think it's provided so much customization that all the benefits of classes are gone, and all you're left with is the clunk.
QuoteRather, classes and levels are two of the most important system components, and happen to be two in those systems that can be reduced down to the a simple nomenclature. Unlike, say, the full list of spells or equipment available or even ability scores (though notably all of these are also simpler than later versions). You make a system simple enough in the mechanical widgets available for players to use making a character, the stat blocks tend to be correspondingly easy to use. We can just as easily state that the earliest D&D having no distinctions in weapon damage and such a limited list of weapons radically simplifies recording equipment--because it does. Likewise, it's easy to have classes that are so complicated as to largely lose this benefit.
Well, let me point a couple of other things out.
First, I'm not sure all weapons doing the same damage is really helpful. It makes the game simpler. But it doesn't necessarily make the statblocks more streamlined.
I mean, yeah, with all weapons doing the same damage, I technically don't even need to list the weapons at all. But just because I named efficiency of data transfer, shall we say, as a benefit does not mean efficiency of data transfer is the end in itself. It's good to have the names of the weapons if for nothing other than descriptive purposes. And by the time I've gone through the trouble of writing out the six characters that spell "dagger" what's two more characters to indicate, "d4," as if most DMs don't have that memorized?
Most DMs probably don't have the damage of every single weapon on the list memorized. There are too many of them. Which is what I was just getting at with classes. Too many, and it stops working. If you wanted to improve on the list, you could reduce the number of entries by reorganizing the weapons into categories. Note that 1E had already done this to a small extent. For example, the notes under the "scimitar" says it includes the cutlass, sabre, sickle-sword, tulwar, etc. That is to say, the scimitar you see on the weapon tables is not really a scimitar. I mean it could be. But really it's a class of weapons.
You see something similar with magic, especially in the monster manual, where it frequently says things like, "the touch of a harpy charms those creatures which fail to make their saving throw versus magic." It doesn't have to spell out exactly what the consequences are of failing the save. Because charm is an established class of spells in the game. And notice the harpies power doesn't correlate to any of the charm powers. The charm spells all have some range to them. Harpy is by touch. And yet the harpy description could be contained within a single paragraph because their charm power didn't require any further explanation. Because Charm isn't a spell. It's a class of spells. Like Hold, like Protection, and so forth.
Casual players need easy archetypes to make sense of things quickly.
Casual GMs want easy archetypes to process things with less campaign explosion risks.
Experienced players want easy archetypes to shut up and play already.
Experienced GMs want easy archetypes to shut up and play already.
Post 3e Class widgets produce a happy bridge to skill-based chargen minigame WITHOUT informing Casuals, and even many Experienced, the glaring dangers inherent in their tampering. Previous chargen minigame was nowhere near as involved without glaringly obvious campaign explosion risks (yes, we all knew what explosives we were tampering with in the Players Options; it was impossible to ignore -- it literally came with explicit warnings!). Opaque solo minigame lets Spikes (player archetype: Winning is All) and Timmys (player archetype: I'm so clever at manipulation!) win at chargen, which produce bragging right and trollolol scalps.
These two competing drives, ease of use and opaque solo minigame, merged and was sold as approachable. This becomes the Lingua Franca of the hobby, which builds its own momentum. Easy to understand such popularity from there.
I see nothing unusual about this, or what would change it. Look at its next closest real competitors: Storyteller & Pathfinder. They did the EXACT SAME THING (one with sexy outré and the other with subscription completionists + inclusion outré). The commonality is obvious and almost speaks to something about the inherently human. I see no point fighting it. ;)
(My favorite was how Storyteller was sold to the math-phobic -- insert 2000s metal spoof "I Can Only Count to Four" here -- meanwhile Spikes & Timmys were having a field day with splats in their opaque solo minigame. :D)
Quote from: estar on July 18, 2022, 08:50:19 PM
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 04:53:55 PM
Why not break DnD down to only the required skills. Then divide up all Special Abilities (including spellcasting) into their own box(es), and create a method for players to build as-they-go? You could unify a LOT of the derived stats (To Hit Bonuses, AC, even HP) while retaining the traditional d20+stat mod task resolution system.
Mmm you are basically describing 3e where each level of every class is stacked on top of each other.
Yeah but the problem is the lack of meaningful integration in that the Magic-system itself outstrips everything else. As someone that did quite a bit of 3e design work, I *really* dislike the official and most derivative versions of 3e with the sole exception of Fantasycraft, and True20.
Quote from: estar on July 18, 2022, 08:50:19 PMBut there is a major issue. As you will soon see to make any OSR style D&D classless system you will have to chop away and reorganize the system to the point where it is unrecognizable as being any related to any edition. It will effectively be its own thing although if done right it will be compatible with classic edition adventures if you can establish an equivalent level mechanic. In much the same way that Castles & Crusades is its own thing but works with AD&D adventures using C&C NPC/Monster stats.
Oh I'm not disputing this at all. I often wonder WHY it hasn't been done already and more effectively. I think it would make a better DnD game - even if you kept classes.
Quote from: estar on July 18, 2022, 08:50:19 PMThe other route is what I call the Blood & Treasure route (an older OSR RPG) where you take some of the ideas behind the d20 SRD and make it more minimalist. But there you are effectively reinventing a simpler Fantasycraft. But one that is compatible with classic edition adventures as opposed to D20 adventures.
My claim is that while you're 100% true. I think there is some invisible baby that's been thrown out with the bathwater. Somewhere between Brand Loyalty, Inertia and simple dogged Nerdzerker Sacred-Cow Worshipping tribalism - we can HAVE our d20 cake and eat the fuck out of it too - class or no class, but not DnD specifically. This barbeque is going to need meat, and some of those Sacred Cows need to be culled.
Quote from: estar on July 18, 2022, 08:50:19 PMSide Notes
A key element of this would be to keep the monsters as is. In classic editions a NPC can be stated out like a monster or it could be stated out as a character. This works because 1 HD effectively means 1 level. With a skill based system you will have to be careful to define what 1 HD is in relation to how character are defined.
OR this could be done with a unified Health track and Skills. IF a skill is the actual determinant on what "to hit" means, with a glance you should be able to know what the general effectiveness of a monster is - whether it's magic or melee/ranged. With a unified health-track modified by a monsters stats (like PC's) with possible bonuses/penalties due to size/ability (like PC's). This could all be done pretty easily. Talislanta operates like this (their health system differed depending on edition), Savage Worlds operate likes this too. There are no "CR's" to manage.
Case in point - I ran 5e Adventure Path directly out of the book using Savage Pathfinder with zero effort translating on the fly. I literally had to make no modifications to the encounters (but I did to make them interesting) using this same basic method. I didn't care if the monster was "high-HD" or not - their skills (and their few derived stats). I am convinced that a slimmer, more cohesive classless d20 option is possible.
Quote from: estar on July 18, 2022, 08:50:19 PMSide Notes In most classic edition there are only a handful of spells that are impacted by the spell caster's level. This is easily solved by adapting the 5e mechanic to make a rule that the spell's effect is based on the highest level spell that the character can cast.
Sure. It could also be left to a skill check where higher rolls means baseline+ incremental success. It could also be discrete results with specific effects incurring penalties on the check (typical effects based casting). And if the core task resolution were sound - it could be all three, representing different types of magic. I can easily see this working while adding useful novelty without directly countering how non-casters did their "special stuff" either. This would keep niche protection, as well as justifying class/skill-based mechanics.
Quote from: estar on July 18, 2022, 08:50:19 PMSide NotesWrapping it up
I get that you are anti-class as a principle of RPG design. Especially when it comes to D&D. The trick as I found is to start with something that is closest to an ur-D&D as you can get and build from there. For me that was Swords & Wizardry Core. Then playtest the changes a lot in actual play with many different people. Keeping mind that character in 3 LBBs of OD&D were not all that different from each other. They all fought the same at 1st level. The hit point differences were minimal (variations of a d6 roll). Hell they even did the same damage (1d6 on a successful hit). Every change starting with the Greyhawk supplement perverted that original setup. Making things ever more out of whack in regards to the classes.
I'm not against "classes". I'm against what they've mutated into in terms of modern "DnD design". Case in point - as you well know I'm a huge fan of Talislanta, my favorite edition is 3e which uses Archetypes which are effectively "classes". But it's still skill based, despite using Levels which have major impact on derived stats without changing core task resolution. The one unifying thing about all editions of the Talislanta game is the 1d20 and the singular table.
What I'm getting at is with all the OSR, all the permutations of DnD, all the knock-offs, all the heartbreakers, I feel the clinging to the way in which DnD uses "classes" is one of the big flaws of modernity. I won't hold it against older editions at all. I'm merely saying there is ample anecdotal evidence this design could work and the only reason it hasn't is because of the Sacred Cow worshipping, inertia, and tribalism that goes along with it.
Because *clearly* there are non-d20 games that are super popular, arguably more popular than OSR games, or Heartbreaker d20 systems, that actually do these things - as has been mentioned in this thread. I want DnD (and any of it's forthcoming descendants that may come from the hand of someone on this forum) to *evolve* not by jettisoning all the Cows, just some of them.
Quote from: estar on July 19, 2022, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 11:46:26 PM
The Boundaries of Class - as you describe (correct me if I'm wrong) above is describing what I mentioned in my post as "Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible." Those boundaries are the context of the setting. To be more specific - if you Steve said, "Tenbones, you're going to play in my setting, it's a quasi-Iron Age affair and we're playing in a Romanesque analog fantasy Empire." An appropriate class might be a Centurion as opposed to a "Fighter". Likewise you might also have a Gladiator etc.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 11:46:26 PM
The "issue" as such, would be that eventually someone would be "I want to play a Auxilliary that's a former Centurion" or a specific type of Gladiator ("I wanna be a Retarius! or whatever) and either the system will let you pivot in terms of other mechanics, or like DnD does - you make a whole new class. Of course the downstream issues is that the constant splitting of hairs and "class bloat" would theoretically (and probably occur). And it makes the system less agile if you want PC's to shift focus in the middle of a campaign.
This is theorycrafting at its worse. The place to start is to define what is important about the different elements of the setting. In the example what makes a centurion a centurion? What makes a Retarius different? Then see what not covered by a particular edition.
Using the examples given
The Centurion
The centurion is defined by training. It wouldn't be a class in the first place. It would be a rank. Specifically, it is a rank within the Roman Army mostly a commander of a century unit. The class if needed would represent a Roman Soldier. Or better yet Soldier in general. Why do soldiers need a distinction? Because beyond learning how to use weapons they learn how to cooperate together as a unit. So class abilities would reflect that distinction compared to ordinary fighters. I view the distinction as important enough to warrant creating a Soldier class for my own RPG. The abilities of a Soldier are modest compared to an ordinary Fighter but through playtesting a group of Soldiers can operate more effectively as a unit than a comparable group of fighters.
But what about a Roman Soldier. A culture's soldier is defined by what training they received and the weapons they are equipped with. For the most part, if Roman gear and weapons are part of the system, then Roman tactics follow provided that the character operates as a Roman Unit. Which is basically a Shortsword, Large Shield, Two Javelins (or Spears depending on the era) that can be wielded or thrown. Default D&D in most editions has what is needed except for one specific of the Roman Spear the Pila. The fact that it bent when it hit a shield. So you will have to make a new weapon type. The Pila as an option can be thrown to strike the target's shield and if the target fails their save the shield is fouled and can no longer be used. Or the shield can have a separate save.
There was a Roman system of combat training called Armatura. But in most editions of D&D combat doesn't go into that level of detail to account for the fact that the training involved a lot of thrusting towards the vital parts, feints, and learning to keep a good grip on one's weapon.
As for a Retiarius, he is an ordinary fighter with the right equipment; a net, a trident, and a dagger. Typically those with high dexterity would be trained as they only wore light armor. And in order to represent important elements of the fighting style makes sure the description of the net match how they were used. The Trident wasn't particularly special other than it was long enough to strike from a distance. As for the net a successful strike requires the target to make a save or become entangled. Or it can be used to disarm a weapon or foul a shield.
What is the level of detail being targeted here? What are the elements that need mechanics? This would more productive than theorycrafting about vague debates over the virtues of class versus classless.
Maybe I wasn't clear - that "theorycrafting" above is literally more advanced that what we're getting from actual DnD. Which has no context. Of course all of those things are generalizations - to make the point that without setting context, which you're alluding to, ALL discussions about class end up is precisely where we start bickering about the context of the class, when the point of the need for a class is theoretical in the first place.
Or shall we do the good old rodeo of "What IS a Fighter?", or "What IS a Cleric?" or "What IS Paladin?" - were Monks "western" or "eastern"? blah blah blah
The point is that I believe the actual middle ground lies above those details. You can have a Retarius as a package of skills/abilities that lays atop a "Fighting Man" (call it whatever you want) class. Or a Centurion. Or a Ninja. As long as it's contextual to the setting. My point is - you can
also do that WITHOUT a Class at all.
This is exactly what is done in Savage Pathfinder, which has all of the core classes from DnD. But they're just all the tropes of those DnD classes without all the baggage of sub-systems needed to support them.
IF it can be done in Savage Worlds - I know it can be done in d20. But people want to be Klingons.
Quote from: estar on July 19, 2022, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 11:46:26 PM
The Boundaries of Class - as you describe (correct me if I'm wrong) above is describing what I mentioned in my post as "Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible." Those boundaries are the context of the setting. To be more specific - if you Steve said, "Tenbones, you're going to play in my setting, it's a quasi-Iron Age affair and we're playing in a Romanesque analog fantasy Empire." An appropriate class might be a Centurion as opposed to a "Fighter". Likewise you might also have a Gladiator etc.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 11:46:26 PM
The "issue" as such, would be that eventually someone would be "I want to play a Auxilliary that's a former Centurion" or a specific type of Gladiator ("I wanna be a Retarius! or whatever) and either the system will let you pivot in terms of other mechanics, or like DnD does - you make a whole new class. Of course the downstream issues is that the constant splitting of hairs and "class bloat" would theoretically (and probably occur). And it makes the system less agile if you want PC's to shift focus in the middle of a campaign.
This is theorycrafting at its worse. The place to start is to define what is important about the different elements of the setting. In the example what makes a centurion a centurion? What makes a Retarius different? Then see what not covered by a particular edition.
Using the examples given
The Centurion
The centurion is defined by training. It wouldn't be a class in the first place. It would be a rank. Specifically, it is a rank within the Roman Army mostly a commander of a century unit. The class if needed would represent a Roman Soldier. Or better yet Soldier in general. Why do soldiers need a distinction? Because beyond learning how to use weapons they learn how to cooperate together as a unit. So class abilities would reflect that distinction compared to ordinary fighters. I view the distinction as important enough to warrant creating a Soldier class for my own RPG. The abilities of a Soldier are modest compared to an ordinary Fighter but through playtesting a group of Soldiers can operate more effectively as a unit than a comparable group of fighters.
But what about a Roman Soldier. A culture's soldier is defined by what training they received and the weapons they are equipped with ...
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 11:46:26 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PM
I'm losing some of the economy of expression that Lunamancer admires. On the other hand, I'm getting a fair amount of real mechanical differences in character customization without going for the overhead of full skills-based. Instead of Wizard 2, I need something more like Sorcery Wizard 2, Hedge Witch, but that's a very different character than Holy Wizard 2, Healer. The archetype gets expressed in the combination. The "Wizard" part just means your bedrock is a more powerful caster than anyone else, with relatively little weapons ability and only so-so adventuring skills. However, the player could later tack on, say Warrior or Thief or Hunter when their level gets high enough, instead of doubling down on Hedge Witch or Healer, and take the character in a new direction. Or they could have done that out of the gate. Yeah, I've got some skills on top of that. But the skills don't need to do everything.
See? This is where things get REALLY hairy really fast. Right off the top - if the "archetype" is merely a bunch of tropes you like, but either 1) don't scale high enough on their own to <x> power level, 2) you're looking for a narrative and mechanical reason to justify your uber-archetype.
Magic is a tough nut to crack because looking at things at a class-first discussion I think gets the fundamentals wrong - and I think I came to this later than I should have. I had this realization many years ago playing MSH, because ultimately "magic" was just superpowers under a different name. But yet I never considered applying this concept to DnD, despite having having played many other games that did effects-based magic systems. The *fundamental* issue is that "magic" task resolution was almost always a separate function of "normal" task resolution for other actions.
With some trepidation, let me try to square this circle. I'm going to make a series of assertions that I believe are correct based not on theory crafting but actual design and modest, early playtesting (not blind testing). As it happens, it is with an overlapping groups of players using two different systems, one skills-based and one class-based. They overlap quite a lot, but I don't want to exaggerate that effect, because some of the differences I've seen in testing have been due to factors other than what we are discussing here. (Not least, the skills-based game is using percentile dice, roll under, as the main resolution, and that has some knock on effects throughout the system.) A key similarity, however, is that both systems make liberal use of "packages" of abilities that fall short of classes but are too broad to be called skills. They are also the main currency of the archetypes in the settings the games are meant to support. Let's call these packages "paths". When I gave an example of Holy Wizard 2, Hedge Witch, the "Hedge Witch" part is a path. Wizard is just a powerful caster. Holy means they do something close to D&D divine magic.
The assertions:
1. Trying to embed archetypes in classes rapidly produces exactly the kind of disagreement the two of you both so eloquently explained. This can be avoided for a short time with very careful curation of the classes to fit a more narrow setting (or at least type of setting), or keeping the game simple enough that classes like fighter and magic user aren't being diluted with, say, ranger and druid. Whether the system then provides non-class mechanical details to qualify that focus or expects the players to do it with characterization in the simple system really doesn't matter for this point. Or you can assume each GM will carefully curate. No matter how you do it, there is rapidly a point of diminishing returns with archetypes expressed through classes. It works better if archetype is "class plus", where the other side of the plus is GM setting details or player characterization or whatever. For me, "paths" are carrying a lot of the load on the other side of the plus.
2. For as well as D&D works (especially early D&D), there are fault lines at the boundaries of the classic classes. That is, it is a very adaptable game in a wide variety of uses, but there are still limits. If you want to make a change around the center of the class, one of those versions will work. A lot of times, it's just reskinning. In modestly capable hands, a BEMCI/RC fighter can turn into a lot of different things, for example. OTOH, if you want something that messes with the boundaries, it gets a lot more difficult to simply adapt what is there. I think this is true of any system, not merely D&D or even class-based systems. It's why any game you run with Hero System very much feels like a Hero System game regardless of genre. It's just more obviously true in system with classes because the boundaries of the classes have been rubbing people raw from day 1 (e.g. why can't my wizard use a sword like Gandalf?).
3. In order to work around class boundaries, it becomes necessary to sacrifice a certain amount of compatibility with the inspiring systems. Mainly this is because of my earlier point that if you move the boundaries you also change the nature of the ability scores and other mechanical features in the game, whatever those are.
Therefore, what I'm talking about when I say go back to the foundation to do a lot of what tenbones is suggesting but while using classes is a lot more radical than what estar has suggested. Now, it helps that I'm not all that worried about a broad audience. I'm building a game that I like and that a circle of 30+ players in my area seem to like, with setting assumptions that we've found useful in various game. That's a narrow audience.
Quote from: tenbones on July 19, 2022, 03:57:36 AM
Maybe I wasn't clear - that "theorycrafting" above is literally more advanced that what we're getting from actual DnD. Which has no context. Of course all of those things are generalizations - to make the point that without setting context, which you're alluding to, ALL discussions about class end up is precisely where we start bickering about the context of the class, when the point of the need for a class is theoretical in the first place.
Or shall we do the good old rodeo of "What IS a Fighter?", or "What IS a Cleric?" or "What IS Paladin?" - were Monks "western" or "eastern"? blah blah blah
The point is that I believe the actual middle ground lies above those details. You can have a Retarius as a package of skills/abilities that lays atop a "Fighting Man" (call it whatever you want) class. Or a Centurion. Or a Ninja. As long as it's contextual to the setting. My point is - you can also do that WITHOUT a Class at all.
I am not interested in debating the context of classes. What I am interested what YOU think ought to be covered when a player plays a cleric type, a fighter type, a mage type, a priest type. Then I can make a recommendation how to cover this using the basic mechanics of D&D without reference to a class. It makes a big difference if we are talking 3 LBB level of Detail or D20/GURPS level of detail. Or something in between. With that information, we are just going to round and round.
This is the process I use in all my efforts. I DESCRIBE the setting or genre at the level of detail I am interested in. My criticism is that nobody is describing what details they want out of a D&D classless system. Your responses in particular are vague. You keep referring to a OSR level of complexity yet the few specifics you mention (centurion,retiarius) require that a level of detail that even AD&D 1e doesn't have. And you want to jettison the D&D magic system in favor of something completely different.
All of which plus the back and forth replies with other posters indicate to me that you have something specific in mind when it comes to the fantasy genre. I say cut the twenty question bullshit and spell it out what it is you are looking for when a player creates certain types of characters. Not to make a better class system but to make the level of detail of the system covers all the skills, abilities, gifts, advantages, and powers that are there to realize that view.
Then once we have that list of stuff we can start seeing what we can do by using the mechanics of AC, level, saving throw, to hit rolls, and other D&D mechanics. What we can do to make a system where these abilities can be mixed and matched in the same way you can do in Runequest, GURPS, Savage Worlds, etc.
But without that this thread is bullshit theorycrafting. I am harsh about this point having gone through several iterations of designing something only to see it work out differently in actual play. Not just with classic D&D but in the past with GURPS* and with system like AGE and Fudge. I am happy to show my work if anybody wants a link. Hell I will even comp a PDF copy of my Majestic Fantasy RPG, folks can just PM me.
Quote from: tenbones on July 19, 2022, 03:49:32 AM
Yeah but the problem is the lack of meaningful integration in that the Magic-system itself outstrips everything else. As someone that did quite a bit of 3e design work, I *really* dislike the official and most derivative versions of 3e with the sole exception of Fantasycraft, and True20.
I am going to pass on responding not because I am ignoring your post here. But until I understand the level and kind of detail you are interested in, I don't see the value in offering specific suggestions.
Just describe what you looking for without reference to a system. For example, when I worked on skill based systems I considered it important that something like the following list existed for those who want to make characters focused on fighting.
Various weapon skills (Sword, Shield, Dagger, Spear, etc.)
Combat Dodge
Strategy
Survival
Athletic
There is more but the above was the minimum I wanted to cover at the level of detail I wanted for fighters. Then I worked through what it took to make other characters; a priest, a mage, other types of spellcasters, and finally characters who were good at things other than spellcasting or combat.
Then I made up a novice, veteran, and expert version and played around with point costs until I found numbers that allow players to make characters with variations even if they focused on fighting, spell casting, or a narrow set of skills.
But throughout I had a specific level of detail in mind. A limit where I would go so far and no more. And I have bias. I am a big fan of "describe than roll" with the mechanics of the roll focused on adjudicating what happens when a specific character does a specific action. So the systems I describe whether it class base, skill based or something else reflects that bias.
Hope this helps you understand where I am coming from.
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 18, 2022, 07:49:23 PM
Interesting..... I've been riffing on the Warrior Rogue Mage concept, of using those 3 "Character Concepts", as 3 Ability Scores. But I've also pondered simplifying that a little more still, down to Single Focus characters, or Dual Focus characters.
A single focus character has advantage on everything in one of the three areas of focus, and no disadvantage in the other two areas.
A dual focus character has advantage in two areas, but disadvantage in the remaining area of focus.
Simple Character Creation. Get to running a one shot or short campaign fast. The players make their character focus choice, then the DM describes the situation, and then the players choose their path. A game is underway.
1d6 for standard rolls. Roll high. Target number range is 4, 5, or 6. With Advantage, roll 2d6 and take the better. With disadvantage, roll 2d6 and take the worse.
Talk about simple. Minimalism. Run the whole game with 2d6.
There is an RPG that works like that. I can't recall the name, but it was reviewed in the OSR handbook
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 08:59:24 AM
I'm going to make a series of assertions that I believe are correct based not on theory crafting but actual design and modest, early playtesting (not blind testing).
So you understand where I am coming from. When it comes to fantasy roleplaying, I generally use the same setting the Majestic Wilderlands. I have used this setting for 40 years in multiple campaign with multiple players but crucial for this thread with multiple systems. The mains one being AD&D 1e (80s), Fantasy Hero (80s), GURPS (80s, 90s, 00s, 10s), AGE (10s), D&D 5e (10s,20s), OD&D based Majestic Fantasy RPG (10s, 20s). Also I used Harnmaster and Adventure in Middle Earth for other setting (Harn, Middle Earth) from time to time.
My opinion after all this is that system is meaningless, what matters is the description of the setting. The system is important for enjoyment and for making the campaign fun to run as a hobby. I ran class base system that accurately described how I view the Majestic Wilderlands, I ran skill based system that accurately described how I view the Majestic Wilderlands.
I realize this will make most go "but but but" and "what about". All I can say is that it starts with what you know about the setting of the campaign and proceeds from there. And because the foundation of Majestic Wilderlands is based on the vaguely medieval fantasy genre. It is not a lot of work to adapt most fantasy RPG to what I need.
Finally key part of this is accepting that it is OK to zoom up and down on the level of detail a system uses to describe a setting. When I run the Majestic Wilderlands using GURPS more of the nuances of the setting are described by the mechanics. When I run MW with my Majestic Fantasy RPG it is more abstract in the details it covers. And some of the nuances are just text descriptions not represented by mechanics. For example, Noble Rank has no mechanic in the MW RPG.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 08:59:24 AM
As it happens, it is with an overlapping groups of players using two different systems, one skills-based and one class-based. They overlap quite a lot, but I don't want to exaggerate that effect, because some of the differences I've seen in testing have been due to factors other than what we are discussing here. (Not least, the skills-based game is using percentile dice, roll under, as the main resolution, and that has some knock on effects throughout the system.) A key similarity, however, is that both systems make liberal use of "packages" of abilities that fall short of classes but are too broad to be called skills. They are also the main currency of the archetypes in the settings the games are meant to support. Let's call these packages "paths". When I gave an example of Holy Wizard 2, Hedge Witch, the "Hedge Witch" part is a path. Wizard is just a powerful caster. Holy means they do something close to D&D divine magic.
My MW RPG classes are reflections of what characters were played in my GURPS campaign. Not as detailed but represents the core abilities that were picked time and time again when players were making character types. I picked Swords & Wizardry Core because it has the least amount of cruft that were bolted on later especially in AD&D 1e. And wasn't the overkill that the D20 system was.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 08:59:24 AM
1. Trying to embed archetypes in classes rapidly produces exactly the kind of disagreement the two of you both so eloquently explained. This can be avoided for a short time with very careful curation of the classes to fit a more narrow setting (or at least type of setting), or keeping the game simple enough that classes like fighter and magic user aren't being diluted with, say, ranger and druid.
It is about communication whether it skill based or class-based. From the get-go, I been very clear about why I do the things I do with my Majestic Fantasy rules. Key to this was reading up on the history of D&D that came out in recent years. That informed me as to where Gygax was coming from in designing D&D. Which gave me the insights I needed to alter D&D to suit my Majestic Wilderlands and yet remain compatible with most of what is out there for classic d&d.
I did the same thing later with Fudge/Fate, AGE, and D&D 5e. Although the last two most of what I had to learn came from running a few campaigns RAW.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 08:59:24 AM
I think this is true of any system, not merely D&D or even class-based systems. It's why any game you run with Hero System very much feels like a Hero System game regardless of genre. It's just more obviously true in system with classes because the boundaries of the classes have been rubbing people raw from day 1 (e.g. why can't my wizard use a sword like Gandalf?).
I have found through experience as long as a system has mechanics that focus on adjudicating specific characters doing specific things, I can generally make it work for the Majestic Wilderlands. There are limits especially with systems that have a lot of metagaming mechanics.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 08:59:24 AM
3. In order to work around class boundaries, it becomes necessary to sacrifice a certain amount of compatibility with the inspiring systems. Mainly this is because of my earlier point that if you move the boundaries you also change the nature of the ability scores and other mechanical features in the game, whatever those are.
You don't have to sacrifice compatibility if you are willing to adjust the level of detail you think that needs to be covered. The difference between a hoplite, centurion, and a retiarius in OD&D 3 LBBs is never going to be anything more than flavor text. OD&D is too abstract of a system to capture the nuances between the three types of warriors in terms of mechanics. But in terms of roleplaying OD&D is as capable as GURPS in capturing the difference between the three.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 08:59:24 AM
Therefore, what I'm talking about when I say go back to the foundation to do a lot of what tenbones is suggesting but while using classes is a lot more radical than what estar has suggested. Now, it helps that I'm not all that worried about a broad audience. I'm building a game that I like and that a circle of 30+ players in my area seem to like, with setting assumptions that we've found useful in various game. That's a narrow audience.
Then why bother bringing in D&D? The only reason I chose to work off of Swords & Wizardry, Core is because it allows me access to a broader audience by making my work more useful to that audience using the system of their choice. Primarily by allowing my material to be more easily kitbashed with other classic edition material.
I will say the same thing I just told tenbones. Make a list of the elements that are important to cover without reference to any particular system. That list will then guide to what you need in terms of mechanics. WIth the Majestic Wilderlands, for me, it is the binder full of decades of character generation notes.
TBH, I think that setting is not essential to working out a system. And by "not essential" I don't mean entirely unnecessary, but merely that it's not central to figuring out what components a system needs. All that setting does in regards to system is inform me what specific technology and areas of knowledge might be available in the game world or might be the focus of the game. But beyond that the vast majority of detail that goes into a system works regardless of setting (this is how you can play the same setting in two completely different systems and make it work, BTW).
The ability to hit or evade attacks in combat, athletic feats, sneaking around, interacting with people and more, all work the same regardless of setting. The specific mechanics might vary by system, but setting has zero impact on them. Even when it comes to knowledge, the specific knowledge available to characters in the game might vary by setting, but how that knowledge is handled for purposes of the game rules is a system question: Is it as skill? Does it involve a roll? Is a capability? Do you need specific knowledge to attempt a knowledge-related task or can you wing it with a "general knowledge" skill or mental game stat? If there's a roll, when is a knowledge roll necessary and what does a successful roll give you? etc.
ALL of this stuff is covered by system and can absolutely be designed for a system in a vacuum without ever referring setting. All that setting tells me is 1) what the world is about (the atmosphere and circumstances in the world, which have zero impact on system), 2) what technology exists, 3) what specific knowledge is available. Almost all of this stuff is window dressing thrown on top of a system, with the possible exception of technology, which STILL works regardless of setting cuz you don't need an infinite number of stats to cover the endless variety of what is essentially a handgun or a spaceship, you just need firearms (or energy weapons?) and spaceship rules.
And most of that can be covered by the system without referencing setting. All that setting affects here is what the various weapon models are called (plus any special properties that they might possess, which might still be drawn from a universal list included in the system) and what specific models of ships might exist (which might vary widely by setting, but can still use a core system's rules to figure out base stats like HP or equivalent, size/scale, weapon damage, etc.).
But when it comes to stuff outside of tech and knowledge, setting is close to irrelevant. You don't need an endless variety of classes to define what's essentially a warrior. Most of what a "warrior", "fighting man" whatever you might call it is might be dropped into almost any setting with extremely little changes and work out of the box, cuz the VAST majority of what defines a warrior's capabilities are universal--how "tough" they are (however that's defined in the system), their basic combat abilities, defenses, etc. How these capabilities are defined varies by system. All that setting tells me is what sort of variants of what's essentially a "warrior" might exist, and what sort of special abilities they might have. And those special abilities will almost invariably involve stuff that can be designed independent of setting, like special tactical abilities, skills or specializations with specific weapons (nets, tridents, etc.), having the ability to sneak on top of being good at combat, magical talents that might as well be "spell-like abilities" or whatever they're called in the system, etc.
And even when it comes to the setting-specific variants of "warriors" or "wizards/mystics" and all that stuff, there are still vast areas of overlap between those specific variants in one setting and what essentially the exact same thing might be called in another setting. A "Centurion" is just a battle commander. You could have a universal "battle commander" class or template and just drop it into any setting that needs one, all you might need to change are their weapon skills, which may vary by setting depending on how specific weapon skills are in the system. A "samurai" is basically just a "knight" by another name, a hoplite is just a Greek soldier, etc.
Outside of setting up what campaign I'm going to run, setting is almost irrelevant to system mechanics as far as I can see--even when you get into the nitty gritty of specialized classes, which are often unnecessary and you could just throw a 2e style "kit" on top of a generic class to build them.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
All that setting does in regards to system is inform me what specific technology and areas of knowledge might be available in the game world or might be the focus of the game. But beyond that the vast majority of detail that goes into a system works regardless of setting (this is how you can play the same setting in two completely different systems and make it work, BTW).
I am using setting in the broadest sense. All RPGs have a setting with assumptions on how the universe it depicts works. RPGs are not abstract games like chess or go. The core mechanic is pretending to be a character having adventures in some imagined place. For RPGs like D&D, Savage World and GURPS, the setting the designer has in mind is deliberately broad so the system can be used for a variety of specific settings. But there are still baked-in assumptions about how all these settings work.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
The ability to hit or evade attacks in combat, athletic feats, sneaking around, interacting with people and more, all work the same regardless of setting.
Toon and other systems that depict the more fantastical genres do not share this assumption.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
The specific mechanics might vary by system, but setting has zero impact on them. Even when it comes to knowledge, the specific knowledge available to characters in the game might vary by setting, but how that knowledge is handled for purposes of the game rules is a system question: Is it as skill? Does it involve a roll? Is a capability? Do you need specific knowledge to attempt a knowledge-related task or can you wing it with a "general knowledge" skill or mental game stat? If there's a roll, when is a knowledge roll necessary and what does a successful roll give you? etc.
The broad idea here is that the character knows something and there are times when their ability to recall specific items of information is uncertain. As you noted there are choices on how to handle this. And when it comes to a group of hobbyists or a specific individual like tenbones or yourself there are opinions on how best to resolve the uncertainty.
For some, their opinion is there is no need for a mechanic. What the players know is what the character knows. For others, their opinion is that the point is to play a different character, especially ones that are smarter and more knowledgeable than the players. For these it is important the system handles what the character knows plus how to resolve uncertainty when it comes to know about a specific item. Finally, there are many nuanced takes between these two extremes. However, all of them require the designer to make a decision about how to handle this aspect of a setting.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
ALL of this stuff is covered by the system and can absolutely be designed for a system in a vacuum without ever referring setting. All that setting tells me is 1) what the world is about (the atmosphere and circumstances in the world, which have zero impact on system), 2) what technology exists, 3) what specific knowledge is available. Almost all of this stuff is window dressing thrown on top of a system, with the possible exception of technology, which STILL works regardless of setting cuz you don't need an infinite number of stats to cover the endless variety of what is essentially a handgun or a spaceship, you just need firearms (or energy weapons?) and spaceship rules.
It is far more fundamental. The difference between designing an RPG to allow players to play characters from a Saturday Morning Cartoon versus designing an RPG designed to handle campaign where players are characters having adventures steeped in realism in the modern world as spies, or soldiers.
My view of setting is that it is anything that informs the referee about what the character can do and what they can interact with as their character. Folks are continually referencing the OSR and D&D. So they all have something in mind so I am being critical when they are not specific. The setting of the OSR and D&D is not something specific like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Mystara, or Blackmoor. It is more broad than that but when it comes to creating a system without class, you need to be specific about which elements you are using from that broad canvas or the conversation will continually revolve around generalities.
For example, levels? We don't have any classes but do you continue to have an XP chart to track a character's level with some abilities or stats like hit point tied to what level you are? What does a level mean in the context of this system? Is every NPC zero level with a few things fleshed and level characters are special heroes? Or is level a mark of experience with the understanding that 1st level represents the bare minimum of training? That 9th level represents a character near the pinnacle of their capabilities.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
And most of that can be covered by the system without referencing setting. All that setting affects here is what the various weapon models are called (plus any special properties that they might possess, which might still be drawn from a universal list included in the system) and what specific models of ships might exist (which might vary widely by setting, but can still use a core system's rules to figure out base stats like HP or equivalent, size/scale, weapon damage, etc.).
Then we are talking about a design like HERO System and offloading some of the tasks of designing an RPG off to the referee who bought the system. My opinion is that it will make for a very niche system as most hobbyists want something that is more ready to run out of the box.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
But when it comes to stuff outside of tech and knowledge, setting is close to irrelevant. You don't need an endless variety of classes to define what's essentially a warrior.
Not sure how that is relevant to my point about tenbones needing to be specific about what he expects out of a classless D&D system.
As for the point you are making, that is basically your opinion. If someone was to make a version of classic D&D focused on Gladiatorial combat there well may be a dozen fighter classes in order to represent the different nuances between the different fighting styles. Just as skill-based version would want a mechanic like GURPS techniques to represent the nuances between the different fighting styles.
My take as represented by the Majestic Fantasy RPG, is that there is a difference between those who are trained together as a unit, or soldiers, and those who are skilled as individual fighters. I don't go into great detail about the nuances because I am designing stuff on top of Swords & Wizardry but I do have a Soldier class as well as a Fighter Class. And if I was to do a classless version of D&D, I would make sure there were abilities that characters who were soldiers could take that make them more effective fighting as a unit to represent the training that got learning those abilities.
But I would understand why you would choose otherwise.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Outside of setting up what campaign I'm going to run, setting is almost irrelevant to system mechanics as far as I can see--even when you get into the nitty gritty of specialized classes, which are often unnecessary and you could just throw a 2e style "kit" on top of a generic class to build them.
I disagree and I welcome you to take look at my Majestic Fantasy RPG to see what I opted to do.
Quote from: estar on July 19, 2022, 11:20:12 AMThen why bother bringing in D&D? The only reason I chose to work off of Swords & Wizardry, Core is because it allows me access to a broader audience by making my work more useful to that audience using the system of their choice. Primarily by allowing my material to be more easily kitbashed with other classic edition material.
I will say the same thing I just told tenbones. Make a list of the elements that are important to cover without reference to any particular system. That list will then guide to what you need in terms of mechanics. WIth the Majestic Wilderlands, for me, it is the binder full of decades of character generation notes.
I did make such lists (for both systems, which as I said, overlap quite a lot in that respect). As for why bring up D&D, it's because I have a "like/dislike" relationship with it. ("Love/hate" relationship is too strong.) Namely, I enjoy how a lot of it works in general, but the specifics often annoy me. Most of this annoyance is on the boundaries that I'm apparently not explaining very well.
For example, I like in general how the BEMCI/RC classes work. (That's Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, and a few odds and ends in supplements, for anyone following along that doesn't know.) I don't like, to pick a few things out of a long list, that: Class level limits, race as class, how fighter damage scales, all the crazy jumps in wizard spell power by level, the default assumption of clerics in heavier armor, what thieves and halflings bring to the table, and so forth. So when Fantasy Hero game along, i jumped on it with both feet. (Actually, it was before it came along, because several guys in our group at the time were in the process of making a fantasy adventure version of Champions before FH 1E was released.) And I had fun with that, same as I had with D&D, despite the parts I didn't like. Because usually I'll just take a game on its own terms, and enjoy it for what it is, at least for several years. I also ran Rune Quest, GURPS, Dragon Quest, Burning Wheel, and briefly a bunch of other things too long to list. Then D&D 5E came out, moved a lot of boundaries around, had a reasonably simple system that I could drag into something I enjoyed with house rules--and I had fun with that until I didn't. You guessed it, boundaries started to chafe. Apparently, no matter how someone designs a system, even generic ones, they are sure to plop down a fault line in a place that will chafe me sooner or later.
So before I made my lists of things I wanted, I mentally tossed every system I had ever played into a blender. Then I started pulling out pieces. It turns out that the published system that is closest to what I like the most is D&D--specifically BEMCI/RC. Despite all that stuff that I didn't much like about it. The more I started pulling at those piece and trying to put it back together again, the more apparent it became that everything had to be rewritten from the ground up. Despite the rewrite, it's in spitting distance of early D&D in a lot of ways. Including having Fighter and Wizard classes in it, despite the fact that i was
sure before I started that I wouldn't. (Now that's a bit of theory crafting that got proved wrong.) To use a Star Trek metaphor, it's as if you took D&D "out of phase" after a transporter accident. You can see what it was before it got beamed, and what it was after. They look a lot alike but don't work the same, and people used to the original are having uncanny valley moments. :o
Since this is tenbones' thread and I'm pulling it off-topic a bit, let me relate this back to one of his favorites, Fantasy Craft. Now, I haven't played it. But as I understand what's been said about it here, it wouldn't work for me, even if I still liked more generic systems, which I don't. I could go into a lot of details about this and that, but the real reason is that when they went to make a generic D&D 3E, they didn't quite leave the blender on long enough before they started rebuilding. So my point on the topic is that there isn't much point in making a generic, classless D&D if it is going to be too beholden to what went before. The first priority is to make a game that works for the audience (whether that be aesthetically, mechanically, or settings it embodies and/or supports). Only second priority then can it be as compatible with some idea of D&D.
I'll still run and play actual D&D some, and for that, I can find a version of D&D or a clone that works great. No point in reinventing that wheel.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 05:41:09 PM
For example, I like in general how the BEMCI/RC classes work. (That's Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, and a few odds and ends in supplements, for anyone following along that doesn't know.) I don't like, to pick a few things out of a long list, that: Class level limits, race as class, how fighter damage scales, all the crazy jumps in wizard spell power by level, the default assumption of clerics in heavier armor, what thieves and halflings bring to the table, and so forth. So when Fantasy Hero game along, i jumped on it with both feet. (Actually, it was before it came along, because several guys in our group at the time were in the process of making a fantasy adventure version of Champions before FH 1E was released.) And I had fun with that, same as I had with D&D, despite the parts I didn't like. Because usually I'll just take a game on its own terms, and enjoy it for what it is, at least for several years. I also ran Rune Quest, GURPS, Dragon Quest, Burning Wheel, and briefly a bunch of other things too long to list. Then D&D 5E came out, moved a lot of boundaries around, had a reasonably simple system that I could drag into something I enjoyed with house rules--and I had fun with that until I didn't. You guessed it, boundaries started to chafe. Apparently, no matter how someone designs a system, even generic ones, they are sure to plop down a fault line in a place that will chafe me sooner or later.
Sounds much like my journey except when I started GURPS 2e I stuck with it for 2 decades! I tried a few other RPGs but only as one-shots.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 05:41:09 PM
So my point on the topic is that there isn't much point in making a generic, classless D&D if it is going to be too beholden to what went before. The first priority is to make a game that works for the audience (whether that be aesthetically, mechanically, or settings it embodies and/or supports). Only second priority then can it be as compatible with some idea of D&D.
My take is that classic D&D for the most part is so lite to begin with it is far easier to tweak what there to tailor it to one's setting than it is to make a whole new system. Especially with OD&D which is pretty minimal as far as the disparity between classes, levels, and monsters go compared to later edition.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 05:41:09 PM
I'll still run and play actual D&D some, and for that, I can find a version of D&D or a clone that works great. No point in reinventing that wheel.
If you want a PDF of my Majestic Fantasy Basic Rules just let me know. Like I said earlier I didn't want to reinvent the wheel. But what I didn't say I didn't want to give up some of the things I developed in GURPS. So I figured what I call a OD&Dish way of handling it.
In a year I plan to follow up the Basic Rules with the full set of rules. It builds on what I done with the MW Supplement in the ten years since I released it.
Quote from: tenbones on July 19, 2022, 03:49:32 AM
Yeah but the problem is the lack of meaningful integration in that the Magic-system itself outstrips everything else. As someone that did quite a bit of 3e design work, I *really* dislike the official and most derivative versions of 3e with the sole exception of Fantasycraft, and True20.
OK, I see the point of this, and I had even considered something like this for a past D&D campaign. I think True20 and Fantasycraft are about as close as one is going to get. I made an SRD of the True20 system, so I would think that starting from there would be the easiest starting point.
https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_true_generic/index.html
I don't know if one exists for FantasyCraft.
Personally, I came to the conclusion that if I wanted D&D, I would use D&D, and if I wanted classless, I'd use an existing classless system like RuneQuest or others. I toyed with True20 for a while, but I felt like it was an awkward in between. I think using a straight skill-based system like RuneQuest or others would be better for a classless fantasy game.
Classes are good when they provide unique an exclusive progression paths and bad when they cause pigeonholing or class proliferation and bloat. The good is a class distinction with strong flavor. If I look at Lion & Dragon, I like that a Magister is not a Cleric and the two operate and feel different. Conversely, in 3E land the difference between a prepared divine caster and an arcane spontaneous caster is largely trappings, and there are divine spontaneous casters and arcane prepared casters, so with multiclassing a level might as well be a skill to take when it come expanding character capability. And then there is bloat, because a fighter with code of honor and bonus to attack and damage on the first strike is just not a samurai to some players unless the class is called samurai. Too many class to choose from without a meaningful playstyle difference and nothing but potentially impressive sounding names to go after. Then comes pigeonholing because if a class is not good at something, it is perceived as a waste to do it. The squishy wizard should not bother with sneak because that is the rouge's domain, even if a wizard sniper is an awesome concept, the perceived wisdom is to boos wizardry instead.
Skill based lets a player build exactly the character the player is looking for within the system confines. The limitation is that no character has exclusivity, but that could be solved mutually exclusive skill trees. For example if one were to assume WoD is properly compatible with itself, a vampire is not a werewolf is not a mage as is not a nova even if all 4 have the exact same skill list and take the same ranks in everything. Too bad class less systems insist anyone can be anything instead of having some proper exclusion an non compatibility for flavor and gameplay.
Quote from: Wisithir on July 19, 2022, 10:29:18 PMToo bad class less systems insist anyone can be anything instead of having some proper exclusion an non compatibility for flavor and gameplay.
Well, for any setting there are things anyone can do, things that most people can do with modest to moderate effort, and then things usually or exclusively done by specialists. A system has to make some choices along those lines. When and where it does affects the settings for which it works best.
Some of these choices are easier to customize than others, again depending on system and setting. Later D&D assumes near universal literacy, for example, whereas I built my system to make literacy rare, with a different supported setting in mind. But it isn't as if that is all that hard to adjust in either case. Likewise, most generic systems (or even kitchen sink systems) throw this back on the GM, where they are usually encouraged to limit the options in the campaign to fit. Almost the first thing in Fantasy Hero 4E was the injunction to set limits on available powers, skills, etc, both in scope and scale. Of course, WotC has famously done the opposite at times, trying to sell the kitchen sink as a virtue. That's the owners being idiots, though, not a function of having classes or not.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2022, 11:43:07 PM
That's the owners being idiots, though, not a function of having classes or not.
Owners being idiots is how we end up comparing idiotic implementations of Class vs idiotic implementations of Skill Based, while trying to deal with player trained on this kind of idiocy. I have never experienced good player comprehension of repackaging options. Admittedly this could be a players and/or GM problem in my case, but the players are hellbent on shoehorning or viewing everything through the lens the idiot owners of popular IP have created.
As a player, I like skill basing my character to fit my character concept for the setting, but I appreciate classes segregating would be copycats from duplicating effective approaches. No your capable wizard cannot also be an effective barbarian, pick one and make it work instead of buying whatever skill proved important last session. I guess I want skill based with exclusive pick one and only one, or pay a steep premium for each double dip, special skill trees.
I have played many games over the gears and for me, the standard D&D class/level system just works.
If someone else is running the game, the can do whatever they want. But I will stick with what works because my time to play is limited.
Quote from: Wisithir on July 20, 2022, 12:10:20 AM
As a player, I like skill basing my character to fit my character concept for the setting, but I appreciate classes segregating would be copycats from duplicating effective approaches. No your capable wizard cannot also be an effective barbarian, pick one and make it work instead of buying whatever skill proved important last session. I guess I want skill based with exclusive pick one and only one, or pay a steep premium for each double dip, special skill trees.
For me, one of the strengths of a skill based system is that you *can* create characters that are in between the usual class boundaries. i.e. I can create someone from a primitive tribe who indulges in shamanic magic, for example. I ran for years my Vinland campaign using RuneQuest. Since the group were vikings, most of the characters were all what would be considered "fighter" - with only a handful of exceptions, including a barbarian shaman.
There is a common problem in skill-based games that skills are all equal cost despite very different utility. So flute-playing, say, costs the same as sword-swinging. My preferred solution for this is to either change skill costs, or require X points in non-adventuring skills.
I've played in some systems with skill trees, like CORPS and 1st ed Paranoia, but it often felt like reintroducing class restrictions. Sometimes it makes sense that someone would have skills in different areas - like a military officer has certain advanced social skills even though that's in the "ambassador" branch.
From the game designer standpoint and from just talking to players what I found was that most players get into a classless system easiest when there is at least some framework to hange an idea off of. Rather than being told to just have an idea and make the framework too. Its why for so many games like gurps or BESM have a little learning bump where others do not. And BESM then fixed that by sometimes presenting a basic frame to hang your idea off of and run from there. Which made BESM more accessible. And so BESM for some players is a far better freeform RPG as it is easier to grasp if you can hand them some frames or even just good examples to build on.
Quote from: estar on July 19, 2022, 09:39:07 AM
I am not interested in debating the context of classes. What I am interested what YOU think ought to be covered when a player plays a cleric type, a fighter type, a mage type, a priest type. Then I can make a recommendation how to cover this using the basic mechanics of D&D without reference to a class. It makes a big difference if we are talking 3 LBB level of Detail or D20/GURPS level of detail. Or something in between. With that information, we are just going to round and round.
This is a good starting point.
1) Context should be grounded in setting (we agree?).
2) This example is DnD Fantasy - so these types should have options to purchase abilities relevant to whatever we agree these "types" should be doing divided between sub-sets of "Magic" "Skills" and "Abilities".
3) Detail - should be part of the design of the system to go up/down in detail as *required* by the setting. So if you want to get more granular you can include optional mechanics that overlay this.
Let put this into an example:
Cleric - You create a character normally (which can open up a whole host of options including Backgrounds, Lifepath, etc which will modify downstream chargen processes/stats/skills/abilities etc as desired. When it comes to "Magic" - the task-resolution of casting spells will be unified and scaled according to non-Casting system components. In other words Damage output and corresponding Health systems will directly be balanced against Healing output. A longsword does 1d8, a low-end Cure Light Wounds does 1d8 (if we're doing HP). Of course there are a lot of unspoken details.
HP could be fixed? There might be a Health Track? The idea is Healing (whatever form that might come in) could be dialed up/down as needed to represent the needs of the setting. The larger point is that at chargen, if one has the prerequisites that allows one to purchase "Magic: Healing" that is clearly outlined (for the setting) in terms of what it allows (spell lists, bonuses etc) and contextualized for flavor. You could further add sub-divisions of this ability based on the religion. But the choice of buying "Magic: Healing" would have the same cost and weight as "Wizard type" buying "Magic: Wizardry" or a "Fighter Type" buying a Special Ability "Fighting Style <x>".
I think a big problem is trying to cook all progression into "the class" vs. letting "types" (as you put it) interact with a unified progression by purchasing their abilities within the PC's own wheelhouse. This is the issue with Fighters being the "best" at combat, vs. all the crazy debates and situational shit argued about for decades. The solution is to make Fighting a skill. And anyone can purchase it and the degree of their investment implies the level of training and time they've put into it at the expense of *everything else*. This way niche-protection is purely organic.
For instance if a "Fighter Type" wanted to learn "Magic: Healing" - the GM can set the context of what it means in terms of in-setting relevance. Is "Magic: Healing" the sole province of a specific faith? The point is that the GM can set the strictures of picking up Special Abilities or Magic as a training requisite or whatever.
Likewise Fighter Types (and anyone else) should have a range of Special Abilities that directly enhance their combat capacities free of their Fighting Skill. Call them Feats, Call them Edges, call them whatever you want - but the weight of these things should be meaty and be balanced directly against the Magic mechanics.
Quote from: estar on July 19, 2022, 09:39:07 AMThis is the process I use in all my efforts. I DESCRIBE the setting or genre at the level of detail I am interested in. My criticism is that nobody is describing what details they want out of a D&D classless system. Your responses in particular are vague. You keep referring to a OSR level of complexity yet the few specifics you mention (centurion,retiarius) require that a level of detail that even AD&D 1e doesn't have. And you want to jettison the D&D magic system in favor of something completely different.
All of which plus the back and forth replies with other posters indicate to me that you have something specific in mind when it comes to the fantasy genre. I say cut the twenty question bullshit and spell it out what it is you are looking for when a player creates certain types of characters. Not to make a better class system but to make the level of detail of the system covers all the skills, abilities, gifts, advantages, and powers that are there to realize that view.
Then once we have that list of stuff we can start seeing what we can do by using the mechanics of AC, level, saving throw, to hit rolls, and other D&D mechanics. What we can do to make a system where these abilities can be mixed and matched in the same way you can do in Runequest, GURPS, Savage Worlds, etc.
Fair play. I'm vague because we both agree that a lot of this is setting specific. Since you're so invested in Majestic Wilderlands that alone is going to have a different set of specificity than say Dark Sun, but I understand your meaning. The other issue is that so many people here debate about d20 specifically and it's variety of flavors, it would indeed, which to me is the whole "How many Angels dancing" issue... that to even get their heads wrapped around this discussion is difficult in its own right. Let me formulate a structure later and I'll post something we can dig into together.
Quote from: estar on July 19, 2022, 09:39:07 AMBut without that this thread is bullshit theorycrafting. I am harsh about this point having gone through several iterations of designing something only to see it work out differently in actual play. Not just with classic D&D but in the past with GURPS* and with system like AGE and Fudge. I am happy to show my work if anybody wants a link. Hell I will even comp a PDF copy of my Majestic Fantasy RPG, folks can just PM me.
Yeah I hear you - I'm in the same boat. I'm also tired of people wallowing in d20 Hell. I think d20 could be *better* (LOL as I'm sure for the last 50-years all the hell-dwellers have been crying from their tables with their homebrew masterpiece heartbreakers). I'm talking about the same things you are: the fundamentals. Let me whip something up with some meat we can all chew on. I'll have to give it some thought, because I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of designing an entire new d20-inspired system, as like you, I have other design projects.
Quote from: estar on July 19, 2022, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
All that setting does in regards to system is inform me what specific technology and areas of knowledge might be available in the game world or might be the focus of the game. But beyond that the vast majority of detail that goes into a system works regardless of setting (this is how you can play the same setting in two completely different systems and make it work, BTW).
I am using setting in the broadest sense. All RPGs have a setting with assumptions on how the universe it depicts works. RPGs are not abstract games like chess or go. The core mechanic is pretending to be a character having adventures in some imagined place. For RPGs like D&D, Savage World and GURPS, the setting the designer has in mind is deliberately broad so the system can be used for a variety of specific settings. But there are still baked-in assumptions about how all these settings work.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
The ability to hit or evade attacks in combat, athletic feats, sneaking around, interacting with people and more, all work the same regardless of setting.
Toon and other systems that depict the more fantastical genres do not share this assumption.
This helps clarify some things, and I suppose I've been working under the baseline assumption of "action adventure" settings for most of what I said (and my design decisions in general). But if you're defining "setting" in such broad terms that pretty much only leaves out comedic or light-hearted games like the one you mentioned as an example here. Almost every major RPG falls under some variation of "action adventure", so knowing that alone should be enough to establish "setting" as you're defining it here for purposes of starting to work on system. And the OP was even more specific than that in specifying that we're talking about "D&D fantasy" specifically.
So that still leaves me wondering about the usefulness of highlighting the importance of defining "setting" before we start working on system, when setting in the broad terms you describe here has already been established in the thread's title.
QuoteQuote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
ALL of this stuff is covered by the system and can absolutely be designed for a system in a vacuum without ever referring setting. All that setting tells me is 1) what the world is about (the atmosphere and circumstances in the world, which have zero impact on system), 2) what technology exists, 3) what specific knowledge is available. Almost all of this stuff is window dressing thrown on top of a system, with the possible exception of technology, which STILL works regardless of setting cuz you don't need an infinite number of stats to cover the endless variety of what is essentially a handgun or a spaceship, you just need firearms (or energy weapons?) and spaceship rules.
It is far more fundamental. The difference between designing an RPG to allow players to play characters from a Saturday Morning Cartoon versus designing an RPG designed to handle campaign where players are characters having adventures steeped in realism in the modern world as spies, or soldiers.
My view of setting is that it is anything that informs the referee about what the character can do and what they can interact with as their character. Folks are continually referencing the OSR and D&D. So they all have something in mind so I am being critical when they are not specific. The setting of the OSR and D&D is not something specific like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Mystara, or Blackmoor. It is more broad than that but when it comes to creating a system without class, you need to be specific about which elements you are using from that broad canvas or the conversation will continually revolve around generalities.
For example, levels? We don't have any classes but do you continue to have an XP chart to track a character's level with some abilities or stats like hit point tied to what level you are? What does a level mean in the context of this system? Is every NPC zero level with a few things fleshed and level characters are special heroes? Or is level a mark of experience with the understanding that 1st level represents the bare minimum of training? That 9th level represents a character near the pinnacle of their capabilities.
Hmm, this clarifies more about my concerns mentioned above. I suppose the disconnect is that I tend to view these elements more as "system" components rather than "setting" elements, so maybe that's where the confusion is coming from. Since a lot of these system components could work in different ways when applied to the same setting, whether specific or "setting" in broad terms like "action adventure". For example, I could choose to go with general skills like "fighting" (for melee combat in general) and "marksman" (for ranged combat in general) when working on a skill-based system, or I could go with weapon groups instead (swords, polearms, firearms, archery, etc.) or even specific weapons (long swords, short sword, automatic rifles, etc.). But I tend to view that as system decisions rather than setting decisions, since they could all apply to any "action adventure" or more specific setting.
The decision is really more a matter of stylistic preference or what I'm trying to accomplish from a system standpoint. And my concern when designing these elements tends to be more about player experience (how cumbersome it would be for them to track this stuff, for example, what impact it would have on game play, etc.) and customization (are there enough options or too many, is the added complexity worth it, etc.), than about what aspects of setting I trying to represent.
Still, it would be useful to know what tenbones is looking for in these areas for purposes of this discussion. I could go on about stuff that I've thought about doing regarding some of these game elements--like different progression systems (classless systems that still use levels for progression, for example)--but I'd be wasting my time if I don't know what specific avenues of design we're exploring here, and how closely we're trying to match things to actual D&D mechanics vs going off into completely different system approaches. What parts of D&D are we even keeping, if any (HP, Levels, 5e style "Proficiency" bonuses vs older THAC0/Attack Bonuses, etc.)?
Quote
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
But when it comes to stuff outside of tech and knowledge, setting is close to irrelevant. You don't need an endless variety of classes to define what's essentially a warrior.
Not sure how that is relevant to my point about tenbones needing to be specific about what he expects out of a classless D&D system.
As for the point you are making, that is basically your opinion. If someone was to make a version of classic D&D focused on Gladiatorial combat there well may be a dozen fighter classes in order to represent the different nuances between the different fighting styles. Just as skill-based version would want a mechanic like GURPS techniques to represent the nuances between the different fighting styles.
My take as represented by the Majestic Fantasy RPG, is that there is a difference between those who are trained together as a unit, or soldiers, and those who are skilled as individual fighters. I don't go into great detail about the nuances because I am designing stuff on top of Swords & Wizardry but I do have a Soldier class as well as a Fighter Class. And if I was to do a classless version of D&D, I would make sure there were abilities that characters who were soldiers could take that make them more effective fighting as a unit to represent the training that got learning those abilities.
But I would understand why you would choose otherwise.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Outside of setting up what campaign I'm going to run, setting is almost irrelevant to system mechanics as far as I can see--even when you get into the nitty gritty of specialized classes, which are often unnecessary and you could just throw a 2e style "kit" on top of a generic class to build them.
I disagree and I welcome you to take look at my Majestic Fantasy RPG to see what I opted to do.
I haven't seen Majestic Fantasy RPG specifically, but from what I've seen in most 3e or older D&D games or derived systems most "warrior" classes tend to share the majority of core components, like HD, Combat & Save Progression, Weapon & Armor Proficiency, etc., with VERY few exceptions (Barbarians get a higher HD type, but no Heavy Armor, and that's practically it). It's only when comes to defining their special quirks that the real differences come into play, and most of that tends to be minor details that I don't think truly necessitates reinventing the wheel and building an entire new class from scratch, when almost all the core components are basically the same. Could you do it? Definitely. If I said you couldn't you'd be able to show me countless (probably HUNDREDS) of examples to the contrary. So I'd be lying if I said it was impossible.
But now, is it necessary? No. I'd go as far as to say that it's outright impractical--not just from a design PoV, but also from a GMing PoV in terms of keeping track of what "classes" even exist and what their capabilities are (players have an easier time keeping track of their (usually) single character). It'd be far more efficient to just have a single core "Warrior" class that defines all the core components, then handle all the specialized variants as either something like "kits" (maybe a bit more complex than 2e made them), 5e style "subclasses/archetypes", or even freeform Feats/Skills you could pick from a list a la carte. Same for Wizards and Rogues/Skill Monkeys, or even Clerics/Priests (though, my preference would be to fold all dedicated spellcasters into a single "Mystic" class, then treat magic specialties, like "Healing Magic", "Combat Magic", etc. as a type of specialty or "Feat" you have to pick). Granted, this assumes we're even using "classes", which hasn't been established yet in this thread.
Even when we get to skill-based or freeform systems warrior-types and other common archetypes tend to share certain characteristics and its only when we get into the weeds of systems with overly specific skill lists that things start to break apart. But even then you could establish that all warrior types have X number of "weapon skills" and Y number of "athletics skills", etc. by default, and maybe establish some baseline attributes based on a Primary/Secondary/Tertiary stat spread, as part of a template package and you just have to pay for extras beyond that. Similar for other character types, like diplomats (X amount of "social skills" Y amount of "knowledge skills), mystics (X amount of "magic skills" Y amount of "knowledge skills), sneaky scouts (X amount of "stealth skills" Y amount of "athletics skills), etc. But again, this depends on "are we even going pure skill based" for purposes of this discussion? Is character creation/progression pure freeform or are there any limits on how many "specialties" or similar stuff you can get, or different skill-caps or costs based on some type of focus you pick? etc. But none of that has been established.
Another way of approaching classes is thinking about whether there are abilities that you want to allow, but prevent from stacking in a game-breaking way.
For example, in the game that I play there are 6 classes: Berserker, Warrior, Knight, Rogue, Wizard, Mystic. If you wanted to play a Gladiator, you can legitimately start with any of the classes and choose abilities that reinforce the concept. But in a lot of ways, a Knight makes more sense than a Berserker as a starting point. Both classes get extra dice to damage - the berserker against EVERYBODY when raging; the Knight against a specific designated foe. The damage bonuses increase based on level. Having a character that received both extra damage dice from the Knight Class and from the Berserker Class (effectively 2x as much damage) would not be appropriate for the levels we've chosen. By making the damage a class ability (rather than a skill) we've eliminated the possibility of someone taking BOTH at the same time. You legitimately COULD take levels in both classes, but since the damage is determined by class level, having the same damage as a single class, but getting it in two different ways is roughly balanced.
There are a lot of abilities that we don't want to protect - we have a lot of talents that allow you to get better at using a shield, fighting alongside your ally, and getting extra attack bonuses for tactical combat - those are great when making a legionnaire; but once again you're choosing NOT to take other abilities like unarmed fighting, trip, and fast healing. Using the same class we can make very different Roman-style soldiers or Shaolin style soldiers, but we still use class as a starting point. We can also make Shaolin-Warrior soldiers or Shaolin-Rogue soldiers (choosing the same talents), but they'll operate a little differently.
My answer to "Setting first" is "Yep. Now what?" In reality, it's an iterative process, or at least should be in most cases in the scope of the kind of discussion we are having here.
Sure, if I want to run Game X with traits A through F in the setting as the main things, then setting is not only first but the only real driver. I pick an existing system that's close enough, tweak it as necessary to emphasize those traits, and then adjudicate as needed to cover the holes. This is no different than what people have been doing from the beginning, and its equally true as a process for highly class-based systems to skills-based pure systems to everything in between and anything else. Well, maybe not for some of the more abstract systems, like Fate, but I wouldn't know about that.
No one writes their own system to run a single campaign. Sure, you might have your own setting that you really like, and then you keep running that. The system is downstream and it evolves from setting first. Or you might have a series of settings with enough overlap that the differences don't need to be expressed in the system itself.
In contrast, what we are discussing is a game that supports not traits A-F, but supports settings 1-N (where N is at least several but still finite if we've got any sense at all). For what Tenbones is discussing, N is larger than what my systems aims for, but then I've got a deliberately narrower audience, too. In that case, we are starting with "settings first", then iterating through a cut of the rules, trying them out in a setting, back again with some setting changes, and so on. Along the way, some of the setting assumptions are going to change. There's be a lot of nice-to-have setting features that don't make the cut because expressing some other setting feature in the game was more important. The art of the design here is striking the right balance, where there are still notable settings features expressed in the game (however that's done in the myriad of possible ways) but the system is flexible enough to service the settings that survive the compromises. Essentially, this means that though we start with setting(s), it does not assume the top dog priority that it does in the other cases. Setting drives system which drives setting and so on.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
This helps clarify some things, and I suppose I've been working under the baseline assumption of "action adventure" settings for most of what I said (and my design decisions in general). But if you're defining "setting" in such broad terms that pretty much only leaves out comedic or light-hearted games like the one you mentioned as an example here. Almost every major RPG falls under some variation of "action adventure", so knowing that alone should be enough to establish "setting" as you're defining it here for purposes of starting to work on system. And the OP was even more specific than that in specifying that we're talking about "D&D fantasy" specifically.
So that still leaves me wondering about the usefulness of highlighting the importance of defining "setting" before we start working on system, when setting in the broad terms you describe here has already been established in the thread's title.
Let me jump in here - before I do a big super-post with charts and numbers to hopefully not cause everyone's eyes to glaze over, or think this is "just another dumb class-debate thread". If we were all on a Discord this would probably be a lot easier heh. Pundit should start an RPGSite Discord).
Okay so there is a balance of purpose to a system. You can make a system be specific to the type of setting or game you want to run. Or you can make a system generic to try and encompass multiple modes of play.
General consensus has **GENERALLY** been the following: Generic Systems are often too generic and implode upon themselves trying to cover all bases, and Specific Systems are **GENERALLY** good at doing the one type of game they were designed for.
The Corollary of this claim is the following:
a) Fans of a Generic System will exaggerate the efficacy of that system because in varying degrees of difference of subjective need between players won't be fully satisfied, plus the inertia of fandom cannot be underestimated amongst the untried. i.e. most players like what they like, and don't like trying new things even if they don't know why. GURPS, Savage Worlds, FATE, etc. all make these claims with varying levels of buy-in. But all are, and should, be met with skepticism towards these claims.
b) Specific System fans will often exaggerate the greatness of that system and try to force it to bend from its original design and genre specialization into other genres and depending on its fanbase, the inertia effect will carry those attempts forward. d20 circa 3e is a *classic* example of this. As is Pathfinder now (Star Finder), d6 (which by now in the gaming public's eye is now a full blown universal system).
So the purpose of this thread is: DnD Fantasy is the genre. The claim: Classes are not necessary to run DnD fantasy, and in fact, the further claim is that by retweaking the constraints of the d20 system (regardless of edition) and grinding everything down to the basic task resolution mechanic of (Stat Bonus + d20 + Modifiers) we could have a much lighter system capable of much more flexibility (campaign constraints within your setting can change on a dime - your Dungeoncrawling game could become a Pirate game and your PC's would not be so pigeonholed into their class roles they would be rendered 'less optimal'), and scalability - your PC's could be grimdark scrabbly nobodies at the start that could by the higher-end of the game be fantasy-superheroes, doing Legolas Bowfire Hailstorms etc. IF the GM wanted).
I'm not even saying Classes are the *cause* of the problem. They just seem to be a thing that hits a lot of the friction points of d20 (more so with 3e and later editions/variants) but I submit if we merely addressed this one things, the reshaping of the sub-systems below it would make better results. And for what it's worth - I think we could do it and keep the word "Class" to everyone's satisfaction.
WHY do I think these things? Because I'm playing Savage Worlds Pathfinder - where it's actually being done. I'm *not* trying to convert people to play Savage Worlds - I'm probably the most vocal person on this forum championing that system, and I feel I do it sufficiently in other threads. No, I'm a system's nerd. I love tinkering with systems. And while people might mistake my distaste for DnD for loathing the system - I feel in fairness to myself, I would be much more specific. I do *not* hate d20. I would like to bring the sensibilities of what I'm doing right now - playing DnD Fantasy, and doing it easier under another system to the d20 system currently. I have nothing but love for DnD before 3e, and I think while people are satisfied with 5e, it could have been done better.
I will also submit the OSR sensibilities should have been paid more attention to, but I think the fundamental issues I have with modern DnD are slightly deeper than that.
Currently in Savage Pathfinder they added "Class Edges" which are frameworks that represent "Classes", for newcomers from DnD/Pathfinder it's great. They love it. But for people that have been playing SW, there is no real mechanical difference from what already existed except of a couple of tiny shifts that are for Character Generation purposes. That's the illusion they cleverly crafted to make DnD players new to Savage Worlds feel "happy". But it's mostly an illusion. And further, despite the fact it's largely (not entirely) an illusion, the same issues that plague DnD-style Class design is starting to creep in at the edges of a system that has *never* used classes. Fortunately because the system is so flexible, the fix is easy, just remove Class Edges and let people just buy their abilities normally.
Because this is a fundamental design assumption of Savage Worlds, this is the revelation that, possibly, if we could simply unmoor the Class design assumptions of DnD *within* d20, we could rebuild the system to hit the ease of use, the agility and scalability of Savage Worlds. It would be easier on new and veteran GM's, it would give the proper weight of design to OSR style game design, but it would also change a few fundamental assumptions about d20.
We *COULD* do this and keep Classes. And in fact, like in Savage Pathfinder I'd recommend it just to soothe people holding on to Sacred Cow. But it could be done an option. The goal would be to create a streamlined version of d20, which is not setting-specific, but have all the core rules laid out. But give GM's options to fine-tune it TO their settings. Give them levers and buttons to raise/lower the emphasis as desired for their specific setting, and even make it work across genres *with fidelity*. Rather than re-skinning the Fighter and calling it "Space Marine" and handing him a gun.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
Hmm, this clarifies more about my concerns mentioned above. I suppose the disconnect is that I tend to view these elements more as "system" components rather than "setting" elements, so maybe that's where the confusion is coming from. Since a lot of these system components could work in different ways when applied to the same setting, whether specific or "setting" in broad terms like "action adventure". For example, I could choose to go with general skills like "fighting" (for melee combat in general) and "marksman" (for ranged combat in general) when working on a skill-based system, or I could go with weapon groups instead (swords, polearms, firearms, archery, etc.) or even specific weapons (long swords, short sword, automatic rifles, etc.). But I tend to view that as system decisions rather than setting decisions, since they could all apply to any "action adventure" or more specific setting.
The decision is really more a matter of stylistic preference or what I'm trying to accomplish from a system standpoint. And my concern when designing these elements tends to be more about player experience (how cumbersome it would be for them to track this stuff, for example, what impact it would have on game play, etc.) and customization (are there enough options or too many, is the added complexity worth it, etc.), than about what aspects of setting I trying to represent.
Still, it would be useful to know what tenbones is looking for in these areas for purposes of this discussion. I could go on about stuff that I've thought about doing regarding some of these game elements--like different progression systems (classless systems that still use levels for progression, for example)--but I'd be wasting my time if I don't know what specific avenues of design we're exploring here, and how closely we're trying to match things to actual D&D mechanics vs going off into completely different system approaches. What parts of D&D are we even keeping, if any (HP, Levels, 5e style "Proficiency" bonuses vs older THAC0/Attack Bonuses, etc.)?
That's the rub, right? How close can we make it *feel* like DnD without creating an alien system...
Let me toss this out there: I'm playing Savage Worlds Pathfinder. You will not find a more alien d20 system trying to do the *exact* thing you're questioning. I'm playing it with new DnD Players that have never played *anything* other than 5e and/or Pathfinder. And not only do they love it, they play with other groups and are converting them over to play. Again, I'm not saying this to try and convert people over to SW - I'm saying that I actually agree with Estar that "system doesn't matter"... but I'm adding that some systems are better than others. DnD mechanics are fine, but a lot of outgrowth from "official" channels have been regressive. The tribalism that has set in, has enveloped a lot of bad design, and the system gets in the way of the game itself.
To the point where I'd argue with 5e (and certainly 4e) the system *is* the game.
There are a lot of factors to that claim: commercialization, generational issues, FOMO, habitual playing, tribalism etc. But the funny thing, especially on this forum, I don't see a lot of people here *only* playing 5e or whatever their brand of DnD is. So clearly there *are* classless systems people enjoy quite a bit, that are extraneous of d20, but it weirds me out that people don't consider what DnD itself could be if it simply changed a few core system-elements.
I have this feeling that it's as much about "fear" of it not being "Authentic", which might be another discussion (I hope not). Because Savage Pathfinder feels better at doing DnD than DnD has for me since 1e/2e, which is why I even posted this thread. If done right, we could slaughter a whole lot of problems that people complain about (and of course we'd surely create some new ones) but I think the net balance would be much better.
To specifically address the progression statement:
Classless Progression is simple: You buy your skills and abilities (magic or otherwise) with XP. If the costs of abilities and skills are mechanically balanced against one another, the XP totals should be pretty balanced enough to know at what amount equals a "tier" (to use modern parlance) of play.
An alternate Class-based progression could be something like - you purchase a Level which nets you specific progressions: 4HP +Con, and whatever else we think denotes "leveling up". But they should be uniform. The specifics of a PC's niche should be voluntary in terms of abilities with the GM's approval of course. This is one for a lot of discussion.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
I haven't seen Majestic Fantasy RPG specifically, but from what I've seen in most 3e or older D&D games or derived systems most "warrior" classes tend to share the majority of core components, like HD, Combat & Save Progression, Weapon & Armor Proficiency, etc., with VERY few exceptions (Barbarians get a higher HD type, but no Heavy Armor, and that's practically it). It's only when comes to defining their special quirks that the real differences come into play, and most of that tends to be minor details that I don't think truly necessitates reinventing the wheel and building an entire new class from scratch, when almost all the core components are basically the same. Could you do it? Definitely. If I said you couldn't you'd be able to show me countless (probably HUNDREDS) of examples to the contrary. So I'd be lying if I said it was impossible.
Exactly. How many threads have been dedicated to "who is the better <X>" when it comes to Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers - only to devolve in some history wanking and Gygaxian pontifications? The solution is simple: What are the tropes that define those "Types"? Split "fighting" as a Skill, and you're left with Abilities. Those are the Tropes that should be Feats/Edges/Special Abilities call it whatever you want. Then YOU as the player decide wtf you are. The GM contextualizes your concept at chargen.
You tell me "Tenbones, my character is buying "Berzerker Rage" he's going to have, points in Survival, and Fighting, I think I'm going to wear Medium armor (maybe take a disadvantage for extra chargen points?) because my guy is tribal. I don't *need* to know you're a *Barbarian* or a *Ranger* - you're going to play your character. I'd go back and forth with the details of your background with you, what tribe you're from etc. And. We'd. Just. Play. As you progress, you might pick up some other abilities to reflect yourself civilizing? Sneak Attack. Or maybe the Alchemist player has been teaching your how to make potions on the side - and you ask the GM if enough training has been made to let you learn Magic: Alchemy, while other players are picking up Special Abilities and Magical Abilities of their own + skills.
At the core is the same d20 Task Resolution. But what a "Class" is - is not different than the things you *choose* to buy. If you wanted to be the classical Barbarian, nothing stops you from loading up on whatever skills/Special Abilities/Magical Abilities *YOU* define as appropriate based on your own tastes and the setting the GM is enforcing.
The Class problem is showing it's ugly head in Savage Pathfinder as the Thief Class Edge is *very specific* type of dungeon-crawling Thief. Vs any other Thief concept that has appeared over the many years. Yes you can organically grow out of it - but you're pigeonholed into a specific kind of play at the beginning. This is *for* DnD players that are coming over.
In standard Savage Worlds - your setting might allow for entirely different kinds of Thieves, Mountebanks, Bandits, Swashbucklers (? are they Thieves?) - when the point of being a "Thief" is irrelevant to the deeper point of you making a character that operates within the confines of a setting with abilities appropriate to that setting and they play the way YOU want.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
But now, is it necessary? No. I'd go as far as to say that it's outright impractical--not just from a design PoV, but also from a GMing PoV in terms of keeping track of what "classes" even exist and what their capabilities are (players have an easier time keeping track of their (usually) single character). It'd be far more efficient to just have a single core "Warrior" class that defines all the core components, then handle all the specialized variants as either something like "kits" (maybe a bit more complex than 2e made them), 5e style "subclasses/archetypes", or even freeform Feats/Skills you could pick from a list a la carte. Same for Wizards and Rogues/Skill Monkeys, or even Clerics/Priests (though, my preference would be to fold all dedicated spellcasters into a single "Mystic" class, then treat magic specialties, like "Healing Magic", "Combat Magic", etc. as a type of specialty or "Feat" you have to pick). Granted, this assumes we're even using "classes", which hasn't been established yet in this thread.
Or if you split Fighting off as a Skill, then you can have a whole category under Special Abilities called "Combat Feats" - and sure they could have their own pre-requisites, but they're open to anyone that meets them. The whole distinction between a Barbarian that has Ambidexterity or Fighter is moot. Navigating the generalizations of what we think of as "Classes" has become a tedious chore of trying to make unnecessary distinctions about what a PC does more than is necessary. Yes these distinctions matter, such as a Wizard is not a Ranger, *because* of their abilities and/or skills. The key here is letting you as the player decide as you go to make the exact character you want to make withing the context of the setting.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PMEven when we get to skill-based or freeform systems warrior-types and other common archetypes tend to share certain characteristics and its only when we get into the weeds of systems with overly specific skill lists that things start to break apart. But even then you could establish that all warrior types have X number of "weapon skills" and Y number of "athletics skills", etc. by default, and maybe establish some baseline attributes based on a Primary/Secondary/Tertiary stat spread, as part of a template package and you just have to pay for extras beyond that. Similar for other character types, like diplomats (X amount of "social skills" Y amount of "knowledge skills), mystics (X amount of "magic skills" Y amount of "knowledge skills), sneaky scouts (X amount of "stealth skills" Y amount of "athletics skills), etc. But again, this depends on "are we even going pure skill based" for purposes of this discussion? Is character creation/progression pure freeform or are there any limits on how many "specialties" or similar stuff you can get, or different skill-caps or costs based on some type of focus you pick? etc. But none of that has been established.
Could we make this in a d20 model?
(http://i.imgur.com/etK5ckz.jpg) (https://imgur.com/etK5ckz)
This is my Savage Pathfinder PC I'm playing right now. You don't have to know anything about this system other than it could be *any* non-d20 system, but the entirety of that character is 95% of what you'll ever see even on a high-level Savage Pathfinder character, barring more Edges and the stats and skills will be higher die-codes. The point being you don't *need* to be more granular with the skills, you need to be more expansive in what a smaller skill lists *means* in play. And there's lots of ways to make other skills specific to your setting be placed into the skill-list.
I'm contending we can slim d20 down (to OSR levels) but give it more flexibility, and more scalability (well maybe - touching Immortal rules would be fun) than 5e and most modern editions. AND I think it could work for any setting for DnD style fantasy (however you want to define it).
For the purposes of the class vs class-less discussion, are the attribute "classes" of d20 modern classes in the traditional sense or skill (attribute) based progression?
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
1) Context should be grounded in setting (we agree?).
For maximum impact it should be a vaguely medieval fantasy setting that has ruins and dungeons. Going the route of Glorantha or Tekumel will relegate it to a niche of a niche.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
2) This example is DnD Fantasy - so these types should have options to purchase abilities relevant to whatever we agree these "types" should be doing divided between sub-sets of "Magic" "Skills" and "Abilities".
Sound good overall. I do have a slightly different list based on my experience so far. The broad categories I have are:
- attributes
- background (includes race)
- skills
- abilities
- supernatural powers
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
3) Detail - should be part of the design of the system to go up/down in detail as *required* by the setting. So if you want to get more granular you can include optional mechanics that overlay this.
That could happen. However if we are talking about something that is classic D&D compatible, then in my opinion that one would be hard pressed to come up with something better than the d20 family of RPGs for the detailed end of the scale. I am not saying the only alternative for the detailed version is something like the d20 SRD without classes or Fantasycraft. But I think we will find at a lot will feel like it replicating something found in the d20 world especially fantasycraft.
I don't view this as a bad thing in itself. I just don't want to see folks reinventing the wheel just because it turns out the ideal solution for X (like specific weapon maneuvers) turns out to be something found in the d20 open content. For example, I had no problem jettisoning my old system of modifiers in favor of 5e's the advantage/disadvantage after the playtesting proved to be overwhelmingly positive.
Despite the crap, there is a ton of actual play experience to be had in the d20 world.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
In other words Damage output and corresponding Health systems will directly be balanced against Healing output. A longsword does 1d8, a low-end Cure Light Wounds does 1d8 (if we're doing HP). Of course there are a lot of unspoken details.
Not a fan of this design philosophy. I think the balance of numbers should be based on the following factors.
- Heroic not superheroic play is emphasized*
- That it feels right among playtesters for a vaguely medieval fantasy world
- That it is in the ballpark of what people expect out of classic D&D.**
*You can always add in the superheroic by making higher point characters and pitting them against the same foes. It is way harder to do the reverse.
**For example, if you don't have a relatively low-level spell that does what Fireball does then it not going to feel very D&Dish. D&D 5e almost fails on this by capping the damage at 6d6 unless cast through a higher level spell slot. It worked out because of the flexibility of prepared spell and not having to play a guessing game of which spell to memorize for specific slots.
This is not rational and can't be quantified. It can only be determined through actual play and seeing the effects. And yes it sounds laborious and it is laborious but it is the only surefire of making this part work out.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
When it comes to "Magic" - the task-resolution of casting spells will be unified and scaled according to non-Casting system components..
Based on previous comments earlier in the thread, if you don't include vancian magic you defeat the point of the exercise might as well make your own skill based RPG. If you want to include what you are thinking of as one of the magic systems available to use then great. It is all pretty much arbitrary technobabble (magiobabble ?) anyway. Bonus points if you can make the list of the available spells the same between the two of them.
And keep in mind there is a lot you can do with how the standard D&D can be cast. I have gotten a lot of mileage over the past decades by the simple mechanic of allowing a spell to be cast as a 10-minute ritual at a cost in components from a spellbook. Tweak it with a few specific abilities and quirks and I was able to get Artificers, Runecasters, and Theurgists while keeping the same spell list intact for everybody.
For a skill based system, I recommend making Vancian casting a type of ability. You purchase individual spell slots, and you use a set of simple rules so that you can't have more higher level slots than lower level slots. I know of a system used by NERO Larp for acquiring spell slots that is well playtested and works well. This will work with D20 sorcerer style casting as well. Also you would acquire arcane, divine, druidic, and arcane slots separately.
As for the alternative you have in mind knock yourself out. My alternative would my take on GURPS Unlimited Mana. You make a thamuatologyroll to cast a spell and spend the mana. You keep a running total. You can cast using as much mana you want however if you exceed an arbitrary threshold a calamity can result including the death of the character. It is quite elegant and while there is an element of luck the tradeoffs are clear to the players. You can reduce the mana you spent resting or meditating. Thus over an adventurer mage's career, they can manage their use of spell to keep under the threshold. But if they really need that 100d6 fireball covering the battlefield they can go for it if they are willing to pay the price.
Anyway, my view for this exercise to be worthwhile as a D&D alternative, vancian magic, and the D&D spell list needs to be supported. Tweaked sure but the result is recognizably D&D. And because this will be a framework alternatives can be written and shared. Just like GURPS has Ritual Path Magic as an alternative to GURPS Magic.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
HP could be fixed? There might be a Health Track? The idea is Healing (whatever form that might come in) could be dialed up/down as needed to represent the needs of the setting. The larger point is that at chargen, if one has the prerequisites that allows one to purchase "Magic: Healing" that is clearly outlined (for the setting) in terms of what it allows (spell lists, bonuses etc) and contextualized for flavor. You could further add sub-divisions of this ability based on the religion. But the choice of buying "Magic: Healing" would have the same cost and weight as "Wizard type" buying "Magic: Wizardry" or a "Fighter Type" buying a Special Ability "Fighting Style <x>".
The fix for Hit Points in my opinion is to realize that hit points are strictly a measure of combat endurance. If you want injury in D&D combat you have to do more. The only flaw is Gygax not explaining this better. And you don't have to throw out hit points to represent injury.
The main effect of injury in most RPG combat systems is that it is debilitating. So build-in debilitating results into the combat system but in addition to but not in lieu of hit points.
For example, I allowed players to do combat stunts using my Majestic Fantasy Rules. The catch is that the target gets a save. If a 3rd level Thief clocks a 6th level guard in the head from behind then the guard gets a save. If they fail they are knocked out cold. Despite the fact that they have up to six times the HP of a 1st level guard. Several mechanics in D20, 4e, and 5e imposed debilitating conditions rather do outright hit point damage. so there are options other than jettisoning hit points.
But, a 6th-level character has a decent save. But with surprise, the roll can be modified so it is harder to save. If the target is wearing a helmet the save is easier.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
I think a big problem is trying to cook all progression into "the class" vs. letting "types" (as you put it) interact with a unified progression by purchasing their abilities within the PC's own wheelhouse. This is the issue with Fighters being the "best" at combat, vs. all the crazy debates and situational shit argued about for decades. The solution is to make Fighting a skill. And anyone can purchase it and the degree of their investment implies the level of training and time they've put into it at the expense of *everything else*. This way niche-protection is purely organic.
To be clear about where I am coming from, my observation that in Hero System and GURPS specialists are better at X than folks that spread their points around. So when I say Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Thief. I literally mean a player who opted to put all their points into being a specialist. There is no metagaming involved.
And I despise metagaming as part of a system's design. As I stated before, a system should reflect the setting the designer has in mind. And setting can be something that is meant to encompass a genre rather than something specific like Harn or Glorantha.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
For instance if a "Fighter Type" wanted to learn "Magic: Healing"
Sorry for not replying in detail. Basically I am on the same page. The quirk I have in this regard is that after two decades of GURPS and Hero System I am now pretty negative about making background, social, and roleplaying details a cost in a rule system.
In the general sense players should be able to mix and match elements provided it makes sense. Like not being able to buy a 9th level spell slot right off without having the prerequisites.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
- the GM can set the context of what it means in terms of in-setting relevance. Is "Magic: Healing" the sole province of a specific faith? The point is that the GM can set the strictures of picking up Special Abilities or Magic as a training requisite or whatever.
The first iteration of this should be a system usable out of the box to run a D&D style setting using D&D style adventures. The main point for using it is that you get the use all the D&D stuff but can tweak your character in different ways. Like the Fighter with a Healing spell. This is accompanied by supplemental material and designer notes illustrating how the core concept can be adapted to make widely different fantasy settings and later other genres as well. Including alternative magic systems.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
Likewise Fighter Types (and anyone else) should have a range of Special Abilities that directly enhance their combat capacities free of their Fighting Skill. Call them Feats, Call them Edges, call them whatever you want - but the weight of these things should be meaty and be balanced directly against the Magic mechanics.
Sorry but fuck balance. The goal is make sense in terms of the setting (broad or narrow) you are targeting. If mages are better then so be it. If mages are weaker so be it. And so on. The only requirement is not to be mysterious about it and explain to the reader where the system is coming from and why.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
Since you're so invested in Majestic Wilderlands that alone is going to have a different set of specificity than say Dark Sun, but I understand your meaning.
So because I was gaming in rural NW Pennsylvania and later using RPGs that were not D&D. I was careful that I didn't stray far from the vaguely medieval fantasy represented by D&D. Basically I use list of stuff from D&D like monsters but in Fantasy Hero terms, or in GURPS terms. Rather than focus on something completely novel I opted for depth. Like what would it be to live as a mage and what would life be like for them in a campaign. And so on.
Doing this made it way easier to share my stuff later when I started using Swords & Wizardry mechanics instead of GURPS mechanics. And it didn't come all at once, I did two years of playtesting before releasing the MW Supplement. And then I continue refining the rules for the next decade until I was happy enough to doing what needed to release the Majestic Fantasy RPG.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
The other issue is that so many people here debate about d20 specifically and it's variety of flavors, it would indeed, which to me is the whole "How many Angels dancing" issue... that to even get their heads wrapped around this discussion is difficult in its own right. .
This is rough draft of a skill based RPG I was playtesting and includes some of my philosophy.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip
If I revisit this it will be using 3d6 instead of 4dF.
Aside from the issues I had with how the odds of rolling 4dF shift when you add modifiers, the biggest issue was juggling costs and numbers. Which is why I wrote a dumb simulator to get me into the ballpark in order to start the playtesting process.
https://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg/
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
Let me formulate a structure later and I'll post something we can dig into together. .
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
I'm talking about the same things you are: the fundamentals. Let me whip something up with some meat we can all chew on. I'll have to give it some thought, because I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of designing an entire new d20-inspired system, as like you, I have other design projects.
Both sound good and looking forward to it.
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:09:36 PM
Yeah I hear you - I'm in the same boat. I'm also tired of people wallowing in d20 Hell. I think d20 could be *better* (LOL as I'm sure for the last 50-years all the hell-dwellers have been crying from their tables with their homebrew masterpiece heartbreakers).
I will repeat what I always say when this comes up. I think you should do this because it makes the hobby as a whole better. But you are not going to make D&D better. You are going to make D&D more expansive which in my book is just as good. I am confident your work will make this product the best it possibly can and a lot of people will have fun using this with other D&D material.
I hope my insights will help with this.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
So that still leaves me wondering about the usefulness of highlighting the importance of defining "setting" before we start working on system, when setting in the broad terms you describe here has already been established in the thread's title.
Because there not a single D&D that can be used as a reference. For the Majestic Fantasy RPG the foundation I opted for is based on Swords & Wizardry, Core. I picked that because unlike the White Box/3 LBB version it had all the elements that define classic D&D.
If I had picked AD&D in the form of OSRIC the result would have been different. Same ballpark but has a distinct feel. The same with all the other editions. So if folks are going to collaborate then you need to define which D&D setting you are going to use as the foundation. If you want better specific then pick an edition and I will tell you how it will differ from the D&D represented by Swords & Wizardry Core.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PMHmm, this clarifies more about my concerns mentioned above. I suppose the disconnect is that I tend to view these elements more as "system" components rather than "setting" elements, so maybe that's where the confusion is coming from.
Sure, I realize I am looking at it from a different angle. One that goes against the grain of how most in the hobby or industry view this stuff.
My opinion is that you have to have a setting in mind to write a RPG system. Even if it is something as basic as deciding that the system for a world filled with humanoids living in a 1G environment with earth-like conditions
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Since a lot of these system components could work in different ways when applied to the same setting, whether specific or "setting" in broad terms like "action adventure". For example, I could choose to go with general skills like "fighting" (for melee combat in general) and "marksman" (for ranged combat in general) when working on a skill-based system, or I could go with weapon groups instead (swords, polearms, firearms, archery, etc.) or even specific weapons (long swords, short sword, automatic rifles, etc.). But I tend to view that as system decisions rather than setting decisions since they could all apply to any "action adventure" or more specific setting.
There is no "action adventure" category. There is only what you consider to be "action adventure". In which case, my recommendation is to write a list of what you consider that to be and that is your checklist to design a system to reflect how you think it ought to work. You don't need to come up with specific locales or a world if you want something with general application. Just think of the kinds of worlds, and locales that your vision of "action adventure" encompasses. Set a limit as too much you are going to account for.
For example Star Wars is considered action adventure by many but you may just want to limit yourself to the fantasy genere.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
The decision is really more a matter of stylistic preference or what I'm trying to accomplish from a system standpoint. And my concern when designing these elements tends to be more about player experience (how cumbersome it would be for them to track this stuff, for example, what impact it would have on game play, etc.) and customization (are there enough options or too many, is the added complexity worth it, etc.), than about what aspects of setting I trying to represent.
My view is that is a decision about how much detail you are going to get into. The same "setting" (as i defined) can be handle by system at different levels of details. For example fantasy action adventure with GURPS versus fantasy action adventure with Microlite.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
I haven't seen Majestic Fantasy RPG specifically, but from what I've seen in most 3e or older D&D games or derived systems most "warrior" classes tend to share the majority of core components, like HD, Combat & Save Progression, Weapon & Armor Proficiency, etc., with VERY few exceptions (Barbarians get a higher HD type, but no Heavy Armor, and that's practically it). It's only when comes to defining their special quirks that the real differences come into play, and most of that tends to be minor details that I don't think truly necessitates reinventing the wheel and building an entire new class from scratch, when almost all the core components are basically the same. Could you do it? Definitely. If I said you couldn't you'd be able to show me countless (probably HUNDREDS) of examples to the contrary. So I'd be lying if I said it was impossible.
My methodology is based on answering the question of "often this comes up throughout multiple campaigns in the same setting?"
For me, that was a fighter type, a knight type, a soldier type, a berserker which is a holy warrior for Thor, a paladin who is a holy warrior for Mitra goddess of Justice and Honor, and Myrmidons a holy warrior for Set god of war and order. All of these were common things that players asked me about when making GURPS characters.
Then when it came to my MW supplement, I translated the differences into S&W/OD&D terms. Which was a lot easier than if I had to do a 3.5/Pathfinder version. Which I found out two years ago when I came up with 5e versions of my stuff. With my Majestic Fantasy RPG I only had to make sure a handful of the most important elements were represented in the mechanics. With 5e I come up with a dozen or more distinct elements to cover how that system worked.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
But now, is it necessary? No. I'd go as far as to say that it's outright impractical--not just from a design PoV, but also from a GMing PoV in terms of keeping track of what "classes" even exist and what their capabilities are (players have an easier time keeping track of their (usually) single character). It'd be far more efficient to just have a single core "Warrior" class that defines all the core components, then handle all the specialized variants as either something like "kits" (maybe a bit more complex than 2e made them), 5e style "subclasses/archetypes", or even freeform Feats/Skills you could pick from a list a la carte.
Having refereed AD&D, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, OD&D, and so on trying to bring to life the same elements in different systems. The distinction you are mentioning doesn't exist. The only factor that relevant is the overall level of detail. 3.5/Pathfinder and GURPS both had the same exact problem because both are equally detailed systems when it came to players trying to figure out what they needed to play X.
When it comes to OD&D+supplements and B/X you would really have to work at it to make the list of classes as confusing as the options found in GURPS and 3.5/Pathfinder.
So while I may have 21 options for character classes listed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZGyjRgs8MRBOASfDmuIsn6f94rzaVL76/view?usp=sharing
I never had anybody fail to make a character within a half hour of handing them this card. This is why I have character generation as part of my convention games.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 19, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
But again, this depends on "are we even going pure skill based" for purposes of this discussion? Is character creation/progression pure freeform or are there any limits on how many "specialties" or similar stuff you can get, or different skill-caps or costs based on some type of focus you pick? etc. But none of that has been established.
I am assuming based on Tenbones post that we shooting for something totally freeform, yet works hand and hand with D&D material, and is no more complex than AD&D+Unearthed Arcana or more relevant The Fantasy Trip.
I think in this kind of effort it can also be useful to have a kind of negative list of priorities, though usually things on it can be expressed positively as well. The D&D genre is pretty broad, and the rules that surround it are almost as broad, and at times incompatible. I think of these things as minor priorities--minor in the sense of being minor in scope, not in priority.
For example, if it were me, one of the minor priorities would be that saving throws or whatever replaces them are not scaled to be relatively static. Specifically, they would not do the thing in WotC versions where the save you need depends on who is casting the spell. Otherwise, you get all sorts of secondary problems caused by that and the cruft that builds up around it. Much better and simpler to simply go back to the roots on that one, where saves are pretty crummy early and pretty good late in the power level progression. (The fact that WotC usually failed to implement "relatively static" saving throws by botching the math is neither here nor there, except as an example of what can go wrong. The failure in implementation distracts from the failure in the design.)
The bad side effects would be even worse in a skills-based, assembled D&D. Because you do not want a lot of subsystems where the character has to spend a chunk of picks to buy abilities just to stay current. The complications expand like crazy.
So a list of priorities is helped by a list of constraints--whatever we do or don't do on these priorities, we at least aren't going to go there.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 11:19:52 AM
I think there are two camps that value classes:
1. Classes as shortcut to archetypes
2. Classes as niche protection
Naturally, some people like both. There's also a drive for classes as simplification system, but you can get that with "templates" in a game without classes. So I don't count that one. (It's a valuable goal for some people, but not restricted to classes.)
To add my $0.02, there is a third camp that I haven't seen mentioned:
3. Gating of complexity.
A new class/level system is MUCH easier to get into than a point-buy system with any significant crunch.
With classes you can (hopefully) assume that they're somewhat balanced, so you just need to pick a class that you like the vibe of and only learn their level 1 abilities before starting a session.
With a pure point-buy system you basically need to read all of the game's rules before you can make an informed decision at character creation. If it's a super light game that's fine, but if the system is at all crunchy that's a lot of work to learn a system you may end up not liking.
I like both of your first options, especially #2, but IMO #3 is the big one. (Though I do like class/level systems which mix in some point-buy elements. They can retain most class/level advantages and gain some of point-buy's thunder.)
Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
This helps clarify some things, and I suppose I've been working under the baseline assumption of "action adventure" settings for most of what I said (and my design decisions in general). But if you're defining "setting" in such broad terms that pretty much only leaves out comedic or light-hearted games like the one you mentioned as an example here. Almost every major RPG falls under some variation of "action adventure", so knowing that alone should be enough to establish "setting" as you're defining it here for purposes of starting to work on system. And the OP was even more specific than that in specifying that we're talking about "D&D fantasy" specifically.
So that still leaves me wondering about the usefulness of highlighting the importance of defining "setting" before we start working on system, when setting in the broad terms you describe here has already been established in the thread's title.
Let me jump in here - before I do a big super-post with charts and numbers to hopefully not cause everyone's eyes to glaze over, or think this is "just another dumb class-debate thread". If we were all on a Discord this would probably be a lot easier heh. Pundit should start an RPGSite Discord).
Okay so there is a balance of purpose to a system. You can make a system be specific to the type of setting or game you want to run. Or you can make a system generic to try and encompass multiple modes of play.
General consensus has **GENERALLY** been the following: Generic Systems are often too generic and implode upon themselves trying to cover all bases, and Specific Systems are **GENERALLY** good at doing the one type of game they were designed for.
The Corollary of this claim is the following:
a) Fans of a Generic System will exaggerate the efficacy of that system because in varying degrees of difference of subjective need between players won't be fully satisfied, plus the inertia of fandom cannot be underestimated amongst the untried. i.e. most players like what they like, and don't like trying new things even if they don't know why. GURPS, Savage Worlds, FATE, etc. all make these claims with varying levels of buy-in. But all are, and should, be met with skepticism towards these claims.
b) Specific System fans will often exaggerate the greatness of that system and try to force it to bend from its original design and genre specialization into other genres and depending on its fanbase, the inertia effect will carry those attempts forward. d20 circa 3e is a *classic* example of this. As is Pathfinder now (Star Finder), d6 (which by now in the gaming public's eye is now a full blown universal system).
So the purpose of this thread is: DnD Fantasy is the genre. The claim: Classes are not necessary to run DnD fantasy, and in fact, the further claim is that by retweaking the constraints of the d20 system (regardless of edition) and grinding everything down to the basic task resolution mechanic of (Stat Bonus + d20 + Modifiers) we could have a much lighter system capable of much more flexibility (campaign constraints within your setting can change on a dime - your Dungeoncrawling game could become a Pirate game and your PC's would not be so pigeonholed into their class roles they would be rendered 'less optimal'), and scalability - your PC's could be grimdark scrabbly nobodies at the start that could by the higher-end of the game be fantasy-superheroes, doing Legolas Bowfire Hailstorms etc. IF the GM wanted).
I'm not even saying Classes are the *cause* of the problem. They just seem to be a thing that hits a lot of the friction points of d20 (more so with 3e and later editions/variants) but I submit if we merely addressed this one things, the reshaping of the sub-systems below it would make better results. And for what it's worth - I think we could do it and keep the word "Class" to everyone's satisfaction.
WHY do I think these things? Because I'm playing Savage Worlds Pathfinder - where it's actually being done. I'm *not* trying to convert people to play Savage Worlds - I'm probably the most vocal person on this forum championing that system, and I feel I do it sufficiently in other threads. No, I'm a system's nerd. I love tinkering with systems. And while people might mistake my distaste for DnD for loathing the system - I feel in fairness to myself, I would be much more specific. I do *not* hate d20. I would like to bring the sensibilities of what I'm doing right now - playing DnD Fantasy, and doing it easier under another system to the d20 system currently. I have nothing but love for DnD before 3e, and I think while people are satisfied with 5e, it could have been done better.
I will also submit the OSR sensibilities should have been paid more attention to, but I think the fundamental issues I have with modern DnD are slightly deeper than that.
Currently in Savage Pathfinder they added "Class Edges" which are frameworks that represent "Classes", for newcomers from DnD/Pathfinder it's great. They love it. But for people that have been playing SW, there is no real mechanical difference from what already existed except of a couple of tiny shifts that are for Character Generation purposes. That's the illusion they cleverly crafted to make DnD players new to Savage Worlds feel "happy". But it's mostly an illusion. And further, despite the fact it's largely (not entirely) an illusion, the same issues that plague DnD-style Class design is starting to creep in at the edges of a system that has *never* used classes. Fortunately because the system is so flexible, the fix is easy, just remove Class Edges and let people just buy their abilities normally.
Because this is a fundamental design assumption of Savage Worlds, this is the revelation that, possibly, if we could simply unmoor the Class design assumptions of DnD *within* d20, we could rebuild the system to hit the ease of use, the agility and scalability of Savage Worlds. It would be easier on new and veteran GM's, it would give the proper weight of design to OSR style game design, but it would also change a few fundamental assumptions about d20.
We *COULD* do this and keep Classes. And in fact, like in Savage Pathfinder I'd recommend it just to soothe people holding on to Sacred Cow. But it could be done an option. The goal would be to create a streamlined version of d20, which is not setting-specific, but have all the core rules laid out. But give GM's options to fine-tune it TO their settings. Give them levers and buttons to raise/lower the emphasis as desired for their specific setting, and even make it work across genres *with fidelity*. Rather than re-skinning the Fighter and calling it "Space Marine" and handing him a gun.
To a certain extent this is what I've been trying to do with my own system, though I went of on a wild tangent working on it and ultimately removed all (or at least most) vestiges of D&D from it, triming down the attributes to just four and basing a lot of stuff around my own sensibilities and personal conceits instead of trying to make it look like D&D. Part of it started out as a somewhat simplified Tri-Class (Warrior, Specialist and Mystic) and feat-based version of the d20 system I worked on around two or three (maybe four?) years ago, but ultimately I decided to strip out the classes and most of the strictly D&D elements, renamed Feats to Perks (and had to rework them completely), and just use the core Feat (now Perk)-based progression system as a classless system and fused it with an older system I had been working on before (where I got the attribute-skill layout).
I ended up complicating it a little more over time, but the original premise of the progression system is basically you have a base number of HP (18 currently), +2 HP and +1 Perk per level, starting since level 1 (you also get fixed extra HP based on your Fitness level, which is the system equivalent to "Constitution"). And level progression is potentially open ended (limits up to the GM).
Every ability in the system (including stuff that in D&D would be a class feature) is a Perk, ability improvements (including attributes, skills, extra HP and more) are handled through perks, and everyone starts out with a Race, Profession and Background, where professions and backgrounds are ability packages made out of perks, and custom professions and backgrounds are a possibility (GM's discretion).
One possible complication I ended up including is that "skills" in my system are actually broken down into Disciplines, plus supplementary Skills and Know-Hows. Disciplines are broad skills, like Fighting (melee), Marksman (ranged) and Lore (knowledge). Skills are essentially specialties under each Discipline and Know-Hows deal with specialized knowledge that requires specific training to attempt, such as Languages. (More below on why I'm mentioning this).
Quote
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
Hmm, this clarifies more about my concerns mentioned above. I suppose the disconnect is that I tend to view these elements more as "system" components rather than "setting" elements, so maybe that's where the confusion is coming from. Since a lot of these system components could work in different ways when applied to the same setting, whether specific or "setting" in broad terms like "action adventure". For example, I could choose to go with general skills like "fighting" (for melee combat in general) and "marksman" (for ranged combat in general) when working on a skill-based system, or I could go with weapon groups instead (swords, polearms, firearms, archery, etc.) or even specific weapons (long swords, short sword, automatic rifles, etc.). But I tend to view that as system decisions rather than setting decisions, since they could all apply to any "action adventure" or more specific setting.
The decision is really more a matter of stylistic preference or what I'm trying to accomplish from a system standpoint. And my concern when designing these elements tends to be more about player experience (how cumbersome it would be for them to track this stuff, for example, what impact it would have on game play, etc.) and customization (are there enough options or too many, is the added complexity worth it, etc.), than about what aspects of setting I trying to represent.
Still, it would be useful to know what tenbones is looking for in these areas for purposes of this discussion. I could go on about stuff that I've thought about doing regarding some of these game elements--like different progression systems (classless systems that still use levels for progression, for example)--but I'd be wasting my time if I don't know what specific avenues of design we're exploring here, and how closely we're trying to match things to actual D&D mechanics vs going off into completely different system approaches. What parts of D&D are we even keeping, if any (HP, Levels, 5e style "Proficiency" bonuses vs older THAC0/Attack Bonuses, etc.)?
That's the rub, right? How close can we make it *feel* like DnD without creating an alien system...
Let me toss this out there: I'm playing Savage Worlds Pathfinder. You will not find a more alien d20 system trying to do the *exact* thing you're questioning. I'm playing it with new DnD Players that have never played *anything* other than 5e and/or Pathfinder. And not only do they love it, they play with other groups and are converting them over to play. Again, I'm not saying this to try and convert people over to SW - I'm saying that I actually agree with Estar that "system doesn't matter"... but I'm adding that some systems are better than others. DnD mechanics are fine, but a lot of outgrowth from "official" channels have been regressive. The tribalism that has set in, has enveloped a lot of bad design, and the system gets in the way of the game itself.
To the point where I'd argue with 5e (and certainly 4e) the system *is* the game.
There are a lot of factors to that claim: commercialization, generational issues, FOMO, habitual playing, tribalism etc. But the funny thing, especially on this forum, I don't see a lot of people here *only* playing 5e or whatever their brand of DnD is. So clearly there *are* classless systems people enjoy quite a bit, that are extraneous of d20, but it weirds me out that people don't consider what DnD itself could be if it simply changed a few core system-elements.
I have this feeling that it's as much about "fear" of it not being "Authentic", which might be another discussion (I hope not). Because Savage Pathfinder feels better at doing DnD than DnD has for me since 1e/2e, which is why I even posted this thread. If done right, we could slaughter a whole lot of problems that people complain about (and of course we'd surely create some new ones) but I think the net balance would be much better.
To specifically address the progression statement:
Classless Progression is simple: You buy your skills and abilities (magic or otherwise) with XP. If the costs of abilities and skills are mechanically balanced against one another, the XP totals should be pretty balanced enough to know at what amount equals a "tier" (to use modern parlance) of play.
An alternate Class-based progression could be something like - you purchase a Level which nets you specific progressions: 4HP +Con, and whatever else we think denotes "leveling up". But they should be uniform. The specifics of a PC's niche should be voluntary in terms of abilities with the GM's approval of course. This is one for a lot of discussion.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
I haven't seen Majestic Fantasy RPG specifically, but from what I've seen in most 3e or older D&D games or derived systems most "warrior" classes tend to share the majority of core components, like HD, Combat & Save Progression, Weapon & Armor Proficiency, etc., with VERY few exceptions (Barbarians get a higher HD type, but no Heavy Armor, and that's practically it). It's only when comes to defining their special quirks that the real differences come into play, and most of that tends to be minor details that I don't think truly necessitates reinventing the wheel and building an entire new class from scratch, when almost all the core components are basically the same. Could you do it? Definitely. If I said you couldn't you'd be able to show me countless (probably HUNDREDS) of examples to the contrary. So I'd be lying if I said it was impossible.
Exactly. How many threads have been dedicated to "who is the better <X>" when it comes to Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers - only to devolve in some history wanking and Gygaxian pontifications? The solution is simple: What are the tropes that define those "Types"? Split "fighting" as a Skill, and you're left with Abilities. Those are the Tropes that should be Feats/Edges/Special Abilities call it whatever you want. Then YOU as the player decide wtf you are. The GM contextualizes your concept at chargen.
You tell me "Tenbones, my character is buying "Berzerker Rage" he's going to have, points in Survival, and Fighting, I think I'm going to wear Medium armor (maybe take a disadvantage for extra chargen points?) because my guy is tribal. I don't *need* to know you're a *Barbarian* or a *Ranger* - you're going to play your character. I'd go back and forth with the details of your background with you, what tribe you're from etc. And. We'd. Just. Play. As you progress, you might pick up some other abilities to reflect yourself civilizing? Sneak Attack. Or maybe the Alchemist player has been teaching your how to make potions on the side - and you ask the GM if enough training has been made to let you learn Magic: Alchemy, while other players are picking up Special Abilities and Magical Abilities of their own + skills.
At the core is the same d20 Task Resolution. But what a "Class" is - is not different than the things you *choose* to buy. If you wanted to be the classical Barbarian, nothing stops you from loading up on whatever skills/Special Abilities/Magical Abilities *YOU* define as appropriate based on your own tastes and the setting the GM is enforcing.
The Class problem is showing it's ugly head in Savage Pathfinder as the Thief Class Edge is *very specific* type of dungeon-crawling Thief. Vs any other Thief concept that has appeared over the many years. Yes you can organically grow out of it - but you're pigeonholed into a specific kind of play at the beginning. This is *for* DnD players that are coming over.
In standard Savage Worlds - your setting might allow for entirely different kinds of Thieves, Mountebanks, Bandits, Swashbucklers (? are they Thieves?) - when the point of being a "Thief" is irrelevant to the deeper point of you making a character that operates within the confines of a setting with abilities appropriate to that setting and they play the way YOU want.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
But now, is it necessary? No. I'd go as far as to say that it's outright impractical--not just from a design PoV, but also from a GMing PoV in terms of keeping track of what "classes" even exist and what their capabilities are (players have an easier time keeping track of their (usually) single character). It'd be far more efficient to just have a single core "Warrior" class that defines all the core components, then handle all the specialized variants as either something like "kits" (maybe a bit more complex than 2e made them), 5e style "subclasses/archetypes", or even freeform Feats/Skills you could pick from a list a la carte. Same for Wizards and Rogues/Skill Monkeys, or even Clerics/Priests (though, my preference would be to fold all dedicated spellcasters into a single "Mystic" class, then treat magic specialties, like "Healing Magic", "Combat Magic", etc. as a type of specialty or "Feat" you have to pick). Granted, this assumes we're even using "classes", which hasn't been established yet in this thread.
Or if you split Fighting off as a Skill, then you can have a whole category under Special Abilities called "Combat Feats" - and sure they could have their own pre-requisites, but they're open to anyone that meets them. The whole distinction between a Barbarian that has Ambidexterity or Fighter is moot. Navigating the generalizations of what we think of as "Classes" has become a tedious chore of trying to make unnecessary distinctions about what a PC does more than is necessary. Yes these distinctions matter, such as a Wizard is not a Ranger, *because* of their abilities and/or skills. The key here is letting you as the player decide as you go to make the exact character you want to make withing the context of the setting.
This was basically how I ended up coming up with Disciplines. Years ago I was trying to come up with a "skill" analog to classes. The idea began while looking at D&D classes and noticing that warriors essentially got +1 to attack per level, which was very similar to a skill, only very broad. So I wanted to figure out a way to mechanically unify all classes to make them work very similarly, while each doing their own thing. So I figured, why not make each class core function (thieving stuff, magic, etc.) work like a Thac0 (this was back in the late 90s/early 2000s shortly before 3e), but turn it into a level/modifier instead? And why not get rid of classes while I'm at it and just turn each of those core functions (and others not implied by D&D classes) into broad skills, then build special abilities (similar to spells, but for non-magic stuff too) around them and use these broad skills as their level?
Eventually I came up with the name "Discipline" for these broad skills, since they were more general than skills in most skill-based systems at the time and I also wanted them to cover other stuff beyond simple skill rolls.
I also had a homebrewed effect-based system at the time I had derived from trying to D&D-fy MSH (I wasn't aware of Champions/HERO at the time), turning Ranks into levels instead, using stuff like 1d6/level for damage (like Fireball) and 10+level (on a d20+Mod scale) as the difficulty number to resist effects, etc. So I figured I could turn every special ability into a "power" (even stuff based on training) and use the Discipline level as the level for any related power. So a "knockdown" ability based on your martial arts talents, for example, would use the Fighting discipline to determine its level.
Work and life in general got in the way and derailed me. But over the years I worked out different attribute-discipline layouts, which ate up a lot of my time trying to come up with one that I liked and fit my criteria. I wanted to make them as "universal" as possible (cuz I was obsessed with generic systems) so I ultimately discarded all pure "magic" disciplines, deciding that all disciplines should potentially fit into any genre, including ones where magic didn't exist.
So rather than have an ESP discipline for divination type magic, for example, I decided to have a universal Perception discipline to cover ALL detective stuff—magic or mundane, sensory or intuitive. And similarly I decided that each discipline should govern ALL tasks or powers even remotely related to its core functionalities. So the Crafting discipline, for example, covers the creation or repair of all non-mechabical/electronic object, whether you build or repair them through training or magic. Tinkering similarly handles all tech stuff (in low-tech worlds Tinkering still handles building or disarming traps or picking locks. So "universal"). If no clear discipline applies when working with magic, the Willpower discipline is used as the default (which also handles resistance to most mental effects, determines Power Points, and covers certain self-buffing trained powers useful even in non-magic worlds). If its an Inborn power, Fitness is used instead.
Quote
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PMEven when we get to skill-based or freeform systems warrior-types and other common archetypes tend to share certain characteristics and its only when we get into the weeds of systems with overly specific skill lists that things start to break apart. But even then you could establish that all warrior types have X number of "weapon skills" and Y number of "athletics skills", etc. by default, and maybe establish some baseline attributes based on a Primary/Secondary/Tertiary stat spread, as part of a template package and you just have to pay for extras beyond that. Similar for other character types, like diplomats (X amount of "social skills" Y amount of "knowledge skills), mystics (X amount of "magic skills" Y amount of "knowledge skills), sneaky scouts (X amount of "stealth skills" Y amount of "athletics skills), etc. But again, this depends on "are we even going pure skill based" for purposes of this discussion? Is character creation/progression pure freeform or are there any limits on how many "specialties" or similar stuff you can get, or different skill-caps or costs based on some type of focus you pick? etc. But none of that has been established.
Could we make this in a d20 model?
(http://i.imgur.com/etK5ckz.jpg) (https://imgur.com/etK5ckz)
This is my Savage Pathfinder PC I'm playing right now. You don't have to know anything about this system other than it could be *any* non-d20 system, but the entirety of that character is 95% of what you'll ever see even on a high-level Savage Pathfinder character, barring more Edges and the stats and skills will be higher die-codes. The point being you don't *need* to be more granular with the skills, you need to be more expansive in what a smaller skill lists *means* in play. And there's lots of ways to make other skills specific to your setting be placed into the skill-list.
I'm contending we can slim d20 down (to OSR levels) but give it more flexibility, and more scalability (well maybe - touching Immortal rules would be fun) than 5e and most modern editions. AND I think it could work for any setting for DnD style fantasy (however you want to define it).
This is more or less along the line of what I've been trying to do with my system. Only I went off the rails doing my own stuff rather than try to make it D&D compatible. Though, it was heavily inspired by D&D (and MSH, which led me to creating my own effect-based system, and Cyberpunk 2020, which is where I got the roll+Mod mechanic originally, before 3e did something near identical, and also took stuff from other systems along the way as well).
EDIT/PS: Sorry for the uber long post. Writing in my phone, where select quoted text to snip is too difficult, and likely to mess it up.
I sadly don't have time to read the whole thread now – hopefully later – so I'll just give my thoughts in response to tenbone's OP.
If you want your game to be "D&D fantasy," I feel that classes are necessary. It's not D&D without classes. If what was meant was just a generic fantasy game, then classes can be dispensed with, and I actually prefer games without. Like anything else, classes have pluses and minuses. Here's my list
Plus
1) Easy for beginners
2) Niche protection
3) Familiar character types
4) Simple to use in play
5) Easier to design a system that doesn't break than skill based systems
Minuses
1) Inflexible
2) All of the character in the world of the same class are very similar
3) Need to create many classes to cover all your bases
In D&D the minuses have been dealt with by giving more options within a class and multi classing. This works, but it moves the game towards more of a skill based approach and doesn't totally fix the issues. My preference is to go with a skill based game and try to provide mechanics to replicate the strengths of a class system. In my current project I'm doing this by providing optional prebuilt started characters conforming to recognizable archetypes, such as tank, archer, fast melee, healer, blaster, etc, etc, and designing the skill systems such that it makes sense to pick skills that are related to each other.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy?
To me, class/level is an essential, defining characteristic of "D&D."
If one removes class/level you still have a fantasy RPG, but it moves away from being "D&D." That can still be a fun game, of course. Runequest might be a good example. All just my opinion, of course.
@Estar
I really appreciate your posts, these upthread are no different. We 99.9% on the same page. I'm not interested in making DnD better. I'm interested in making a system that pushes the design of d20 for those willing to do the work in a direction that gets people being proactive on that rather than drinking from the same trough of garbage being served up by WotC and derivatives that ultimately suffer from the same problem(s).
I'm going to take your last couple of posts (which were things I was already considering) and roll them into my spitball outline, which I'm sure we're all punch holes into.
Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?
Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?
I started with non-D&D games and I like being able to build the PC I want, even when playing D&D (the game I play the most at this time).
In my own OSR neoclone, Dark Fantasy Basic*, classes are just collections of feats.
*currently on sale, BTW: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide
That said, I actually LIKE having a few classes for worldbuiling purposes ("the captain is a 3rd level fighter with 2 2nd-level bodyguards", etc).
Classes also make PC creation a bit faster.
I wrote about this a few days ago:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/07/worldbuilding-character-builds-and-old.html
EDIT: also, savage pathfinder look s awesome and about the right level of crunch for me - and, since I don't like SW, I'd love to see a d20 version, especially if OSR-compatible.
Quote from: estar on July 20, 2022, 10:03:01 PM
There is no "action adventure" category. There is only what you consider to be "action adventure". In which case, my recommendation is to write a list of what you consider that to be and that is your checklist to design a system to reflect how you think it ought to work. You don't need to come up with specific locales or a world if you want something with general application. Just think of the kinds of worlds, and locales that your vision of "action adventure" encompasses. Set a limit as too much you are going to account for.
For example Star Wars is considered action adventure by many but you may just want to limit yourself to the fantasy genere.
This is more or less how I tend to approach it in practice. I try to think of the types of challenges and common areas of activity that character's are likely to encounter in what I consider to be an "action adventure" world and try to figure out what sort of system components should be present to handle those types of challenges, and work on those.
Since I tend to look at it in broad, all encompassing terms, I tend to cast a wide net and include stuff like Star Wars or even modern contemporary adventures (like spy stuff, or modern warfare) and Cyberpunk in my considerations as potential candidates for what sort of components I should consider. I even look at superheroes, cuz I like the idea of having dials to encompass a wide range of genres, but at the end of the day I tend to bring down a bit closer to Earth--more street crimefighting types than cosmic level heroes--when I think about that kind of stuff.
Though, a lot of times I tend to fall back into ancient/medievalesque fantasy when it comes to actual game play.
Quote from: estar on July 20, 2022, 10:03:01 PM
For me, that was a fighter type, a knight type, a soldier type, a berserker which is a holy warrior for Thor, a paladin who is a holy warrior for Mitra goddess of Justice and Honor, and Myrmidons a holy warrior for Set god of war and order. All of these were common things that players asked me about when making GURPS characters.
Kinda unrelated, but I love the idea of berserkers being a holy warrior of Thor. Real life berserkers had Odin as a patron god, though, since he's the frenzied god as one of his aspects. But real life berserkers were actually shamanic warriors, so making them holy warriors of a Nordic god seems very appropriate. All of these sound like fine concepts for a medievaleque fantasy game, though.
I always felt that D&D was kinda lacking on a proper "Knight" class, if they were going for specialized classes, like they seemed to focus on in later editions and even 2e around the time I came along. I think that there were supplements that had them, but the focus on most of the stuff I ran into was geared more towards either the fantastical stuff or the three 2e warrior classes, along with Barbarians, which was perhaps the most popular warrior class that they resisted including as a core class till 3e.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 18, 2022, 11:45:28 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 18, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Like, before D&D and video games popularized it, how often did you have D&D bards and paladins in fantasy fiction? Universal archetypes they are not.
Paladins are an established archetype--Galahad, Percival, Holger Carlsen. Bards and clerics, not so much. :)
The bardic archetype is definitely a thing but probably the least well depicted and executed in D&D. The story teller, poet and historian who recites great deeds and inspires appears throughout myth and fantasy. Odysseus could be a Rogue, but I think arguably a Bard would fit as just as well. Samwise Gangee could be played as a Bard. In the Bible King David from the Bible composes much of the Book of Psalms. Dilios from 300.
Basically bards don't have to be tag along minstrels.
Bard is a strange example. The historical analog blended into fantasy actually works better if most of the D&D attempts are kicked to the curb. A warrior/druid that happens to use music to influence people would make a better game-derived archetype than the one we got. Also tracks better as an option for a skald class once you expand beyond the Celtic sources. Though I suppose due to the baggage around it now, would be better to say that the skald makes a better archetype than the bard.
Quote from: tenbones on July 21, 2022, 10:45:02 AM
@Estar
I really appreciate your posts, these upthread are no different. We 99.9% on the same page. I'm not interested in making DnD better. I'm interested in making a system that pushes the design of d20 for those willing to do the work in a direction that gets people being proactive on that rather than drinking from the same trough of garbage being served up by WotC and derivatives that ultimately suffer from the same problem(s).
I'm going to take your last couple of posts (which were things I was already considering) and roll them into my spitball outline, which I'm sure we're all punch holes into.
Sounds good and glad to be of help. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 02:42:57 PM
Quote from: estar on July 20, 2022, 10:03:01 PM
For me, that was a fighter type, a knight type, a soldier type, a berserker which is a holy warrior for Thor, a paladin who is a holy warrior for Mitra goddess of Justice and Honor, and Myrmidons a holy warrior for Set god of war and order. All of these were common things that players asked me about when making GURPS characters.
Kinda unrelated, but I love the idea of berserkers being a holy warrior of Thor. Real life berserkers had Odin as a patron god, though, since he's the frenzied god as one of his aspects. But real life berserkers were actually shamanic warriors, so making them holy warriors of a Nordic god seems very appropriate. All of these sound like fine concepts for a medievaleque fantasy game, though.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 02:42:57 PM
I always felt that D&D was kinda lacking on a proper "Knight" class, if they were going for specialized classes, like they seemed to focus on in later editions and even 2e around the time I came along. I think that there were supplements that had them, but the focus on most of the stuff I ran into was geared more towards either the fantastical stuff or the three 2e warrior classes, along with Barbarians, which was perhaps the most popular warrior class that they resisted including as a core class till 3e.
I looked at the Chainmail mounted combat rules both for the wargame and man-to-man after an excellent analysis on one of the classic edition forums. Then edited it into something more suitable for a RPG. Then made a version of the fighter called the knight that gave some bonuses when they engaged in mounted combat.
That analysis convinced me that Chainmail's take was accurate enough along with being at a level of detail suitable for OD&D rules.
If you are interested in the details download this PDF. I also included my take on the Berserker and the regular Fighter for comparison.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UK4TQ3cm0ScJg1QZ0okoCDNbyrYUFzFi/view?usp=sharing
If you want to see more then you can download this summary of my rules from here. As well as an equipment list that has what various weapons can do.
Majestic Fantasy RPG Summary
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf
Equipment List
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Equipment%20Rev%202.pdf
Enjoy
Quote from: estar on July 21, 2022, 05:55:16 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 02:42:57 PM
Quote from: estar on July 20, 2022, 10:03:01 PM
For me, that was a fighter type, a knight type, a soldier type, a berserker which is a holy warrior for Thor, a paladin who is a holy warrior for Mitra goddess of Justice and Honor, and Myrmidons a holy warrior for Set god of war and order. All of these were common things that players asked me about when making GURPS characters.
Kinda unrelated, but I love the idea of berserkers being a holy warrior of Thor. Real life berserkers had Odin as a patron god, though, since he's the frenzied god as one of his aspects. But real life berserkers were actually shamanic warriors, so making them holy warriors of a Nordic god seems very appropriate. All of these sound like fine concepts for a medievaleque fantasy game, though.
Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 02:42:57 PM
I always felt that D&D was kinda lacking on a proper "Knight" class, if they were going for specialized classes, like they seemed to focus on in later editions and even 2e around the time I came along. I think that there were supplements that had them, but the focus on most of the stuff I ran into was geared more towards either the fantastical stuff or the three 2e warrior classes, along with Barbarians, which was perhaps the most popular warrior class that they resisted including as a core class till 3e.
I looked at the Chainmail mounted combat rules both for the wargame and man-to-man after an excellent analysis on one of the classic edition forums. Then edited it into something more suitable for a RPG. Then made a version of the fighter called the knight that gave some bonuses when they engaged in mounted combat.
That analysis convinced me that Chainmail's take was accurate enough along with being at a level of detail suitable for OD&D rules.
If you are interested in the details download this PDF. I also included my take on the Berserker and the regular Fighter for comparison.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UK4TQ3cm0ScJg1QZ0okoCDNbyrYUFzFi/view?usp=sharing
If you want to see more then you can download this summary of my rules from here. As well as an equipment list that has what various weapons can do.
Majestic Fantasy RPG Summary
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf
Equipment List
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Equipment%20Rev%202.pdf
Enjoy
Interesting stuff! Will take a closer look when I get the chance.
Thanks!
Quote from: Wisithir on July 19, 2022, 10:29:18 PM
Classes are good when they provide unique an exclusive progression paths and bad when they cause pigeonholing or class proliferation and bloat. The good is a class distinction with strong flavor. If I look at Lion & Dragon, I like that a Magister is not a Cleric and the two operate and feel different. Conversely, in 3E land the difference between a prepared divine caster and an arcane spontaneous caster is largely trappings, and there are divine spontaneous casters and arcane prepared casters, so with multiclassing a level might as well be a skill to take when it come expanding character capability. And then there is bloat, because a fighter with code of honor and bonus to attack and damage on the first strike is just not a samurai to some players unless the class is called samurai. Too many class to choose from without a meaningful playstyle difference and nothing but potentially impressive sounding names to go after. Then comes pigeonholing because if a class is not good at something, it is perceived as a waste to do it. The squishy wizard should not bother with sneak because that is the rouge's domain, even if a wizard sniper is an awesome concept, the perceived wisdom is to boos wizardry instead.
Yeah, bloat is definitely a problem. It still is a problem in 3.x mechanics like PF. It's not unusual for 3pp to be big books of classes whose concepts aren't adequately covered by the core classes. I've seen almost a dozen different takes on the D&D warlock in 3pp for PF because PF never included it. The arcane/divine/psionic and prepared/spontaneous distinction especially has led to class bloat: wizard/sorcerer, cleric/favored soul, druid/spirit shaman, psion/wilder, the archivist (basically a divine wizard), hybrid prestige classes like the mystic theurge, etc.
This is why I liked
Spheres of Power so much. You can easily replicate the feel of any of those classes with a fraction of the rules, and these casting traditions are easily customizable to suit the flavor of your campaign setting. There's no need to for hybrid classes like the mystic theurge because spells aren't exclusive to any particular class. There's a dedicated gish class called Mageknight which can be flavored as an eldritch knight, psychic warrior, paladin, or whatever depending on what tradition you choose.
5e goes in the direction of lazily concealing the class bloat by folding classes from earlier editions into subclasses for the existing core classes. E.g. the psi warrior and soulknife are now subclasses of fighter and rogue respectively (and they're just psionic flavored versions of the eldritch knight and arcane trickster), the psion is now a psionics-flavored wizard subclass (while the wilder is barely approximated by the psionic soul subclass for sorcerer), the favored soul (spontaneous counterpart of the cleric) is now a sorcerer subclass, etc. This just leads to subclass bloat.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 21, 2022, 05:00:59 PM
Bard is a strange example. The historical analog blended into fantasy actually works better if most of the D&D attempts are kicked to the curb. A warrior/druid that happens to use music to influence people would make a better game-derived archetype than the one we got. Also tracks better as an option for a skald class once you expand beyond the Celtic sources. Though I suppose due to the baggage around it now, would be better to say that the skald makes a better archetype than the bard.
So a Ranger with a lute.
The Bard book series by Keith Taylor never got enough attention if you ask me.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 22, 2022, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on July 19, 2022, 10:29:18 PM
Classes are good when they provide unique an exclusive progression paths and bad when they cause pigeonholing or class proliferation and bloat. The good is a class distinction with strong flavor. If I look at Lion & Dragon, I like that a Magister is not a Cleric and the two operate and feel different. Conversely, in 3E land the difference between a prepared divine caster and an arcane spontaneous caster is largely trappings, and there are divine spontaneous casters and arcane prepared casters, so with multiclassing a level might as well be a skill to take when it come expanding character capability. And then there is bloat, because a fighter with code of honor and bonus to attack and damage on the first strike is just not a samurai to some players unless the class is called samurai. Too many class to choose from without a meaningful playstyle difference and nothing but potentially impressive sounding names to go after. Then comes pigeonholing because if a class is not good at something, it is perceived as a waste to do it. The squishy wizard should not bother with sneak because that is the rouge's domain, even if a wizard sniper is an awesome concept, the perceived wisdom is to boos wizardry instead.
Yeah, bloat is definitely a problem. It still is a problem in 3.x mechanics like PF. It's not unusual for 3pp to be big books of classes whose concepts aren't adequately covered by the core classes. I've seen almost a dozen different takes on the D&D warlock in 3pp for PF because PF never included it. The arcane/divine/psionic and prepared/spontaneous distinction especially has led to class bloat: wizard/sorcerer, cleric/favored soul, druid/spirit shaman, psion/wilder, the archivist (basically a divine wizard), hybrid prestige classes like the mystic theurge, etc.
This is why I liked Spheres of Power so much. You can easily replicate the feel of any of those classes with a fraction of the rules, and these casting traditions are easily customizable to suit the flavor of your campaign setting. There's no need to for hybrid classes like the mystic theurge because spells aren't exclusive to any particular class. There's a dedicated gish class called Mageknight which can be flavored as an eldritch knight, psychic warrior, paladin, or whatever depending on what tradition you choose.
5e goes in the direction of lazily concealing the class bloat by folding classes from earlier editions into subclasses for the existing core classes. E.g. the psi warrior and soulknife are now subclasses of fighter and rogue respectively (and they're just psionic flavored versions of the eldritch knight and arcane trickster), the psion is now a psionics-flavored wizard subclass (while the wilder is barely approximated by the psionic soul subclass for sorcerer), the favored soul (spontaneous counterpart of the cleric) is now a sorcerer subclass, etc. This just leads to subclass bloat.
Yeah, class feature bloat for specialized spellcasting classes is even worse than for warrior classes because spell-based magic is an exponentially more complicated component than combat with extensive spell lists that continuously get replicated and extended with every magic style variation or tradition that gets introduced. These you have endless variations of what essentially a combat spell (but for psionic or divine casters) or charm spells (but psionic themed!), etc., which is a bookkeeping nightmare.
I much prefer the Spheres of Magic approach to handling all of this rather than have to deal with vast overly specific spell lists that add nothing truly original. And are simply artificially distinct lists for supposed "flavor" that add nothing in practice, cuz it's not like you're gonna read the spell's flavor text during casting—not that many of them even have flavor text, or that you truly need it, when you can just ROLEPLAY your spellcasting, which is far more fulfilling that reading some text from the book anyways.
Though, when it comes to 5e I actually wish that they'd have done even more when it comes to folding class variants into core classes as just subclasses. They could've folded all these spellcasting variants into a universal spellcasting class (my preference), or even just limited it to folding Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks into a single Arcane caster class, if they wanna keep the Arcane/Divine distinction.
But instead they had to introduce two artificially distinct extra arcane classes (which are technically carry overs from earlier editions, I know), one of which (Sorcerers) isn't even necessary anymore now that they've made their original defining feature (Spontaneous Casting) a universal thing EVERYONE does even better than them. Since ALL casters can effectively spontaneously cast now, and also get to "prepare" (instead of memorize) more spells than Sorcerers can even learn. And that's on top of them (Wizards at least) being able to learn an endless amount of spell, while being limited only on which spells they can have prepared. Making sorcerers completely superfluous and vestigial now beyond just wanting to play a Cha-based mage.