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.

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" . . .