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. )

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 PM

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.

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. 

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.