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.

Quote

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.

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?


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.