Quote from: Brad;795177I like how normative terms like "better" are used, as if there is some objective measure by which to judge roleplaying games. The answer, of course, is whether or not you like class-based systems for fantasy more than something else.

Somewhat relevant to this idiotic discussion.

I like how normative ideas like 'better' have already been dealt with with a bunch of nuanced replies, but you decided to dismiss everyone and be snarky.

But hey, Dead Poets Society is cool, so bonus points for that.

My immediate question is: what kind of fantasy? It's a very broad term. Swords and Sorcery? Epic? Science Fantasy? Gritty "Realism"?

There's some value in thinking about which kinds play best with Class and Level Exploration Fantasy (CLEF) games versus Skills and Abilities Fantasy Exploration (SAFE) games. But thinking about class as profession distorts the issue, I think.

Classes are more like archetypes. They are answers to the question "How do I prefer to solve problems?"

• Fighter: "I solve problems by hitting things/meeting them head on."
  
• Thief: "I solve problems by sneaking around them/being clever."
  
• Magician: "I solve problems with my magic powers/occult knowledge."
  
• Saint (Cleric, etc.): "I solve problems by faith in a higher power."
  

(Etc.  How many classes a game has depends on how you break down the archetypes -- The Fantasy Trip only has two classes, for example -- and whether you mix archetypes in with professions and other backgrounds.)

Legends and myths are very archetypal, plus they often portray heroes as being able to do just about everything they set their mind to. Swords and sorcery often shares the latter feature, so RPGs looking for a mythic, legendary, or S&S feel work better as class-based games. Fantasy that doesn't look backwards, but instead projects modern ideas backwards, winds up shifting more towards skill-and-ability-based games.

And there's also the choice between simple character creation vs. detailed customization. There's a whole range of games that can meet these different needs.

Class based RPGs are better for people who like classes. I like classes, so any genre with classes is good for me.

I find the "class system" works great for Rifts, Dark Heresy, Mechanoids, SWN and Traveller - all not fantasy RPGs. I also find the non-class system works great for RuneQuest and CoC, but I would argue that many players usually create "classes" out of the options there too.

I include Traveller because the choice of your Service (aka Class) determines your role and skill options to a large extent. AKA, the Scout, the Merchant, the Marine, etc.

Quote from: Will;795181I like how normative ideas like 'better' have already been dealt with with a bunch of nuanced replies, but you decided to dismiss everyone and be snarky.

But hey, Dead Poets Society is cool, so bonus points for that.

This is the fucking internet; snarky replies followed by videos and/or image macros are pretty much the way to roll.

I originally thought this based on my own preferences.  For example, skill-based was better for modern to futuristic, but class-based is better for fantasy, but then I realized it's a little different.

Class-based is better for certain types of campaigns, those with easily defined roles, archetypal, highly structured, or cinematic or literary emulative, while skill-based systems seem to suit more realistic, gritty, simulative settings/campaigns.

Rolemaster struck a good balance in that it was a skill system, but Class determined your access and speed in acquiring skills.

For all it's access to magic, elves and dragons, Shadowrun struck me as less cinematic then Cyberpunk 2020 because of the archetypal classes in Cyberpunk that emulated literary roles in the cyberpunk genre.

Very broad classes like OD&D or Dragon Age can support multiple expressions of an archetype under one large umbrella (like Fighter or Mage).

Very specific class systems like AD&D are more focused on a particular type of character, they are genre emulative.  Sure, they may be formed from several specific examples in different literary sources, but the genre emulation is there.

I find that if I am emulating some genres or settings, then classes are ok.  For example Forgotten Realms or Thedas of Dragon Age.  Howard's Hyboria, however, doesn't strike me as a class-based setting.  Even though Conan was a thief, mercenary, pirate, etc... he was always Conan, just doing different things and learning different skills, not acquiring the abilities of an archetype.  So for me, Hyboria is a skill-based campaign for a system like RQ6, or a very broad archetype system like BoL.

Sci-Fi I have a hard time dealing with classes, unless it's a very broad archetype system.  The exception might be the 40k setting, where people are hyper-specialized by the culture of the Imperium.  Another exception would be the Palladium systems where a complete skill system has been added to the class system, which really is more of a primary specialty, M.O.S. or race-as-class in a lot of cases.

Of course, this is for me, YMMV.

Quote from: jhkim;795179So Kyle's argument is that only 10-20 skills is effectively a class system (which I think is true of D6 and Savage Worlds).

However, I think the important thing about the class system is that your class continues to guide your development. In a skill system, characters smoothly range between each other, and will change smoothly with experience to overlap with each other.

Always nice when people agree with me.

I can't speak to Savage Worlds, but D6 does not have a set number of skills. It has six attributes and (according to the 2nd edition revised and expanded player handout) 81 skills + the 3 force skills are listed in the rules. Multiple specializations can be created for each of the skills and GMs can (and typically do) create additional general skills as necessary.

In addition, the template has no effect on development. (Other than the fact that it lists some skills that a character might consider increasing.)

And a template is really just a precreated package. There is no liimit on templates nor do characters need to be created with or by template. They are just a time saver.

All of these are why I categorize D6 as a point by, not a class system.

Quote from: CRKrueger;795194Class-based is better for certain types of campaigns, those with easily defined roles, archetypal, highly structured, or cinematic or literary emulative, while skill-based systems seem to suit more realistic, gritty, simulative settings/campaigns.

I'd mostly agree with this comment, especially in the case of class-based Rpgs. But, many skill-based systems released over the past few decades run the gamut between abstract and realistic/gritty/simulative. There's a vast amount of difference between the abstraction of Call of Cthulhu, and the crunchy, gritty simulation of RQ3/RQ6, obviously.

There is no better or worse, there no try or not try, there is just roleplay and all else is in the way..

All this talk makes me wonder how hard it would be to hack D&D 5e to be class-less. I'd probably start with Basic and go from there, grouping all abilities into Fighter, Expert and Magic. Cleric stuff would just be divine magic, if you catch my drift.

Quote from: Necrozius;795213All this talk makes me wonder how hard it would be to hack D&D 5e to be class-less. I'd probably start with Basic and go from there, grouping all abilities into Fighter, Expert and Magic. Cleric stuff would just be divine magic, if you catch my drift.

Back in the 4E era, I tried to see whether there was a way to hack 4E D&D into a classless system.  In the end, it was largely an exercise in futility.

For me, class-based systems are better for kitchen sink fantasy. When I am running a hexcrawl/sandbox, which for me is the prefered mode of play, knowing that 'this is a warrior - he knows warrior stuff' is right about the amount of detail I need to get some serious roleplay going.

When I am running a skill-based game, I tend to choose more sophisticated scenarios.
My first RQVI campaign was not a hexcrawl, but a location-based adventure revolving around Roman legionnaires beyond the Hadrian's Wall in Britannia. Although not any less epic, it usually gets much smaller in scale, because skills are inherently fiddlier, yet also tell a more detailed story about the character's background, interests, profession, and so forth.
In my homebrew setting, I've used T&T, AD&D, and DCC for broad-strokes fantasy adventure, but will be using Palladium Fantasy 2nd Edition for heavy, intrigue-driven city adventures.

I guess it comes down to abstraction for me, less about societal implications of using one above the other.

No, I dont think classes in and of themselves are especially suited to any genre, however I would say Archetypes are. A strong archetype has resonance and evokes cultural notions of a fantasy environment. Classes of the verb-verb variety ("shade-stalker", "blood-whirler", etc) do not.

Quote from: TristramEvans;795228Classes of the verb-verb variety ("shade-stalker", "blood-whirler", etc) do not.

goo-gurgler, etc.

Base answer is... Depends.

We know from years of game design that many players vastly prefer having at least some sort of framework to hang their hat on.

The degree of that frame varies wildly though. Some like the systems like Runequest where its more like a fleshed out profession than a class. Some prefer professions to classes even. And others like the D&D style where each class is very defined. And some like the solidly defined O/BX/A style and others prefer the skill, kit and proficiency systems that allow a bit of personalization as it were.

Class based can work for any setting. Or fail miserably. It depends greatly on presentation and the system itself.

So, point balance is social justice warrior, roll it straight is conservative... how else can we read too much into games...