I think the big distinction between classes and skills is giving up significant stuff or accepting significant limitations for a class.  So, the Fantasy Trip had (two) classes, because you had to choose Hero (each spell skill cost 3x) or Wizard (almost all non-spell skills cost 2x); but there was no greater cost to any choice after that than lost opportunity to choose something else.  In early D&D, fighting men gave up magic; magic-users gave up armor and most weapons; clerics gave up edged weapons and more powerful magic; each had its own set of usable magic items.  In skill systems, you give up advance in other skills when you advance a particular skill, but not much else.

So, maybe later editions of D&D are really classless; each level, you choose one of a number of fairly broad "skills", even though they're called classes.  N+1st level whatever has a prerequisite of Nth level whatever.  The first one you choose gives maximum HPs but otherwise has no greater significance than later choices.

I wouldn't say a class-based system is necessarily a better fit for fantasy settings in general.

I would say that fantasy settings in general are a better fit for class-based systems.

Does that make any sense to anyone?

I think the line blurs with iterations of class based games in which characters get points to buy whatever skills / abilities / etc they want vs the ones they automatically get; then compare that versus a virtual free-for-all pick like various d6 systems.

It seems to me that classes represent the penultimate role you represent at the time of the adventure, with 'gains' the are primarily easiest to learn or automatically granted when you achieve a level. Classes don't necessarily have to translate directly to "profession".

Your "buys" when you start a new character for Pathfinder / 3.5 represent how you got to 1st level. Not all skills or feats are necessarily for class X, but some are easier to learn because of your selection.

A modern person could be classed as a "warrior" if they had so much training in military skills and pre-adventure experience that the overall impact on the individual is to influence them from that point on - even if the "warrior" musters out and takes computer programming classes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;795194Rolemaster struck a good balance in that it was a skill system, but Class determined your access and speed in acquiring skills.

.

My prefered method.
You select a class.
Within that class you can do anything through skill/power selection but some things are far cheaper and more obvious to do. So the fighter is going to be good at fighting but might have some magic as a dabbler etc.

this breaks the model you see in some skill based systems where at some point everyone can do everything equally well.

Depends.

I'm heavily influenced by Conan and his ilk; fighters fight, thieves thieve, magic users use magic, clerics cler.  A fighter who steals something is still a fighter, especially if he relies on muscle and courage more than picking locks.

So I like my fantasy class-based.  If you want different things out of fantasy you might want a different game system.

Quote from: Old Geezer;795272Depends.

I'm heavily influenced by Conan and his ilk; fighters fight, thieves thieve, magic users use magic, clerics cler.  A fighter who steals something is still a fighter, especially if he relies on muscle and courage more than picking locks.

So I like my fantasy class-based.  If you want different things out of fantasy you might want a different game system.

Verily.

Works in alot of SF too where you might have security, techs, medics, engineers, navigators, etc.

Wasnt one of the complaints leveld at Boot Hill was that it didnt have classes?

Quote from: CRKrueger;795194I 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.

This comes close to the basic truth, but it's still something almost everyone misses, chronically.

Of course there's nothing about fantasy that makes a class-based system better for it.  That's nonsense; there's nothing about the fantasy genre that has clearer, more typecast archetypes than there is about any other genre fiction.  There's nothing about SF or supers or horror that has less in the way of easily recognizable archetypes than any other genre fiction.

It's as simple as this: the first major, enduring fantasy RPG used a class-based system.

The first major, enduring SF system didn't.  The first major, enduring supers system didn't.  The first major, enduring horror system didn't.

People have been conditioned to think along these lines for decades, and they don't have a lot to do with genres.  What, you can't pigeonhole SF characters?  Hell, the "tank" and "blaster" archetype names often used to discuss fantasy niche protection came out of supers.

Except, of course, that Traveller and Champions didn't have character classes, so ever since we've been disposed to think that their genres really don't need classes.

Quote from: Ravenswing;795301Except, of course, that Traveller and Champions didn't have character classes, so ever since we've been disposed to think that their genres really don't need classes.[/COLOR]

Why did the designers not make them classed games? Well, Traveller has careers, you can change career but Classic Traveller careers are pretty close to classes. Superheroes are inherently highly individualistic, it's probably the genre least suited to classs IMO even though there are clear discrete roles. In the fiction The Thing is not just a tank who's lower level than The Hulk, I think.

Quote from: Old Geezer;795272Depends.

I'm heavily influenced by Conan and his ilk; fighters fight, thieves thieve, magic users use magic,

Funny, I would consider the variety of competencies displayed by Conan ("a thief, a reaver, a slayer" etc.) or Fafhrd and the Mouser, arguments for skill-based systems.

Quote from: Old Geezer;795272clerics cler.

Made my day.

I'm iffy on them.  I like class systems when:

* The classes are broad and archetypal (or even stereotypes)

* Level one characters are presumed to be as competent as normal people

* There's a lot of presumed off-screen training/advancement, possibly tied into the power structures of the setting (e.g. at a mage's guild)

* There's no skill system, or much of one, and the class stands in for competencies.  (e.g. "You're a level eight fighter. Sure you can yank the staff from the mayor's hand.")

* The GM and players could use a firm guide for character advancement/development (e.g. young)

I dislike them when:

* The classes are ridiculously specialized, forcing characters into narrow paths far earlier than makes sense. ("I'm a level one deathfire mage!")

* There's a lot of zero in the hero. Strong, archetypal specialization makes less sense to me for green recruits.

* If characters are acquiring their skills while adventuring, but advancement is in something unrelated. (It's weird to spend six months at sea fighting kraken with a spear and somehow leveling up as a necromancer.)

* There's a solid skill system.  I'm looking at you, Rolemaster, where classes are reduced to a row on a giant table skill-buy costs. Why bother?

Quote from: S'mon;795302Why did the designers not make them classed games? Well, Traveller has careers, you can change career but Classic Traveller careers are pretty close to classes. Superheroes are inherently highly individualistic, it's probably the genre least suited to classs IMO even though there are clear discrete roles. In the fiction The Thing is not just a tank who's lower level than The Hulk, I think.

Champions Online goes both ways. Free players get Archetypes and paying players get freeform creation.

But yes. Superheros map best to a classless system. But they CAN be mapped to classes of sorts.

The Hulk and the Thing are both brute force types. The difference is in the power levels. Since usualy there is no actual "levelling up" for superheros. Even Iron Man is still much as he started. Just more things to call upon or different ways to switch out. Which brings up an old tangent. Levelling up. This is the other thing that superhero games can oft do without and not suffer the loss.

Quote from: The Butcher;795303Funny, I would consider the variety of competencies displayed by Conan ("a thief, a reaver, a slayer" etc.) or Fafhrd and the Mouser, arguments for skill-based systems.

Nope. You are forgetting that Lieber and especially Howard are writing from the viewpoint that a hero should be universally competent. It was a very common idea around the time they were writing. You can also see it in that famous Robert Heinlein quote:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

At best, a character might have one stand-out gimmick that they are more than merely competent at... but they are still able to try nearly anything.

Then, tastes shift and characters become lists of skills and qualities, instead of well-rounded individuals.

Years ago, during the chargen for a Traveller game, someone brought up classes, to which another player said: thieves, we're all thieves - which led us to name that campaign: "Thieves like us." I had done a low tech game, but trav is way different, and way more deadly; I think D&D's class/level system fits heroic fantasy a lot better.

Classes are good in that they represent a character in a single statement and can allow the character to grow in that role.

Classes are bad in that they assume that the only thing a character can do is to progress in that role, to the exclusion of others.

In RQ, we have Professions that take some of the ideas of a class. However, these are not restrictive. A warrior can also be a poet, without having warrior-poet as a class, or having a multi-class Warrior/Poet.

A friend of mine says that RQ cults are just like having a class, which is quote true. I can see a multi-class warrior/poet/orlanthi as being something I could work with.

But, in general, no - class-based is not better for fantasy.

Quote from: soltakss;795385Classes are bad in that they assume that the only thing a character can do is to progress in that role, to the exclusion of others.

I would modify this to say "they lead some players to assume..."

Classes should be thought of maybe as "not a ..."

Fighters are defined as people who do not throw spells, do not serve a god and work miracles, and do not have an extraordinary chance to climb sheer walls, hide in shadows, etc.

That doesn't mean they can't ride a horse, use a rope, ( :mad: :mad: :mad:) make camp, skin a rabbit and cook it, etc.

Or hide in a dark room, or behind a door.  See "Gary's explanation that thief abilities were above and beyond what a competent person could do is the single most unclear bit of his writing ever."