Hi guys, what exactly are the major perks to Class-based systems over "skill-based systems", or said otherwise, systems that utilize more custom construction options for a given character? Is it really just a matter of simplicity, familiarity, and ease-of-use?
You may find this recent topic of interest: Purpose of classes (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-is-the-purpose-of-character-classes/)
You'll find a lot of people's answers in this thread:
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-is-the-purpose-of-character-classes/
Looking at it as a player, the chief advantage of classes is that it makes it very easy to pick what you'd like to play. You can look at a class/profession/archetype list as a menu, and just go "Oh, I can be Sphere Knight? That sounds cool. I'll give that a try". In classless games you often have to go in with a very clear idea of what kind of character you want to play and the system knowledge to successfully build that, or else you end up with a sort of grey goo character that just feels like you're playing "some guy". That can be a big hassle if you're coming into a game new, especially if it's a setting/genre you aren't familiar with.
EDIT: yeah, Steven linked the thread while I was typing.
Role protection. Well designed class systems require character to specialize in a particular area. They also provide a clear path of advancement compared to the much more open system of skill advancement. That said a lot of my favorite games presently are classless.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 15, 2025, 01:47:38 PMYou may find this recent topic of interest: Purpose of classes (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-is-the-purpose-of-character-classes/)
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 15, 2025, 01:51:38 PMYou'll find a lot of people's answers in this thread:
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-is-the-purpose-of-character-classes/
Looking at it as a player, the chief advantage of classes is that it makes it very easy to pick what you'd like to play. You can look at a class/profession/archetype list as a menu, and just go "Oh, I can be Sphere Knight? That sounds cool. I'll give that a try". In classless games you often have to go in with a very clear idea of what kind of character you want to play and the system knowledge to successfully build that, or else you end up with a sort of grey goo character that just feels like you're playing "some guy". That can be a big hassle if you're coming into a game new, especially if it's a setting/genre you aren't familiar with.
EDIT: yeah, Steven linked the thread while I was typing.
Thank you both!
1. Niche Protection: each class is distinct from one another in a way that makes them mutually useful without needing to be relatively as powerful as one another. though I'd argue this only works in systems with a low number of distinct classes, 3.5 edition and to a lesser extent 5th edition had very little to no niche protection do to the raw number of classes/subclasses.
2. archetypical: tied to point 1, each class, when few and distinct, reinforces their own play styles and themes, fighters feel like tough and capable, clerics feel defensive and noble, thiefs feel clever and slippery, wizards feel like a A-10 warthog blending up a small village of iraqis.
3. Very quick character generation: Characters in Class systems tend to be quicker (given the classes are few and distinct) this has a knock on effect, my general belief is a system has to have a quick method of character generation for it to also be deadly, otherwise it's at best annoying or downright game ender to have a character die.
I think archetypes is really the key. Especially if there is multiclassing, niche protection isn't that strong a force
Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 06:39:53 PMVery quick character generation: Characters in Class systems tend to be quicker (given the classes are few and distinct) this has a knock on effect, my general belief is a system has to have a quick method of character generation for it to also be deadly, otherwise it's at best annoying or downright game ender to have a character die.
As a long-time Call of Cthulhu player, I strongly disagree. Call of Cthulhu is one of the most successful RPGs for over four decades, and it is both deadly and skill-based.
Quote from: jhkim on January 16, 2025, 08:31:08 PMI think archetypes is really the key. Especially if there is multiclassing, niche protection isn't that strong a force
Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 06:39:53 PMVery quick character generation: Characters in Class systems tend to be quicker (given the classes are few and distinct) this has a knock on effect, my general belief is a system has to have a quick method of character generation for it to also be deadly, otherwise it's at best annoying or downright game ender to have a character die.
As a long-time Call of Cthulhu player, I strongly disagree. Call of Cthulhu is one of the most successful RPGs for over four decades, and it is both deadly and skill-based.
I never said class based systems were always faster or always fast in comparison to skill-based. I imagine it doesn't take very long to make a CoC character?
If it does, then regardless of the strengths I'd still dock points away from it on the grounds it should have a quicker means of character if it's going to be so deadly.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 08:55:29 PMQuote from: jhkim on January 16, 2025, 08:31:08 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 06:39:53 PMVery quick character generation: Characters in Class systems tend to be quicker (given the classes are few and distinct) this has a knock on effect, my general belief is a system has to have a quick method of character generation for it to also be deadly, otherwise it's at best annoying or downright game ender to have a character die.
As a long-time Call of Cthulhu player, I strongly disagree. Call of Cthulhu is one of the most successful RPGs for over four decades, and it is both deadly and skill-based.
I never said class based systems were always faster or always fast in comparison to skill-based. I imagine it doesn't take very long to make a CoC character?
If it does, then regardless of the strengths I'd still dock points away from it on the grounds it should have a quicker means of character if it's going to be so deadly.
Chargen in Call of Cthulhu (CoC) is mostly about allocating points to skills. You have a few hundred points to divide among fifty or so skills. It's straightforward but can be time-consuming.
But from experience with Call of Cthulhu, I don't find that it is more of a downer or game-breaker for a character to die.
I think that's because time investment isn't the biggest factor in emotional investment. I think the archetypal-ness of classes and the "zero-to-hero" of D&D XP are bigger factors.
In Call of Cthulhu, you make a relatively ordinary person - not an archetypal hero. That makes it
easier when your PC dies. Also, experience in CoC is much more incremental. In D&D, after a few levels it becomes very painful to give up the investment, whereas in CoC it's easier to fold in a beginning character.
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2025, 05:27:48 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 08:55:29 PMQuote from: jhkim on January 16, 2025, 08:31:08 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 06:39:53 PMVery quick character generation: Characters in Class systems tend to be quicker (given the classes are few and distinct) this has a knock on effect, my general belief is a system has to have a quick method of character generation for it to also be deadly, otherwise it's at best annoying or downright game ender to have a character die.
As a long-time Call of Cthulhu player, I strongly disagree. Call of Cthulhu is one of the most successful RPGs for over four decades, and it is both deadly and skill-based.
I never said class based systems were always faster or always fast in comparison to skill-based. I imagine it doesn't take very long to make a CoC character?
If it does, then regardless of the strengths I'd still dock points away from it on the grounds it should have a quicker means of character if it's going to be so deadly.
Chargen in Call of Cthulhu (CoC) is mostly about allocating points to skills. You have a few hundred points to divide among fifty or so skills. It's straightforward but can be time-consuming.
But from experience with Call of Cthulhu, I don't find that it is more of a downer or game-breaker for a character to die.
I think that's because time investment isn't the biggest factor in emotional investment. I think the archetypal-ness of classes and the "zero-to-hero" of D&D XP are bigger factors.
In Call of Cthulhu, you make a relatively ordinary person - not an archetypal hero. That makes it easier when your PC dies. Also, experience in CoC is much more incremental. In D&D, after a few levels it becomes very painful to give up the investment, whereas in CoC it's easier to fold in a beginning character.
I spoke strictly in terms of mechanics, whether a character is "easier" to accept dying is utterly subjective as far as I'm concerned.
I strictly meant in the mechanical sense, and it is clear to me CoC and many BRP systems don't exactly have breezy character generation. which makes their lethality simply annoying as opposed to having any sense of bathos.
the advantage of quick and random character generation is that the ones that survive long you feel (rightfully so) more entitled to care and think they are epic and as to what happens to them. than say some pre-planned min/maxed character build, because all of their greatness was set ahead of them even having been played.
another reason I make a distinction between old-school classes in games and new-school classes. because D&D 3.5 sucked ass through a straw and making characters was a tedious chore.
Others have said this sort of stuff better, of course, but honestly it's a game. Classes enable more immediate play. Not to mention, "I'm putting a team together," is like the ultimate action movie trope. You gotta have the heavy weapons dude, the safe cracker, the mechanic, the face man, etc. Even the hyper-competent jack-of-all-trades is an archetype in the genre. So, yeah, class directly emulate fiction and make it easier to play the game more quickly.
If you look at a game as portraying heroes/adventurers/those who go 'out there', I believe jhkim has hit the nail on the head by mentioning archetypes. Looking at Joseph Campbell's body of work such as the documentary about his decades of study on myths and legends, his Hero's Journey chart, along with books such as The Hero With A Thousand Faces (a great read, yet I teach World Mythologies, so I am a bit biased in this example) we see that there are archetypes that resonate with us across cultures and differences that we can all understand and that some of us still yearn for, and can via activities like rpgs.
Quote from: Brad on January 17, 2025, 06:22:52 PMOthers have said this sort of stuff better, of course, but honestly it's a game. Classes enable more immediate play. Not to mention, "I'm putting a team together," is like the ultimate action movie trope. You gotta have the heavy weapons dude, the safe cracker, the mechanic, the face man, etc. Even the hyper-competent jack-of-all-trades is an archetype in the genre. So, yeah, class directly emulate fiction and make it easier to play the game more quickly.
That depends what fiction you're emulating. While all fiction has archetypes, I think some fiction doesn't easily lend itself to systematizing those archetypes as classes.
You mention safe cracker like in heist movies or the
Mission: Impossible series. Those would do well with classes, but on the other hand, I think the
James Bond 007 RPG fits well by not having classes, because there aren't those simple roles.
I do like some class-based systems, like Cyberpunk and Monster of the Week, for example - which match up well with their associated fiction.
On the other hand, I think
Call of Cthulhu emulates Lovecraft's fiction well by not having classes. Also,
Marvel Superheroes I think does well by not having classes to emulate it's fiction. There are some subsets of superheroic action that can work well with classes, but not a broad superheroic system.
I've preferred classless systems for my Tolkien games as well - I've been using
Savage Worlds most recently. I don't think Tolkien's stories actually lend themselves to simple classes, despite some D&D classes being based on his characters. Nothing wrong with D&D, but D&D does not emulate Tolkien's fiction.
Someone offers to run a quick D&D adventure. You volunteer to play the Rogue / Thief. Everyone with any experience, understands exactly what role you are going to fill. Someone else volunteers to play a Priest / Cleric, etc.
You don't need 640 pages of rules. You can run a class based game, right off the top of your head,
I like them as shortcuts/summaries/memes; I can just say he villain is a "level 8 Fighter" and it's basically all I need to know.
It really help defines the PCs role in the party too.
Skill systems OTOH are good when the PCs are all from a similar profession, e.g., a group of knights. Then you can differentiate by skill. If that's not the case, classes are a good shortcut to differentiate PCs.
BTW: I like to say a Fighter 8 has +8 to-hit and a Thief 8 has +8 dmg when backstabbing etc. Really simplifies things.
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2025, 09:07:04 PMQuote from: Brad on January 17, 2025, 06:22:52 PMOthers have said this sort of stuff better, of course, but honestly it's a game. Classes enable more immediate play. Not to mention, "I'm putting a team together," is like the ultimate action movie trope. You gotta have the heavy weapons dude, the safe cracker, the mechanic, the face man, etc. Even the hyper-competent jack-of-all-trades is an archetype in the genre. So, yeah, class directly emulate fiction and make it easier to play the game more quickly.
That depends what fiction you're emulating. While all fiction has archetypes, I think some fiction doesn't easily lend itself to systematizing those archetypes as classes.
You mention safe cracker like in heist movies or the Mission: Impossible series. Those would do well with classes, but on the other hand, I think the James Bond 007 RPG fits well by not having classes, because there aren't those simple roles.
I do like some class-based systems, like Cyberpunk and Monster of the Week, for example - which match up well with their associated fiction.
On the other hand, I think Call of Cthulhu emulates Lovecraft's fiction well by not having classes. Also, Marvel Superheroes I think does well by not having classes to emulate it's fiction. There are some subsets of superheroic action that can work well with classes, but not a broad superheroic system.
I've preferred classless systems for my Tolkien games as well - I've been using Savage Worlds most recently. I don't think Tolkien's stories actually lend themselves to simple classes, despite some D&D classes being based on his characters. Nothing wrong with D&D, but D&D does not emulate Tolkien's fiction.
WEG Star Wars is essentially classless, but the template system forces an archetype, so it's the same in practice. Life path systems like in Runequest and Traveller also do the same thing, pretty much.
RE: D&D and Tolkien, BECMI is literally the best game ever for a LotR campaign...MERP is great, but if I use BECMI I can make the fellowship in thirty seconds.
Quote from: Man at Arms on January 18, 2025, 01:21:48 AMSomeone offers to run a quick D&D adventure. You volunteer to play the Rogue / Thief. Everyone with any experience, understands exactly what role you are going to fill. Someone else volunteers to play a Priest / Cleric, etc.
You don't need 640 pages of rules. You can run a class based game, right off the top of your head,
This has nothing to do with classes or not. There have always been plenty of rules-heavy class-based games with hundreds of pages of rules, like AD&D, Rolemaster, etc. - as well as rules-light class-based games like the Basic Set and others.
There have also always been plenty of simple rules-light classless games like BRP, Ghostbusters, etc.
Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2025, 08:58:21 PMWEG Star Wars is essentially classless, but the template system forces an archetype, so it's the same in practice. Life path systems like in Runequest and Traveller also do the same thing, pretty much.
It's not the same in practice. In D6 or Runequest or Traveller, you don't have to know anything about what template or lifepath was used in order to play the character. A template is just a package of point spending - Shadowrun and even GURPS have templates as well. A BRP profession is a grouping of skills, but characters with the same profession in Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest can have zero overlap. Likewise, two characters can go into the same service in Traveller and end up with completely different skills.
Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2025, 08:58:21 PMRE: D&D and Tolkien, BECMI is literally the best game ever for a LotR campaign...MERP is great, but if I use BECMI I can make the fellowship in thirty seconds.
In BECMI, you can quickly roll up four 1st-level halflings, two 1st-level fighters, and a 1st-level magic user, dwarf, and elf. That clearly draws inspiration from Tolkien, but the question is, how well do those characters actually emulate the specific characters of Gandalf, Frodo, etc.?
In play, I don't think the characters or the rules emulate Tolkien's fiction very well. Similarly, I could try doing the Hobbit, and roll up a party of a 1st-level halfling and thirteen 1st-level dwarves, but those stats and the rules don't emulate the action very well.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2025, 08:17:34 PMIt's not the same in practice. In D6 or Runequest or Traveller, you don't have to know anything about what template or lifepath was used in order to play the character. A template is just a package of point spending - Shadowrun and even GURPS have templates as well. A BRP profession is a grouping of skills, but characters with the same profession in Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest can have zero overlap. Likewise, two characters can go into the same service in Traveller and end up with completely different skills.
You literally don't have to know anything about how any D&D character was created, either. I don't understand what your point is, here. You give someone a SW character and say he's a smuggler, you give someone a D&D character and say he's a fighter. Are you claiming I cannot play a class-based system without knowing how the character was generated or what?
QuoteIn BECMI, you can quickly roll up four 1st-level halflings, two 1st-level fighters, and a 1st-level magic user, dwarf, and elf. That clearly draws inspiration from Tolkien, but the question is, how well do those characters actually emulate the specific characters of Gandalf, Frodo, etc.?
In play, I don't think the characters or the rules emulate Tolkien's fiction very well. Similarly, I could try doing the Hobbit, and roll up a party of a 1st-level halfling and thirteen 1st-level dwarves, but those stats and the rules don't emulate the action very well.
You can literally play that troupe and delve the Mines of Moria and fight the balrog. That's the entire point. "Emulating fiction" is stupid. I want to play a fucking hobbit who runs out of his house without a handkerchief, not "emulate fiction," and BECMI can do that with zero issues.
I think you're conflating some sort of modern notion of storytelling with RPGs; the game is paramount, the story is a product of play. You can't write a script and expect the PCs to just magically go along with it and pretend you're actually playing a game.
Quote from: Brad on January 20, 2025, 02:05:01 PMQuote from: jhkim on January 19, 2025, 08:17:34 PMIt's not the same in practice. In D6 or Runequest or Traveller, you don't have to know anything about what template or lifepath was used in order to play the character. A template is just a package of point spending - Shadowrun and even GURPS have templates as well. A BRP profession is a grouping of skills, but characters with the same profession in Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest can have zero overlap. Likewise, two characters can go into the same service in Traveller and end up with completely different skills.
You literally don't have to know anything about how any D&D character was created, either. I don't understand what your point is, here. You give someone a SW character and say he's a smuggler, you give someone a D&D character and say he's a fighter. Are you claiming I cannot play a class-based system without knowing how the character was generated or what?
Yes. In D&D, class is mechanically important after character creation - because the class defines how you advance with XP.
You write in THAC0 and saving throws for the character to avoid looking up based on class, but you need to know what class you are to determine when you level up and what happens then.
If the only benefit of classes were the mechanical balancing benefits, that would be enough.
Classes let players that want to kind of min/max do so within good limits, and if you find something that's busted at your table you can fix it at the class level for the next campaign. It's easy to add an additional class either to flesh out your world or deliver exactly what a player wants. It's the correct and way to handle anything that's going to matter from a mechanical perspective, and it keeps all the relevant rules in one bundle.
Everything that crosses class lines in any version- from feats to the myraid little buttons and doodads in 4e and 3e to the spells in all versions- runs into balance issues that vary from worldshattering to "this is too good everyone in your world would use a spiked chain".
But balance isn't even the main reason I like classes. The main reason I like classes is that it allows for the meaningful welding of story and mechanics, which is the main draw of having any rules at all for me. It also allows for bright archetypes that stick out for your players and even in some cases NPCs. Those are the top merits of class systems.
I'm totally uninterested in classless RPGs as a DM or player, and frankly, even video games without classes are unappealing to me. "You can build everything from common skills" is total anathema to me, I won't even touch it.
Quote from: Venka on January 20, 2025, 03:03:29 PMThe main reason I like classes is that it allows for the meaningful welding of story and mechanics, which is the main draw of having any rules at all for me. It also allows for bright archetypes that stick out for your players and even in some cases NPCs. Those are the top merits of class systems.
I can understand this logic -- in class-based systems, the rules have more input into who the PCs are. Who the PCs are - especially their archetypes - is an important part of the game.
But that doesn't always mean that I want that predefined. It's like having a pre-made setting built into the rules or pre-made adventures. Sometimes I want to just use what is offered, but sometimes I want to create my own in a do-it-yourself (DIY) spirit.
Creating distinctive and archetypal characters is interesting to me, much like setting creation and adventure creation. I run a lot of one-shot convention games, and creating a good set of pregen PCs is something I get into. In my last Savage Middle Earth adventure, there were ten pregen characters who were all dwarves. I enjoyed writing up the contrast of the bodyguard vs the two-fisted tavern-keeper, for example.
Classes are fantastic for lazy MFs who can't muster the energy to buy groceries and prepare a meal.
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/be06e54ee74bdf2d60928893ce9bf700/tumblr_nre7stuKR61u7vt5jo1_500.gif)
Quote from: Theory of Games on January 23, 2025, 09:25:10 PMClasses are fantastic for lazy MFs who can't muster the energy to buy groceries and prepare a meal.
That's a ridiculous angle. One could just as easily argue classes are for non-obese people with who don't have hours to min-max a parlor game in a smelly game store. Let's leave broad insults out of it.
Quote from: SmallMountaineer on January 24, 2025, 08:34:28 AMQuote from: Theory of Games on January 23, 2025, 09:25:10 PMClasses are fantastic for lazy MFs who can't muster the energy to buy groceries and prepare a meal.
That's a ridiculous angle. One could just as easily argue classes are for non-obese people with who don't have hours to min-max a parlor game in a smelly game store. Let's leave broad insults out of it.
Well, he's being somewhat hyperbolic, but it IS true class-based games are infinitely easier to get people who don't have the inclination to do a bunch of math and make a bunch of decisions playing. This isn't an insult; I know plenty of people who are casual RPG fans who just want to basically "pick a piece" and play the game, they don't want to go through 52390458923408 options. The same kind of people who are more than willing to play a boardgame as long as you keep track of the rules so they don't have to memorize a ton of shit.
State-of-the-art discrimination!
Quote from: Man at Arms on January 18, 2025, 01:21:48 AMSomeone offers to run a quick D&D adventure. You volunteer to play the Rogue / Thief. Everyone with any experience, understands exactly what role you are going to fill. Someone else volunteers to play a Priest / Cleric, etc.
You don't need 640 pages of rules. You can run a class based game, right off the top of your head,
Just like in a classless system. It turns out that the words we use to refer to party roles communicate information equally well in any context.
Hilarious that you're using D&D as an example of a game with a small amount of rules btw.
Quote from: Brad on January 24, 2025, 08:47:24 AMQuote from: SmallMountaineer on January 24, 2025, 08:34:28 AMQuote from: Theory of Games on January 23, 2025, 09:25:10 PMClasses are fantastic for lazy MFs who can't muster the energy to buy groceries and prepare a meal.
That's a ridiculous angle. One could just as easily argue classes are for non-obese people with who don't have hours to min-max a parlor game in a smelly game store. Let's leave broad insults out of it.
Well, he's being somewhat hyperbolic, but it IS true class-based games are infinitely easier to get people who don't have the inclination to do a bunch of math and make a bunch of decisions playing. This isn't an insult; I know plenty of people who are casual RPG fans who just want to basically "pick a piece" and play the game, they don't want to go through 52390458923408 options. The same kind of people who are more than willing to play a boardgame as long as you keep track of the rules so they don't have to memorize a ton of shit.
Classless systems are better if you hate math. D&D is probably the worst possible system for introducing new players. They're also better for "pick a piece" players. They can just describe the sort of hero they want, and I can have a sheet ready for them in under five minutes. They don't even need to read the rules.
Quote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:26:30 AMClassless systems are better if you hate math. D&D is probably the worst possible system for introducing new players.
It depends. Which version of D&D are we talking about? IF it's 5e, then I would agree. B/X is probably the easiest for someone to introduce new players, at least from my experience.
Also I disagree with "Classless systems are better if you hate math". I found there is much more number crunching in a classless system than ones with classes.
I also find most of your comments are made just to be a contrarian and to be edgy.
Quote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:26:30 AMClassless systems are better if you hate math. D&D is probably the worst possible system for introducing new players. They're also better for "pick a piece" players. They can just describe the sort of hero they want, and I can have a sheet ready for them in under five minutes. They don't even need to read the rules.
And you're at every table making characters and interpreting the rules for every player in every group? You're equating a product + service to a product, and that's hardly a fair comparison. However, if you want to compare, then there are FAR more D&D-based character building guides online than for classless games.
oh.my.god.
I agree with HappyDaze on something.
See what happens when you sperate politics from the gaming table?
Quote from: blackstone on February 04, 2025, 09:04:05 AMQuote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:26:30 AMQuote from: Brad on January 24, 2025, 08:47:24 AMWell, he's being somewhat hyperbolic, but it IS true class-based games are infinitely easier to get people who don't have the inclination to do a bunch of math and make a bunch of decisions playing. This isn't an insult; I know plenty of people who are casual RPG fans who just want to basically "pick a piece" and play the game, they don't want to go through 52390458923408 options.
Classless systems are better if you hate math. D&D is probably the worst possible system for introducing new players. They're also better for "pick a piece" players. They can just describe the sort of hero they want, and I can have a sheet ready for them in under five minutes. They don't even need to read the rules.
It depends. Which version of D&D are we talking about? IF it's 5e, then I would agree. B/X is probably the easiest for someone to introduce new players, at least from my experience.
Also I disagree with "Classless systems are better if you hate math". I found there is much more number crunching in a classless system than ones with classes.
Both class-based systems and classless systems can have math. To illustrate, here is a snippet from "EXAMPLE OF CREATING A PLAYER CHARACTER" from the 1981 D&D Basic Set.
Quote10. For gold, the player rolls an 11 on 3d6, then multiplies by 10, which gives the character 110 gold pieces (gp) with which to buy equipment. 110 gp is recorded under MONEY on the back of the character sheet.
11. The player decides on the following equipment: chain mail armor (40 gp), a shield (10 gp), a sword (10 gp), a short bow (25 gp), a quiver of 20 arrows (5 gp), 1 silver-tipped arrow (5 gp), a 50' rope (1 gp), a 10' pole (1 gp), 12 iron spikes (1gp), 6 torches (1 gp), 1 week's standard rations (5 gp), a large sack (2 gp), 1 quart of wine (1 gp), and a wine skin (1 gp). The player would have liked to have purchased plate mail armor, but to do so would have meant giving up a bow. The equipment is listed on the back of the character sheet. Since 108 gp were spent, the "110" is erased from under MONEY, and replaces with a "2".
That's a significant amount of math, I'd claim.
For comparison, in the Ghostbusters RPG, you have to distribute 12 points between the four attributes
Brains,
Muscles,
Moves, or
Cool. That's simpler. And equipment is easier - just grab whatever cards you want from the equipment card pile. The options are limited, but you can have whatever is available.
Class-based games can be very simple, but so can classless.
If you really want simple character creation, then for any system the easiest is just to have a bunch of pregen characters. Then the player just picks which pregen they want - like in Marvel Superheroes, Shadowrun, or many other RPGs. If you want players to just pick an archetype and use it, then this is the way to go.
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2025, 01:24:23 PMIf you really want simple character creation, then for any system the easiest is just to have a bunch of pregen characters. Then the player just picks which pregen they want - like in Marvel Superheroes, Shadowrun, or many other RPGs. If you want players to just pick an archetype and use it, then this is the way to go.
you can have pregens for a class based system too. The last page of almost every AD&D and D&D module have a few.
As someone who had to take a lot of math classes for my engineering degree, I have never been detoured by math in a game, and I even struggle to grasp just how much other people might struggle with or dislike math because it has always come naturally to me.
I really truly don't know whether classless or class systems in general have harder math to make characters. I can see both easy and hard systems existing for both styles of games.
One dynamic that may not have been addressed (I apologize but I do kinda skim threads if it seems like a lot of banter happens), is someone who is not entirely familiar with RPGs in general or the specific RPG that the character is being made for, in a classless system that person may build a character that ends up being effective at things that are not important, and ineffective at important things. Where as with a class system, there should at least be, within that game, pre-defined avenues of effectiveness or niches so it can be harder to build/make a character that may serve no purpose.
Of course if you're playing with friends and just having fun, your friends probably can go along with the joke of you having a useless character that is trying your best to get by. But that is something I don't expect new players to try doing.
Quote from: blackstone on February 04, 2025, 01:29:29 PMQuote from: jhkim on February 04, 2025, 01:24:23 PMIf you really want simple character creation, then for any system the easiest is just to have a bunch of pregen characters. Then the player just picks which pregen they want - like in Marvel Superheroes, Shadowrun, or many other RPGs. If you want players to just pick an archetype and use it, then this is the way to go.
you can have pregens for a class based system too. The last page of almost every AD&D and D&D module have a few.
Agreed. When I said "any system", I meant both class-based and classless. The 3E Basic Set had pregen characters, for example.
The third edition Unearthed Arcana had some interesting rules for generic classes, races-as-classes, and gestalt classes (2 classes at once).
Quote from: jordane1964 on February 04, 2025, 11:42:16 PMThe third edition Unearthed Arcana had some interesting rules for generic classes, races-as-classes, and gestalt classes (2 classes at once).
Unfortunately, their main result when used was to make a complicated game even more so, particularly as the levels went up. I ran a full-own campaign using all those rules up to about level 11-13, and it almost killed me.
Quote from: jordane1964 on February 04, 2025, 11:42:16 PMThe third edition Unearthed Arcana had some interesting rules for generic classes, races-as-classes, and gestalt classes (2 classes at once).
While I favor class systems exclusively, I'm not a huge fan of most multiclass/dual class/gestalt things. If you are creating a character in a class-based game, you have the soft expectation that you can either bring an existing concept and choose which class matches it closest, or look through the classes and use one as a starting idea for a character, and that the resulting character will be ok for whatever time you spend in that pretend world. When you add the ability to stack classes (especially if it's multiple ways to do so) you are inevitably creating a much greater imbalance between the best and the worst than you had in your inevitably-unbalanced initial class system. Gestalt in particular makes it tough because many combos are total poop compared to others.
So now the guy that walks in with an extant idea now has to do more research to do it "right"- usually including "how exactly powerful are all the other PCs, so I land in the right area?". And the guy who goes through classes and thinks "that sounds neat" is usually hosed, because you'll have some class like monk which grabs him right away, but actually you should be building some gestalt bit that dosen't really involve monk at all to be what the monk is.
Basically ideas like that have the intention of "pick two things, now you're a third thing that is both of those in some fashion" but in practice the designers almost never have the foresight to test most or even many of those and that then steps on top of the original design completely.
Much better to stick with some set of classes and then use houserules to fix any imbalance that actually matters at your table (or that you think might, if it's your first time- you can always adjust later).
Quote from: Banjo Destructo on February 04, 2025, 01:49:31 PMAs someone who had to take a lot of math classes for my engineering degree, I have never been detoured by math in a game, and I even struggle to grasp just how much other people might struggle with or dislike math because it has always come naturally to me.
I really truly don't know whether classless or class systems in general have harder math to make characters. I can see both easy and hard systems existing for both styles of games.
One dynamic that may not have been addressed (I apologize but I do kinda skim threads if it seems like a lot of banter happens), is someone who is not entirely familiar with RPGs in general or the specific RPG that the character is being made for, in a classless system that person may build a character that ends up being effective at things that are not important, and ineffective at important things. Where as with a class system, there should at least be, within that game, pre-defined avenues of effectiveness or niches so it can be harder to build/make a character that may serve no purpose.
Of course if you're playing with friends and just having fun, your friends probably can go along with the joke of you having a useless character that is trying your best to get by. But that is something I don't expect new players to try doing.
Well that's ironic. It's extremely easy to make a dud in a class system, for example you can just write down fighter, monk, soul knife or truenamer. Conversely, I've never seen anyone manage to make a useless character in a classless system, even on purpose. This is perhaps their primary advantage. When you're using a preset package of powers (which is all a class is), you're depending on the designers to understand their own game at all, and then to understand it well enough to know which abilities are roughly equivalent, which abilities are useful to a particular archetype, and which abilities complement each other.
And that's why one class gets ninth level spells, and the other gets +1 to attack rolls and a feat.
Of course, incompetent designers aren't rare, and neither are they uniquely prevalent in one type of game. There surely are bad classless systems where "know what music butterflies prefer" has the same cost as "summon the actual Devil and command him permanently." I just haven't had the bad fortune to encounter one, whereas bad class based systems are the dominant systems in the hobby.
I see class based systems as just a short cut/guard rails for character generation. When I was playing Shadowrun back in the day, I always preferred point buy instead of the simpler priority system because of the full control/tweaks I could make to the character. Now that I'm much more interested in rules light systems, I don't think I'd opt for that though if I were to ever go back. With rules light games though, most of the time whether or not its class or skill based makes much less of a difference since the mechanics/complexity is lower to begin with. Class based still saves you a bit of time/headspace but it's not hard picking a few skills to get a blanket bonus in and a perk or three manually instead.
Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 06:05:02 AMConversely, I've never seen anyone manage to make a useless character in a classless system, even on purpose.
I have. I have seen more than a few of them in Call of Cthulhu. One common one is players that spread their skill points too thin trying to do everything and end up being bad at everything and failing all the time. Another is people who use the point but attribute system to dump their POW stat because they don't understand what the stat does. They start with 35 SAN and are indefinitely insane if they lose 7 SAN which doesn't take long. when you fail 65% of SAN checks.
Quote from: yosemitemike on February 24, 2025, 09:38:24 AMQuote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 06:05:02 AMConversely, I've never seen anyone manage to make a useless character in a classless system, even on purpose.
I have. I have seen more than a few of them in Call of Cthulhu. One common one is players that spread their skill points too thin trying to do everything and end up being bad at everything and failing all the time. Another is people who use the point but attribute system to dump their POW stat because they don't understand what the stat does. They start with 35 SAN and are indefinitely insane if they lose 7 SAN which doesn't take long. when you fail 65% of SAN checks.
Me too. In fact, every campaign of Hero System or GURPS I have run, I had to review the characters carefully before play started--not because of power-gaming or outright cheating but because of players gimping their characters unintentionally. It got so bad that I ended up putting together a check-list based on archetypes. So you are a "ranger". Did you remember to buy X, Y, and Z?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 24, 2025, 10:28:23 AMMe too. In fact, every campaign of Hero System or GURPS I have run, I had to review the characters carefully before play started--not because of power-gaming or outright cheating but because of players gimping their characters unintentionally. It got so bad that I ended up putting together a check-list based on archetypes. So you are a "ranger". Did you remember to buy X, Y, and Z?
I saw that quite a bit in Hero system as well. Because of the sheer numbers of options and ways to build a character, it was easy to accidentally build a character that didn't really function or couldn't really do whatever they were supposed to do. I saw the same thing in M&M 3e even though it's much simpler than Hero system. Players that didn't know the system well would make a character that just didn't work. One common problem came from the way bonuses are paired in the game. The sum of these pairs can't exceed the game's power level+10. Bonus to hit and damage was one of these pairs Problems arose when a player skewed these too hard in one direction or the other. They wound wind up with a character that hit a lot but did not damage or one that would do a ton of damage if he could hit anything.
Another one came up in pretty much every classless system I have ever run. It happens when a player goes into character creation without a sufficiently strong concept for the character. They wind up with a character that is just a pile of various...stuff. This looks good. I'll take this. The end result is a character where nothing meshes with anything and that doesn't really work. A concrete example is people who don't account for what occupation they will take or how skill points for that occupation are calculated in Call of Cthulhu. This can make a big difference in how many occupation skill points a character gets.
I'll second the "here's your massive (100+) pile of points; buy whatever you want" issues of classless character building.
I'm going to be introducing a group to M&M3e in the near future (ostensibly to give the GM who's basically run 5e Forgotten Realms for the last three campaigns a break, but actually because it's time the group experience something other than D&D5e without stepping too far outside of their familiar d20 mechanics for their first outing).
But I am not having them build their own PCs. Half of them barely have a handle on the classes as it is. Giving them a mess of points and letting them go to town is just asking for a mess.
They're going to tell me what they want (within the parameters of the setting* I give them) and I'll build their first PC for them and then introduce them to the point buy when it comes time for them to "level-up" (on the theory they'll then have specific things they'll want to improve.**
I'm not even going to insist on original characters (though no more than one Wolverine or Deadpool allowed... this is not a Multiverse campaign) though I will encourage original concepts if possible. This is mainly about breaking them out of the "All is 5e" mindset.
* Street-level heroes (Year-One Batman, rookie Spider-Man, Cloak&Dagger, Blade, B-list mutants) in a world where "Last Issue the Justice League-expies died saving the world, who will save us from the next threat?" and the long term campaign arc will be them growing to become those heroes.
** I'll probably build initially so a few things are slightly below the power level limits so they'll have some obvious things to improve on.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 24, 2025, 10:28:23 AMIn fact, every campaign of Hero System or GURPS I have run, I had to review the characters carefully before play started--not because of power-gaming or outright cheating but because of players gimping their characters unintentionally. It got so bad that I ended up putting together a check-list based on archetypes. So you are a "ranger". Did you remember to buy X, Y, and Z?
I also would have to review characters for Hero and GURPS, but I also think that it's a reasonable practice to review characters for almost any system - certainly for more complex ones like 3E or 5E D&D, or 2E D&D with kits. I usually review characters as part of session zero where we talk about who the party are and what they're doing.
I'd agree that character review takes more effort in Hero and GURPS compared to some systems, but they also offer more flexibility. Class systems do have merit and I've used them, but many point systems (like Hero and GURPS) clearly offer a greater variety of characters.
Chris24601 replied about this under a different thread on classes, but it makes more sense to reply here, I think:
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 10:56:32 AMSimilarly, by the time you've a la carte bought all the proficiencies and skill and attribute levels needed to be a competent knight... how many points do you really have left over? Again, once you add it all up, choosing to be a warrior is probably a de facto "class."
The only thing not expressly labeling those as "classes" does is leave if open for someone to try and build, say, a gish who mixes the warrior and caster traits, but doesn't actually have enough points to make it viable so they end up with something gimped. They'll learn in time, but it's a bad first impression for any system.
Alternately, the classless system just ends up with every PC converging on some sort "ideal build" as they buy up all the most useful options (in fantasy this would be the "tankmage").
That simply isn't the case. GURPS has a spectrum between IQ-emphasis and DX-emphasis that has some similarity to very broad classes, but that still offer a wider range than any other class system. Hero doesn't have the equivalent. Neither GURPS nor Hero have any single "ideal build", and they both allow for mixed spellcaster/fighter types (i.e. fighter/magic-user or Basic D&D elf) without being gished.
In practice, they can and do offer a greater possible variety of characters. Now, having more variety of PCs isn't inherently a good thing, and there can be other possible drawbacks. But I think it's plainly false to say that Hero or GURPS end up with the same thing as classes. They don't.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 24, 2025, 10:28:23 AMQuote from: yosemitemike on February 24, 2025, 09:38:24 AMQuote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 06:05:02 AMConversely, I've never seen anyone manage to make a useless character in a classless system, even on purpose.
I have. I have seen more than a few of them in Call of Cthulhu. One common one is players that spread their skill points too thin trying to do everything and end up being bad at everything and failing all the time. Another is people who use the point but attribute system to dump their POW stat because they don't understand what the stat does. They start with 35 SAN and are indefinitely insane if they lose 7 SAN which doesn't take long. when you fail 65% of SAN checks.
Me too. In fact, every campaign of Hero System or GURPS I have run, I had to review the characters carefully before play started--not because of power-gaming or outright cheating but because of players gimping their characters unintentionally. It got so bad that I ended up putting together a check-list based on archetypes. So you are a "ranger". Did you remember to buy X, Y, and Z?
Why would you play a system so poorly designed that there's only one right way to build a concept, and any other method results in an unplayable mess?
Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:18:33 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on February 24, 2025, 10:28:23 AMQuote from: yosemitemike on February 24, 2025, 09:38:24 AMQuote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 06:05:02 AMConversely, I've never seen anyone manage to make a useless character in a classless system, even on purpose.
I have. I have seen more than a few of them in Call of Cthulhu. One common one is players that spread their skill points too thin trying to do everything and end up being bad at everything and failing all the time. Another is people who use the point but attribute system to dump their POW stat because they don't understand what the stat does. They start with 35 SAN and are indefinitely insane if they lose 7 SAN which doesn't take long. when you fail 65% of SAN checks.
Me too. In fact, every campaign of Hero System or GURPS I have run, I had to review the characters carefully before play started--not because of power-gaming or outright cheating but because of players gimping their characters unintentionally. It got so bad that I ended up putting together a check-list based on archetypes. So you are a "ranger". Did you remember to buy X, Y, and Z?
Why would you play a system so poorly designed that there's only one right way to build a concept, and any other method results in an unplayable mess?
I was going to say earlier, bad design can happen in both class based games and classless games, bloat of options, options that lead to bad characters etc, so really saying that "useless classes exist" isn't that big of an argument because useless classless options exist too.
That has nothing to do with what I asked. Since there are systems where there is no wrong way to build a concept, why would you play one where that isn't the case?
Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:52:23 PMThat has nothing to do with what I asked. Since there are systems where there is no wrong way to build a concept, why would you play one where that isn't the case?
Name one and I'm sure I've had at least one player over the years whose built an utterly craptastic useless PC in it... because that's what you have to allow to happen in a freeform creation system to also allow you to build practically anything with it.
ETA: Example... PL10 superhero in MM2e with gravity based alien power armor. Thought he'd built an utterly invincible guy who could utterly immobilize anyone who got near him as a reaction and forewent all defense and toughness for instant full regeneration from death every round... all built into his armor to save on points.
Only because of how he built it, the "gravity field" wouldn't actually stop anything fired into it from outside its range. He got taken out by three PL3 thugs with handguns who shot him to death (remember defense +0, toughness +0, because he thought his gravity field would keep anyone from being able to actually hit him with anything) then kept shooting him every round so he stayed incapacitated until they stripped his armor off him and then he was just dead.
That's the sort of
stupid you get with freeform point buy and people who think they know how the rules work and that they're gaming the system with their antics (I allowed it in despite the obvious flaws because the player was a jerk and seeing him humbled before he quit entertained the rest of the table).
There are DEFINITELY wrong ways to build in point-buy systems like M&M, Champions, Savage Worlds, etc. and believe me, I've seen them all.
Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:18:33 PMWhy would you play a system so poorly designed that there's only one right way to build a concept, and any other method results in an unplayable mess?
This has nothing to do with anything that anyone actually said.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 06:04:01 PMQuote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:52:23 PMThat has nothing to do with what I asked. Since there are systems where there is no wrong way to build a concept, why would you play one where that isn't the case?
ETA: Example... PL10 superhero in MM2e with gravity based alien power armor. Thought he'd built an utterly invincible guy who could utterly immobilize anyone who got near him as a reaction and forewent all defense and toughness for instant full regeneration from death every round... all built into his armor to save on points.
...
There are DEFINITELY wrong ways to build in point-buy systems like M&M, Champions, Savage Worlds, etc. and believe me, I've seen them all.
JoannaGeist - I think you might be trying to express that there's no single right way to buy a concept in point-buy systems like Mutants & Masterminds (M&M), Hero/Champions, Savage Worlds, or GURPS. Would that be fair?
I'd agree with "no single right way" to build a concept rather than "no wrong way" to build a concept.
In Hero/Champions, I could easily see multiple valid ways to build gravity-based alien power armor, say. But there might also be some ways that are unworkable or flawed to build gravity-based alien power armor.
I've never played Mutants & Masterminds, but for Hero and GURPS and Savage Worlds, I would generally agree with Chris24601 that there are pitfalls where the player thinks they are getting one thing, but because they don't understand the rules, the result isn't what they really wanted.
Quote from: yosemitemike on February 24, 2025, 07:42:38 PMQuote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:18:33 PMWhy would you play a system so poorly designed that there's only one right way to build a concept, and any other method results in an unplayable mess?
This has nothing to do with anything that anyone actually said.
It is an intrinsic and unavoidable property of class systems. People did in fact say it, regardless of whether it actually appeared in any post.
Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:22:54 PMIt is an intrinsic and unavoidable property of class systems. People did in fact say it, regardless of whether it actually appeared in any post.
It's not.
People said it regardless of whether they said it. Okay.
Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:22:54 PMPeople did in fact say it, regardless of whether it actually appeared in any post.
Really? Is that how this works now?
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 04, 2025, 12:26:23 AMQuote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:22:54 PMPeople did in fact say it, regardless of whether it actually appeared in any post.
Really? Is that how this works now?
That's always how it works for those with a bone to pick isn't it?
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 04, 2025, 12:26:23 AMQuote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:22:54 PMPeople did in fact say it, regardless of whether it actually appeared in any post.
Really? Is that how this works now?
Many such cases
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 03, 2025, 11:16:22 PMQuote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:22:54 PMIt is an intrinsic and unavoidable property of class systems. People did in fact say it, regardless of whether it actually appeared in any post.
It's not.
People said it regardless of whether they said it. Okay.
It is.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 04, 2025, 12:26:23 AMQuote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:22:54 PMPeople did in fact say it, regardless of whether it actually appeared in any post.
Really? Is that how this works now?
Yes.