Quote from: Grognard GM on May 23, 2023, 07:59:09 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 23, 2023, 07:54:53 AM
The ones who like marble fudge, obviously.

Then why are you always complaining about the people at Nu-WotC? They love fudge.

I complain because WotC has lost the ability to mix it with the vanilla.

Quote from: Brad on May 22, 2023, 05:40:26 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on May 22, 2023, 05:19:43 PM
A class-based system is intended to be babies learning to doodle by shading within the lines.

I'll take this at face value: and? What if we just want to use a coloring book instead of getting out a whole paint set? You're simply arguing that more player choice and influence over character makeup is somehow better than less. For certain types of games, okay, but not all. If we're playing Monopoly, does it matter who gets the hat and who gets the car? I have seen arguments over this, when there is zero difference in play between them. If I want to play a dungeon delve with some buddies while getting drunk and eating cheap pizza, we can all roll up D&D characters in five minutes and start "shading within the lines" before the first beer impairs our sensibilities. Good luck doing any sort of impromptu game that requires lifepaths or whatever else.

I really do not understand this complete adherence to the Hegelian dialectic when it comes to RPGs. It's insanely perplexing to me.

Good word use, but that's not what Hegelian dialectic means. Creative learning processes are usually iterative and involve trial and error. The Hegelian dialectic is a philosophical discourse model based on two ideas conflicting and eventually finding resolution with a new synthesis. Yeah, there's a parallel, but not an airtight one.

By the way, the fatal flaw of the Hegelian dialectic is that it draws a moral equivalence between ideas which is probably not warranted. In real conflict, one idea is almost always vastly superior to the other and there is nothing of note to compromise or synthesize. And the reason for this error is that the Hegelian dialectic assumes people act in good faith. That is not a good assumption.

I suspect that's the problem here. Either that or you didn't understand my point. What does choice of Monopoly token have to do with articulating a flaw in abstraction or iterating past that flaw? If you do not acknowledge that there are quality differences between games, then you may as well stop playing RPGs and exclusively play Tick Tack Toe. If you do draw a quality differences between games, then what's wrong with the idea that game quality should on average increase over time? Even if you disagree with me that academic theorycrafting can lead to better game iterations, pure chance and Darwinian market selection would wind up with the same result because player choice would preferentially remove bad games from the market, so you don't have to agree with me on the mechanism to agree with me on the outcome.

Do you actually disagree with this assessment? Or do you feel threatened by it because it puts an expiration date on a game you've put sunk cost into?

While I feel engaging with you may end up as a bit of a tar-baby, I'll stick to the classes-versus-skills (or really, classes-versus-whatever) issue for the moment, because I feel pretty strongly that classes are a great design.  I don't think I'd go so far as to say that they are the only way or the best way or whatever, but I think at this point you've said enough that I'm not misrepresenting your position if I state that you believe class based systems are some mix of obsolete or generally less desirable than other, non-hypothetical systems.

If that's a fair assessment, then here's my defense of class-based systems over non-class-based systems.

1- The class system allows the storyteller to set out some templates that characters can be designed within.  This is an advantage, as if I describe a gambler who is down on his luck, is stronger than he looks, but mostly relies on his ability to figure out a solution to a problem before the problem eats him alive, and if you describe a cold-blooded killer who is trained in jungles in war and death and stuff, a class-based system lets us both fit these into something that is a 70% to 99% fit.  If we instead had a pile of skills to choose, it's extremely likely that one of us would end up building a more powerful character than the other, just by picking the correct skills.  If a skill about being lucky, or a background description about last minute solutions ends up stacking with, I dunno, a "+critical-hit" power, then it could be the first guy- otherwise, it should be the second, who will pick up a variety of combat skills (he should definitely be stronger in combat, right?), but there may not be enough non-combat power offered in the first guy's case to make them both reasonably fun at the table.

2- The class system is extremely easy for a DM to add to, especially in any OSR-type games.  Making a 5th edition subclass is pretty reasonable, but not as impactful.  Want to add a class to ACKS or Hyperborea?  That's gonna be real easy.  Remember that the DM is who the system is really sold to- he has assemble that into a game normally, and a skill-based system can prove very difficult, as it has so many moving pieces.  If I make a class that crits twice as often in AD&D second edition, I can probably balance that guy with the fighter (and AD&D 2e's fighter is kinda weak, so that's a task).  This reduces the time it takes to customize the game, which is unquestionably a boon to the game. 

3- More moving pieces are simply more complex.  In the prior pieces I've assumed that the game, if approached from a min-max perspective, is balanced.  In practice, non-class based games generally are not- and worse than that, they are unbalanced in ways that are hard to patch at the table.

I feel these three things generally head off most skills-based arguments.  Not realistic enough?  Add more classes until it is.  Narratively limiting?  Add a kit or subclass that exchanges something for another power that is thematically appropriate, and you can probably do that without adding or subtracting too much power from the class.

But there's also what I touched on earlier:

4- By having reasonably strictly defined classes, everyone at the table has some sense of what the pieces do.  The players learn what their companions can do, many of which are class powers, but they also know how to interact with enemies that have class-esque abilities (or in some cases, class levels).  The DM has a much better sense of what's going on.

I really think that class based systems are the most fun- in video games, in tabletop, wherever.

Deleted...this is idiotic

Turning character creation into a doctoral thesis defense mini-game of balancing point buy choices is the slippery slope into the pseudo-academilc position that there is also the formula for class perfectability as a seperate storygaming model, now informed by by Rousseau and not Hegel.

This is the biggest obstacle to my never having played GURPS, with all the powers and skills dumped together into broad genre categories. You'd have to keep a notebook handy to list your potential candidate powers and skills to write seperate pros and cons tables for various combinations. For every character you attempt to make, so a file cabinet too. This just just takes everything tedious about 3rd D&D character creation due to multiclassing and feat combinations, forgetting skill ranks and the optional point buy for attributes, and then dials it up past 11 to get GURPS. Pathfinder solved none of these issues.

For other classes systems, at least (non-GURPS) Traveller by any publisher sorts everythng into categories of careers, but imagine having to spend several sessions on character creation because one guy keeps rolling bad, over and over again, since character creation being treated as a mini-game and not a set of random tables becomes a flaw when you'd prefer allowing character death during creation, since removing death during creation has a good chance to create Mary Sues, or characters so drastically disabled and unable to afford medical compensations that they might as well have died anyway.** Maybe you could ignore the mini-game flow chart but there's little to zero support for how to handle that properly from what I understand, unless you count pregens that you could mildly adjust... which would be effectively like offering classes anyway.

[Edited for length]

** 3rd-5th edition lineage is designed to eliminate the possiblility of having or at least keeping a mild negative penalty in any attribute, which on the woke's part is the idealization of the ableism they accuse/project onto others anyway, so as they've already conceded to the concept of the "useless character for adventuring" I think it's actually their imperative to abstain from roleplaying games altogether. When can you ever describe a high crunch system as ableist-aware, anyway? Maybe Traveller should just take a page out of Canada's book and just needs a random determination to euthanize such a character during creation?

I think the best approach is 'starting template' rather than strict class or free point buy. Good examples include D6 Star Wars and Dragonbane. The starting package determines your past, not your future. It gets players started quickly but in play they are unconstrained.

Yeah, one of the few arguments against classless games that is demonstrably true and I've actually experienced is issues with analysis paralysis and difficulty creating an effective character during character creation due to having so many choices, and a lack of focus on what the character's role is supposed to be. But all of that gets bypassed by using starting templates, which IMO are a must and should be the default when dealing with classless systems.

But every other argument is BS. Character classes are NOT inherently more balanced by virtue of being classes. One of the longest standing complaints in D&D is how mages eventually become way more powerful than every other class, and can even do everything a rogue can, but using spells. And there have also always been issues with some classes (or class concepts, like Sages, Craftsmen, Merchants and such, which are usually only NPC classes when present at all in D&D) having questionable abilities with dubious usefulness in actual play vs others who are way more effective in an adventuring party.

You also need to almost purposefully go out of your way to create truly incompetent character in a classless/skill-based system. And I'm not sure of any actual examples of truly serious balance issues in skill-based games. So that argument is BS as well. And having to create a class to cover every conceivable concept is NOT easier or more effective than simply picking existing and established abilities that have already been defined in the system and building a professional template around them to define various roles commonly found in the game world. The very notion that building new classes whole cloth from scratch is somehow preferable or more helpful for the GM is absurd.

But classless/skill-based characters should always be built using templates as a starting point to help ensure that everyone has a solid foundation of starting abilities that cover some type of function. This helps speed up character creation and ensure that all characters are competent at at least something out of the gate before players start messing with the snowflake elements of their characters.

And before someone brings it up, NO, this doesn't mean that class-based is superior because you still need to "recreate classes" in a classless system to make it work, because 1) templates are not "classes" per se, and 2) classless characters are easier to customize and branch out from a template than class-based characters using multi-classing and extraneous moving parts like skills and feats thrown on top of classes. So you do need templates as a starting foundation, but you don't need classes. Classless/skill-based systems are superior when it comes to handling customization than class-based games, and you can do it in a more effective and consistent manner, using abilities that have already been defined and balanced off against each other, rather than having to make up new ones every time a new class/role concept comes up. Which is why classless is preferable even if you do need to supposedly recreate classes in the form of templates.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2023, 07:33:48 PM
If you do not acknowledge that there are quality differences between games, then you may as well stop playing RPGs and exclusively play Tick Tack Toe. If you do draw a quality differences between games, then what's wrong with the idea that game quality should on average increase over time?

What you fail to understand is that due to the central mechanic that all tabletop RPGs share that a specific system may not work well for a specific individual.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-biggest-mistake-in-rpg-design/msg1254707/#msg1254707

That this failure is not a sign of quality or lack there of. But rather when it comes roleplaying a character (players), or adjudication (referee) there are a number of options a hobbyist can pick from. Which is "best" is a subjective judgment. What best is the one that the hobbyists of the group find fun, interesting, useful, and playable.

Case in point, a car with a v8 turbo charged engine painted red, and a car painted blue with a standard run-of-the-mill engine both work equally well to get you to a destination. But you may have more fun getting there with the red painted car with a v8 engine. And under certain circumstances having a v8 may be a advantage. But only when those circumstances apply.

The bits of what you like indicate you are highly passionate about specific types of systems. So passionate that it has blinded you to the possibility that other people find other types of systems more useful and more fun. You are knowledgeable enough to use philosophical conceits in an effort to try to impress others that your preferences are somehow magically correct.

The proof in the pudding is the same challenge I gave to the Pundit fifteen years ago when he started attacking the OSR with his own round of bullshit arguments. Take your ideas, write up something, and share it or publish it. Show us OSR hobbyists how we are doing it wrong. I even pitched in with maps for his first OSR project Arrows of Indra.

So put your money where you mouth is. Write up your system showing the rest of us how we are doing it wrong. The folks that make changes in the RPG hobby or industry are those who do. Not that those who run their mouths.

And finally, as for this being an ad hominem attack, the central thesis of my point is that what system is best is a personal subjective opinion. Hence my reply is centered on you as a person. If you are interested in points like how a class based system can work equally well as a point based system for a setting then I would be happy to share my experiences on the matter in another post or thread.

Quote from: Venka on May 23, 2023, 08:02:05 PM
While I feel engaging with you may end up as a bit of a tar-baby, I'll stick to the classes-versus-skills (or really, classes-versus-whatever) issue for the moment, because I feel pretty strongly that classes are a great design.  I don't think I'd go so far as to say that they are the only way or the best way or whatever, but I think at this point you've said enough that I'm not misrepresenting your position if I state that you believe class based systems are some mix of obsolete or generally less desirable than other, non-hypothetical systems.

If that's a fair assessment, then here's my defense of class-based systems over non-class-based systems.

1- The class system allows the storyteller to set out some templates that characters can be designed within.  This is an advantage, as if I describe a gambler who is down on his luck, is stronger than he looks, but mostly relies on his ability to figure out a solution to a problem before the problem eats him alive, and if you describe a cold-blooded killer who is trained in jungles in war and death and stuff, a class-based system lets us both fit these into something that is a 70% to 99% fit.  If we instead had a pile of skills to choose, it's extremely likely that one of us would end up building a more powerful character than the other, just by picking the correct skills.  If a skill about being lucky, or a background description about last minute solutions ends up stacking with, I dunno, a "+critical-hit" power, then it could be the first guy- otherwise, it should be the second, who will pick up a variety of combat skills (he should definitely be stronger in combat, right?), but there may not be enough non-combat power offered in the first guy's case to make them both reasonably fun at the table.

2- The class system is extremely easy for a DM to add to, especially in any OSR-type games.  Making a 5th edition subclass is pretty reasonable, but not as impactful.  Want to add a class to ACKS or Hyperborea?  That's gonna be real easy.  Remember that the DM is who the system is really sold to- he has assemble that into a game normally, and a skill-based system can prove very difficult, as it has so many moving pieces.  If I make a class that crits twice as often in AD&D second edition, I can probably balance that guy with the fighter (and AD&D 2e's fighter is kinda weak, so that's a task).  This reduces the time it takes to customize the game, which is unquestionably a boon to the game. 

3- More moving pieces are simply more complex.  In the prior pieces I've assumed that the game, if approached from a min-max perspective, is balanced.  In practice, non-class based games generally are not- and worse than that, they are unbalanced in ways that are hard to patch at the table.

I feel these three things generally head off most skills-based arguments.  Not realistic enough?  Add more classes until it is.  Narratively limiting?  Add a kit or subclass that exchanges something for another power that is thematically appropriate, and you can probably do that without adding or subtracting too much power from the class.

But there's also what I touched on earlier:

4- By having reasonably strictly defined classes, everyone at the table has some sense of what the pieces do.  The players learn what their companions can do, many of which are class powers, but they also know how to interact with enemies that have class-esque abilities (or in some cases, class levels).  The DM has a much better sense of what's going on.

I really think that class based systems are the most fun- in video games, in tabletop, wherever.

I think this is probably more coming from not having enjoyed classless systems.

I fundamentally view the classless vs. class-based argument as being a bit like the Light side vs the Dark Side in Star Wars: class-based design is quicker and easier, and as a result it tends to be more consistent, especially with inexperienced game designers or GMs. However, there are a number of flaws to it, and one of the big ones is how it hamstrings player freedom. Player freedom is not an optional part of the modern RPG; since roughly 2004-5, the argument for why you should play a tabletop RPGs over an MMO video game is that the RPG offers freedom and choice. Class-based design harms both of those. So I am left concluding that class-based design is traditional, but also harmful. In this sense, class-based design isn't bad because it's obsolete; it's bad because in the context of the modern gaming market, it actively erodes the tabletop RPGs market position against video games.

With the last few Zelda games it's pretty clear that video games can go on a path where they offer more choice and freedom than tabletop RPGs. I find it almost unimaginable that in a world where video games offer more freedom and more choice than tabletop RPGs that tabletop RPGs will prosper; class-based design isn't the only factor in play here, but it's certainly one of the bigger ones. In the top 5 factors, anyway.

I will certainly grant that classless systems are a significantly harder design paradigm for a game designer to work with; there are a lot of things that can go wrong. This is why the worst systems tend to be classless. But I also think there are limitations to what the class-based systems can actually do, and that most of the issues you raise can be designed around. This is why in my opinion, the best RPGs are also classless. Does it take more effort and designer experience to make a high end classless system than it does to make top-tier class-based system? Yes. In fact, if you are aiming for your RPG to fall in the 95th percentile of quality (95% of RPGs are worse), then class-based design requires about half the designer experience and half the dev-team effort. But I also think there's not really any space for a class-based system to go above 95th percentile and classless certainly does.

Savage Worlds is my go-to published system. Even granting the unfun shaken rules, I would eyeball it as 97th percentile game and may even be 99th percentile because all games have faults. It exceeds anything I could reasonably expect a class-based system to do. Character creation only needs to take a couple minutes, with very little of it actually requiring the book. You can tell what a character's archetype is by looking at their attribute dice. The advancement system has enough gating that min-maxing is more amusing than detrimental. The entire character advancement system is always open to you. User-made content is relatively easy to make and to add. While the game has action-adventure feel oozing from it's soul, it can cover a wide variety of specific subgenres.

So yeah, I think your criticisms are well placed...for average implementations of classless and class-based systems. But realistically, you aren't shooting for average implementation when you make a game or when you go to buy one; you are looking for the best you can discern.

Quote from: estar on May 24, 2023, 07:28:53 AM
So put your money where you mouth is. Write up your system showing the rest of us how we are doing it wrong. The folks that make changes in the RPG hobby or industry are those who do. Not that those who run their mouths.

I wouldn't bother replying anymore. This clown is engaging in pure sophistry at this point, hence why I deleted my response to him. Don't get sucked into his stupidity.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 24, 2023, 08:38:05 AM
I fundamentally view the classless vs. class-based argument as being a bit like the Light side vs the Dark Side in Star Wars: class-based design is quicker and easier, and as a result it tends to be more consistent, especially with inexperienced game designers or GMs. *snip*
...
I will certainly grant that classless systems are a significantly harder design paradigm for a game designer to work with; there are a lot of things that can go wrong. This is why the worst systems tend to be classless.

I would have to disagree that class-based is easier to design than classless. All you have to do to design a classless system, at least as far as the classless component is concerned, is to throw some Skills on top of some Attributes and you're set. That formula was pretty much nailed down by the 80s. The rest, like advantages and such, is optional and just icing in the cake.

Meanwhile every single attempt to build a custom class I ran into back in the day was either ineffective, or this broken monstrosity that was overpowered compared to any core class in the game. Specially any time someone tried to recreate "Jedi" or any specialized role in an established IP. They always went full fanboi mode and made this bloated thing with too many abilities or weird benefits, and stuff that outclassed similar existing abilities in the core game.

All the problems with classless games tend to be either stuff not related to the classless component  or trying to reinvent the Attribute+Skill wheel (which doesn't necessarily lead to broken games, but is more likely to). Or stuff like what's already been mentioned about players taking too long or requiring too much system knowledge to make a character, or being able to fit some definite role. Which can be bypassed with temples as already mentioned.

Coming up with the right skill lists might be an issue as well, as is coming up with the right advantages, but that problem also exists when coming up with class abilities in a class-based game. So again, this ain't unique to classless systems. It's just that people ignore it when it happens with classes.

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 24, 2023, 10:08:44 AM
I would have to disagree that class-based is easier to design than classless. All you have to do to design a classless system, at least as far as the classless component is concerned, is to throw some Skills on top of some Attributes and you're set. That formula was pretty much nailed down by the 80s. The rest, like advantages and such, is optional and just icing in the cake.

Characters in a skill based systems are rarely a hodgepodge of randomly selected skills, and abilities. Instead they tend to specialize. The different skills and abilities are picked to support what the players intends for their character to be good at.

The result that over the long run patterns emerge. When players want to do pursue certain things as their character they focus on similar packages of skills and abilities that work best for a given system. A small portion will be different because of individual interest but the broad strokes are the same.

As a result when I started running OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry, it wasn't hard for me to adapt what I did in GURPS for two decades. All the classes I developed for my Majestic Fantasy RPG are based on what players made over the two dozen GURPS campaigns I ran since the 80s. This includes making sure there is a small amount of customization to reflect individual interest.

To be blunt, players are not willing to make characters that suck whether it is GURPS, BRP, Hero System, or any other system with complete freedom to customize one's character. So they figure out how they want to adventure and build accordingly.

Class based system are only harder if the author hasn't been paying attention to what players actually do as their characters in a campaign.

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 24, 2023, 10:08:44 AM
Meanwhile every single attempt to build a custom class I ran into back in the day was either ineffective, or this broken monstrosity that was overpowered compared to any core class in the game. Specially any time someone tried to recreate "Jedi" or any specialized role in an established IP. They always went full fanboi mode and made this bloated thing with too many abilities or weird benefits, and stuff that outclassed similar existing abilities in the core game.

The key thing I do to overcome this is to understand the setting or genre I am designing. I describe the different types of characters in plain English and then develop from there. Then I look at that is see how it hangs together and if needed do some further editing.

After that then I design the classes and I do not worry about any type of game/mechanical balance. The result will accurately reflect the balance that exist in the setting or genre as if it was a real place. The quality of the result for a specific group or audience depends on how well they enjoy that setting or genre.

If you developing a Middle Earth RPG there is no escaping the fact the elves are superior physically to humans. To be clear because of Tolkien vision this superiority is not 100% about being better in combat. It more about how they exist as part of the life of the setting of Middle Earth.

Thus Elven PCs in a Middle Earth RPG that true to the setting will be mechanically superior to a human. If you are a fan of Middle Earth this isn't a problem. You expect the Elven PCs to be what they are because that how they are depicted in Middle Earth. But if you not a fan of the setting then the problem isn't with the mechanics, it with the setting itself and how it portrays the difference between Elves and Men.

So the first step in designing a class based system is to make the audience will enjoy the setting or genre that the mechanics will reflect.


I

Quote from: Mr. Ordinary, Esq. on May 23, 2023, 10:28:09 PM
This is the biggest obstacle to my never having played GURPS, with all the powers and skills dumped together into broad genre categories. You'd have to keep a notebook handy to list your potential candidate powers and skills to write seperate pros and cons tables for various combinations. For every character you attempt to make, so a file cabinet too. This just just takes everything tedious about 3rd D&D character creation due to multiclassing and feat combinations, forgetting skill ranks and the optional point buy for attributes, and then dials it up past 11 to get GURPS. Pathfinder solved none of these issues.

I've found myself gravitating to a sort of multi-silo design in my own work as a good compromise between the complete freewheeling of classless and the single classes/race as class of B/X.

Basically, take the old race+class method and add a few more silos; race + class (broad class archetype) + background (non-combat class features) + path (combat class features).

The result is a rather finite number of individual data chunks (10 races, 7 classes, 10 backgrounds, 7 paths) to keep track of and choose from when assembling a character, but which result in 4900 potential combinations for someone to express themselves with.

It's not going to work for everything or everybody (heck, even I only like that approach for certain genres), but for me it has most of the class-based advantages while still having enough flexibility to satisfy my customization itch.