TheRPGSite

A question inspired by a couple of threads going on. I'm curious how people would answer this; because I think how you answer the question says a lot about how you approach RPG design. As a note, this question would also apply to professions, archetypes etc., any system where you take your character's primary skills/abilities as a package instead of picking them a la carte.

My own answer is that "a class is there to make it easy to play an archetype". So if a game has a class called "ninja", then that class should provide a player with whatever skills you could reasonably expect a ninja to have. In simplest terms: a class needs to do what it says on the tin. 

There are many other possible answers, though. To list a few:

--to delineate mechanical roles (damage dealer, healer, skill-monkey, etc.)
--to provide game balance
--to encourage teamwork by making it so that no one can do everything
--to reinforce world-building (i.e., these are the occupations prevalent in this world)
--to add tactical depth

and so on.

I imagine for many people the answer will be some combination of the above. For me, there are certainly secondary requirements: a class needs to be engaging to play and not useless. But I'm curious what others regard as the primary purpose or sine qua non of character classes.

1)  To play well understood archetypes

2)  To reduce broken combos - there are are far fewer synergies to deal with if you're only looking for broken combos within a class's silo

3)  Ease of character creation, compared to skill based games

4)  Niche protection / enforcement of teamwork

For me the most important of these is #4, by far

To retain players by giving the players radically different play type experiences in the game they play.

To help embody a role, or character type that appeals to the player.  Probably influenced by fictional books they've read, or movies they've seen.

"Hey, I like dwarves.  How about a Dwarven ranger, of the mountains about us?  He's lived there all his life."  Etc.

I think character classes are a relic from the past (wargame heritage)
Later rpgs abandoned this concept
Modern ones took it back because it's easier (all previous comments explain why brillantly) and maybe millenial players are a bit lazy :)

I think you've pretty much got it nailed down. Archetype reinforcement and worldbuilding on the narrative side. Then balancing and differentiation on the player side. I'd add one more thing: ease of entry. Most players I know are pretty casual. Building characters in games like call of Cthulhu or savage worlds from zero can be daunting. Giving prepackaged archetypes makes it much easier for players to get started.

I think of classes as "skill bundles" where you can grab a bunch of things that you can do as a collective instead of having to pick them one at a time. (Which is why 5E having classes and skills always seemed like overkill to me.)

I like classes because they encourage folks to specialize -- be the fighter or the wizard or the rogue or whatever. In games that are skill-only, I have found far too many times where every player tried to build a character who can do everything, which makes those characters tend to seem alike.

I've always viewed them as job description shorthand for adventurers.

In my own design I break classes up into three parts; essentially an Archetype (berserker, ironclad, mastermind, skirmisher, mage, mechanist, or mystic) defining broadly your fighting style, a Path (brigand, captain, defender, disabler, ravager, sentinel, striker -or- abjurer, benedictor, empowered, interdictor, maledictor, manifester, summoner) which defines your combat role within the party, and a Background (arcanist, aristocrat, artisan, barbarian, commonener, entertainer, military, outlaw, religious, traveler) which defines your non-combat skills and abilities.I

While there's some overlap at the edges, each of those Archetypes, Paths, and Backgrounds has exclusive elements to choose from initially and while leveling up.

The reason I didn't just go classless is because in my experience classless results in a sort of "grey goo" effect where every PC starts look like each other... unless the GM imposes some restrictions everyone is going to pick up some fighting and some magic and basically end up a gish unless a mechanic is included to prevent a PC from eventually learning to do everything.

Grey Goo can be okay in some circumstances; a real-world military unit or spy type genre would expect a lot of overlap with things like base stats being the main distinction; the big guy, smart guy, fast guy, face, etc.

But, in general, players like having things that set them apart and give them something unique to shine with. Classes or a set of mutually exclusive chunks of classes allow that easily and make it easier for new players to just pick from a menu instead of create from scratch.

The reason I did three sub-chunks is because it allows for a broader range of concepts to be expressed with less overall things to design. There are 490 potential combos just from archetype, path, and background.

It also allows for differentiation within a more constricted theme... everyone's an aristocrat or in the army or an outlaw, or two players what to fight with a skirmishing style or both be mages.I

Few players with a concept are entirely locked in on all three aspects, so you could have a party of three aristocratic skirmishers, but they can still differentiate themselves by one being a defender, one being a captain, and the third being a striker (and also by picking different options from the aristocrat background).

So, there's my answer. Classes are useful as discrete data chunks that distinguish one PC from another. They aren't the ONLY way to get there; a lifepath system where each step is essentially a menu of "what I did at this point in my life" accomplishes largely the same thing in a more homogeneous genre (military, spies, space explorers, etc.); but they're among the most efficient for a genre as broad as fantasy.

If we go back to the original D&D game, a character class represented who your character was rather than a mere job or profession. If a player rolled fighting man, then that told you everything you needed to know about who that character was. Archetypes were strong and well identified. Even elves needed to choose an identity before each adventure. Players natural desire to be able to do whater they wanted led to multiclassing, specializations, and a la carte add ons that diluted the original concept of strong classes as an identity. Once all of that is thrown into the mix there really isn't any point of holding onto classes. 

Quote from: Mishihari on December 07, 2024, 01:03:41 AM1)  To play well understood archetypes

2)  To reduce broken combos - there are are far fewer synergies to deal with if you're only looking for broken combos within a class's silo

3)  Ease of character creation, compared to skill based games

4)  Niche protection / enforcement of teamwork

For me the most important of these is #4, by far

Historically, I agree with this take.  For me, designing a system, however, I drop the archetype part, and put protecting against broken combos ahead of ease of character creation.  So it's niche protection and party-based mindset first, then protection of casual players from themselves, then whatever ease of character creation you can leverage out of the remaining design space last.

I take that stance, because my contention is that chasing archetypes with classes hurts the other three.  I can easily see a design where archetypes really are first, then everything else fits in where it can.  That's basically the early D&D pattern.  However, that works best if the GM (or at least setting designer) customizes the classes for that setting.  The AD&D ranger and paladin are not great fits from a cohesive design perspective.  They are excellent examples of "someone wanted to play Aragorn or Holger Carlsen knock-off in the game, so here's the GM's way to make that happen."

But then when I'm doing my own design, I'm not trying to replicate what D&D already did well.  If I want that, I'll just play D&D.  I'm hitting it from a different angle.

Embedding archetype into class is akin to embedding culture into race.  Yep, you get a lot of great punch with minimal complexity going that route, as long as you don't layer more complexity on top of it.  Once you separate them out, that inevitably ramps up the minimum complexity a bit, but not the extent of having way too many classes, sub classes, prestige classes, multi-class, backgrounds, etc craziness.  One of the reasons it mostly works in AD&D 1E is all the restrictions on race/class combinations.

Finally, I'm heavily influenced by the design patterns of Dragon Quest, where the misnamed "professional skills" are things like multi-level ranger, assassin, navigator, merchant, etc.  These are smaller/narrower than classes, but bigger than skills or even "feats".  They are, in fact, what 3E feats should have been.  That's where I want my archetypes to reside.

Classes are useful for introducing newbies to roleplaying or enforcing particular play styles, but otherwise they're kinda stupid. D&D's class bloat is a perfect example of why. There's way more classes than you need and most of them would be more appropriate as sub-classes.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 07, 2024, 11:21:38 AMIf we go back to the original D&D game, a character class represented who your character was rather than a mere job or profession. If a player rolled fighting man, then that told you everything you needed to know about who that character was. Archetypes were strong and well identified. Even elves needed to choose an identity before each adventure. Players natural desire to be able to do whater they wanted led to multiclassing, specializations, and a la carte add ons that diluted the original concept of strong classes as an identity. Once all of that is thrown into the mix there really isn't any point of holding onto classes. 

Yeah, there's a whole continuum between pure class and pure skills.  My experience is that when you get near the middle you lose the benefits of both without gaining much.

I prefer skill-based but the "gray goo" issue is a real thing.  It's useful to promote differentiation between characters in skill based games.  One way to do this is to have some skills give bonuses to related skills, which works but gets complex pretty quickly.  The one I'm going with now is to have checks for each skill depend strongly on a single ability score, those being attack, defense, stealth, perception, magic, and athletics in this particular game.  It thus makes sense to have skills related to your best ability score, which gives six different types of characters from the get-go.  Sounds good in theory, I'm still waiting to see how it works out in practice.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 07, 2024, 02:09:57 PMI prefer skill-based but the "gray goo" issue is a real thing.  It's useful to promote differentiation between characters in skill based games.  One way to do this is to have some skills give bonuses to related skills, which works but gets complex pretty quickly.  The one I'm going with now is to have checks for each skill depend strongly on a single ability score, those being attack, defense, stealth, perception, magic, and athletics in this particular game.  It thus makes sense to have skills related to your best ability score, which gives six different types of characters from the get-go.  Sounds good in theory, I'm still waiting to see how it works out in practice.

An alternate approach to this might be along the lines of Exalted 3e's caste/favored skills. At creation you pick 5 skills from your caste list and any 5 other skills as favored skills for a total of 10 out of 26 abilities.

Those skill ranks and powers linked to them get a xp and training time price break on purchasing them.

You can improve other things, it just costs more, so it somewhat channels your growth towards certain abilities and not others. A sort of really soft class system if you will.

D&D classes used to be vague enough that they could cover lots of different concepts at once.

The Fighter could be a knight in armor, a swashbuckler, a huntsman, a samurai, barbarian, etc.

The Magic User could be a witch doctor, a wizard, a witch, etc.

They gave you a working base to start from.

And from experience, many a player need this foundation to build from, otherwise they either get lost in choices, or try to min-max sooner or later.

I think of it as you get trained and have spent a certain amount time in a particular trade.
Plumbers good at plumbing might not be so good at carpentry and the other way around.
You can cross train but you may never get to that proficiency level of someone whom stays with one craft if you are practicing many crafts.

Well the way I see classes they do several things.
1: Give direction and premise to work from.
2: Help players and game masters with what ability sets and arc types are expected in the settings.
3: Provide easy ability and skill sets for a player to work from.
4: Set a baseline of expectation to work from.
5: Make generation faster and easier (not all ways intended or archived)
A number of other things that tend to crop up.
A good example is that the classes on show do a lot to set tone and expactation I'm actually thinking of Elmage Gothic here but in that game the peasant is a herbalist healer and it can actually be hard to have a standed priest healer in some respects.

To create a defined structure for the game that the players can plug into thus creating the need to buy content to provide that structure.

Quote from: Ombre29 on December 07, 2024, 02:57:00 AMI think character classes are a relic from the past (wargame heritage)
Later rpgs abandoned this concept
Modern ones took it back because it's easier (all previous comments explain why brillantly) and maybe millenial players are a bit lazy :)

Sorry, but you're wrong.
They're not a relic from the past. It all depends on what type of system the game mechanics are based upon: skill based or class based. Some games like CoC make a hybrid of this with "professions" that have certain skills attributed to them.
Skill based systems have been around almost as long as class based. Take Runequest for example. A classic RPG that is skill based and is almost as old as D&D.
Class based RPGs a relic of the past? No, they're not.

You're completely right.
Personnaly, I find skill-based system more realistic.
I think that actualy, I'm a relic from the past... :)

It makes the world more realistic.

Generic Adventurer is at the same time Unique. Everybody knows Generic Adventurer, but nobody knows any of the individuals, not at first glance, you'd have to hang out with them to get to know them or listen to the hearsay and reputation of that individual, which also takes time and has a lot of prejudice depending on who you ask.

Or, archetypes. One look and you know what you're dealing with. Their clothes give it away, instantly. It's realistic because we have the same ting in real life where our clothes give it away, perhaps not to the same extent because real life character classes are not quite so extreme as fantasy worlds. The average nobody probably counts as a Generic anybody.

I would argue that 80% of character classes are about making the game easy for the game designer to design by putting player characters in neat little design boxes, and another 10% are about making it easier to roleplay when you drop a player who has no idea what a roleplaying game is into a game and the GM rolls up a barbarian and says, "here, be Conan."

And yes, that is not exactly right, but it's usually close enough for the player to fit into the group and play the game long enough to figure out the differences on their own.

Then the last 10% is usually about worldbuilding by loosely suggesting the kinds of adventurers in the world and what kinds of abilities they have.


I don't really think classes serve much purpose for a group of experienced players. I consistently find that the only thing which is relevant to experienced players is the worldbuilding angle, and that because the worldbuilding angle of classes tend to be underbaked, the fact that classes also conflict with player freedom and choice also means they are usually a poor trade.

I always liked Warhammer with its careers that branched into new careers. It was like you had a job and once you mastered the skills it offered, you went on to the next one. I loved that over the course of the game you might have been a rabble-rouser, a rat-catcher, and maybe a town guard. It really contributed to the storytelling in my view. "Where did you learn to do that?" "In my early days digging graves."

Quote from: Captain_Pazuzu on December 09, 2024, 01:04:57 AMTo create a defined structure for the game that the players can plug into thus creating the need to buy content to provide that structure.

Nice try. But false.

I like them as memes.

Or summaries, condensed information, whatever.

I need classes for NPCs more than I need them for PCs. A PC can have lots of stats (although I prefer some minimalism), but I find immensely useful when I can say the baron is a "Fighter 5" and be done with it.

I believe the top priority of classes is to provide an implementation (in the mechanics) of a specific concept from the game world.  This has the added advantage of actually making game balance a conceivable concept in the first place.

To use OP's example, I believe a ninja shouldn't just get the tools to be a ninja, I believe that these should be considered from the rest of the game design such that the kit a ninja gets is unique to them.  If the game has ninja, samurai, shaman, and wu-jen as its only classes, then those classes should not be as good at sneaking around as the ninja.  If the ninja gets elemental spells to cast, they should not be as powerful as those of the wu-jen, and the ninja's combat ability in a stand-up fight should not be as powerful as the samurai.  If the classes also include thief, ranger, fighter, and wizard, then you have to actually decide what things a thief gets that a ninja does not, and vice versa.  This kind of decision is informed by both the lore and the mechanics you have already laid out.

I think classes are indispensable.  I also agree with the other posters who brought up that it has the effect of increasing replayability of the system; done correctly, a game played as a long-and-short wielding samurai should feel mechanically different, in JUST the combat domain, from a game played as a dual wielding fighter; and of course, your class distinction isn't limited to combat mechanics, the actual roleplay can be aided by class distinctions as well.

Lot of good things have been said - But i'll add in that I believe it helps player immersion in the game mechanics and world. It streamlines who the avatar is and what he should be doing in the whole game interaction (of course you can break that). In the same sense, it streamlines what the referee/DM would expect to be preparing in order to entertain everyone.

I can't help but make a comparison between character classes and naval ship/space ship classes.  You might have differences between individual characters or ships, but one character of a class is similar in many ways to another character of the same class, and will be able to roughly perform the same tasks.

I think its a useful way to pre-define the powers/abilities and performance progress of characters.  I don't care very much about "balance" per say, like.. if level 1 characters want to raid a dragon's lair they're free to take a shot. Or if level 20 characters are fine steamrolling over level 3-5 bad guys then they're free to do that while other events that maybe they should be paying attention to will happen in the world.

I think its useful for keeping a game/system simple, and if you're going to bog down the game with too many options then maybe offering different training improvements for XP&Gold cost might just be better to flesh out, especially if you get 3rd/5th edition munchkining where people have very specific level plans and cross class level plans for choosing the optimal build for their concept.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 06, 2024, 11:49:24 PMA question inspired by a couple of threads going on. I'm curious how people would answer this; because I think how you answer the question says a lot about how you approach RPG design. As a note, this question would also apply to professions, archetypes etc., any system where you take your character's primary skills/abilities as a package instead of picking them a la carte.

My own answer is that "a class is there to make it easy to play an archetype". So if a game has a class called "ninja", then that class should provide a player with whatever skills you could reasonably expect a ninja to have. In simplest terms: a class needs to do what it says on the tin. 

There are many other possible answers, though. To list a few:

--to delineate mechanical roles (damage dealer, healer, skill-monkey, etc.)
--to provide game balance
--to encourage teamwork by making it so that no one can do everything
--to reinforce world-building (i.e., these are the occupations prevalent in this world)
--to add tactical depth

and so on.

I imagine for many people the answer will be some combination of the above. For me, there are certainly secondary requirements: a class needs to be engaging to play and not useless. But I'm curious what others regard as the primary purpose or sine qua non of character classes.

I've debated this with another player and I always saw the purpose of classes in agreement to the first three points. However, multi-classing seems to have taken away that concentrated role of designation that made a PC relevant by having more jacks-of-all-trades. With more modern games, it's easier to do that and I'm not too keen on it tbh.

I think the reason classes end up in so many games is because designers play games with classes and then, well its an ouroboros. What do I think classes are good for?

1) Enforcing a setting, a world with fighters and magic users is significantly different to a game with paladins and wizards.

2) the ability to easily lock abilities away from each other to stop over powered builds

Honestly, the problem of class bloat and niche protection made me critical of the concept. Now I prefer skill-based systems where players can just build their character from scratch to reflect whatever the concept is, like arcanist, witchknight, nightmage, mystic theurge, or whatever.

Furthermore, magic-users always get more attention than martials while martials get shit. Martials can't do anything besides whack at stuff. They don't have maneuvers, martial arts, combos, stunting, etc. because some self-styled critics online said it was too "anime" and too "mmo". They can't even build strongholds or acquire followers anymore.

My players like classes because it reduces analysis paralysis. They thought they'd like full freedom to design, but found it made it really, really slow. Sometimes they couldn't decide what to do. Having even a minimum class structure really helped.

If anyone can develop any skill, you might as well allow multi-classing.  Two ways,  of trying to develop the ultimate player character.

I'm not a huge fan, of either.

It eliminates the roles, within the adventuring party.

There has to be a better way to design classes to avoid bloat. If classes are supposed to serve particular roles, then the rules should focus on that mechanically and then leave the fluff in the hands of the player.

For example, Pathfinder introduced an inquisitor class that is basically an urban equivalent of the ranger. It even has an equivalent of favored enemy for analyzing whatever is being inquired.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 25, 2024, 10:00:21 AMThere has to be a better way to design classes to avoid bloat. If classes are supposed to serve particular roles, then the rules should focus on that mechanically and then leave the fluff in the hands of the player.

For example, Pathfinder introduced an inquisitor class that is basically an urban equivalent of the ranger. It even has an equivalent of favored enemy for analyzing whatever is being inquired.

The solution I had to that in my system was to effectively break the classes up into a couple of discreet chunks; what I ended up labeling the background, class, and path.

Background supplied all the non-combat abilities such as skills and other abilities that a D&D style class would have; Arcanist, Aristocrat, Artisan, Barbarian, Commoner, Entertainer, Military, Outlaw, Religious, and Traveler.

Class was the broad strokes of how the character fights; Berserker, Ironclad, Mastermind, Skirmisher, Mage, Mechanist, and Mystic.

Paths were specific roles in combat the classes could select; Brigand, Captain, Defender, Disabler, Ravager, Sentinel, and Striker for the fighting classes, and Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor, Manifester, and Summoner for the casting classes.

Most advancement came from gaining boons from your background list and talents from your class list. Multi-classing came from being able to choose up to one boon and one talent per tier (levels 1-5, 6-10, 11-15) from a different class' or background's list.

This fits with my belief that classes are most useful as discreet data chunks that make it faster to build a character than a point buy approach. It also limits the tendency towards "tankmage" that I see in many skill and point-buy based games where, despite initially having different specialties, as the points accrue the PCs all converge upon having the most useful attacks, defenses, and utilities as required by the campaign (the fragile speedsters in M&M eventually pick up things like defensive roll to give them some toughness, the tanks pick up improved parrying so they're not relying solely on their toughness).

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 25, 2024, 11:04:33 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 25, 2024, 10:00:21 AMThere has to be a better way to design classes to avoid bloat. If classes are supposed to serve particular roles, then the rules should focus on that mechanically and then leave the fluff in the hands of the player.

For example, Pathfinder introduced an inquisitor class that is basically an urban equivalent of the ranger. It even has an equivalent of favored enemy for analyzing whatever is being inquired.

The solution I had to that in my system was to effectively break the classes up into a couple of discreet chunks; what I ended up labeling the background, class, and path.

Background supplied all the non-combat abilities such as skills and other abilities that a D&D style class would have; Arcanist, Aristocrat, Artisan, Barbarian, Commoner, Entertainer, Military, Outlaw, Religious, and Traveler.

Class was the broad strokes of how the character fights; Berserker, Ironclad, Mastermind, Skirmisher, Mage, Mechanist, and Mystic.

Paths were specific roles in combat the classes could select; Brigand, Captain, Defender, Disabler, Ravager, Sentinel, and Striker for the fighting classes, and Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor, Manifester, and Summoner for the casting classes.

Most advancement came from gaining boons from your background list and talents from your class list. Multi-classing came from being able to choose up to one boon and one talent per tier (levels 1-5, 6-10, 11-15) from a different class' or background's list.

This fits with my belief that classes are most useful as discreet data chunks that make it faster to build a character than a point buy approach. It also limits the tendency towards "tankmage" that I see in many skill and point-buy based games where, despite initially having different specialties, as the points accrue the PCs all converge upon having the most useful attacks, defenses, and utilities as required by the campaign (the fragile speedsters in M&M eventually pick up things like defensive roll to give them some toughness, the tanks pick up improved parrying so they're not relying solely on their toughness).

Greetings!

Good stuff, Chris! Hey, and I hope you are having a wonderful and blessed Christmas!

Concerning Character Classes, roles, and such within the campaign, I agree very much. I often bristle at the "Skill-Based" people that crow about "Skill-Based" is superior to the primitive and silly "Class-Based" approach.

As I well recall, I played Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for *years* GMing and so on, of course. WFRP was a very fun game, innovative and cool. However, the whole "Skill-Based" thing really isn't all that and a bag of chips. I get that some folks just enjoy the preference, which is fine, but there is nothing "Primitive and Silly" about "Class-Based" games. Running WHFRP for several long campaigns, eventually, ALL of the Characters gain enough careers, max out the sweet skills, and all become essentially the same character, with the same skills and abilities. They just started out along a different road to get there, but they all end up with the virtually same character profile. Spellcasters in WHFRP being somewhat standing apart, as it requires a huge devotion of time and experience to develop the spell abilities, hence the spellcaster's lack of all of the uber skills and abilities. Otherwise, all the characters are the same at the end of the day.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on December 25, 2024, 04:38:15 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 25, 2024, 11:04:33 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 25, 2024, 10:00:21 AMThere has to be a better way to design classes to avoid bloat. If classes are supposed to serve particular roles, then the rules should focus on that mechanically and then leave the fluff in the hands of the player.

For example, Pathfinder introduced an inquisitor class that is basically an urban equivalent of the ranger. It even has an equivalent of favored enemy for analyzing whatever is being inquired.

The solution I had to that in my system was to effectively break the classes up into a couple of discreet chunks; what I ended up labeling the background, class, and path.

Background supplied all the non-combat abilities such as skills and other abilities that a D&D style class would have; Arcanist, Aristocrat, Artisan, Barbarian, Commoner, Entertainer, Military, Outlaw, Religious, and Traveler.

Class was the broad strokes of how the character fights; Berserker, Ironclad, Mastermind, Skirmisher, Mage, Mechanist, and Mystic.

Paths were specific roles in combat the classes could select; Brigand, Captain, Defender, Disabler, Ravager, Sentinel, and Striker for the fighting classes, and Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor, Manifester, and Summoner for the casting classes.

Most advancement came from gaining boons from your background list and talents from your class list. Multi-classing came from being able to choose up to one boon and one talent per tier (levels 1-5, 6-10, 11-15) from a different class' or background's list.

This fits with my belief that classes are most useful as discreet data chunks that make it faster to build a character than a point buy approach. It also limits the tendency towards "tankmage" that I see in many skill and point-buy based games where, despite initially having different specialties, as the points accrue the PCs all converge upon having the most useful attacks, defenses, and utilities as required by the campaign (the fragile speedsters in M&M eventually pick up things like defensive roll to give them some toughness, the tanks pick up improved parrying so they're not relying solely on their toughness).

Greetings!

Good stuff, Chris! Hey, and I hope you are having a wonderful and blessed Christmas!

Concerning Character Classes, roles, and such within the campaign, I agree very much. I often bristle at the "Skill-Based" people that crow about "Skill-Based" is superior to the primitive and silly "Class-Based" approach.

As I well recall, I played Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for *years* GMing and so on, of course. WFRP was a very fun game, innovative and cool. However, the whole "Skill-Based" thing really isn't all that and a bag of chips. I get that some folks just enjoy the preference, which is fine, but there is nothing "Primitive and Silly" about "Class-Based" games. Running WHFRP for several long campaigns, eventually, ALL of the Characters gain enough careers, max out the sweet skills, and all become essentially the same character, with the same skills and abilities. They just started out along a different road to get there, but they all end up with the virtually same character profile. Spellcasters in WHFRP being somewhat standing apart, as it requires a huge devotion of time and experience to develop the spell abilities, hence the spellcaster's lack of all of the uber skills and abilities. Otherwise, all the characters are the same at the end of the day.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

One thing I've learned from the experience is that when you're actually building a claas system, if you want meaningful choices in your classes you want to start building for a very tight 4E style balance, THEN, once you have that, you have a solid framework for your classes to break from in meaningful ways.

As an example, character resources (mana, spell points, manuever points, whatever) were very easy to give meaningful differences to once you have a baseline to break from. Mages, for example build up power by drawing energy from the Arcane Web, which ebbs and flows so they make a check each turn for how much power they can draw. Some rounds it's better than the balance, other rounds its worse, but it means sometimes they can pull of chain of powerful spells, other times not much more than basic ones.

By contrast, the Mechanist gets all their power during rests which they pre-spend on their devices' effects. Because I know about how much power is consumed on average in a typical encounter I know how much power overall they will need (plus a little extra since some of their prepared effects may not be the best fit for what they run into.

Meanwhile, Skirmishers build up "momentum" by employing their particular path special abilities, allowing them to pull off stunts they wouldn't be able to against opponents they hadn't been pressuring with their set up moves.

All of these use the same basic power structure on average, but each has its own ebbs and flows to make them distinct from each other.

The way 4e handled classes is widely hated, but I think the idea of having distinct roles, power sources and so on makes sense. Even if the implementation was bizarre and arbitrary from a fluff perspective, the intention to reduce class bloat is a good one.

The way to avoid class bloat is to simply not create new classes for every little niche and specialty under the sun. Is your character a soldier?,a gladiator?,a berserker?,a knight? Great! Your character is a FIGHTER. All of those other descriptors can be done as different background packages or something. A special class isn't needed for every character concept.   

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 24, 2024, 01:10:41 PMFurthermore, magic-users always get more attention than martials while martials get shit. Martials can't do anything besides whack at stuff. They don't have maneuvers, martial arts, combos, stunting, etc. because some self-styled critics online said it was too "anime" and too "mmo". They can't even build strongholds or acquire followers anymore.

And then you have a game like L5R where the Bushi get plenty of options to keep them flavorful and varied.

I'm reading Monster of the Week right now. It has classes but calls them "playbooks". It has terrible class bloat (https://freemotwresources.tumblr.com/masterlist). There's lots of fuzzy definitions, redundancy, overly niche concepts, etc. The whole list would be better represented using a skill-based system with advantages and disadvantages taken at character creation to suit the character's concept.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 24, 2024, 01:10:41 PMHonestly, the problem of class bloat and niche protection made me critical of the concept. Now I prefer skill-based systems where players can just build their character from scratch to reflect whatever the concept is, like arcanist, witchknight, nightmage, mystic theurge, or whatever.

I have found that even skill based games benefit from having a selection of 'Archetypes' like StarWars d6, that have a certain amount of points already pre-spent, (with free form advancement afterwards) to be a much better way to get players into a given game.

But it does need to be done right.

Quote from: Tod13 on December 24, 2024, 04:17:32 PMMy players like classes because it reduces analysis paralysis. They thought they'd like full freedom to design, but found it made it really, really slow. Sometimes they couldn't decide what to do. Having even a minimum class structure really helped.

Very this. I've lost track of the number of players who actively dislike games like gurps.

When I published my own book way back the approach I went with was something in the middle.

You choose a core profession that gives you some starting skills and they cost less to rank up. And from there you can do as you please. The player had a basic frame they can build off of rather than spending sometimes hours or days trying to settle on the exact same thing.

So player A might start as a knight and be proficient in heavy armour, but might not be as proficient as the bard who started training into heavy armour and trained longer than the knight. Though the bard is likely slacking off on their actual barding to pull that off. But it can be pulled off.

Early Shadowrun had a similar ideal. You had the archetypes and you could branch out into some of the other styles. Or you could go freeform and build whatever.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 26, 2024, 02:49:39 PMThe way to avoid class bloat is to simply not create new classes for every little niche and specialty under the sun. Is your character a soldier?,a gladiator?,a berserker?,a knight? Great! Your character is a FIGHTER. All of those other descriptors can be done as different background packages or something. A special class isn't needed for every character concept.   

Greetings!

Excellent stuff my friend! I suppose there *is* a certain allure to embracing yet another specialized Character Class. I think there is a strong argument for the traditional "Generalist"--the classic FIGHTER. However, having said that, just having a generic FIGHTER that somehow embraces a whole host of archetypal Fighting Men, Warriors, Soldiers, and various Martial Champions is somehow not viewed as being very sexy or attractive. I admit, I am something of two minds about this, so at the risk of dancing along the line of hypocrisy, I rebuke it. There *are* merits and attraction points to having all kinds of uber specialized Character Classes. There are. However, to see the greater wisdom requires some measure of sacrifice. Embracing a generic FIGHTER is at the end of the day, mostly sufficient. Beyond such considerations of sufficiency, for the "Greater Good"--it steadfastly blocks off the otherwise inevitable growth and profusion of class bloat, and a kind of endless death-spiral of ever-increasing Character Powers, all of which are instituted to engage Player interest, but also the design demand to differentiate from whatever Character Classes established previously.

This is where I think there is merit to having skills, talents, background packages, feats, whatever. Most of the archetypal warriors are flavoured differently by their culture, armour, weapons, and to some extent, weapon and fighting techniques, style, and tactics. All of which can be modelled through such elements as skills, feats, talents, background packages, cultural lores, and so on. Vikings, Legionnares, Samurai, Imperial Chinese Soldiers, Mongolian Horsemen, Byzantine Cataphracts, are after all, all FIGHTERS. As an philosophical aside, yes, they are all Fighters, but they aren't all each other. So, there are some differentiation required and desirable. That differentiation can be accomplished through the previously noted elements, instead of making up yet another specialized Character Class. "All Vikings are FIGHTERS, but not all FIGHTERS are Vikings." That nice philosophical tidbit is useful here I think, and appropriate.

I agree though, the solution to that is not creating more and more specialized Character Classes.

Having "Class Bloat" blows the doors open in the campaign for a cascading effect of increasingly difficult problems and dynamics that really are a mess. I think that additional Character Classes can be fine, but they need to be carefully considered and carefully designed, and have legitimate distinctions from other classes. A kind of corollary to this is that by actually *limiting* how many Character Classes you create, there is actually more "Design Space" present in which to make an effective and interesting new Character Class, without constantly blurring the distinctions with other Character Classes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on December 27, 2024, 01:48:07 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 26, 2024, 02:49:39 PMThe way to avoid class bloat is to simply not create new classes for every little niche and specialty under the sun. Is your character a soldier?,a gladiator?,a berserker?,a knight? Great! Your character is a FIGHTER. All of those other descriptors can be done as different background packages or something. A special class isn't needed for every character concept.   

Greetings!

Excellent stuff my friend! I suppose there *is* a certain allure to embracing yet another specialized Character Class. I think there is a strong argument for the traditional "Generalist"--the classic FIGHTER. However, having said that, just having a generic FIGHTER that somehow embraces a whole host of archetypal Fighting Men, Warriors, Soldiers, and various Martial Champions is somehow not viewed as being very sexy or attractive. I admit, I am something of two minds about this, so at the risk of dancing along the line of hypocrisy, I rebuke it. There *are* merits and attraction points to having all kinds of uber specialized Character Classes. There are. However, to see the greater wisdom requires some measure of sacrifice. Embracing a generic FIGHTER is at the end of the day, mostly sufficient. Beyond such considerations of sufficiency, for the "Greater Good"--it steadfastly blocks off the otherwise inevitable growth and profusion of class bloat, and a kind of endless death-spiral of ever-increasing Character Powers, all of which are instituted to engage Player interest, but also the design demand to differentiate from whatever Character Classes established previously.

This is where I think there is merit to having skills, talents, background packages, feats, whatever. Most of the archetypal warriors are flavoured differently by their culture, armour, weapons, and to some extent, weapon and fighting techniques, style, and tactics. All of which can be modelled through such elements as skills, feats, talents, background packages, cultural lores, and so on. Vikings, Legionnares, Samurai, Imperial Chinese Soldiers, Mongolian Horsemen, Byzantine Cataphracts, are after all, all FIGHTERS. As an philosophical aside, yes, they are all Fighters, but they aren't all each other. So, there are some differentiation required and desirable. That differentiation can be accomplished through the previously noted elements, instead of making up yet another specialized Character Class. "All Vikings are FIGHTERS, but not all FIGHTERS are Vikings." That nice philosophical tidbit is useful here I think, and appropriate.

I agree though, the solution to that is not creating more and more specialized Character Classes.

Having "Class Bloat" blows the doors open in the campaign for a cascading effect of increasingly difficult problems and dynamics that really are a mess. I think that additional Character Classes can be fine, but they need to be carefully considered and carefully designed, and have legitimate distinctions from other classes. A kind of corollary to this is that by actually *limiting* how many Character Classes you create, there is actually more "Design Space" present in which to make an effective and interesting new Character Class, without constantly blurring the distinctions with other Character Classes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

A decision needs to be made when constructing and designing classes. Will there be a plethora of class to represent many niche concepts, or will there be limited archetypes to keep the game fairly simple? Often a game will be designed with a handful of core classes and more and more classes are tacked on as supplemental material. Some additional classes are not bad but quite often the issue with these additions is that they are somewhat similar to existing classes but superior in performance creating imbalances all over the place. 5E is a great example. In 5E the power creep bloat was presented as subclasses. The newer options are so much more powerful than the original options that the older options are rarely played.

Players these days no longer want to play a broad archetype and then make that character unique through play. They want particular mechanical power ups. The original argument for wanting all these feats, and menus of a la
carte abilities was to make unique characters. The problem is that all the optimal choices become apparent fairly quick and everyone selects these "must haves". So much for unique characters. The reality is that players have to want to develop unique characters themselves rather than picking mechanical tidbits from a rulebook to do so.

I prefer the broad archetype approach. The background concept can add a lot of flavor in the form of fighting styles, starting equipment packages, social advantages/disadvantages and so on. There can be dozens of these without having to engineer and entire class around it.

Of course a bunch of classes, if well designed, can be fun if the group isn't concerned at all with class bloat or mind how long it takes to look through dozens of classes to decide what to play.

I prefer classes in many ways, but looking at my shelf most of the games probably have some form of class system so it's probably just ingrained.

Even templates are a form of class, or roles, or archetypes, or..

I've found it helps with some new players for sure to help them understand the basics.

Regarding class bloat, it's never been an issue for me. I like the idea of different classes for different things, but do agree that the issue of balance can be a problem if there isn't some class design rules involved. 

I've been pleased with what I've seen in ACKS for classes, but I can't speak to the new version.

I like the approach of making things skill-based but presenting "classes" at a pre-selected set of skills.

Nothing. They don't do anything a classless system can't do better.

Quote from: Domina on December 27, 2024, 10:24:35 PMNothing. They don't do anything a classless system can't do better.

Nothing like a universal statement with no explanation or justification to add value to a discussion.  Oh, wait!  You've never added any value to a discussion.  In fact, I had forgotten you had ever posted here during your absence.  Guess that might serve as a indicator...

Quote from: Domina on December 27, 2024, 10:24:35 PMNothing. They don't do anything a classless system can't do better.

I don't necessarily disagree, but they can often get there faster if not better. For gamers that want to have things quick and easy, classes help.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 28, 2024, 12:19:42 AM

Quote from: Domina on December 27, 2024, 10:24:35 PMNothing. They don't do anything a classless system can't do better.

I don't necessarily disagree, but they can often get there faster if not better. For gamers that want to have things quick and easy, classes help.

Slower and harder, you mean. Classless is always faster and easier.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 27, 2024, 11:39:15 PM

Quote from: Domina on December 27, 2024, 10:24:35 PMNothing. They don't do anything a classless system can't do better.

Nothing like a universal statement with no explanation or justification to add value to a discussion.  Oh, wait!  You've never added any value to a discussion.  In fact, I had forgotten you had ever posted here during your absence.  Guess that might serve as a indicator...

Ironic.

Quote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:07:11 AMClassless is always faster and easier.

How do you figure that?

Classes bundle options so you get a lot with a single pick. How does bundling not save time and effort?

Note that I'm not saying it's better, just a time/effort saver. Those that argue it makes an objectively better game would be unlikely to convince me.

Quote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:07:11 AMSlower and harder, you mean. Classless is always faster and easier.

Wrong. To say "always" is just plain wrong.

CoC is a good example of a classless system. Even in it's current version, it's not that much different than when it was introduced back in the early 80s. Yes, they give you occupations to maybe choose from, but the game mechanics don't require someone to select an occupation. If someone goes 100% classless, the amount of time it takes to create a character is significantly more than most class based systems like OSE.

To make a blanket statement like you did is incorrect and is based upon personal bias, not fact.

These days I *prefer* classless. I recognize all the good arguments pro/con for classes made in this thread. The reality I find is this:

People/players writ-large are not as creative as we pretend they are. Classes provides solid scaffolding for them their imaginations to cling to, at least in the short term, when conceptualizing their characters *specifically* in terms of what their characters *DO*.

I.e. when a player thinks of their character as a Fighter, they generally know they're the guy that bashes things with weapons, they wear the cool armor and maybe they'll toss in a shield. Permutations of what *we* might conceive of a Fighter to be from a GMing standpoint comes in later.

Same with Wizards - they're people that blast shit, and know cool shit so when the players learn some arcane secret, the Wizard can tell the rest of the party where they read about it in some book or whatever.

Clerics - healers. Thieves - sneaky bastards that steal and backstab.

These are the core conceits that have developed and continue to this day. Everything else is a permutation of those roles due entirely to gaming mechanics and their reinforcement of them.

Of course when you're GMing we often, sometimes as much as more nuanced players, we want to reimagine these basic tropes into something more granular. The Fighter that doesn't wear heavy armor and uses a rapier, the Thief that is trapsmith, not a poison-using assassin. The Cleric that is *not* a healbot (yes yes I know St. Gygax never intended that either), but is a Priest with abilities commensurate to the dictates of their specific God.

The problem of wrestling with mechanics that have locked everyone into these narrow channels of play have only proliferated more narrow channels of play until we have a mighty river comprised of only narrow channels all trying to horn in on everyone else channel within the confines of task-resolution mechanics that suddenly define how the settings work, instead of the other way around.

Most players and GM's never leave that mindset. The ones that do - either started in classless systems, where the Task Resolution Mechanics are universal, and anything engaging with them must likewise define the setting's possibilities (but usually are easier to scale up/down) where any permutation of a "class" is easily defined and   emulated. The problem for "class-enthusiasts" is they tend to complain that they don't "feel" special since they use the same mechanics.

Case in point - a "fighter" in Savage Worlds Core rules is just someone with a high Fighting skill. How they go about expressing it, whether it's using a Maul or a Rapier or their Fist is merely a matter of holding that item and rolling the exact same die. The distinctions of play come from how the player builds the character with Edges in expressing exactly how they fight. Someone that takes Brawler vs. someone that takes First Strike, suddenly changes the entire method of play both mechanically and in flavor.

The issue comes in, to me, more as a psychological one - those players that WANT their Swashbuckler D&D class, want that word attached to them as a PC identity. I know, as I've converted many D&D players to Savage Worlds enthusiasts at my table despite their dislike for the "loosey-goosey" non-class nature of Savage Worlds Core.

But the moment I use the Savage Pathfinder Rules - everything is great! Everything is awesome. Because they added "Class Edges" - which are just Edges with some added benefit AND penalty to them to express (and in my opinion) very narrow channels of play you'd find in D&D. But because it's Savage Worlds, you can modify them to your hearts content at will. This seems to thread the needle of both camps nicely despite there being *nothing* distinguishing them mechanically except people's psychological perceptions of them.

Suddenly Savage Worlds is a "class-based" system, just because a label is placed on it.

It's a weird observation.

 I don't think one system is better than the other. Both have plusses and minuses.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 06, 2024, 11:49:24 PMA question inspired by a couple of threads going on. I'm curious how people would answer this; because I think how you answer the question says a lot about how you approach RPG design. As a note, this question would also apply to professions, archetypes etc., any system where you take your character's primary skills/abilities as a package instead of picking them a la carte.

My own answer is that "a class is there to make it easy to play an archetype". So if a game has a class called "ninja", then that class should provide a player with whatever skills you could reasonably expect a ninja to have. In simplest terms: a class needs to do what it says on the tin. 

There are many other possible answers, though. To list a few:

--to delineate mechanical roles (damage dealer, healer, skill-monkey, etc.)
--to provide game balance
--to encourage teamwork by making it so that no one can do everything
--to reinforce world-building (i.e., these are the occupations prevalent in this world)
--to add tactical depth

and so on.

To me it is mix of the points you have alerady mentioned, but mostly to encourage teamwork by making it so that no one can do everything.

Quote from: blackstone on February 04, 2025, 09:15:58 AM

Quote from: Domina on February 04, 2025, 12:07:11 AMSlower and harder, you mean. Classless is always faster and easier.

Wrong. To say "always" is just plain wrong.

CoC is a good example of a classless system. Even in it's current version, it's not that much different than when it was introduced back in the early 80s. Yes, they give you occupations to maybe choose from, but the game mechanics don't require someone to select an occupation. If someone goes 100% classless, the amount of time it takes to create a character is significantly more than most class based systems like OSE.

To make a blanket statement like you did is incorrect and is based upon personal bias, not fact.

Nope, always.

Classless is faster than OSE.

Quote from: NebulaMajor on February 05, 2025, 01:07:52 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 06, 2024, 11:49:24 PMA question inspired by a couple of threads going on. I'm curious how people would answer this; because I think how you answer the question says a lot about how you approach RPG design. As a note, this question would also apply to professions, archetypes etc., any system where you take your character's primary skills/abilities as a package instead of picking them a la carte.

My own answer is that "a class is there to make it easy to play an archetype". So if a game has a class called "ninja", then that class should provide a player with whatever skills you could reasonably expect a ninja to have. In simplest terms: a class needs to do what it says on the tin. 

There are many other possible answers, though. To list a few:

--to delineate mechanical roles (damage dealer, healer, skill-monkey, etc.)
--to provide game balance
--to encourage teamwork by making it so that no one can do everything
--to reinforce world-building (i.e., these are the occupations prevalent in this world)
--to add tactical depth

and so on.

To me it is mix of the points you have alerady mentioned, but mostly to encourage teamwork by making it so that no one can do everything.

Players should not have to have specific roles, and would be better served by a system that doesn't encourage d&dslop brainrot.

Class systems have terrible balance.

No one character can do everything in classless. Teamwork should not be enforced. No gameplay style is correct save the one the players prefer. The system should permit teamwork in the case the players prefer it, and should not punish them if they don't.

Players shouldn't build their characters according to occupations.

Classless is better for tactical depth, since you can actually use interesting options other than basic attack without wasting your action.

Quote from: Domina on February 20, 2025, 06:26:40 PMClassless is better for tactical depth, since you can actually use interesting options other than basic attack without wasting your action.

   I'm not sure this follows; 'tactical depth' and 'class/classless' seem to be on two completely different axes. Or are you just assuming 'class-based=D&D (usually some specific version)'?

You are quite well aware that people mean d&d when referring to classes, since that's the only game anyone plays.

Quote from: Domina on February 20, 2025, 06:26:40 PMNope, always.

Classless is faster than OSE.

You just keep spurting out "classless". Give an example of a classless game with faster chargen than OSE.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 27, 2024, 03:41:37 PM

Quote from: SHARK on December 27, 2024, 01:48:07 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 26, 2024, 02:49:39 PMThe way to avoid class bloat is to simply not create new classes for every little niche and specialty under the sun. Is your character a soldier?,a gladiator?,a berserker?,a knight? Great! Your character is a FIGHTER. All of those other descriptors can be done as different background packages or something. A special class isn't needed for every character concept.   

Greetings!

Excellent stuff my friend! I suppose there *is* a certain allure to embracing yet another specialized Character Class. I think there is a strong argument for the traditional "Generalist"--the classic FIGHTER. However, having said that, just having a generic FIGHTER that somehow embraces a whole host of archetypal Fighting Men, Warriors, Soldiers, and various Martial Champions is somehow not viewed as being very sexy or attractive. I admit, I am something of two minds about this, so at the risk of dancing along the line of hypocrisy, I rebuke it. There *are* merits and attraction points to having all kinds of uber specialized Character Classes. There are. However, to see the greater wisdom requires some measure of sacrifice. Embracing a generic FIGHTER is at the end of the day, mostly sufficient. Beyond such considerations of sufficiency, for the "Greater Good"--it steadfastly blocks off the otherwise inevitable growth and profusion of class bloat, and a kind of endless death-spiral of ever-increasing Character Powers, all of which are instituted to engage Player interest, but also the design demand to differentiate from whatever Character Classes established previously.

This is where I think there is merit to having skills, talents, background packages, feats, whatever. Most of the archetypal warriors are flavoured differently by their culture, armour, weapons, and to some extent, weapon and fighting techniques, style, and tactics. All of which can be modelled through such elements as skills, feats, talents, background packages, cultural lores, and so on. Vikings, Legionnares, Samurai, Imperial Chinese Soldiers, Mongolian Horsemen, Byzantine Cataphracts, are after all, all FIGHTERS. As an philosophical aside, yes, they are all Fighters, but they aren't all each other. So, there are some differentiation required and desirable. That differentiation can be accomplished through the previously noted elements, instead of making up yet another specialized Character Class. "All Vikings are FIGHTERS, but not all FIGHTERS are Vikings." That nice philosophical tidbit is useful here I think, and appropriate.

I agree though, the solution to that is not creating more and more specialized Character Classes.

Having "Class Bloat" blows the doors open in the campaign for a cascading effect of increasingly difficult problems and dynamics that really are a mess. I think that additional Character Classes can be fine, but they need to be carefully considered and carefully designed, and have legitimate distinctions from other classes. A kind of corollary to this is that by actually *limiting* how many Character Classes you create, there is actually more "Design Space" present in which to make an effective and interesting new Character Class, without constantly blurring the distinctions with other Character Classes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

A decision needs to be made when constructing and designing classes. Will there be a plethora of class to represent many niche concepts, or will there be limited archetypes to keep the game fairly simple? Often a game will be designed with a handful of core classes and more and more classes are tacked on as supplemental material. Some additional classes are not bad but quite often the issue with these additions is that they are somewhat similar to existing classes but superior in performance creating imbalances all over the place. 5E is a great example. In 5E the power creep bloat was presented as subclasses. The newer options are so much more powerful than the original options that the older options are rarely played.

Players these days no longer want to play a broad archetype and then make that character unique through play. They want particular mechanical power ups. The original argument for wanting all these feats, and menus of a la
carte abilities was to make unique characters. The problem is that all the optimal choices become apparent fairly quick and everyone selects these "must haves". So much for unique characters. The reality is that players have to want to develop unique characters themselves rather than picking mechanical tidbits from a rulebook to do so.

I prefer the broad archetype approach. The background concept can add a lot of flavor in the form of fighting styles, starting equipment packages, social advantages/disadvantages and so on. There can be dozens of these without having to engineer and entire class around it.

Of course a bunch of classes, if well designed, can be fun if the group isn't concerned at all with class bloat or mind how long it takes to look through dozens of classes to decide what to play.

Greetings!

Yeah, Exploderwizard! I agree entirely.

I must confess--there was a time when I was a younger gamer and DM that I also really enjoyed new classes, uber feats, and all that. *Laughing* However, I strongly prefer the broader archetype class approach now. It's that basic simplicity and speed of play that really takes top priority for me nowadays. It is not that I can't put in effort for whatever, it is I have less patience. I also think there is something else, though. As you get older, you actually develop and learn and "see" things differently. For example, I can see things now, that were generally meaningless or of little concern for me when I was younger.

I still think that there is room for new classes--and they can be very beneficial--but yes, I agree. I am much more restrained and cautious when designing new classes. It must be done with a clear vision in mind, a clear and powerful "Hole" to be filled that isn't already met well enough by current classes. Even when doing so, however, it must be done so in a restrained manner. As you said, tacking on new uber feats can very quickly make a new class overpower and overshadow an original class. THAT leads to class bloat, and larger campaign problems, for certain!

For my World of Thandor, using the Shadowdark system, I have actually been focusing on developing new, additional Character Classes that fulfill a distinct mission and purpose--that clear vision--and something of a campaign "hole" that needs filling--but ultimately blending these classes with a chasis that makes them just a bit *underpowered* or nerfed from the original, main Character Classes. For example, I have developed the Temple Prostitute, Scholar, Artificer, and Tribal Warrior as somewhat "nerfed" additional classes. For more robust classes, I have added a Merchant Explorer, Shaman, Astrologer, and Witch Hunter.

I also have come to believe that providing a specific, distinct "structure" is important, especially for players. This idea that you can just "leave it up to the Players to make whatever" can be less than helpful. Backgrounds and "flourish" can all help, but providing an actual Title, with formal, distinct class mechanics, details, and abilities does a more powerful job and impact in establishing a Character identity. There is a kind of creative tug of war there, though, between designing something generalist--and thus having broader appeal, and utility in many situations and environments--and on the other, wanting something specific and distinct--which is colourful and dramatic--but also narrower in utility. It is definitely a process that I am cautious with. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 27, 2024, 03:41:37 PMA decision needs to be made when constructing and designing classes. Will there be a plethora of class to represent many niche concepts, or will there be limited archetypes to keep the game fairly simple?

My own solution to this was to break the concept of a class up into about three distinct chunks. Each type of chunk has a limited number of concepts, but because you're combining three chunks the number of combinations adds up to effectively "many niche concepts."

Specifically, you have your background (all the non-combat traits of a class); Academic, Aristocrat, Artisan, Barbarian, Commoner, Entertainer, Military, Outlaw, Religious, and Traveler.

Then class (broad archetype of the class' fighting style or spellcasting source); Berserker, Ironclad, Mastermind, Skirmisher, Mage, Mechanist, and Mystic.

Lastly their path (the specific focus of their fighting style or spell use), with two sets depending on class; fighting paths of brigand, captain, defender, disabler, ravager, sentinel, and striker; spellcasting paths of abjurer, benedictor, empowered, interdictor, maledictor, manifester, and summoner.

So it's a finite eight, seven, and seven chunks... individually not too overwhelming for a player. But that's 387 potential combinations (not all classes can pick all seven paths which is why it's not 392)... enough that each could be considered an extremely specific niche.

All the D&D classes fall into those combos (some with multiple approaches to the same concept; a D&D Paladin might be a Religious Ironclad Defender or a Military Mystic Abjurer depending on edition) and a whole lot more.

My favorite thing about this approach is how useful it's been in building campaigns around a theme; the party is all members of the same aristocratic family, they're all part of religious order, or outlaws, or members of a barbarian clan. Same background (which do have options for distinguishing from each other) but each can have a different class and path to distinguish from each other. It also works for specific classes too... the "mage school" where they all come from different backgrounds, but are united in learning arcane secrets (and each can take a different path to represent a different specialization).

One thing I've been onboard with for a long time is the concept of using nested choices to reduce option paralysis. A list of 300 specific classes would overwhelm anyone. A list of eight backgrounds is manageable. "Do you want a fighting class or a spellcasting one?" is manageable. Which of three or four classes within those two do you want? Which of seven paths do you want? Most people could make those four decisions between 3-8 things in less time than they could even read the list of 300 specific classes.

Quote from: SHARKI also have come to believe that providing a specific, distinct "structure" is important, especially for players. This idea that you can just "leave it up to the Players to make whatever" can be less than helpful.

What do you mean? All the players have to do is choose options that match their concept. Structure is provided by the options, just as it would be by classes.

I also prefer fewer broader options. There's a lot of class bloat and a lot of it comes down to aesthetics that could reasonably be represented by subclasses rather than new classes.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AM

Quote from: SHARKI also have come to believe that providing a specific, distinct "structure" is important, especially for players. This idea that you can just "leave it up to the Players to make whatever" can be less than helpful.

What do you mean? All the players have to do is choose options that match their concept. Structure is provided by the options, just as it would be by classes.

It depends a lot on how the options are organized and how robust they are.

At a certain point an "option" is just a class without the word "class" attached to it.

Spellcasting, for example, is generally something that because of how big a deal it is will cost a significant percentage of whatever you're building your classless character with.

If all you have left after buying up the necessary supporting attributes and skills is a handful of points to choose a couple of ancillary skills for flavor then regardless of what you call it, that option is a "Class."

Similarly, 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").

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 10:56:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AM

Quote from: SHARKI also have come to believe that providing a specific, distinct "structure" is important, especially for players. This idea that you can just "leave it up to the Players to make whatever" can be less than helpful.

What do you mean? All the players have to do is choose options that match their concept. Structure is provided by the options, just as it would be by classes.

It depends a lot on how the options are organized and how robust they are.

At a certain point an "option" is just a class without the word "class" attached to it.

Spellcasting, for example, is generally something that because of how big a deal it is will cost a significant percentage of whatever you're building your classless character with.

If all you have left after buying up the necessary supporting attributes and skills is a handful of points to choose a couple of ancillary skills for flavor then regardless of what you call it, that option is a "Class."

Similarly, 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."

No, not really. What class is the option True Sight? What class is Light/Effect? What class is Blast, which can simulate any conceivable ranged attack, magic or physical?

You can have "spellcasting" and still have plenty of points to round out your hero. After making a competent knight, you have many points left over.

Everything in your post sounds like you've never actually tried to make a character in one of these systems, let alone played a game in one.

Fucking concern troll...I knew it.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:22:17 PMEverything in your post sounds like you've never actually tried to make a character in one of these systems, let alone played a game in one.

Then you would be wrong.

I've both run and played more M&M (mostly 2e, not enough 3e for my liking) than D&D by orders of magnitude (and Champions before M&M was a thing). I've discussed the issues related to that style of character building in the other class-related thread as I'll be running a M&M3e campaign in the near future.

You've clearly got your agenda though and don't care what people actually reply with, so carry on ranting to the sky.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 06:00:49 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:22:17 PMEverything in your post sounds like you've never actually tried to make a character in one of these systems, let alone played a game in one.

Then you would be wrong.

I've both run and played more M&M (mostly 2e, not enough 3e for my liking) than D&D by orders of magnitude (and Champions before M&M was a thing). I've discussed the issues related to that style of character building in the other class-related thread as I'll be running a M&M3e campaign in the near future.

You've clearly got your agenda though and don't care what people actually reply with, so carry on ranting to the sky.

Greetings!

Chris, I told Brad the same thing. Isn't it weird that Joanna has the same posting style as Domina? Acidic, Snarky, Confrontational. Nothing very serious in thought or conversation. Just kind of being bristly and abrasive in pretty much anything they say. That's my impression.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2025, 07:25:31 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 06:00:49 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:22:17 PMEverything in your post sounds like you've never actually tried to make a character in one of these systems, let alone played a game in one.

Then you would be wrong.

I've both run and played more M&M (mostly 2e, not enough 3e for my liking) than D&D by orders of magnitude (and Champions before M&M was a thing). I've discussed the issues related to that style of character building in the other class-related thread as I'll be running a M&M3e campaign in the near future.

You've clearly got your agenda though and don't care what people actually reply with, so carry on ranting to the sky.

Greetings!

Chris, I told Brad the same thing. Isn't it weird that Joanna has the same posting style as Domina? Acidic, Snarky, Confrontational. Nothing very serious in thought or conversation. Just kind of being bristly and abrasive in pretty much anything they say. That's my impression.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

If I had a nickel for every acidic, snarky, confrontational young lady brainwashed by Leftist college programs I've met, I'd have a couple bucks... which isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but definitely isn't just a coincidence either.

This sort of "I know better than everyone about everything and how dare you even question me" mindset is dime a dozen among young women these days. If they happen to get involved in RPGs that attitude just carries over like it would to knitting or gardening or engine repair.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 08:00:23 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2025, 07:25:31 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 06:00:49 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:22:17 PMEverything in your post sounds like you've never actually tried to make a character in one of these systems, let alone played a game in one.

Then you would be wrong.

I've both run and played more M&M (mostly 2e, not enough 3e for my liking) than D&D by orders of magnitude (and Champions before M&M was a thing). I've discussed the issues related to that style of character building in the other class-related thread as I'll be running a M&M3e campaign in the near future.

You've clearly got your agenda though and don't care what people actually reply with, so carry on ranting to the sky.

Greetings!

Chris, I told Brad the same thing. Isn't it weird that Joanna has the same posting style as Domina? Acidic, Snarky, Confrontational. Nothing very serious in thought or conversation. Just kind of being bristly and abrasive in pretty much anything they say. That's my impression.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

If I had a nickel for every acidic, snarky, confrontational young lady brainwashed by Leftist college programs I've met, I'd have a couple bucks... which isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but definitely isn't just a coincidence either.

This sort of "I know better than everyone about everything and how dare you even question me" mindset is dime a dozen among young women these days. If they happen to get involved in RPGs that attitude just carries over like it would to knitting or gardening or engine repair.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Right right! Yeah, my friend, so true, huh? I notice though that most of their commentary is...provocative, in-your-face, and yet, somehow without substance. There really is no "There, There." if that makes any sense. I always feel like these new incoming Leftists have only the thinnest grasp on how to play the game, and even what the game is about. And yet, despite that huge, looming dynamic--as you say, they seem to love to pose and posture themselves like they are some kind of deep authority, and of course, if you disagree with them, you must be an inbred moron. Or whatever.

I've been gaming since 1978, so all of their presumed "authority" is laughable in my eyes. Especially when they demonstrate that there understanding of the game, foundations, and deeper principles, is minimal at best.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AMStructure is provided by the options, just as it would be by classes.

It's not though.

It is, of course.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:21:56 PMIt is, of course.

Nuh uh

Concession accepted.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 08, 2025, 01:42:54 PMConcession accepted.

I'd like to know where you went to school.

The fact you think you're clever or conveying signs of intelligence with these replies is a condemnation of every educational institution you've ever attended and I would like to publicly mock them by repeating quotes of you followed by "- a [insert institution here] graduate."

You make Domina look like a genius... so if you're a Domina sock, you might wanna look at what you've been exposed to in the last couple of months because it has clearly caused brain damage and you deserve compensation for that.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 08, 2025, 01:42:54 PMConcession accepted.

I will graciously accept your concession.

I'm very sorry about whatever anger issues you're working through. Feel free to provide any reasoning at all for your position any time.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 13, 2025, 11:40:41 AMFeel free to provide any reasoning at all for your position any time.

You first.

Quick character generation.

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 14, 2025, 04:46:54 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 13, 2025, 11:40:41 AMFeel free to provide any reasoning at all for your position any time.

You first.

I did, here.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AMAll the players have to do is choose options that match their concept. Structure is provided by the options, just as it would be by classes.

So are you going to explain why you believe structure can only be provided by classes, or do you just not have an argument?

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 01:52:17 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 14, 2025, 04:46:54 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 13, 2025, 11:40:41 AMFeel free to provide any reasoning at all for your position any time.

You first.

I did, here.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AMAll the players have to do is choose options that match their concept. Structure is provided by the options, just as it would be by classes.

So are you going to explain why you believe structure can only be provided by classes, or do you just not have an argument?

What you posted is neither reasoning, nor explanation.  It's just a statement.  If the other guy posts, "Structure is not provided by skill options to the same extent as character classes" he has provided just as much evidence and reasoning as you have.  So, try explaining your reasoning before you get all snarky.  It'll work wonders for your communication skills...

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 01:52:17 AMI did, here.

You did not.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AMAll the players have to do is choose options that match their concept. Structure is provided by the options, just as it would be by classes.

This is not an argument.  It's an assertion.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AMSo are you going to explain why you believe structure can only be provided by classes, or do you just not have an argument?

This is called a strawman.

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 17, 2025, 10:28:03 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 01:52:17 AMI did, here.

You did not.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AMAll the players have to do is choose options that match their concept. Structure is provided by the options, just as it would be by classes.

This is not an argument.  It's an assertion.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:32:01 AMSo are you going to explain why you believe structure can only be provided by classes, or do you just not have an argument?

This is called a strawman.

FYI: 99% certain that JoannaGeist is a sock puppet for Domina. Domina disappeared and Joanna Geist showed up. Same pattern of language. Even same type of avatar, right up until Domina took their avatar down.

Pretty sure Domina was never banned, so I don't think that would make sense. That and JoannaGeist seems more opinionated about specific gameplay practices that I can't seem to remember from Domina.

Quote from: blackstone on March 17, 2025, 10:32:26 AMFYI: 99% certain that JoannaGeist is a sock puppet for Domina. Domina disappeared and Joanna Geist showed up. Same pattern of language. Even same type of avatar, right up until Domina took their avatar down.

They use the same low effort trolling style.  Specifically, they both try to get people to write long rebuttals to one or two sentence assertions.

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 17, 2025, 10:28:03 AMYou did not.

Then neither did you.

Quote from: yosemitemikeThis is not an argument.  It's an assertion.

Yes. And "classes provide structure" is an assertion.

A class is a list of options. A list of powers is a list of options. If classes provide structure, then so does a list of powers. If a list of powers doesn't provide structure, then neither do classes.

Quote from: yosemitemikeThis is called a strawman.

So you don't believe that only class systems can provide structure for players? What are the other system types that provide structure, and why? Be specific.

It doesn't matter if it's the same troll or a different one.  Stop responding to it, and it will get bored and go away.  It's just trying to derail useful conversations with all the back and forth.  No matter what you say to it, you give it what it wants.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 17, 2025, 01:10:36 PMIt doesn't matter if it's the same troll or a different one.  Stop responding to it, and it will get bored and go away.  It's just trying to derail useful conversations with all the back and forth.  No matter what you say to it, you give it what it wants.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 04:24:08 PMFucking concern troll...I knew it.

I said that last month. Even though some of us can be abrasive with each other over the dumbest shit possible (of course me!), I don't have a problem with anyone on this board except for this kind of troll. Even the dumbest people still contribute useful stuff, but this kind of thing just wastes space. It's obnoxious.

I'll level, I'm not always the best at determining what exactly qualifies as trolling as opposed to just bad debating. I probably give a bit too much effort on responding to bad faith posts sometimes, but I can't really tell at what point is too far on their side unless it's painfully obvious or the like.

Anyway, I feel like character classes give a feeling of specialization and niche protection, and if combined with a leveling system, clear progression.

Quote from: KindaMeh on March 17, 2025, 03:58:07 PMAnyway, I feel like character classes give a feeling of specialization and niche protection, and if combined with a leveling system, clear progression.

I think probably my favorite implementation of a class structure was actually in the early Robotech supplements where the classes were explicitly your MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) and it was rounded out with some Secondary Skills.

Its always nice when the classes actually line up to real world things you can reference in game; i.e. "My MOS is Destroid Piloting."

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:20:03 AMThen neither did you.

Why should I when you haven't?

Quote from: yosemitemikeThis is not an argument.  It's an assertion.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:20:03 AMYes.

So we agree.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:20:03 AMSo you don't believe that only class systems can provide structure for players?

People provide structure.

I run lots of games without classes, but classes or class like things have a lot of benefits.

1) the characters made fit into the world. It's great to make whacky rando super unique character, ...
2) it's much easier to guarantee that each character will be cool in some situation.