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.