Quote from: Xanther;931014I think that is the key, whatever the system allows.  

Class-based systems come up with issues for players when the "archetype" they want to play cannot be found in the classes presented.  This, in my experience, was a very real problem in early D&D.    Not for me personally, I was good with the Magic User idea.

Calling the limited class choices in D&D "archetypes" to justify the design is post-hoc justification at best and really mostly BS.  The D&D classes are not based on any pre-existing (before D&D) epic or fantasy literature archetypes, at least where it counts in terms of game mechanics.  There was no way to play the barbarian from fantasy literature, Conan, Crom, Kothar, Fafhrd, etc. for the vary basic reason all these true fantasy archetypes had stealth and climbing skills, in addition to being bad ass fighters.   The Grey Mouser is also a problem, Gandalf is a problem, Beowulf is a problem. If you need more examples, just look at Deities and Demigods, or Giants in the Earth articles to see how multi-classing is needed in nearly every case, which makes class a meaningless concept.  Or you could go the D&D 3.5 route and make some many classes/prestige classes the concept has little meaning.

+10 000 to this.

Quote from: yosemitemike;930862I just would have like more cuddling afterwards.

You take me to dinner at Waffle House, you get minimum cuddling. Aim higher.

Quote from: AsenRG;930869. . . I'm pretty sure you guys didn't even get a reacharound:D!

Left thumb and forefinger only. None of you clowns rate the full right hand.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;930873. . . [E]ven if the 'class' (in a class based system) is mechanically identical, players will still personalize it.

Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, do CB and I  actually agree on something?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;931119Left thumb and forefinger only. None of you clowns rate the full right hand.

You mean "them clowns", because you and me aren't that kind of close;).

QuoteHoly Flying Spaghetti Monster, do CB and I  actually agree on something?

It's always surprising when that happens, I know:D!
But that's got no relevance to a thread about how classless systems work.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;931119Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, do CB and I  actually agree on something?

* gak * My heart!

Quote from: CRKrueger;930674Yeah, just making the character they want, as varied as they want, without being an asshat, special snowflake or PCpeen measuring jackass, and just being cool, you know how RQ, Traveller, GURPS etc. people have been doing it for 30+ fucking years.

Sometimes in the same campaign.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930789Yeah, everyone creating their own unique class is a nonsensical use of the term.  That's like saying every human's entire learning experience is a class.

Someone who actually played a classless system would understand how deep the skill systems usually go, more than enough depth so that any two characters who both possess the rough equivalent of Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Pickpocket and Find/Remove Traps are extremely different.  In fact one, may be the "Fighter"...why, because he bought armor and a shield and knows how to use them.

And there is a huge difference between chargen and growth during play in the 2 types of systems.

One phenomena is how a classless/skill based can allow a character to become what they do.  I have had a number of times where a death or issue forces a character into heavily using secondary or tertiary skills heavily enough it becomes part of their primary skillset.

Quote from: LordVreeg;931142And there is a huge difference between chargen and growth during play in the 2 types of systems.

One phenomena is how a classless/skill based can allow a character to become what they do.  I have had a number of times where a death or issue forces a character into heavily using secondary or tertiary skills heavily enough it becomes part of their primary skillset.

Yeah, I've seen that quite a bit as well:).

Quote from: Skarg;930953If someone seriously wrote that, I missed it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;929878You can roleplay real people, actual fully developed individuals without being bound to fantasy-based archetypes. Roleplaying isn't real-life, but since no one claimed it is, nothing you've said there is an argument, just a non sequitur.

Quote from: Skarg;930953What you wrote that I was responding to was:

My quibbles are:
* "Most people" - I think it'd be more accurate to say people who are being closed-minded, which often is the case.
* "It's the way of the world" - I think it's more constructive and hopeful to call it the way of the closed-minded.
* "Fans never find criticism of the object of their fandom to be valid either." - I'd say that's overstated. I consider and agree with some of the criticisms of the things I'm a fan of, and criticism of myself, and I'm not the only one. Maybe some day Sommerjon will join us, and the world can live as one.

A great many people are close-minded.  You only need to look at the fallout from Trump being elected to see that.  We have both seen tons of fans that desperately tie themselves into rhetorical knots trying to find some reason, any reason, why any criticism of the object of their fandom is somehow invalid.  Some will go so far as to say to say that critics should only be allowed to say something was "not for them" and that any more is being unreasonable.  It's not all fans but I never said all fans speaking of overstating someone's argument.  There are a lot of these people though.  We have all seen them.  People are what they are.

Quote from: Skarg;930953Of course, but who besides you just now (intentionally overstating the argument), and TrollDouche Sommerjon (mis-reading what others were writing in order to delusionally act indignant and call people stupid) suggested that classless characters were "a real person" or had "ALL the depth and breadth of a real person"? If someone seriously wrote that, I missed it..

"All the depth and breadth of a real person" really depends on what it takes to convey that, rather than the specifics of a full life lived. A novel or a film can have characters that are portrayed as real, complex people, or they can fall back on cliches and archetypes. Both are valid methods for playing a game, but the insistence that every roleplaying game has to rely on the second is the voicing of the limitations of a closed mind.

Quote from: LordVreeg;931142And there is a huge difference between chargen and growth during play in the 2 types of systems.

One phenomena is how a classless/skill based can allow a character to become what they do.  I have had a number of times where a death or issue forces a character into heavily using secondary or tertiary skills heavily enough it becomes part of their primary skillset.

When that happens, (again, this is JUST ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE NOT FACT!) I've found that players are unhappy about that.  They had an idea in their head and were told it would work, then suddenly, they have to play something they didn't and weren't happy.

Again, I contend that players make the system work.  Doesn't matter if it's class or classless.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;931248When that happens, (again, this is JUST ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE NOT FACT!) I've found that players are unhappy about that.  They had an idea in their head and were told it would work, then suddenly, they have to play something they didn't and weren't happy.

Again, I contend that players make the system work.  Doesn't matter if it's class or classless.

It is the players, the expectation, the type of game...but class systems don't allow for the phenomena, classless does.  

In terms of chargen, and shorter games, class based allows the set up of an archetype. And there are advantages in terms of writing the game, adventure set up and design. But the idea of 'becoming what you do' is not there; the ability to respond to the demands of the sandbox is less in the Class based.  

I've never had a player unhappy with the option of adjusting and growth, but I have not have every player or every group.  I run very large, open sandboxes, so it works for me and my players.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;931248Again, I contend that players make the system work.  Doesn't matter if it's class or classless.

Crom's hairy nutsack, now ** I ** am agreeing with CB!

Also, I happen to prefer simple, simple classes like OD&D because there's less chance you'll screw yourself.  We played a LOT of CHAMPIONS back in the 80s, and there were two or three of us who wound up doing all the character design.  Using CHAMPIONS is an art form; I have a friend whose CHAMPIONS character is guaranteed to be excellent, whereas most of us barely managed mediocre, and I've seen characters you look at and say "How the fuck do you spend 100 points and get somebody so useless?"

So there's that too.

And since I read CB's post in the quotes, I might as well reply:).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;931248When that happens, (again, this is JUST ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE NOT FACT!) I've found that players are unhappy about that.  They had an idea in their head and were told it would work, then suddenly, they have to play something they didn't and weren't happy.

Well, my anecdotal evidence points to the exact opposite place. It's always been "that character surprised me, I didn't expect him/her to turn like that" (or variations of the same, I've heard quite a few over the years). Always followed by a variation of "that was so cool"!

QuoteAgain, I contend that players make the system work.  Doesn't matter if it's class or classless.

Of course they are, Cupcake! I said it long ago in this thread. Gronan said it already. And the Green One agreed with it. It was about time you understood it, too!
And some players, probably most players at least in my experience, have an easier time making it work in that specific way when it's a classless system;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931321Crom's hairy nutsack, now ** I ** am agreeing with CB!

That's because he's agreeing with what I already said. Treat it as "agreeing with AsenRG", that might help with the shock:D!

QuoteAlso, I happen to prefer simple, simple classes like OD&D because there's less chance you'll screw yourself.

Fun fact: I prefer simple classes that are relatively not numerous, maybe with a few tweaks.
Which is another reason I fucking hate wizard classes, of course.

QuoteWe played a LOT of CHAMPIONS back in the 80s, and there were two or three of us who wound up doing all the character design.  Using CHAMPIONS is an art form; I have a friend whose CHAMPIONS character is guaranteed to be excellent, whereas most of us barely managed mediocre, and I've seen characters you look at and say "How the fuck do you spend 100 points and get somebody so useless?"

My experience is with GURPS, but it's the same thing. I can design a 150-pts character without powers in 20 minutes, and he's not going to be mediocre (the trick is to pick advantages first, then the max number of disadvantages, then skills, then to assign attributes, and then to assign the skill numbers...then pick a Technique or two, and be done with it). Or at least, if he is, that would be because your character concept was for somebody who's still got a lot to learn.
So there are ways to avoid screwing yourself when designing a classless character. It's just that many people don't quite know them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931321Also, I happen to prefer simple, simple classes like OD&D because there's less chance you'll screw yourself.  We played a LOT of CHAMPIONS back in the 80s, and there were two or three of us who wound up doing all the character design.  Using CHAMPIONS is an art form; I have a friend whose CHAMPIONS character is guaranteed to be excellent, whereas most of us barely managed mediocre, and I've seen characters you look at and say "How the fuck do you spend 100 points and get somebody so useless?"

Well - in theory a system would make it so that it's very easy to make a reasonably competent character even with major customization, while system mastery would still allow you to make your character better.  (System mastery should be rewarded.)

But that's a tall order for any system - so generally they have to weigh system customization (a good thing) with ease of creating a solid character (a good thing).  Where the best place is along that spectrum is rather subjective.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931321Also, I happen to prefer simple, simple classes like OD&D because there's less chance you'll screw yourself.  We played a LOT of CHAMPIONS back in the 80s, and there were two or three of us who wound up doing all the character design.  Using CHAMPIONS is an art form; I have a friend whose CHAMPIONS character is guaranteed to be excellent, whereas most of us barely managed mediocre, and I've seen characters you look at and say "How the fuck do you spend 100 points and get somebody so useless?"

So there's that too.

Making a useless character, as with the rest of CHAMPIONS, is an art in itself.

JG