Quote from: Trond;930112Actually, the way BRP normally works for me is completely classless. I just let the players roll their stats, and then give them a set number of points to put in their skills (the exact number depends on the power level). If they want to come up with some sort of profession that fits their combination of stats and skills, then that's up to them.

Well, the way many BRP games (CoC, etc) usually work for most people is that they roll stats, then choose a profession, and buy skills from that profession. Making profession a slightly 'softer' version of Class.

Quote from: RPGPundit;931782Well, the way many BRP games (CoC, etc) usually work for most people is that they roll stats, then choose a profession, and buy skills from that profession. Making profession a slightly 'softer' version of Class.

That's only a part of the picture. CoC also includes 'Personal Interest' skill points which can be applied to ANY skill. On average, that's around 130 additional skill points - roughly 1/3rd of all the skill points available - to further personalize your investigator. To me, that's an extremely "soft" version of Class by your definition.

House rules for CoC and Delta Green went so far as to suggest combining occupational and personal interest skill points into a single pool, using occupational skills as a rough guideline, and spending the points as you will to best define your character. That "Class" becomes a puddle of melted soft-serve on your counter.

Quote from: RPGPundit;931782Well, the way many BRP games (CoC, etc) usually work for most people is that they roll stats, then choose a profession, and buy skills from that profession. Making profession a slightly 'softer' version of Class.

Any "class" where being a Soldier doesn't have to mean you put any points in a weapon skill is not a class in the mechanical sense.

Quote from: yosemitemike;931210A 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.

Again, to me this falls under "those closed-minded people are that way," and "there may be way too many of them, but I'm not interested in talking to them about subtle RPG topics."

Quote from: TristramEvans;931236"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.

Yes, and so is not getting the difference between trying to aim in the general direction of realism, and not even trying, or aiming at stereotypes.

Quote from: AsenRG;931846Any "class" where being a Soldier doesn't have to mean you put any points in a weapon skill is not a class in the mechanical sense.

It means it's poor design.

Quote from: AsenRG;931846Any "class" where being a Soldier doesn't have to mean you put any points in a weapon skill is not a class in the mechanical sense.

I thought that was Quartermaster Corps.

JG

Quote from: AsenRG;931846Any "class" where being a Soldier doesn't have to mean you put any points in a weapon skill is not a class in the mechanical sense.

What if "soldier" or "warrior" includes weapons skills as part of the class description?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931939What if "soldier" or "warrior" includes weapons skills as part of the class description?

Now, (And I'm honestly taking this straight) doesn't most systems that have that sort of basic package of skills and/or abilities that signify that?  I mean, even the Quartermaster Corps would have some basic military training in case the base gets attack and/or overrun.  Right?

Quote from: RPGPundit;931905It means it's poor design.

Or the player is being an ass.

The inherent perfection of class based systems is demonstrated by there really being only one. All class based systems are functionally D&D in costume dress. One system to rule them all.

The inherent failure of classless systems is demonstrated by there being so many of them, each failing in its own particular way.


Actually I think the problem of many class based systems is that they struggle with edge case characters. Grey Mouser, Conan, et el. A little bit of fighting, a little bit of magic, a little bit of roguery, a little bit of thieving.

The problem of classless systems is that without the direction provided by classes players can flounder about trying to build a succesful character and ending up either too narrowly focused on doing one thing but helpless at everything else, or trying to everything and doing nothing well.

The games that hit the sweet spot for me are the ones that are sort of hybrids of the two approaches. Tunnels & Trolls with Wizards (full access to magic, limited combat), Warriors (full combat mastery, no magic) and Rogues (rogue wizards, have the potential to work magic but lack the training of a Wizard, fight well but not equal to Warriors). Beyond the Wall with three classes Warrior, Rogue and Wizard, and multi-classing rules that allow for building a character with strengths and weaknesses from two of the classes combined. Stormbringer and RQ3 also did well by having professions that gave characters a starting set of skills that made them at least competent in some field.

These games hit the sweet spot for me because they provide enough direction and focus to characters that it is easy to make a character that will succesfully fit a chosen role, but not be so straight jacketed as B/X D&D for example where every Fighter is pretty much the same as every other Fighter. I suck at building characters in point buy systems like GURPS and HERO, so that may colour my opinions.

I realized the D&D model of building a new character class for every character type didn't work for me when the number of classes started ballooning to ridiculous numbers. Look at how many character classes there are in the OSR, or in Palladium Books. I think the "class" concept works best when there are a few archetypical classes, with skills added to differentiate characters within those classes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;931971Now, (And I'm honestly taking this straight) doesn't most systems that have that sort of basic package of skills and/or abilities that signify that?  I mean, even the Quartermaster Corps would have some basic military training in case the base gets attack and/or overrun.  Right?

When I ran a modern military campaign many years ago using d20 Modern, I instructed the players as follows: "Each character must take at least one rank of Jump, one rank of Knowledge (military science) [a homebrew skill replacing Knowledge (tactics)] and the Personal Firearms Proficiency feat to reflect their training as Foreign Legion paratroopers; a character who does not have French as their primary language must invest one skill point in Speak Language (French) as required of all legionnaires."

The problem with conflating detailed lifepath chargen with "class" is that in most cases, it's historical.  Chargen is how to got to where you are when you enter the campaign.  Where you go from there is either bound to certain degrees by classes in a class system, or completely unbound in a classless one.

Quote from: DavetheLost;931987The inherent perfection of class based systems is demonstrated by there really being only one. All class based systems are functionally D&D in costume dress. One system to rule them all.

The inherent failure of classless systems is demonstrated by there being so many of them, each failing in its own particular way.

I want to disagree with this so much . . . but the words turn to ashes [strike]in my mouth[/strike] on my keyboard.

Quote from: DavetheLost;931987The problem of classless systems is that without the direction provided by classes players can flounder about trying to build a succesful character and ending up either too narrowly focused on doing one thing but helpless at everything else, or trying to everything and doing nothing well.

2e Boot Hill is a really interesting case. It's not just a class-less game - it's also a skill-less game, with a character's background, knowledge, &c determined almost wholly ad-hoc. The only limits on what your character can know or do beyond  what's represented by character attributes which are oriented to combat more-or-less exclusively is what the rest of the table will abide. If everyone is fine with you playing a pulp heroic Lone Ranger-type, then it can happen with no recourse to skill points or templates or anything at all other than saying, 'Yeah, sure, go for it.'

Quote from: DavetheLost;931987I realized the D&D model of building a new character class for every character type didn't work for me when the number of classes started ballooning to ridiculous numbers. Look at how many character classes there are in the OSR, or in Palladium Books. I think the "class" concept works best when there are a few archetypical classes, with skills added to differentiate characters within those classes.

I'm Black Vulmea and I approve of this message.

Quote from: DavetheLost;931987The inherent perfection of class based systems is demonstrated by there really being only one. All class based systems are functionally D&D in costume dress. One system to rule them all.

The inherent failure of classless systems is demonstrated by there being so many of them, each failing in its own particular way.

I think you're wearing your own prejudices on your sleeve and mistaking them for wisdom.
I could make the same mistake and claim all classless games owe lineage to permutations of Runequest while Class-based games cling to the wobbly training wheels of BASIC D&D and its baked in limitations (great for nervous newbs and rollplayers, not so great for roleplayers with functioning imaginations).
But I'm not gonna make your mistake and say such a thing... though it's true that any class-based game I play eventually has me clawing at the walls of my cage, wanting freedom.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;932033I want to disagree with this so much . . . but the words turn to ashes [strike]in my mouth[/strike] on my keyboard.

Gotcha!