TheRPGSite

When I was a young little Ashakyre, I remember reading the rules for Dungeons & Dragons and hating the class restrictions. "Please, Daddy? Can't the wizard wear some armor? It would be so coooooool... And can't the barbarian just have one spell? Just one little itty bitty fireball when he gets surrounded by goblins? Pleeeeeassseee?"

So of course over the years I always worked on a system that was fluid. I didn't have classes, and armor and spells were based on your stats or you skills or whatever. There were many shades of gray between and pure wizard and a pure warrior, and you could pick where you wanted your character to be. It was cool.

And yet... about 6 years ago I was playing with a friend and solicited his feedback, and he just didn't like his character. For the most part, he wanted more bits and bobs to differentiate his character. And I can agree, at the time things in the game felt kind of samey. Granted, this particular version of the game was focused almost entirely on balance and had almost no color/fluff.

Now, in the last year I've added a lot of color to the game and I'm happy with the setting and how it inspires adventure ideas. And yet I'm not sure I've overcome the problem. And I would have thought it was just a matter of adding more stuff to the game and giving that stuff some color. But I'm not so sure now. Reading the rulebooks to Stars Without Number and Swords & Wizardry, I get the sense that each player is going to feel a real difference of their unique class having at least one thing it can do better than the others. And there's no chance no matter how the characters develop over the game that someone is going to come into your niche. I suppose that's what they mean by niche protection.

My first question is this: what psychology is at play here? When distinct classes feel good, why do they feel good? I feel like I can almost imagine an answer, but I can't articulate it. If any character can evolve into any other, then it feels like mush. But if there's at least one thing unique about your class then your feel grounded. What's going on here? In Divinity: Original Sin, it's classless and it works. At least it does to me. Any character can evolve into any other character. But my game is mush. And yet when I imagine the basic archetypes in my game, it feels crisper when I imagine them being in seperate silos.

Second question: how much of this might have to do with explaining your game and gameworld to new players? Do you suppose a game that's very grounded into standard tropes can get away from more shades of gray between archetypes?

Your system needs to be lumpy.  Their need to be tipping points, where small changes can make a big difference.  Their need to be opportunity costs.

You start with some Marx, and add a splash of Pol Pot or maybe a bit of Mao.  Then if it doesn't work or just ends up poorly, you say it wasn't real.  

I'm kidding.  What makes a classless system 'work' for me isn't going to be the best answer you get.  I tend to sit and think up something interesting as a character, and the game's 'classes' simply don't always support it.  I've always liked clerics, but I've never liked that I have to go and purchase a stupid amount of skills to gear him the way I want him to play (I've always thought of a weapon/armor/shield things as 'iconic' with a character).  That being said, if I can get that cleric where I want him to be in a few games, I'll be pleased.  

One of my friends' complaints about a Rogue/thief class was that the DM/GM tends to often forget about them.  There isn't always a trap, a locked door, or a jewel on a statue.  And for myself, I don't know why- but it feels more fun to imagine an armored hero with a flail taking on a horde of skeletons than it does... a guy with a crossbow and a dagger, I suppose?  Some folks I know tend to gravitate toward 'fighting' classes because you see cool fight scenes on Game of Thrones and other movies, and it makes it cooler.  Like- how many movies do you see a kick-ass wizard or a daring rogue in and they're actually doing cool stuff?

As far as explaining your game world?  Well, I don't know.  In Oriental Adventures, everyone wanted to be Samurai and Ninjas.  No matter how hard you tried to talk about how rogues, rangers, or what-have-you was 'relevant' to the game world, they just gravitated toward certain things.  As far as 'explaining' it?  I'd say weave the 'classes' into the lore, maybe 'Rangers' are well-respected and nearly every boy in the country wants to be one.  Perhaps Clerics are almost national heroes, and there's statues of them outside cathederals that praise their deeds.  I'd say 'sell' the classes like they're a legitimately recognized lifestyle in the setting.

Quote from: Crüesader;920744I tend to sit and think up something interesting as a character, and the game's 'classes' simply don't always support it.  

And when classless works, its because players have cool ideas for a character within a game world AND THEN figure out a way to make that character. Yeah?

Yes, it's about having the imagination to create a character in your mind and then use the system to flesh them out... rather than relying on the system to provide the imagination with pre-fab classes.
There's also a lot of differentiation that can come from how you roleplay your character, what sort of personality and quirks you give it.

Quote from: Ashakyre;920746And when classless works, its because players have cool ideas for a character within a game world AND THEN figure out a way to make that character. Yeah?

Right.  Sometimes the basic classes don't take everything into consideration.  Like a Warrior-priest similar to a monk in skills, but with cleric-like spells.  Or a 'warrior' that prefers to fight unburdened because he was a rebel, and knows quite a bit of 'ranger' skills because he survived in exile.

Sounds good. But when I read Stars Without Number the idea that there's only 3 classes and each one has 1 completely unique thing it does.... that captured my imagination. Only Psionics can use Psionic abilities. Experts learn skills way faster. Warriors... can evade an attack every so often. Somehow it makes the gameworld really easy for me to visualize. Does the same thing happen to anyone else?

(Difference example. The Swords and Wizardry Monk's damage table versus the fighter's extra attacks. Similar functions, melee. Completely different mechanics. Each totally different.

Quote from: Ashakyre;920751Sounds good. But when I read Stars Without Number the idea that there's only 3 classes and each one has 1 completely unique thing it does.... that captured my imagination. Only Psionics can use Psionic abilities. Experts learn skills way faster. Warriors... can evade an attack every so often. Somehow it makes the gameworld really easy for me to visualize. Does the same thing happen to anyone else?

(Difference example. The Swords and Wizardry Monk's damage table versus the fighter's extra attacks. Similar functions, melee. Completely different mechanics. Each totally different.

For all of D20 Modern's faults, I did like the idea of 'Fast', 'Tough', 'Strong', or 'Charismatic' heroes as a starting point.

The key is to have more than one model for character advancement and excellence. There are some amazingly good classless games that start with diversity in character types when the power level is low, but everyone funnels into a common type. Original Runequest comes to mind. I don't care where you start in that game; where you are headed is a runelord priest who fights with double iron bastard swords and starts every encounter with Shield 4 and bladesharp 4.

Quote from: Crüesader;920744You start with some Marx, and add a splash of Pol Pot or maybe a bit of Mao.  Then if it doesn't work or just ends up poorly, you say it wasn't real.  

Beat me to it. :(

Quote from: Crüesader;920752For all of D20 Modern's faults, I did like the idea of 'Fast', 'Tough', 'Strong', or 'Charismatic' heroes as a starting point.

It reminded me of Scooby-Doo.

jg

Classes provide a stereotype that gives players something quick to latch on to and be assured (in a well designed game at least) that their character is going to function well within the setting of the game and maybe have a worthwhile niche they find appealing. This is less important the more knowledge/understanding of the gameworld players have before the game, which is why its almost completely unnecessary in a game set in the modern world (less a specific genre, such as noir or occult underground). There are other ways to achieve this, classes are just one easy route. The opposite end of the spectrum would be, say, a GM starting a game of Tekumel with players who know nothing of the setting, and hands them the GURPs Compendiums and just says "OK, make characters". Even if they are familiar with GURPs, they're pretty guaranteed to be a bit at a loss. There's middle grounds between these extremes, though. Some games use highly customizable templates (I thought WEG Star Wars and Shadowrun 2n Edition handled these quite well). Some games provide options but only those options that specifically apply to the setting (the BESM Sailor Moon or El Hazard games, for example). Ultimately its going to be a balance between the scope of the system, the familiarity of the concept, the buy-in expectations for players.

Quote from: TristramEvans;920767Classes provide a stereotype that gives players something quick to latch on to and be assured (in a well designed game at least) that their character is going to function well within the setting of the game and maybe have a worthwhile niche they find appealing. This is less important the more knowledge/understanding of the gameworld players have before the game, which is why its almost completely unnecessary in a game set in the modern world (less a specific genre, such as noir or occult underground). There are other ways to achieve this, classes are just one easy route. The opposite end of the spectrum would be, say, a GM starting a game of Tekumel with players who know nothing of the setting, and hands them the GURPs Compendiums and just says "OK, make characters". Even if they are familiar with GURPs, they're pretty guaranteed to be a bit at a loss. There's middle grounds between these extremes, though. Some games use highly customizable templates (I thought WEG Star Wars and Shadowrun 2n Edition handled these quite well). Some games provide options but only those options that specifically apply to the setting (the BESM Sailor Moon or El Hazard games, for example). Ultimately its going to be a balance between the scope of the system, the familiarity of the concept, the buy-in expectations for players.

Yeah, it looks like you go could completely classless but include starting characters at various levels with suggestions for progression. That's sort of what Divinity: Original Sin does now that I think of it.

D100 (RuneQuest & Call of Cthulhu) are essentially classless. There it's all about skill pics.

The last D&D Gamma World was classless. Everyone was a mutant, so you were defined by your power choices and skill pics.

Here's a free RPG that may be worth examining:
http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/

In Warrior, Rogue & Mage, you don't have classes. Those are your stats and you pick feats to individualize your PC.

I am surprised the game doesn't have a bigger fandom. It's free and has lots of free additional bits.

There is a fundamental difference between class based and classless systems. A class represents who your character is in a neat capsule. A classless system requires you to fully provide who your character is yourself.

For example, if you play a D&D magic user, then the archetype does most of the work of character identity for you. If you play a character in a classless system who learns some magic then that doesn't make you a "magic user" per se.

Classes provide instant identities and a classless system requires you to construct one. Neither method is superior, everything depends on personal taste.

What makes a classless system "work" depends on what each player responds well or poorly to.

Some players really like archetypes. To have a classless system work for them, you may need to work in archetypes, for example via what GURPS calls Templates, and the GM/game may need to describe them a lot more like classes are described in class-based games.

Some players really don't want to have many choices for character creation and improvement. A classless game can use low/no-choice based systems for character generation and development.

Some players want class niche protection, so they can cherish and rely on always being the most bestest at certain things. A classless game can have rare traits which can't be acquired during play, or require decades of special training, or whatever.

Some players don't want slushy characters or slushy parties, where everyone's abilities seem arbitrary and overlapping. More careful/constrained character design, creation and improvement can handle that, if the GM has enough system mastery. For some systems, it may require some re-working of the rules a bit. Like the niche protection issue but applied to everything, if you have corresponding values for what it takes to gain abilities at various levels, then this can be a non-problem (again, it's a matter of where players draw their problem lines), because although it would be POSSIBLE for a PC to try to study many things that are specialties of other PCs, they are going to be behind by perhaps decades, and ill-suited due to listed attributes, advantages, disadvantages, aptitudes, incompetences, lack of a master to train under, etc etc. Those things being explicit things in GURPS, for example, and not GM excuses why you can't - you CAN, but after a year of study you are still skill level 8 in first aid, whereas the party physician has Physician-18, Surgery-16, Diagnosis-17, etc. You could put that character on hold and have them put money and tuition into medical degrees, but after 8 years' down time, they are going to be a mere resident physician with maybe Physician-12, Diagnosis-13, Biology-13, and an annoying student loan debt. Meanwhile Poondar the Hopeful, who dropped out of adventuring to find someone to teach him magic in the 21st Century, spent 2 years with charlatans before he found an actual wizard, who after a year of apprenticeship determined he didn't have much magical aptitude, so all he knows is some low-level related skills.

That is, classless systems can still have archetypes and specialties, if/when the system and GM put in limits and requirements for learning abilities that make those things have the desired level of difficulty to attain. But it does take a designer and/or GM that set those limits and requirements to match, which isn't that easy to do, especially if you don't yet know what your or your players really want. By comparison, it takes much less effort to just specify classes with limits.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;920837There is a fundamental difference between class based and classless systems. A class represents who your character is in a neat capsule. A classless system requires you to fully provide who your character is yourself.

For example, if you play a D&D magic user, then the archetype does most of the work of character identity for you. If you play a character in a classless system who learns some magic then that doesn't make you a "magic user" per se.

Classes provide instant identities and a classless system requires you to construct one. Neither method is superior, everything depends on personal taste.

It might just be this simple. I guess if you go classless you need to put more work I to character backgrounds and motivations. With classes, you can more easily imagine how a character fits into the world.

I play exclusively classless systems and have designed a few. I do sometimes use templates, but there is no "Warriors can never learn backstab." In decades of play testing I disliked how there was so much overlap in important skills. No one ever made medics because their characters would just pick up the needed skills.

A very simple rules change made a big difference. Some skills were made to cost more (double and on rare cases triple) to buy and advance in. These were usually highly technical skills that you usually can't learn just by practice (surgery?). This made players less likely to pick these skills if it wasn't their specialty since they could get more bang for their buck on other skills. However, if a player was a medic, they'd invest because it was their job to invest in that ability.

My thought then is, in the character creation process, a player can pick x regular skills and one primary skill (the one that defines what they do). Primary skills cost a lot to buy and more than normal to advance, while regular skills cost less. This little bit of inertia keeps the players from cross training so much, but allows the player with a warrior to learn backstab if they really want to.

Quote from: Skarg;920880What makes a classless system "work" depends on what each player responds well or poorly to.

Some players really like archetypes. To have a classless system work for them, you may need to work in archetypes, for example via what GURPS calls Templates, and the GM/game may need to describe them a lot more like classes are described in class-based games.

Some players really don't want to have many choices for character creation and improvement. A classless game can use low/no-choice based systems for character generation and development.

This is what I like about HERO System.  At least the low-level campaigns that lend themselves to such specialization.  The example I use is in Fantasy HERO, if somebody wants to make a Legolas clone, I would take the Elf Racial Package, add those points to the Ranger Package, and say, "Your basic character would look something like THIS."

JG

Ok, that's a lot of ideas about classes as they pertain to skill systems, combat, magic, etc. But what about backgrounds and motivations? There's no mechanical reason why disarming traps and love of gold corelate, but it makes sense when you play a D&D dwarf (yeah yeah, a race not a class but same difference). Or a monk's prowess and the need to challenge oneself - not mechanically necessary. Yet these associations work. They stick. They form expectations for how the character functions in the game world.

So we've got ideas about how characters function in combat. Cool. But I've played my fair share of games where everyone has a unique combat function but it's a whole team of brooding, solitary outsiders.

What are folks ideas in niche protection (in a classless game) for how characters function in the game world? I know that's broad, but it's the best I can frame it for now.

Quote from: Ashakyre;921027Ok, that's a lot of ideas about classes as they pertain to skill systems, combat, magic, etc. But what about backgrounds and motivations? There's no mechanical reason why disarming traps and love of gold corelate, but it makes sense when you play a D&D dwarf (yeah yeah, a race not a class but same difference). Or a monk's prowess and the need to challenge oneself - not mechanically necessary. Yet these associations work. They stick. They form expectations for how the character functions in the game world.

I'm not sure what you're asking, or where you're coming from, as I don't relate to a need to have stereotypes defined. Even in classless games, I tend to dislike when characters seem too cliched and predictable, as then I feel like I'm in an annoying cliched TV/film universe, and not a game about real people. Or, a game about real people who deeply embody cliches. I don't like having words than mean something in the real world but are a class name that means some hero package. Monk? Most actual monks don't have combat skills at all. Even a Shaolin (is that the seed for D&D Monks?) doesn't have "featherfall" or whatever... (apologies for getting details wrong but I tend to flee from such details).

So it's a bit hard for me to say how to get what I think you're asking for in a classless game. I'm not sure what you really want.

QuoteSo we've got ideas about how characters function in combat. Cool. But I've played my fair share of games where everyone has a unique combat function but it's a whole team of brooding, solitary outsiders.

And I assume you aren't trying to play a Spaghetti Western campaign, so you don't want that? Again, I probably am not getting what you want. It sounds to me like you think classes provide descriptions of outgoing people so you get outgoing pro-social PCs, which you want? I'm probably not reading you right. Just because a game is classless doesn't mean the GM can't specify what sorts of characters to make or not make for a campaign. Again, they will just need to understand what they want and express it to the players at character generation.

e.g. "This is a campaign about a group of people who get along and are not brooding loners, who are all motivated to care about and do certain things together in a cooperative way. Here are some examples of character concepts which would be good, which you can either use or copy, or ignore as long as you invent ones that will work with the group. Otherwise the other PCs and their patron may have no use for you, and such PCs may be dismissed and become NPCs since the game is going to follow this group and its adventures."

QuoteWhat are folks ideas in niche protection (in a classless game) for how characters function in the game world? I know that's broad, but it's the best I can frame it for now.

Again, I'm not sure I get what you mean. What it sounds like you mean, is that you anticipate players to want niche protection for... the style and types of actions PCs use? Examples? Like, "my guy is a bookworm researcher geek, who knows a lot and knows how to find out info - I hope no one else wants to do that kind of thing, because I want to be the only one in the group that does that sort of stuff"? I usually think of the "niche protection" aspect as somewhat pathological, but in moderation I can sympathize a bit, if I am guessing what you mean accurately. That is, I can see that if someone is enjoying being different from the other PCs in doing things a certain way and being good at that, that if someone else starts acting the same way, it can feel like a competition... I think it depends on the specifics, but I think what I'd say is I try to still treat them as individuals with differences, which again I think classlessness helps rather than hinders. Two Rangers(tm) defined the same way as classes will be more alike than two characters who have some of the same skills (at different levels and with different related scores) and aren't defined the same way... to me the problem is when a cliche or archetype starts to de-individualize a character, so they're just being cliche rather than being a specific person. It seems to me that in the real world, too, when people start behaving like a cliche, that that tends to be inauthentic, and when they run into someone acting like the same cliche, it can often create a jealousy situation, and expose the cliche... and that's actually interesting to me... and I like how in a classless game such characters will have different descriptions and nothing on their sheet telling them they're the same basic thing.

For me, the key to making interesting characters that the players identify with in a classless system is spending plenty of time developing character concept and being sure to pick a few things that make the character unique within the setting and/or party.  Background and goals can do this as well as powers and abilities.  Also, it's best to to create characters as a group so they can develop some sense of niche/role without stepping on each others toes too much. It helps to have a system that has enough mechanical diversity to work out conceptual differences in tangible game terms.  Most generic-y classless games, BRP (and its kin), GURPS, FATE, and Savage Worlds for example, have plenty of mechanical widgets to accommodate a staggering variety of character types and concepts.  It just takes a little more work on the front end to develop a cohesive party of somewhat special flowers than it does with a class based system where this differentiation is pre-packaged.

I prefer class based systems when I want fast character generation or when working with players who get overwhelmed by unlimited options.  It is easier to crystallize a vision of a character with the labels and assigned abilities of classes.  

Classless systems, as a generalization, require more work to get the same kind of clarity about defining a character.  Theoretically, a classless system should give you more power to customize, but I am not sure that is true.  With D&D for example, you can always bend or break the rules, add classes, races, alignments, powers and magic in weird combos to create unique characters - so I don't think class based systems are inherently less customizable, just more structured.  

So why bother with classless systems? For me, when a player has to work a little harder at conceptualizing the character he is forced to invest some additional imagination into it which I think brings out the best in some players.  Also, in my experience, classless systems tend to produce more "believable" "rounded" or "human" characters - really just a different perspective on the "mush" you describe - but that works really well for certain types of gritty, human power-level sorts of contexts and less well for comic book cinematic types of play.

My 2 cents

As other people have said, people certainly do have different tastes. There is no one size fits all. That said, there are some general issues to think about with classless systems.

If every capability is bought from scratch, then a potential pitfall is all characters taking a common set of only the most-used skills. For example, in a hypothetical percentile system, every player buys at least 50% in one weapon skill along with Sneak, Perceive, and Dodge. This can get to the extreme of a warrior with a 90% in Sword skill, who has no skill in any other weapon, because instead of spending 90 points to buy up a secondary weapon skill that will be rarely used, it's far more effective to take 90% in Dodge.

One way to guard against this is how attributes affect skills and other advantages. Core attributes or advantages that change the cost of skills become a sort of smoothly-varying class. For example, in GURPS, there is DX and IQ that are the base for most skills. So characters arrange into DX-specialized, IQ-specialized, or balanced. (The other attributes, ST and HT, can be bought by anyone but don't have many skills or advantages based on them, so they're less core.)

Another tack on this is to force a distribution of skills. This is the approach of FATE, which requires you to take a pyramid shape of skills - and the skills are quite broad.

Quote from: Skarg;921056Monk? Most actual monks don't have combat skills at all. Even a Shaolin (is that the seed for D&D Monks?) doesn't have "featherfall" or whatever... (apologies for getting details wrong but I tend to flee from such details).

Given the time frame I suspect this guy was the seed.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]400[/ATTACH]
 

Quotee.g. "This is a campaign about a group of people who get along and are not brooding loners, who are all motivated to care about and do certain things together in a cooperative way. Here are some examples of character concepts which would be good, which you can either use or copy, or ignore as long as you invent ones that will work with the group. Otherwise the other PCs and their patron may have no use for you, and such PCs may be dismissed and become NPCs since the game is going to follow this group and its adventures."

Actually, clearly, and succinctly laying out expectations ahead of time? That’s just crazy talk. Crazy talk that would eliminate 90% of the behavior that is responsible for most of the whining and bitching after the fact.

QuoteAgain, I'm not sure I get what you mean. What it sounds like you mean, is that you anticipate players to want niche protection for... the style and types of actions PCs use? Examples? Like, "my guy is a bookworm researcher geek, who knows a lot and knows how to find out info - I hope no one else wants to do that kind of thing, because I want to be the only one in the group that does that sort of stuff"? I usually think of the "niche protection" aspect as somewhat pathological, but in moderation I can sympathize a bit…

As Madproffessor already said, creating characters as a group, where someone can say, something like your quote above helps avoid too much overlap.

While Call of Cthulhu doesn't have classes, it does have professions and a set of skill points for the skills listed under the professions.  I have had good luck with players who have strong character concepts in the campaigns I have run, so it works out well in that way, I think.  Less so with the players who just want to smack things around (always a poor idea in CoC, as things can smack back.)

I can see how what I wrote is confusing. I wanted to switch the discussion over to the aspect of character generation that has nothing to do with skills or abilities. The more fluff part. The backgrounds and motivations or whatever. At that point I just wanted to see what people had to say. Classes can also have a fluff component, and so far I've overlooked that in my classless game, and want to see what people could add.

As has been said, group character creation can be helpful. On several levels.

• Avoiding too much overlap. How much is too much is subjective and ranges from any is too much to you can never have too much overlap.

• Having players discuss/agree why their PCs are together or why their PCs would make sense to be together if they aren't already together. Someone already mentioned the templates in WEG Star Wars D6 as a way of bundling skills in a class-less system. One other nice thing that WEG did with their templates was to provide a few suggestions for how one template might connect to another template or templates e.g. the Smuggler might see the Kid or the Brash Pilot as the kid brother or sister he never had, the Failed Jedi might be mentoring the Young Jedi, the Bounty Hunter and Smuggler might have worked together in the past, the Wookiee Co-pilot and the Smuggler are shipmates, etc.

Quote from: Madprofessor;921057So why bother with classless systems? For me, when a player has to work a little harder at conceptualizing the character he is forced to invest some additional imagination into it which I think brings out the best in some players.  Also, in my experience, classless systems tend to produce more "believable" "rounded" or "human" characters - really just a different perspective on the "mush" you describe - but that works really well for certain types of gritty, human power-level sorts of contexts and less well for comic book cinematic types of play.

That's interesting. My experience has to some degree been the opposite. Particularly for comic-book superheroes, I've generally preferred non-class-based systems. The few class-based superhero games that I've seen have come across as very clunky. (Only Heroes Unlimited comes to mind, though I feel like I've seen others.)

In my mind, classes work well for certain genres. It's good for D&D, and in one of my favorites, Monster of the Week. In a lot of other genres, though, I feel like classes are clunky and out of place (Heroes Unlimited or Star Wars D20, say).

I think classless has worked pretty well for most superhero games and many other cinematic games like Star Wars D6, for example. I also think templates like in D6 and Shadowrun work very well for quickstart.

Quote from: jhkim;921093The few class-based superhero games that I've seen have come across as very clunky. (Only Heroes Unlimited comes to mind, though I feel like I've seen others.)

Although there aren't many explicitly class-based superhero RPGs, most superhero RPGs that have a point buy system often have a list of alleged superhero character "archetypes" (that don't really stand up to scrutiny) that kid of count.

QuoteIn my mind, classes work well for certain genres [...] one of my favorites, Monster of the Week.

How so?  In my experience, the source material really isn't stocked with archetypical characters.

There've been a bunch of answers, from a lot of people I know have great experience with classless systems.  I won't repeat, or secondguess, their point-by-point responses.

But really, how a classless system works best?  For the players and the GM to let go.  Too many people freak out, flailing around in a frantic quest to replicate d20, if only in their heads.  Too many are bewildered at the thought of there being no neat one-word pigeonholes, and too many insist on assigning them anyway: well, what IS your character?  A fighter?  A thief?  Oh, he must be a multi-class fighter-mage, okay!  No, wait, you're patterning after that character?  But they describe him as a thief on page 138!  He must be a thief then!

If the players can't function without the crutch of defined character classes, alright, so be it.  It happens.  (Granted, to me it's like a poker player being unable to wrap his head around blackjack or bridge, but eh.)  Too many such discussions, unfortunately, boil down to "How can we make a classless system LOOK like a class-based system so the players won't have to stretch their minds?"

Otherwise, they need to let go.  Stop thinking in terms of what skills make a "fighter" or a "magic-user," and what ones can't.  Don't try to figure out what Jon Snow's class is, or Tyrion Lannister's, or Arya Stark's -- think of how you'd replicate the skills they seem to possess with what's on offer, or if you're looking at a NPC or a fellow PC, try to figure out by inference instead of by a glance at the top of the character sheet.  (I expect that most people, as happens in GOT, seeing a skinny teensy black-haired girl with a teensy smallsword would regard her much as Arya Stark's regarded: as a silly little chit who's playacting at best.  Spiffy, fair enough.)

Thanks for the answers everyone. A lot to think about, absorb, and experiment with. Part of my questions has to do with tropes and expectations... what we do to ensure that everyone is imagining the game in a similar enough way that it jives and feels real.

If there's stories written about your game world, cool, people draw on that and theres common expectations at the game table.

My setting uses some tropes, maybe colors outside the lines a little. I'll have to think of ways to vividly introduce the game world to people quickly and accurately. Part of my assumptions is that classes help that process - they tie skills to tropes. But I have a classless game, so I'm looking to do it another way.

But it appears those answers are embedded in the replies here.

Quote from: jhkim;921093I think classless has worked pretty well for most superhero games and many other cinematic games like Star Wars D6, for example. I also think templates like in D6 and Shadowrun work very well for quickstart.

Except that WEG's D6 doesn't have classes. It has beginning templates but they are not mandatory (it is easy to create characters without any template) and templates have no effect nor are they ever used after character creation. So really not classes.

Quote from: Ravenswing;921097There've been a bunch of answers, from a lot of people I know have great experience with classless systems.  I won't repeat, or secondguess, their point-by-point responses.

But really, how a classless system works best?  For the players and the GM to let go.  Too many people freak out, flailing around in a frantic quest to replicate d20, if only in their heads.  Too many are bewildered at the thought of there being no neat one-word pigeonholes, and too many insist on assigning them anyway: well, what IS your character?  A fighter?  A thief?  Oh, he must be a multi-class fighter-mage, okay!  No, wait, you're patterning after that character?  But they describe him as a thief on page 138!  He must be a thief then!

If the players can't function without the crutch of defined character classes, alright, so be it.  It happens.  (Granted, to me it's like a poker player being unable to wrap his head around blackjack or bridge, but eh.)  Too many such discussions, unfortunately, boil down to "How can we make a classless system LOOK like a class-based system so the players won't have to stretch their minds?"

Otherwise, they need to let go.  Stop thinking in terms of what skills make a "fighter" or a "magic-user," and what ones can't.  Don't try to figure out what Jon Snow's class is, or Tyrion Lannister's, or Arya Stark's -- think of how you'd replicate the skills they seem to possess with what's on offer, or if you're looking at a NPC or a fellow PC, try to figure out by inference instead of by a glance at the top of the character sheet.  (I expect that most people, as happens in GOT, seeing a skinny teensy black-haired girl with a teensy smallsword would regard her much as Arya Stark's regarded: as a silly little chit who's playacting at best.  Spiffy, fair enough.)

This is pretty solid. I suspect as a have more stuff in my game some of these things will work themselves out.

The most important thing is to have it be crystal clear what you need to do to get a character who is good at a certain thing. For example in Shadowrun if you want a sneaky dude do you:
-Get good attributes and skills in sneaky stuff?
-Get some magic that augments your body so you're better at sneaking than normal people?
-Get some magic that allows you to screw with other people's heads so they don't see you?
-Buy lots of tech to make you faster and boost your physical stats?
-Get a lot of edge?

Not really clear.

Whatever else its faults I really liked FATE's pyramid set up where you really clearly prioritize what your character is good at and everything is crystal clear. Well, until later versions muddied the waters with lots of bennies. I also like how the FATE pyramid forces people to not build one trick ponies.

3.5ed was still a class based system but it watered it down to really thin gruel. For example if you want to build a combat bruiser it is a very good idea to buy night sticks. Night sticks give you more turn undead uses. Turn undead uses can be used as fuel for divine metamagic which allows you to boost spells without spending higher spell slots. The best way to use this metamagic is to extent physical buff durations so that they last all day and then your cleric will be better at fighting than the fighter. Healing? Phaw, that's what your golf bag full of CLW wands are for.

That kind of stuff is exactly what you want to avoid.

Also for fuck's sake if you're going to have people spend XP to boost skills choose either flat or escalating costs and use that FOR BOTH CHARGEN AND ADVANCEMENT. Don't punish people for not making one trick ponies in char gen by making them spend more XP over the long haul to get the exact same character.

Luke and Han dressed up as storm-troopers once. No one flinched. Star Wars is the most popular shit movie of all time. So there you go.

Quote from: daniel_ream;921095Although there aren't many explicitly class-based superhero RPGs, most superhero RPGs that have a point buy system often have a list of alleged superhero character "archetypes" (that don't really stand up to scrutiny) that kid of count.

I don't think that templates and/or advice about character types counts as a class system. Doing that just generalizes the concept of "class system" to the point of meaninglessness, where any system can become "class-based" if you tack on a page of advice. If you consider the Hero System to be class-based, then essentially everything is class-based.

The point is that many popular/successful systems in many genres are not class-based - including most superhero RPGs as well as many other genres. Science fiction also tends to not be class-based. I don't think the point fits that class-based is needed for comic-book action.

(Re: Monster of the Week)

Quote from: daniel_ream;921095How so?  In my experience, the source material really isn't stocked with archetypical characters.

I think that the MotW archetypes work pretty well. Urban fantasy is full of archetypes at this point. It doesn't fit perfectly with the source material, but that's also true for all other class-based systems. (i.e. Various arguments over whether Gandalf is a magic-user or not, or whether Lestat is a Tremere.)

Quote from:  jhkimI think classless has worked pretty well for most superhero games and many other cinematic games like Star Wars D6, for example. I also think templates like in D6 and Shadowrun work very well for quickstart.

Quote from: Bren;921105Except that WEG's D6 doesn't have classes. It has beginning templates but they are not mandatory (it is easy to create characters without any template) and templates have no effect nor are they ever used after character creation. So really not classes.

Yes, that's what I said. I suspect you read "classes" when I said "classless". I agree that D6 templates aren't classes, and they work very well. They're a thing of their own, not an attempt to "look like" classes.

Quote from: jhkim;921219I think that the MotW archetypes work pretty well. Urban fantasy is full of archetypes at this point.

I'm honestly not seeing it.  First of all, MotW isn't generic urban fantasy; it's explicitly "monster of the week" urban horror.  The author states very clearly that his primary inspirations were Buffy and Supernatural (though not Angel, curiously).

If you look at MotW's sources, the characters in them don't really fall into nice neat archetypes.  Much like the aforementioned superhero "archetypes", the playbooks in MotW tend to be more "here's how to do this one character in that one book/show/movie you like".

And this is a problem, because (p.5) "Only one hunter of each type is allowed at the same time in any game. That's because you're not just one of that type of hunter: you're the archetype. There may be a whole Agency of professional monster hunters, but there's just one who is The Professional."

Except Mulder isn't just the conspiracy nut (The Flake), he's also an FBI agent (The Professional).  He and Scully can't both be The Professional by RAW, and Scully doesn't really fit any of the archetypes. Before Sam gets corrupted, he and Dean are clearly both the same character type, but which one is it?  Dean wasn't The Wronged, he was just following in their father's footsteps.  If you look at the actual moves and mechanics, the playbook that best fits Dean is...The Professional. Before Willow gets Mary-Sued all to hell, she and Xander are both The Mundane.

MotW's playbooks work fine as game constructs (although I'd relax the only-one-of-each restriction as it leads to lasersharking) but I don't think they do a terribly good job of representing the source material.  Part of the problem is that most of the fiction doesn't distinguish between characters on the basis of what they can do, but rather their personalities, character and values.  MotW doesn't model that.

Quote from: jhkim;921219Yes, that's what I said. I suspect you read "classes" when I said "classless". I agree that D6 templates aren't classes, and they work very well. They're a thing of their own, not an attempt to "look like" classes.

Indeed, I did I misread classless as classes. My bad. You were right the first time. Ignore my comment....carry on...nothing to see here...move along....

Quote from: Ravenswing;921097There've been a bunch of answers, from a lot of people I know have great experience with classless systems.  I won't repeat, or secondguess, their point-by-point responses.

But really, how a classless system works best?  For the players and the GM to let go.  Too many people freak out, flailing around in a frantic quest to replicate d20, if only in their heads.  Too many are bewildered at the thought of there being no neat one-word pigeonholes, and too many insist on assigning them anyway: well, what IS your character?  A fighter?  A thief?  Oh, he must be a multi-class fighter-mage, okay!  No, wait, you're patterning after that character?  But they describe him as a thief on page 138!  He must be a thief then!

If the players can't function without the crutch of defined character classes, alright, so be it.  It happens.  (Granted, to me it's like a poker player being unable to wrap his head around blackjack or bridge, but eh.)  Too many such discussions, unfortunately, boil down to "How can we make a classless system LOOK like a class-based system so the players won't have to stretch their minds?"

Otherwise, they need to let go.  Stop thinking in terms of what skills make a "fighter" or a "magic-user," and what ones can't.  Don't try to figure out what Jon Snow's class is, or Tyrion Lannister's, or Arya Stark's -- think of how you'd replicate the skills they seem to possess with what's on offer, or if you're looking at a NPC or a fellow PC, try to figure out by inference instead of by a glance at the top of the character sheet.  (I expect that most people, as happens in GOT, seeing a skinny teensy black-haired girl with a teensy smallsword would regard her much as Arya Stark's regarded: as a silly little chit who's playacting at best.  Spiffy, fair enough.)

Rulesets are physics engines.  They support how a setting works, or not.  
Some classless systems are more flexible than class systems.  But this very attribute of flexibility can mage them less useful to underpin a game.

Part of the letting go you speak of is on the creative side of setting design.  Looking for a game where niche protection is all about combat equality?  Don't go classless/skill based.  but in many other situations, especially where equality of usefulness is meant to go across many spheres (social/research/politics/underworld/healing/tactics/creation/spheres of magic/intrigue...as well as combat), Classless/skill based can be a superior choice.

I changed into a custom skill based system to underpin my setting back in 83, and really have not looked back.

Quote from: jhkim;921219The point is that many popular/successful systems in many genres are not class-based - including most superhero RPGs as well as many other genres. Science fiction also tends to not be class-based. I don't think the point fits that class-based is needed for comic-book action.

My firm and longstanding belief is that we're dealing with nothing but a shibboleth.  In many ways, the trappings of fantasy RPGs were set in stone four decades ago, and for no better reason than that Gary Gygax wrote them that way.  It's not that all fantasy characterization comes down to easily identifiable archetypes, and that (say) science fiction and supers don't.  Hell, supers have more readily identifiable archetypes than practically any other kind of RPG-worthy fiction.

It's that the first really popular fantasy RPG had character classes, and the first really popular SF and supers RPGs didn't.  Just that simple.  If Champions had had character classes, they'd have been expected of all supers games from there on forward.  If Traveller had had character classes, they'd have been expected of all SF games from there on forward.

Quote from: Ashakyre;921079I can see how what I wrote is confusing. I wanted to switch the discussion over to the aspect of character generation that has nothing to do with skills or abilities. The more fluff part. The backgrounds and motivations or whatever. At that point I just wanted to see what people had to say. Classes can also have a fluff component, and so far I've overlooked that in my classless game, and want to see what people could add.

Classes or classless has fuckall to do with backgrounds or motivations.

To prevent a classless system from getting "mushy," you need to make sure that character generation points are scarce.  You should never be able to build a character who is solidly competent in multiple areas.  Make PCs either concentrate or suck.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;921961To prevent a classless system from getting "mushy," you need to make sure that character generation points are scarce.  You should never be able to build a character who is solidly competent in multiple areas.  Make PCs either concentrate or suck.

It been my experience given enough advancement all classless system wind up making polymaths. The trick is how long until that point is reached. What also matter is the relative jump in power that a single character point gives you.

For example Fudge and Fate games have a scarce number of character points but even a +1 to a skill or attribute is a big deal. A +1 advancement can take a 50-50 contest to 73-27 contest (http://anydice.com/). This is because the bell curve of 4dF has a steep hump in the middle compared to 2d6 or 3d6.

A good classless system is a well-designed super hero game. Envision, then create, with some balance inherent, or the expectation that a GM will be able to keep everyone from choosing "power X" for mechanical reasons.

And when it comes to what "classless" is all about, I think you can ask any 3 members of the RPG site to come together to demonstrate, on any given day, what a "lack of class" looks like. We're ALL up to it, man! :-) (I'll start with the crotch scratching and spitting on the linoleum)

Quote from: cranebump;922050And when it comes to what "classless" is all about, I think you can ask any 3 members of the RPG site to come together to demonstrate, on any given day, what a "lack of class" looks like. We're ALL up to it, man! :-)

I'd really like to disagree....

Quote from: Bren;922100I'd really like to disagree....

Shut up and scratch your ass, Bren! :-)

Quote from: Ashakyre;920740When I was a young little Ashakyre, I remember reading the rules for Dungeons & Dragons and hating the class restrictions. "Please, Daddy? Can't the wizard wear some armor? It would be so coooooool... And can't the barbarian just have one spell? Just one little itty bitty fireball when he gets surrounded by goblins? Pleeeeeassseee?"

So of course over the years I always worked on a system that was fluid. I didn't have classes, and armor and spells were based on your stats or you skills or whatever. There were many shades of gray between and pure wizard and a pure warrior, and you could pick where you wanted your character to be. It was cool.

And yet... about 6 years ago I was playing with a friend and solicited his feedback, and he just didn't like his character. For the most part, he wanted more bits and bobs to differentiate his character. And I can agree, at the time things in the game felt kind of samey. Granted, this particular version of the game was focused almost entirely on balance and had almost no color/fluff.

Now, in the last year I've added a lot of color to the game and I'm happy with the setting and how it inspires adventure ideas. And yet I'm not sure I've overcome the problem. And I would have thought it was just a matter of adding more stuff to the game and giving that stuff some color. But I'm not so sure now. Reading the rulebooks to Stars Without Number and Swords & Wizardry, I get the sense that each player is going to feel a real difference of their unique class having at least one thing it can do better than the others. And there's no chance no matter how the characters develop over the game that someone is going to come into your niche. I suppose that's what they mean by niche protection.

My first question is this: what psychology is at play here? When distinct classes feel good, why do they feel good? I feel like I can almost imagine an answer, but I can't articulate it. If any character can evolve into any other, then it feels like mush. But if there's at least one thing unique about your class then your feel grounded. What's going on here? In Divinity: Original Sin, it's classless and it works. At least it does to me. Any character can evolve into any other character. But my game is mush. And yet when I imagine the basic archetypes in my game, it feels crisper when I imagine them being in seperate silos.

Second question: how much of this might have to do with explaining your game and gameworld to new players? Do you suppose a game that's very grounded into standard tropes can get away from more shades of gray between archetypes?

The answer to your first question is "Archetypes".  Myth is largely based on "Archetype", and more modern storytelling than literature majors want to pretend to admit.
Human beings are either inherently made (I would say) or if not deeply ingrained through thousands of years of cultural development to understand and appreciate the symbolic value of archetypes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;922618The answer to your first question is "Archetypes".  Myth is largely based on "Archetype", and more modern storytelling than literature majors want to pretend to admit.
Human beings are either inherently made (I would say) or if not deeply ingrained through thousands of years of cultural development to understand and appreciate the symbolic value of archetypes.

I can sense those archetypes and I'm sure I can Google them. But how do I connect them to a game? I guess I'd have to start by knowing what they explicitly are. Thoughts, anyone?

Quote from: Ashakyre;922838I can sense those archetypes and I'm sure I can Google them. But how do I connect them to a game? I guess I'd have to start by knowing what they explicitly are. Thoughts, anyone?

Substitute "character types that are recognized by almost anyone" for "archetypes", and then trim to ones that your players want to play. Though D&D has colored what those are, for D&D-familiar gamers. Reading some oral tradition stories can help - folk tales. The characters tend to be described in a few words, such as the young prince, the youth/adventurer, a few types of kings and queens and princesses, the witch, the wise man, the trickster.

Archetypes are powerful because they're universally recognized, so the audience will already know them if you communicate that that's what they are (as opposed to "WTF is a bugbear?" or "why is a Monk(tm) able to fall 100' and not be hurt?"), and because they are connected to our psyche. Try checking out some Carl Jung.

That being said, while archetypes bring familiar resonant chords, they're also somewhat reductionist and dehumanizing. No actual human is just an archetype - archetypes are just core ideas that resonate.

Also, there is a related idea, which is just how distinctly a game represents differences between things in the game. Just because archetypes are only ideas and people are more complex, doesn't mean that real people can (or PCs should be able to) just learn the specialized super-powers of all types of people without the personal nature/genius and lifetime specialized background that would lead to them. Having it be about choosing a class is dead easy as a game mechanic, while figuring out how to create (or even just learn) rules that allow freedom of character design and aren't abusable, is far more difficult/complex/involved.

Quote from: Skarg;921056Monk? Most actual monks don't have combat skills at all.

The earliest surviving (though probably not the earliest, period) Western swordfighting manual was written by a Medieval monk who, it seems, was giving lessons to his clients:).

QuoteEven a Shaolin (is that the seed for D&D Monks?) doesn't have "featherfall" or whatever... (apologies for getting details wrong but I tend to flee from such details).

Quite the opposite, Shaolin monks train in "lightness techniques" which are supposed to teach them the equivalent of "featherfall" (though that's a gross oversimplification). In practice, maybe they just give them more mundane benefits, but attempting to learn them is good enough for D&D, where magic spells are also supposed to work;).

Though I actually agree with Bren. The "Kung-fu" series was most likely the inspiration for the class:D! Unless Gronan appears and tells us that it was actually something else entirely, I guess we can assume that, and most probably would be far off the mark.

Quote from: AsenRG;922939The earliest surviving (though probably not the earliest, period) Western swordfighting manual was written by a Medieval monk who, it seems, was giving lessons to his clients:).

There were many European fighters who became monks later, but it wasn't the "monk" part of their experience that contributed to their combat skills. The monk part more likely gave him literacy and spare time to write the manual you mention. So again, it's not part of the Christian monk archetype to include combat skills.

QuoteQuite the opposite, Shaolin monks train in "lightness techniques" which are supposed to teach them the equivalent of "featherfall" (though that's a gross oversimplification). In practice, maybe they just give them more mundane benefits, but attempting to learn them is good enough for D&D, where magic spells are also supposed to work;).

Though I actually agree with Bren. The "Kung-fu" series was most likely the inspiration for the class:D! Unless Gronan appears and tells us that it was actually something else entirely, I guess we can assume that, and most probably would be far off the mark.

If you accept that classes are about choosing which adventurer classes to give which of all the superpowers you can think of, then sure, but it starts to stray from both the archetype and the reality, especially when the abilities become ubiquitous to everyone in the class or available to all of them, or "hey I've leveled up - which perk shall I get? - huh at this level may as well get featherfall cuz it seems less useless than the other options" (not that I know the D&D details - I fail my morale check and flee long before I get into all the class details).

I generally agree about archetypes. As for what works - I think D&D and a number of variants work well. I've stated before that I like Monster of the Week and to a lesser degree some of the other Apocalypse-World based games, and some of the World of Darkness class setups (vampire clans, werewolf tribes, etc.) aren't terrible. I don't think it's worked well for science fiction - but an exception occurred to me:  Cyberpunk's split of Rockerboy/ Solo/ Netrunner/ Techie/ Media/ Cop/ Corporate/ Fixer/ Nomad.

I haven't seen a superhero class system that works well. There are some very broad, generic classes like True20 (warrior, adept and expert) or Call of Cthulhu D20 (offensive vs defensive). I don't think those work very well either. I haven't thought much about most science fiction classes as well, which the exception of Cyberpunk as noted.

Quote from: Skarg;922843That being said, while archetypes bring familiar resonant chords, they're also somewhat reductionist and dehumanizing. No actual human is just an archetype - archetypes are just core ideas that resonate.

Also, there is a related idea, which is just how distinctly a game represents differences between things in the game. Just because archetypes are only ideas and people are more complex, doesn't mean that real people can (or PCs should be able to) just learn the specialized super-powers of all types of people without the personal nature/genius and lifetime specialized background that would lead to them. Having it be about choosing a class is dead easy as a game mechanic, while figuring out how to create (or even just learn) rules that allow freedom of character design and aren't abusable, is far more difficult/complex/involved.

I disagree about the latter. For example, choosing a template in a non-class-based system like Star Wars D6 is way way simpler than building a character in Pathfinder. I also disagree about balancing. In most non-class-based systems, all characters have access to all abilities, so there is some sense that things balance by characters taking the good options. For example, if DEX is a little too good in Champions, it just means that all characters have fairly good DEX - but they vary in other stats. In a class system, this would be more of a problem, because there is the expectation that all classes need to be balanced against each other.

Quote from: Skarg;922960There were many European fighters who became monks later, but it wasn't the "monk" part of their experience that contributed to their combat skills. The monk part more likely gave him literacy and spare time to write the manual you mention. So again, it's not part of the Christian monk archetype to include combat skills.

Not unless you think that training with swords is part of being a monk. I'm just pointing out that it was probably much more common than people seem to think.
Even outside of knightly orders, combine the retired fighters in a monastery with young boys and men, full of energy, and the need of protection of the monastery's riches. You might well get the notion that quite a few of the monks would be quite handy in a fight:).

QuoteIf you accept that classes are about choosing which adventurer classes to give which of all the superpowers you can think of, then sure, but it starts to stray from both the archetype and the reality, especially when the abilities become ubiquitous to everyone in the class or available to all of them, or "hey I've leveled up - which perk shall I get? - huh at this level may as well get featherfall cuz it seems less useless than the other options" (not that I know the D&D details - I fail my morale check and flee long before I get into all the class details).

I seem to remember that the featherfall-like ability in 3+ was "unlocked" at quite a high level, so it's not quite the same as "everyone has them". Also, it fits the archetype of the "monastic kung-fu master" way better than Fireball fits the hermetic mages;).

Quote from: jhkim;922966I disagree about the latter. For example, choosing a template in a non-class-based system like Star Wars D6 is way way simpler than building a character in Pathfinder. I also disagree about balancing. In most non-class-based systems, all characters have access to all abilities, so there is some sense that things balance by characters taking the good options. For example, if DEX is a little too good in Champions, it just means that all characters have fairly good DEX - but they vary in other stats. In a class system, this would be more of a problem, because there is the expectation that all classes need to be balanced against each other.

I think I wasn't clear enough about what I meant about difficulty and complexity, as I don't disagree with your examples, they just seem to me to be about other things than I meant.

(And then I typed a bunch of thoughtful stuff and Firefux crashed on me, losing it. grr.)

Yes, there are examples of dumping piles of complexity onto class-based games, and struggling in complex ways to enable multi-classing or niche protection or other desperate attempts to have everything and please everyone.

Yes, there are examples of pretty simple and elegant classless games, where it's entirely possible to have characters as archetypal as you like, and examples of groups of players who don't whine about niche protection or fuzziness in those games.

I was trying to say, perhaps overstating or being unclear in doing so, that there is a huge difference in complexity and difficulty between two different game design (or GM) modes I was thinking of, which were:

Class Design Mode A) Have a limited number of archetypal classes, and say what's true about each one. This can be done simply and gets you archetypal definitions and appropriate abilities and niche protection very directly.

Classless Design Mode B) Have no classes, and want freedom to start with, and improve, pretty much any ability with the right background. But try to get it right so that there can still be characters who represent strong archetypal alignment, specialized training and expertise, and appropriate relevant genetic/type/gender/cultural differences and yet who could possibly sometimes learn other things, without having it be too easy, not make mushy-feeling characters, remain balanced, retain weaknesses and challenges for characters, have everything feel like it's in the right proportion and make sense, etc.

CDM B is the mode I generally am in as GM, playing GURPS with house rules, and frequently reviewing my systems for chargen and character development to try to get them to feel right without just doing everything by GM discretion. It seems challenging to me, but maybe it's mainly that my goals are very different from what I think of as CDM A and was crudely lumping under the label of class-based RPGs. Clearly there are crazy-complex class-based RPGs too (which I generally flee after at most tapping them with a 10-foot pole).

Quote from: AsenRG;922968Not unless you think that training with swords is part of being a monk. I'm just pointing out that it was probably much more common than people seem to think.
Even outside of knightly orders, combine the retired fighters in a monastery with young boys and men, full of energy, and the need of protection of the monastery's riches. You might well get the notion that quite a few of the monks would be quite handy in a fight:).

I seem to remember that the featherfall-like ability in 3+ was "unlocked" at quite a high level, so it's not quite the same as "everyone has them". Also, it fits the archetype of the "monastic kung-fu master" way better than Fireball fits the hermetic mages;).

LOL! Mhmm. Seems to me that these are details where the notion that classes are perfect ways to represent archetypes start to break down, unless/until the GM or the rules intervene somehow. Your observation about actual medieval knightly orders or defense-competent monks has me think more of classless game mechanics, or that in a realism-oriented class-based system could be about people with both "monk" and "warrior" classes, where the fighting stuff would all be from the monks also having warrior levels, rather than being benefits of the monk class itself. Otherwise how do you represent the monks who are great at actual monking, but are pacifists, or a Dalai Lama who splats if/when tossed from a high place? Of course actual skilled GMs will fiat or rule appropriately and it may in practice be a non-issue, but that's what I was getting at.

Quote from: Skarg;922972LOL! Mhmm. Seems to me that these are details where the notion that classes are perfect ways to represent archetypes start to break down, unless/until the GM or the rules intervene somehow. Your observation about actual medieval knightly orders or defense-competent monks has me think more of classless game mechanics, or that in a realism-oriented class-based system could be about people with both "monk" and "warrior" classes, where the fighting stuff would all be from the monks also having warrior levels, rather than being benefits of the monk class itself. Otherwise how do you represent the monks who are great at actual monking, but are pacifists, or a Dalai Lama who splats if/when tossed from a high place? Of course actual skilled GMs will fiat or rule appropriately and it may in practice be a non-issue, but that's what I was getting at.

See, that's exactly why I like classless systems:). And, to bring it back on topic, that's why and how they work best, by representing those things the less fine-grained class systems have to omit.
Of course there are ways around that, but said way is clearer in classless systems;).

Quote from: Skarg;922960There were many European fighters who became monks later, but it wasn't the "monk" part of their experience that contributed to their combat skills. The monk part more likely gave him literacy and spare time to write the manual you mention. So again, it's not part of the Christian monk archetype to include combat skills.

The first time I read the Monk in Gygax' Players' Handbook, I saw all this stuff like "slow fall" and "quivering palm" and thought, "What does this have to do with the Benedictine Rule?"

JG

Quote from: Ashakyre;922838I can sense those archetypes and I'm sure I can Google them. But how do I connect them to a game? I guess I'd have to start by knowing what they explicitly are. Thoughts, anyone?

In D&D terms, they're the character classes.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;921960Classes or classless has fuckall to do with backgrounds or motivations.

And you would be entirely wrong.  Having a background in say, siege engineering is not likely to get you very likely to get into something like...  Botany.  Most likely due to lack of interest.

A background or motivation defines what you (again, general not specific) are interested in pursuing in a career.  If you are into trains and engineering is more likely to steer you towards jobs/occupations/careers that involve aspects of those things.  Sometimes it doesn't work out that you get into those types of jobs, granted, but more often than not, because you have an interest (AKA MOTIVATION) and then train/learn said interest with the goal of making it a career (having a BACKGROUND), means at the very least that's where you wanted to go.

To pick on Generic Fantasy Setting 10200340, a man who grew up in a mercenary company around soldiers, or the docks getting into fights is more likely to be a hand to hand fighter type himself, not as likely to learn magic, or lock picking.  It's not a 100% thing, but it's at the very least a 70/30%.

Quote from: estar;922008It been my experience given enough advancement all classless system wind up making polymaths. The trick is how long until that point is reached. What also matter is the relative jump in power that a single character point gives you.

How long does it take to get into the 'Polymath' state?  Ignoring the fact that most people tend to gain a wide breadth of skills, if not much depth (very few people, for example, learn how to drive a car beyond the basics, very few learn defensive driving techniques, or become race car drivers), how many game sessions in that particular classless system do you in which players get to be able to do everything?  That can be two separate issues.  The first is the pacing of the game session or system, which is up to the GM/DM to decide how fast advancement happens, and HOW it happens.  And the second, may be your players wanting to be able to do it all, because they want to dominate the game, rather than play it,  These types of players are also the ones who tend to whine about multiclassing in classed based games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;923610In D&D terms, they're the character classes.

And in everyon else's terms, they're just the memorable characters that you've read about or seen at the screen, which you don't need classes about.

Quote from: AsenRG;923613And in everyon else's terms, they're just the memorable characters that you've read about or seen at the screen, which you don't need classes about.

Memorable characters become archetypes over time.  Like the master swordsman, the knight in shining armour, each of those have a distinct and recognizable set of abilities that define them, even if we don't remember who the originator of said archetype exists.  Most Class based games (at least the better ones) take said archetypes and make them into a standardized set of abilities, but add customization for variation within the archetype, because not every Knight is Lancelot or King Arthur, or not every swordsman is D'Artagnan or Miyamoto Musashi.

Classes are character creation short hand.

There's are good class systems (D&D) and bad class systems (D20 Modern). Good class systems guide the players to an appropriate array of characters/talents for the main adventuring activity of the game.

Good classless systems get that effect in different ways, either by alternative structures (templates, careers) or by some other structure or mechanism in the game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923612And you would be entirely wrong.  Having a background in say, siege engineering is not likely to get you very likely to get into something like...  Botany.  Most likely due to lack of interest.

A background or motivation defines what you (again, general not specific) are interested in pursuing in a career.  If you are into trains and engineering is more likely to steer you towards jobs/occupations/careers that involve aspects of those things.  Sometimes it doesn't work out that you get into those types of jobs, granted, but more often than not, because you have an interest (AKA MOTIVATION) and then train/learn said interest with the goal of making it a career (having a BACKGROUND), means at the very least that's where you wanted to go.

You are overthinking the issue it is sufficient to say it is possible for a person to be good at siege engineering and botany. Whether you find it plausible beside the point, it on the player to justify the plausibility of the combination and my experience they are a pretty imaginative bunch. Since classes are just a package of abilities and skills. Gronan is absolutely correct with his pithy remark.

And before you go wah wah Paladin wah wah Druid wah wah any other classes associated with a particular background or culture, that a result of convenience on the part of the designer. If a player makes a interesting case for a different background than the original I would probably roll with it. However if it stupid or utterly implausible then I will tell the player to try another class or come up with a different background.

For example I wrote the Myrmidon class to reflect the abilities and skills as holy warrior of the Church of Set has in the Majestic Wilderlands The expectation that they would gotten to 1st level the way I spelled it out in the text. However it plausible but very rare, that Set in his wisdom decided to make a holy warrior out some person with a completely different upbringing.

Or a 1st level Thothian Mage was never an apprentice but rather found a burned out conclave with enough books and material surviving that he learned all the thing a normally trained Thothian Mage would have learned.

The classes I wrote in the Majestic Wilderlands is reflect the reality of my setting. However they are just a slice of a entire world with a life of it own. Exception can and do occur all the time like it does in real life. So I don' t treat class like it holy writ.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923612How long does it take to get into the 'Polymath' state?  Ignoring the fact that most people tend to gain a wide breadth of skills, if not much depth (very few people, for example, learn how to drive a car beyond the basics, very few learn defensive driving techniques, or become race car drivers), how many game sessions in that particular classless system do you in which players get to be able to do everything?  That can be two separate issues.  The first is the pacing of the game session or system, which is up to the GM/DM to decide how fast advancement happens, and HOW it happens.  And the second, may be your players wanting to be able to do it all, because they want to dominate the game, rather than play it,  These types of players are also the ones who tend to whine about multiclassing in classed based games.

If it is Fate not long at all if the referee is being generous with experience. If GURPS it could take a while. If you read my original post carefully you mention that this will happen at different times for different systems. However in the end all skills based designs will converge on polymaths given enough time.

I posted that because of some of the topics being debated on class vs. classes were pointless. It doesn't matter.  The choices are not binary, it 2016 and the range of known designs has mate the issue a spectrum. What works for you and your group is purely a matter of personal preference.

The only things that matters are:

1) does the design reflects the reality of the setting
2)  is it useful within the context of a leisure activity
3)  are the choices interesting for the players
4)  does it detail things at the level everybody prefers.

Classes are useful for packaging up a set of abilities and skills and defining how they progress through experience. But their focus is narrow.

Classless allows precise customization of characters, however the choices are not always obvious. And the same features that allows for customization can be abused to produce johnny one-shots and polymaths.

Both approach work, both approaches have negative aspects, the hybrids have various consequences.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;923670There's are good class systems (D&D) and bad class systems (D20 Modern). Good class systems guide the players to an appropriate array of characters/talents for the main adventuring activity of the game.

Good classless systems get that effect in different ways, either by alternative structures (templates, careers) or by some other structure or mechanism in the game.

It is a very well-made point that game mechanics in classless games that still support people being better or worse at a thing, based on their past and training, can provide many of the advantages and the feel of niches and specialization while giving many of the advantages of a skill-based one; flexibility and creativity for both the player and the GM.

Quote from: estar;923678However in the end all skills based designs will converge on polymaths given enough time.

While I agree there is a tendency towards that. That's not a function of the design, it is a function of player choices. Which of course are influenced by design and by GM decisions. But at the end of the day, if the the players continue to enjoy playing characters who aren't good at absolutely everything there is nothing in the system forcing them to optimize their character development by having all their PCs become polymaths.

• The system may encourage horizontal skill growth by charging higher point costs for higher skill levels, thus making it seem more economical to broaden rather than deepen (or heighten) skills.
• The GM may encourage broadening skills by broadly structuring challenges and by making the cost of failure at any challenge, even one in an area where the PC is weak, severe.
• But ultimately the choice is up to the player.

Quote from: estar;923678You are overthinking the issue it is sufficient to say it is possible for a person to be good at siege engineering and botany. Whether you find it plausible beside the point, it on the player to justify the plausibility of the combination and my experience they are a pretty imaginative bunch. Since classes are just a package of abilities and skills. Gronan is absolutely correct with his pithy remark.

I was using those extreme examples to prove that one thing tends (not always, but tends) to lead into another.

There's nothing preventing someone from choosing siege engineering and/or botany, that's not my point.  My point is that a person's, fictional or not, life experiences and, dare I say it, background figures a lot into the choices they make later in life.

A person's life determines things like, to pick on D&D for now, occupation, alignment, skills if the version they are playing uses them or not.  Are they the type to confront problems directly?  More than likely a fighter, BUT not always.  A lot of people go into things wanting to be the OPPOSITE of what they grew up with, but even then, their experiences define who they are and likely become.

Gronan's statement, pithy as always, claims that none of that matters.  Not one iota, that every choice the player makes on that spot is all that matters.

And if that's the case, then you may as well be playing a board game, like Monopoly, where one player picks the iron, the shoe and the race car, and then they get to decide where the go, and what to buy.

Is that wrong?  Fuck no.  If that's how you want to play D&D or any other RPG, that's your prerogative.

However, I come from a more literary background, as do a lot of my friends.  And that's not to say I am smarter, what I'm saying is that due to my life's experience of being picked on for being short and ugly, I spent a lot of my time in various libraries, often alone, looking for something to do.  Which was reading, and sketching, some times even writing.  And how I got into D&D was in that method.  Hell, I was that kid who used to read the dictionary when he was bored.  And in every book I've ever read, from Fiction of all types to Non-Fiction of all types, one thing that has struck me is that a character's background influences what they do later in life, from how they think to how they act.

The other issue is that Gronan is famous for his passive-aggressive, often cleverly pithy, claims that his way is the only way to play D&D.  He always denies it, but every single time, he often pretends to or perhaps genuinely expresses confusion at some D&D related post claiming that's not how he remembers it, or how people are over-thinking it.  As if they just did it HIS way, it would all work out.  But he gets a pass on that sort of bullshit because he was one of the original guard, the oldest of the Old School.

Which is yet another issue, whether they mean it or not, the OSR with their revision of the various versions of D&D and renaming it is implying that their system is how it was meant to be played, again, claiming that anyone else playing differently is doing it wrong.

It gets old that I've been playing D&D incorrectly for the past 31 years.

In short, a background defines a character, to claim otherwise is both a blind and sadly ignorant, statement.  It doesn't have to matter in a RPG, but for me, and perhaps me and mine alone, it matters at our tables.

YMMV.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923797It gets old that I've been playing D&D incorrectly for the past 31 years.

Then...oh I dunno...try playing differently?

Quote from: Bren;923749While I agree there is a tendency towards that. That's not a function of the design, it is a function of player choices. Which of course are influenced by design and by GM decisions. But at the end of the day, if the the players continue to enjoy playing characters who aren't good at absolutely everything there is nothing in the system forcing them to optimize their character development by having all their PCs become polymaths.

• The system may encourage horizontal skill growth by charging higher point costs for higher skill levels, thus making it seem more economical to broaden rather than deepen (or heighten) skills.
• The GM may encourage broadening skills by broadly structuring challenges and by making the cost of failure at any challenge, even one in an area where the PC is weak, severe.
• But ultimately the choice is up to the player.

This is a very well made point.
Horizontal skill growth always becomes valuable as higher abilities in a skill or dropdown/advanced skills are harder to grow or acquire.  One secret to mitigating this is to have the skill trees based on very slow growth in a broad swath of a skill tree but with the option of more specific areas with faster growth within that area.  Also to make more esoteric skills sub skills on a tree with basic skills.

Quote from: Larsdangly;920757The key is to have more than one model for character advancement and excellence. There are some amazingly good classless games that start with diversity in character types when the power level is low, but everyone funnels into a common type. Original Runequest comes to mind. I don't care where you start in that game; where you are headed is a runelord priest who fights with double iron bastard swords and starts every encounter with Shield 4 and bladesharp 4.

So true! A similar flaw confounds the TSR CONAN system, where every character ends up focusing on Animal Reflexes, Movement, Damage, and one Weapon talent.

Quote from: Bren;923800Then...oh I dunno...try playing differently?

Oh, there REALLY is a 'right way' to play D&D, then?  Please pray tell, inform me of how, or even which is the proper edition of D&D that's considered the 'real' version.  Then that way I can tap into the proper mindhive and indoctrinate the rest of my local crews.



Christ...  And here I thought that White Wolf started the whole 'badwrongfun' bullshit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923965Then that way I can tap into the proper mindhive and indoctrinate the rest of my local crews.

Report to the correction booth.  Six hours ought to suffice.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923965Oh, there REALLY is a 'right way' to play D&D, then?  Please pray tell, inform me of how...

There is not one right way, but there certainly are some wrong ways. You said, and I quote:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923797I've been playing D&D incorrectly for the past 31 years.

You said you were playing the wrong way, not me. If you aren't satisfied with the way you are playing D&D then you obviously are playing D&D the WRONG way. Try playing it some other way and see if that is more satisfying.

Quote from: daniel_ream;923980Report to the correction booth.  Six [strike]hours[/strike] months ought to suffice.

Fixed that for you. :D

A great classless system has a solid task resolution system with just the right number of skills to emulate the intended gene of the game.

Quote from: Bren;923981There is not one right way, but there certainly are some wrong ways.  You said you were playing the wrong way, not me. If you aren't satisfied with the way you are playing D&D then you obviously are playing D&D the WRONG way. Try playing it some other way and see if that is more satisfying.

Of course, I'm playing it the wrong way:  I LIKE THE NEW STUFF, so clearly I must be wrong.  Worse, the tables I run at home or at the Adventure League are ALSO liking it, and since it's not the little brown books, WE must be doing it wrong.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924153Of course, I'm playing it the wrong way:  I LIKE THE NEW STUFF, so clearly I must be wrong.  Worse, the tables I run at home or at the Adventure League are ALSO liking it, and since it's not the little brown books, WE must be doing it wrong.

Okaaaayyy :rolleyes: You might want to consider cutting back on chugging Redbulls while typing.

Quote from: JamesV;924085A great classless system has a solid task resolution system with just the right number of skills to emulate the intended gene of the game.

This.

Though I would add that you enjoy a couple of times in that sentence.

Quote from: JamesV;924085A great classless system has a solid task resolution system with just the right number of skills to emulate the intended gene of the game.

Quote from: Sommerjon;924186This.

Though I would add that you enjoy a couple of times in that sentence.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Quote from: Bren;923981There is not one right way, but there certainly are some wrong ways. You said, and I quote:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923797I've been playing D&D incorrectly for the past 31 years.

You said you were playing the wrong way, not me. If you aren't satisfied with the way you are playing D&D then you obviously are playing D&D the WRONG way. Try playing it some other way and see if that is more satisfying.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923797It gets old that I've been playing D&D incorrectly for the past 31 years.

The entire sentence, following complaints that Gronan and the OSR are advocating for one true way to play D&D that differs from his, makes it abundantly clear that what is getting old is being told that he's been playing D&D incorrectly for 31 years.

Quote from: rawma;924383The entire sentence, following complaints that Gronan and the OSR are advocating for one true way to play D&D that differs from his, makes it abundantly clear that what is getting old is being told that he's been playing D&D incorrectly for 31 years.

And yet, that's what he does to us, whenever he claims that it 'wasn't the way it was, and that we're all overthinking it.'

I think there's only two ways a classless system can really work:

1) you have a class-system in all but name, either with 'soft classes' ("occupations", "professions", "training packages", whatever) or semi-rigid archetypes ("backgrounds", etc.) of some kind.

2) the game is of such a narrow focus that everyone is in essence playing the same class.

Quote from: RPGPundit;925255I think there's only two ways a classless system can really work:

1) you have a class-system in all but name, either with 'soft classes' ("occupations", "professions", "training packages", whatever) or semi-rigid archetypes ("backgrounds", etc.) of some kind.

What most people do innately.

Quote from: RPGPundit;9252552) the game is of such a narrow focus that everyone is in essence playing the same class.

This on the other hand is utter bollocks.  Simply because people will MAKE their own 'classes'/archetypes/jobs/occupations/whatever-you-want-to-label-it.  We do it in real life, and what we do in real life, we apply it in our fantasies.

You should probably take a close look at the Lejendary Adventure RPG. A few things the game does that helps out,

1) The skills in LA (what the game calls "Abilities") are really skill-bundles, sort of mini-classes. This means if you are skilled in the Weapons Ability, for example, you not only know how to fight with weapons, you also know how to care for them and can tell a quality sword from a cheap sword. It turns out there's a dual-benefit to this when it comes to character builds. Players are not burdened with having to assign points into logical support skills, which simultaneously prevents the opportunity of re-purposing those points towards maxing out some other prime adventuring skill.

2) Because Abilities are mini-classes, you only get to pick four, which is more than enough. With four, though, you certainly can't be awesome at everything.

3) Initially, they are ranked. So it's not like you get a pool of points and then you can evenly divide them to make a "decent at everything" type of character.

4) Although once you're through character generation, you are allowed to buy up skills any way you choose, whichever one was ranked 1st in importance upon character creation is always considered your character's "First Ability" even if it is no longer the highest skilled. The game offers little bennies for hitting certain benchmarks with your First Ability, so you are encouraged to advance it.

5) Unlike a lot of skill-based games, it doesn't try to cram "diminishing returns" down your throat. Buying a point from the very highest skill echelon costs only twice as many points as buying a point from the lowest echelon. Compare this to GURPS where the cost sometimes doubles with each and every point you advance. A lot of skill-based games discourage specialization by either upping the cost or nerfing the pay-off of high skills.

6) There are also archetypes available in the system. Unlike other games, you don't choose the archetype which in turn dictates your skills. Rather, you choose whatever skills you want and that may qualify you for acceptance into an Order. Order, and rank within it, really define your social station within society. You don't have to be in an order, and that would indicate that you operate outside of social norms, which is fine. But either way, you usually have a clear picture of where your character fits in to overall society.

In playing Lejendary Adventure, I've never run into any of the problems commonly associated with skill-based games. Certainly none of them being cited here. The one thing I feel I'm missing out on that class-based games have is the ability to quickly say something like, "Level 6 Cleric" and knowing instantly what that means. In LA "7th Rank Noble" could mean a lot of different things. Though with how D&D has morphed over the editions, it's not even true that D&D has this feature anymore.

As to mentions of niche protection, I do have to caution that niche protection isn't what class-based systems do. That's a myth, and it's unfortunate that people clearly have designed thinking that myth fact. Classes are archetypes. A niche isn't something you can necessarily plan for. You don't have the niche of "I'm the fightin' guy" in D&D if you're one of 3 fighters in the party. But if Joe and Fred the fighter both rolled max, or near-max hit points and Chuck the fighter rolled crappy, Joe and Fred are too valuable as front-line fighters to do anything else. This gives Chuck a "comparative advantage" as an archer. A system that supported niches would do is allow Chuck some customizing options to begin specializing in his niche as an archer after play has begun once you realized what your role will be within this party. D&D allows that to some degree. Unfortunately you may have to wait a few levels before you get your next feat or proficiency slot.

So skill-based games where you could potentially buy a point after the first session or two are actually superior in this regard. Thus the biggest trick to a good skill-based game is you need a good character creation system. Once you've begun play with a good variety of heroes, the party dynamic will help guide further advancement. As long as you don't start with mush, and as long as the system doesn't try to emulate diminishing returns, you should be good.

Quote from: Lunamancer;925331snip

In playing Lejendary Adventure, I've never run into any of the problems commonly associated with skill-based games. Certainly none of them being cited here. The one thing I feel I'm missing out on that class-based games have is the ability to quickly say something like, "Level 6 Cleric" and knowing instantly what that means. In LA "7th Rank Noble" could mean a lot of different things. Though with how D&D has morphed over the editions, it's not even true that D&D has this feature anymore.
snip

I disagree with the idea that D&D may have lost the simple "level 6 cleric" advantage.
While each edition  has it's individual quirks they do share A large amount of common terminology.
I for example have never played 2e or 1e, but I can recognize the phrase fighter or magic user, and under stand the gist of what they do, even if I do not fully under stand the mechanical differences in the editions in question.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924190Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I will clarify my pat answer with a couple extra details.
1) I think that classless games are about doing things and not making things happen, so it's task, not conflict resolution for me.
2) "The right amount of skills" is a know-it-when-seen kind of thing, but still important since I think that a well made game is aimed at emulating a specific genre well. There should be enough skills to allow players to fit into roles they want. Too many skills would make it harder for players to create the roles, too little would like give every player the same role.

Quote from:  CRKrueger

QuoteQuote Originally Posted by JamesV  
A great classless system has a solid task resolution system with just the right number of skills to emulate the intended gene of the game.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Perhaps that is my issue (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956117/Skill%20Master%20spreadsheet).
Or why my game ends up with longevity.

I might have to disagree here.  Unless my particular old disaster has a large emulation.  There is some chance that the amount of skills, if done properly and coherently allows for many types of games.

Quote from: LordVreeg;925394I might have to disagree here.  Unless my particular old disaster has a large emulation.  There is some chance that the amount of skills, if done properly and coherently allows for many types of games.

It does look to me like your intent was to have a lot of skills to cover different kinds of games, or do I misunderstand?

For example, in a particular campaign, do the players avail themselves of any and all of the skills, regardless of the campaign's setting and themes, or is there some discrimination going on?

For example, I have the impression that the skill Basic Furrier is not being used unless your game has consistent room for that niche, like for survival or economic purposes.

As always, I am totally prepared to be wrong.

I was agreeing more that you need enough skills to cover the game, not that you should actively curtail skills.  For example, any skill system game could have a near-unlimited list of knowledge skills - lores, histories, religions, cultures, protocols, sciences, rites, arts, crafts, performances, etc...

Even in a Conan campaign, you could have a Nemedian Scholar character.

I don't think it necessary to detail every possible skill beforehand, if you have a skill framework that allows for the definition of skills as they become necessary.  The Lore:Ymir skill might not be on "The List" until someone rolls up an Aesir.

Quote from: JamesV;925399It does look to me like your intent was to have a lot of skills to cover different kinds of games, or do I misunderstand?

For example, in a particular campaign, do the players avail themselves of any and all of the skills, regardless of the campaign's setting and themes, or is there some discrimination going on?

For example, I have the impression that the skill Basic Furrier is not being used unless your game has consistent room for that niche, like for survival or economic purposes.

As always, I am totally prepared to be wrong.

And I don't need to be right.

The rules are set to underpin the physics engine of the world and the type of game I like to Run.  And there are advanced rules we plug in or remove depending on that particular game and the players.

New PCs in a regular game cannot pick advanced skills (everything is set up in trees, some 4-5 levels deep), and since we keep track of experience per skill, Pcs balance taking as many skills as they can (as it is hard to learn them later) with taking enough experience in a skill to be of any use in that skill.  We also break up the experience for artisan skills and language skills in most games, and have a 'lifepath' add on that gives more skills as part of building a background, so those artisan skills do come in quite a bit, and the players are allowed skill addition if they are clever.  
"The GuildSchool game is set up to encourage the clever use of skills.  This often manifests itself as players asking for a bonus on a skill CC or skill use due to a related skill. Since this is a skill based system, one based on thinking players, this is not a thorn in the GM's side.  Rather, this is something that has to be adjudicated personally, situation by situation, but try to encourage the players thinking.  I say this clearly; this is a way to award players for thinking, and should be encouraged"
From here... (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955644/How%20skills%20are%20used%20and%20played%20in%20game)

So, for example, one of the online groups fought a bear that acted strangely and in a jerky fashion last night (Steel Isle2 game).  A PC could have used basic Fauna skill and asked for a bonus from Furrier (arguing that he'd know by the condition of the fur) if they could figure out what was wrong with it as it attacked them.  (A cultist had sent a spirit into a dead bear, raising a zombie bear, so that you know).

I also set things up to go long.  

I think I agree that it could be that I set up the rules to allow for emulation in many situations.  Last night's game is a real exploration; my long online game is a game where the PCs are first year students in a huge ancient magic school, just hit session 102, and is very non-combat, high social and lore skills.  Maybe that is what you are saying?

Quote from: CRKrueger;925438I was agreeing more that you need enough skills to cover the game, not that you should actively curtail skills.  For example, any skill system game could have a near-unlimited list of knowledge skills - lores, histories, religions, cultures, protocols, sciences, rites, arts, crafts, performances, etc...

Even in a Conan campaign, you could have a Nemedian Scholar character.

I don't think it necessary to detail every possible skill beforehand, if you have a skill framework that allows for the definition of skills as they become necessary.  The Lore:Ymir skill might not be on "The List" until someone rolls up an Aesir.

of course,
but on the other hand, as a GM, to create a framework for the world.  It's not just what the pcs roll up, it is what they see around them, what they see and get attracted to, what befuddles them, etc.  
There is this really ugly 4th commonality combat skill called 'reave'.  It can destroy armor as it hits and damages, and the first time the players ran into that, they freaked, then wanted it.  Similar with spell skills, when the pcs run into a caster who has chosen to work on the spell resistance subskill of a type of magic instead of just working the spell points, it confounds the pcs, but they want it, and the more you have this mapped out, the deeper and bigger the world can seem.  Or that is at least another way to see it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;925255I think there's only two ways a classless system can really work:

1) you have a class-system in all but name, either with 'soft classes' ("occupations", "professions", "training packages", whatever) or semi-rigid archetypes ("backgrounds", etc.) of some kind.

2) the game is of such a narrow focus that everyone is in essence playing the same class.

I definitely disagree with this. I think that there are a lot of different classless systems. Out of curiousity, I know that you're fond of Amber Diceless. Which of these would you say that Amber Diceless is? From my games of it, it doesn't feel like everyone is playing the same class, and there doesn't seem to be mechanically soft classes or archetypes. The limited number of powers and the archetypes mean that there are common patterns (heh?) that come up - i.e. the psychic Pattern-master, the shape-shifting spy, the warfare lord, etc.  Still, there are a ton of smooth variations among these.

Personally, I've been fond of RuneQuest and the Hero System, both of which work well as far as character design. Especially the latter has hugely open-ended possibilities. I think Fate also works pretty well, though I'm not a big fan.

Quote from: jhkim;925567I definitely disagree with this. I think that there are a lot of different classless systems. Out of curiousity, I know that you're fond of Amber Diceless. Which of these would you say that Amber Diceless is? From my games of it, it doesn't feel like everyone is playing the same class, and there doesn't seem to be mechanically soft classes or archetypes. The limited number of powers and the archetypes mean that there are common patterns (heh?) that come up - i.e. the psychic Pattern-master, the shape-shifting spy, the warfare lord, etc.  Still, there are a ton of smooth variations among these.

Personally, I've been fond of RuneQuest and the Hero System, both of which work well as far as character design. Especially the latter has hugely open-ended possibilities. I think Fate also works pretty well, though I'm not a big fan.

In theory, you have four main 'classes' (if I remember correctly) but they're labeled as statistics, Endurance, Psyche, Warfare and Strength (IF I'm remember the names correctly) and each player is supposed to favour one of the other three.  So that's a class based system, in so much as it allows you to have a niche you excel in.

Supposedly.

Thanks to jhkim for bringing up Hero System.  That game, especially CHAMPIONS, is a good example of one way of preventing "polymaths," a large starting skill point pool, skills expensive enough that your character is ALMOST what you want it to be, and slow advancement.  You can make both Batman and Green Lantern with 100 points, but the game would have to go on for decades for you to gain enough skill points to turn one into the other.  Doubly true since Bats and GL will both have things they want to spend additional points on to be "More Bats" or "More GL."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;925760Thanks to jhkim for bringing up Hero System.  That game, especially CHAMPIONS, is a good example of one way of preventing "polymaths," a large starting skill point pool, skills expensive enough that your character is ALMOST what you want it to be, and slow advancement.  You can make both Batman and Green Lantern with 100 points, but the game would have to go on for decades for you to gain enough skill points to turn one into the other.  Doubly true since Bats and GL will both have things they want to spend additional points on to be "More Bats" or "More GL."

Personal experience has shown me that the average player in a game that often allows for 'polymaths', like Champions or Mutants and Masterminds or GURPS, players still don't do it.  Like you said, if they make a 'Batman', they will continue to choose things that allow them to keep being Batman but better.  If someone wants to be the Green Lantern, they will spend their points to be more Green Lantern.

Again, in my experience, it's been less the system and more the players.  The ones that want to do it all, are the same that complain about multi-classing in D&D and stuff, for no reason than to be able to do it all.

YMMV.

I would tend to agree it's a player problem more than a system problem.

Like in Star Wars d6, somebody wanted to be a Noble/Cyberspy/Smuggler.  They bellyached because they wanted to be as good a Noble as somebody who was just a Noble, as good a Cyberspy as somebody who was just a Cyberspy, and as good a Smuggler as somebody who was just a Smuggler.

The answer to that is, "No, you don't get to start with three times as many points as everybody else."

I'm playing Final Fantasy 10 at the moment. It has a skill system where are the skills are located on a kind of conceptual map - some are adjacent to each other and paths that connect them. Character development is basically all about following those paths and choosing which skills to take, which to skip, and where to go when it branches.

It seems cumbersome for a pen and paper game, but Instill wonder if it can be utilized.

What it offers is on one hand any character can get any skill, but on the other hand, skills tend to be grouped together in sensible ways.

Quote from: RPGPundit;925255I think there's only two ways a classless system can really work:

1) you have a class-system in all but name, either with 'soft classes' ("occupations", "professions", "training packages", whatever) or semi-rigid archetypes ("backgrounds", etc.) of some kind.

2) the game is of such a narrow focus that everyone is in essence playing the same class.

Sorry, Pundit, but I've played and run enough classless games to know that they work without either of these being true. In fact, they work much more readily than class games, IME:).

Quote from: Lunamancer;9253315) Unlike a lot of skill-based games, it doesn't try to cram "diminishing returns" down your throat. Buying a point from the very highest skill echelon costs only twice as many points as buying a point from the lowest echelon. Compare this to GURPS where the cost sometimes doubles with each and every point you advance. A lot of skill-based games discourage specialization by either upping the cost or nerfing the pay-off of high skills.

Just to correct a misconception, skill pricing in GURPS 4e doesn't work like that. After the 3rd level in a skill, which is a respectable level, you pay the same for every skill point.
Of course, you don't need to invest much skill points unless it's something you'd be doing a lot and you don't have many skills controlled by the same attribute, otherwise, you're better off just raising the controlling attribute;).

And I just don't get why you need to discourage polymaths, playing one of those means you're only good enough when the opposition doesn't have specialists.

Quote from: AsenRG;926845Sorry, Pundit, but I've played and run enough classless games to know that they work without either of these being true. In fact, they work much more readily than class games, IME:).

I suspect whether or not classless systems work depends mostly on the type of player. If the players are those who like GURPS and HERO with four hundred bazillion options for character generation, pretty much any workable system is going to function acceptably.

If you have players like my players, who said, and I quote "We really don't care which system, as long as it doesn't get in the way of our role-playing", you may have more of an issue unless, as Pundit suggested, you have soft classes or effectively only one class.

In the system I'm writing, you choose which area is your Prime area from Offense, Defense, Skills, Magic (which can be magic, psionics, gadgets, etc), and Hit Points. So you kind of have soft classes of Damage Dealer (DPS), Damage Avoider (Armored Tank), Skilled (thief, doctor, or other specialist), Magic-User/Cleric/Angry-Engineer (magician or mad scientist or tech hero like Batman or Ironman), and Damage Receiver (HP Tank). And then you have two professions. I did this to make it simpler to create the character and cut down on the analysis-paralysis you can get from things like GURPS and HERO. But this still lets you do things like decide to be Gandalf (specialize in Magic and make Offense your second-best area).

Quote from: Tod13;926850I suspect whether or not classless systems work depends mostly on the type of player. If the players are those who like GURPS and HERO with four hundred bazillion options for character generation, pretty much any workable system is going to function acceptably.

If you have players like my players, who said, and I quote "We really don't care which system, as long as it doesn't get in the way of our role-playing", you may have more of an issue unless, as Pundit suggested, you have soft classes or effectively only one class.

Actually, that's exactly how most of my players are. Some fo them find that having a class system gets in the way of their roleplaying, though:).
And please remember that classless doesn't mean you have to have as many options as GURPS or similar games. It only means you can combine whatever options exist more freely;).
I mean, RISUS, Pocket Universe and 5-point Fudge are all classless systems. The rules of all of them combined are about as long as the rules of OD&D.

For that matter, everyone in OD&D is from the same "class", too. The class is just named "adventurer":D! "Fighting man", "magic user" and "cleric" are just skill packages for the class you already have, providing some customization.

Quote from: AsenRG;926853
And please remember that classless doesn't mean you have to have as many options as GURPS or similar games. It only means you can combine whatever options exist more freely;).

Yup. I know and agree. My point was more that even systems that might be considered unwieldy or undesirable work well for a lot of people. Meaning, I was talking more about the type of player rather than the type of game system, which seems to get lost in this discussion.

I'm skipping the comment about classes interfering with role-playing based on the belief that is a difference in definition of role-playing that belongs to a different thread. ;)

ETA: I also should have been more specific. My players, because of their lack of interest in specific systems, are unlikely to be willing to invest the time necessary for the more complex classless systems.

Quote from: Tod13;926868Yup. I know and agree. My point was more that even systems that might be considered unwieldy or undesirable work well for a lot of people.

Yes, they work for many people, myself included. I've been running GURPS for years, and am still able to tell you how to create a 150-points character in the system in 15 to 30 minutes:).

But that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about classless systems in general, so arguments that derive from crunchy classless systems being crunchy don't work. It's like me saying that because D&D 4e had certain qualities I found undesirable, all class systems have those.
Nope, crunchy is unrelated to having or not having classes, and neither are those qualities.

QuoteMeaning, I was talking more about the type of player rather than the type of game system, which seems to get lost in this discussion.

Well, I think I got what you mean. But the problem with "bajillion options" is a problem that we experience when crunchy games meet a certain kind of gamers;). It's not related to having or not having classes.

QuoteI'm skipping the comment about classes interfering with role-playing based on the belief that is a difference in definition of role-playing that belongs to a different thread. ;)

Probably for the better. My definition is "acting and making decisions as your character or at least for your character", BTW.

QuoteETA: I also should have been more specific. My players, because of their lack of interest in specific systems, are unlikely to be willing to invest the time necessary for the more complex classless systems.

Exactly, but are you telling me they're going to invest the time necessary for the more complex class-based systems? Because IME, the time required is pretty much the same, and varies mostly based on whether someone else is helping you with the rules:D!

Quote from: Tod13;926850I suspect whether or not classless systems work depends mostly on the type of player.

I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

Quote from: RPGPundit;928142I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

What on earth do you mean? Your responses seem to imply that classes are somehow necessary as a way of defining characters. I call bullshit on that. A character as a collection of stat + skills + equipment does not need to fit some predetermined archetype. I'm not against it as a means to facilitate play, but the idea its inescapable in order to game is just silly.

Quote from: RPGPundit;928142I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

I usually suggest it more in terms of a character-concept. That way, you have direction for how to build your character rather than randomly collecting skills.

I thought of it as character concepts, which I think for most people end up being stuff like Gandalf (fighter magic-user) or Tifa from Final Fantasy 7 (non-weapons fighter). This can sort of be "some kind of class-structure" with an emphasis on structure.

In either case, the part of it, to me, that makes it work is that the character has some sort of design philosophy or boundaries giving direction (or structure) to character growth.

Is that kind of what you meant? Or does it at least fit your concept?

ETA: I'd like to point out I managed to avoid using the Food Network phrase "flavor profile" in this post. Until now. :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;928142I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

Quote from: TristramEvans;928157What on earth do you mean? Your responses seem to imply that classes are somehow necessary as a way of defining characters. I call bullshit on that. A character as a collection of stat + skills + equipment does not need to fit some predetermined archetype. I'm not against it as a means to facilitate play, but the idea its inescapable in order to game is just silly.

I don't see how Traveller, RuneQuest, GURPS or any other 30-40 year old skill-based system is creating a class-structure unless you mean the guy with the best fighting skills is the fighter, the guy with the best stealth skills is the thief, etc...

Quote from: CRKrueger;928202I don't see how Traveller, RuneQuest, GURPS or any other 30-40 year old skill-based system is creating a class-structure unless you mean the guy with the best fighting skills is the fighter, the guy with the best stealth skills is the thief, etc...

The system is not creating a class-structure. The players create one in their heads. "Here's what I need to be a decent fighter, which includes healing spells." or "Here's what I need to be a decent thief, which includes the ability to wear plate armor when I want to." As opposed to "Oh shiny! Oh! More shiny! ".

To me, like I said, it is more of a character concept than a class, but I'm willing to say "po-tay-to po-tah-to" on that. :cool:

I think (not sure if Pundit agrees with me vis-a-vis character-concept being reasonably close to class-structure) but to me the former players ("here's what I need to be a decent <...>") are the type that make classless systems work, while the second type ("Oh shiny!") may have issues with classless system and work better with a more constrained system.

I too assume that something in that broad domain is what RPGPundit meant. Could be a GURPS Template, or just guidelines or a GM packet or the player or GM consciously designing a character with an idea in mind and making what the character's stats/skills are appropriate to the character concept/story. I agree with that, but I would not call it "creating some kind of class-structure in the system". I'd call it designing a character that makes sense using the classless system. There is a logic and somewhere there are some sorts of archetypes relevant, but that's not what I would call a class-structure, because I think class-structure means there is a limited list of classes that (tend to over-)state what members of that class are and aren't, with specific rules mechanics based on which class someone is or isn't. It seems to me like the difference between hard specific rules and ideas/guidelines.

A character that makes sense does not necessarily have class-based mechanics, as evidenced by the many, many characters in class-based systems that don't make even a modicum of sense;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;928142I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

HERO/Champions, GURPS, Runquest, Amber Diceless, Traveller all prove you wrong.

I have found that players who come from class based systems like D&D/Pathfinder will often make their characters around something approximating a character class even if the system doesn't have that inherently.  They will settle on some character role along the lines of a character class and build their character's abilities and personality around that.  They will also try to avoid overlapping too much with other characters.  One is the tank, one is a ranged striker, one is a controller and one is a skill monkey.  There are no classes in M&M 3e but every group I have had made their characters as if there were anyway.  Many players I have played with make their own version of classes in systems that don't have them.  

Quote from: Christopher Brady;928266HERO/Champions, GURPS, Runquest, Amber Diceless, Traveller all prove you wrong.

The systems themselves don't actually prove anything.  You would have to look at how people play to prove anything about his contention.  You would have to look at how a large, representative sample of people play.  I don't think anyone really has that information though.

Quote from: yosemitemike;928377I have found that players who come from class based systems like D&D/Pathfinder will often make their characters around something approximating a character class even if the system doesn't have that inherently.  They will settle on some character role along the lines of a character class and build their character's abilities and personality around that.  They will also try to avoid overlapping too much with other characters.  One is the tank, one is a ranged striker, one is a controller and one is a skill monkey.  There are no classes in M&M 3e but every group I have had made their characters as if there were anyway.  Many players I have played with make their own version of classes in systems that don't have them.  

It's been my experience, however, that people who aren't coming from such backgrounds actually build their abilities around ideas that often don't delineate clearly to a class, and the game is only better for it, IME.

Quote from: AsenRG;928378It's been my experience, however, that people who aren't coming from such backgrounds actually build their abilities around ideas that often don't delineate clearly to a class, and the game is only better for it, IME.

In my experience, it is neither better nor worse.  It's just a bit different.

Quote from: yosemitemike;928379In my experience, it is neither better nor worse.  It's just a bit different.

"Better" is subjective, so I think we can safely settle on "different":).

Seems like an argument spinning around undefined definitions and different subjective experiences.

Seems to me something like this is probably going on in this conversation:

Some people used to class-based games think of classes as archetypes and want archetypes, so they say "classless systems work" (i.e. has archetypal characters) when they use "some kind of class-structure" (i.e. something that provides archetypes).

Some other people used to classless games think of classes as mandatory limiting overly-mechanical and/or cliche artificial labels, and so when they hear the above, they read it as an assertion that those constraining rules are needed for their games to "work", which even if they read the "work" part as having archetypes, still doesn't ring true because they think of classes as needless constraints.

Meanwhile the people used to class-based games may have figured out how to play the class-based games without following the most constraining parts of the class rules, so they don't see the classless players' objections as valid.

There's that, but there's also the part where the archetypes the system supports aren't always the ones I want to play:).

And then there's the part where characters might change their archetype during play. It's anathema for those who want archetype play, but it's a boon for those that want organic character development;).

Quote from: AsenRG;928440There's that, but there's also the part where the archetypes the system supports aren't always the ones I want to play:).

And then there's the part where characters might change their archetype during play. It's anathema for those who want archetype play, but it's a boon for those that want organic character development;).

Ya those too, and other things. Such as the part where actual people aren't particularly archetypal, only in degrees.

Quote from: Tod13;928204I think (not sure if Pundit agrees with me vis-a-vis character-concept being reasonably close to class-structure)

More or less. Class is a way to systematize "archetype".

If you have a classless game, then characters have to take on some element of archetype. If not, they just become this meaningless mishmash with no center.

Quote from: RPGPundit;929395More or less. Class is a way to systematize "archetype".

If you have a classless game, then characters have to take on some element of archetype. If not, they just become this meaningless mishmash with no center.

Quote from: Skarg;928573Ya those too, and other things. Such as the part where actual people aren't particularly archetypal, only in degrees.

And I much prefer characters that feel real, it's easier and more fun to Referee for them;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;929395More or less. Class is a way to systematize "archetype".

If you have a classless game, then characters have to take on some element of archetype. If not, they just become this meaningless mishmash with no center.

:D (There is no "hat tip" smiley.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;929395More or less. Class is a way to systematize "archetype".

If you have a classless game, then characters have to take on some element of archetype. If not, they just become this meaningless mishmash with no center.

so...a real person?

Quote from: TristramEvans;929542so...a real person?

No.

This debate happens because RPGs do not reflect real life.

When you make a classless system players will design characters with skill sets that (1) support the way they want to play even if in practice your campaign minimizes those skill sets; or (2) in a way that maximizes the mechanical benefits for the skills they apply in the challenges you present as GM.  On (1) if a player is intrigued by magic, he will make a character that has magic skills and what he thinks a wizard should be; on (2) if you are always calling for combat rolls the player will build up the skills you are asking them to roll against, the more skills you use in play the more even this type of player will or can build like player (1).

Quote from: AsenRG;929480And I much prefer characters that feel real, it's easier and more fun to Referee for them;).

Quote from: TristramEvans;929542so...a real person?

HUhn?  No.  A 'real' person, whom I'm assuming you are talking about yourselves, actually have a set of specialized skill that someone outside of your job/career doesn't have.  You think a mishmash would know how to program a database, create actual software, know how to manipulate heavy machinery, drive a semi-truck, neuro-surgury or any myriad of other highly sensitive job skills?

The 'mishmash' you're so proud of, in D&D 5e terms, is called a Commoner.  An NPC with little to no importance in the grand scheme of things.  But those that's not who we write about in books, fiction or non-fiction, or roleplay.

The issue is that a lot of class-based systems don't show the breadth of skill and experience that most people get over their lives.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;929606The issue is that a lot of class-based systems don't show the breadth of skill and experience that most people get over their lives.

Most RPGs are About A Specific Thing, and classes help communicate that and channel character creation into archetypes that fit the Specific Thing.  A Latvian single mother scraping in the ghettos of Riga and an ex-CIA agent burned by his agency and living in Miami are both "modern/21st urban characters", but which one's appropriate to play depends on whether you're playing Blowback or an exotic misery tourism storygame.

Similarly, skills the game is Not About don't need to be defined.  That the Latvian single mother knows some 17th c. French poetry from her one year at Daugavpils before she got knocked up isn't likely to come up; nor that the ex-CIA agent knows how to homebrew his own yoghurt.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;929606The issue is that a lot of class-based systems don't show the breadth of skill and experience that most people get over their lives.

That's why I prefer Skill-Based systems or Class systems with skills and most importantly - Lifepath Chargen.  Not only does it round out a character giving them more depth, it also helps figure out things like motivation, how characters know each other, etc... without Meta-Planning sessions.

Quote from: daniel_ream;929617Most RPGs are About A Specific Thing, and classes help communicate that and channel character creation into archetypes that fit the Specific Thing.

Hmm, my RPGs are always about roleplaying. :D
Yeah I know, Paladinville...

Quote from: Sommerjon;929597No.

This debate happens because RPGs do not reflect real life.

They can if you want them to. No one is under any obligation to fit their games into your limited conception of what RPGs reflect, and I reject any such limitations put on my gaming. I'll do what I want, game how I want, have fun however I like, and if anyone says I'm "not really playing RPGs" because my games aren't patterned around someone's obsession with D&D or any other single limited viewpoint of what RPGs can be, they can kiss my arse.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;929606HUhn?  No.  A 'real' person, whom I'm assuming you are talking about yourselves, actually have a set of specialized skill that someone outside of your job/career doesn't have.  You think a mishmash would know how to program a database, create actual software, know how to manipulate heavy machinery, drive a semi-truck, neuro-surgury or any myriad of other highly sensitive job skills?

The 'mishmash' you're so proud of, in D&D 5e terms, is called a Commoner.  An NPC with little to no importance in the grand scheme of things.  But those that's not who we write about in books, fiction or non-fiction, or roleplay.

Since we're specifically talking about games besides D&D, how things are defined in D&D is completely inapplicable.

Quote from: TristramEvans;929632They can if you want them to. No one is under any obligation to fit their games into your limited conception of what RPGs reflect, and I reject any such limitations put on my gaming. I'll do what I want, game how I want, have fun however I like, and if anyone says I'm "not really playing RPGs" because my games aren't patterned around someone's obsession with D&D or any other single limited viewpoint of what RPGs can be, they can kiss my arse.

Sorry Bub you don't have a voice over for real life.

Quote from: Sommerjon;929693Sorry Bub you don't have a voice over for real life.

Your response has failed to achieve the wit and or relevance you hoped to achieve. Please start over and try again.

Quote from: TristramEvans;929695Your response has failed to achieve the wit and or relevance you hoped to achieve. Please start over and try again.

No.

My response did exactly what is was supposed to do.

Show your bullshit.

Sure you can role-play a caricature or if you prefer a simulacrum of real life, but no you are not role-playing real life.

Is there more xp in taking public transportation?  Or is that more of a GM thing?  No.  No.  What I want to know is when your group plays Real Life and you're in that spot of the game when the characters are role-playing, what system are they using?  It would be totally awesome if your character was really into storygames or 4e D&D, you know to really stretch that role-playing muscle.

Quote from: Sommerjon;929759Is there more xp in taking public transportation?

Jesus, dude, don't give SJW game designers any more ideas.

Quote from: Sommerjon;929597No.

This debate happens because RPGs do not reflect real life.

Yours don't . . .

Quote from: Zero-Credibility-Troll-Sommerjon;929759...
Is there more xp in taking public transportation? ...

More xp for taking the bus and relating to the people who also use it. You also get a little bit of time/attention to try to do other things. Contrast to driving which practices basic driving skill, and road/traffic knowledge in the places you commute. i.e. the different habits give different types of area knowledge. Go figure.

Oh but you're the Troll character class, so maybe real life's character system (or alignment system?) prevents you from acquiring this knowledge.

Quote from: Skarg;929784More xp for taking the bus and relating to the people who also use it. You also get a little bit of time/attention to try to do other things. Contrast to driving which practices basic driving skill, and road/traffic knowledge in the places you commute. i.e. the different habits give different types of area knowledge. Go figure.

Oh but you're the Troll character class, so maybe real life's character system (or alignment system?) prevents you from acquiring this knowledge.

Guess Sharg needs to hug it out.

His rant is so full of holes, it's comically sad.

Quote from: Sommerjon;929759No.

My response did exactly what is was supposed to do.

Show your bullshit.

Sure you can role-play a caricature or if you prefer a simulacrum of real life, but no you are not role-playing real life.

Is there more xp in taking public transportation?  Or is that more of a GM thing?  No.  No.  What I want to know is when your group plays Real Life and you're in that spot of the game when the characters are role-playing, what system are they using?  It would be totally awesome if your character was really into storygames or 4e D&D, you know to really stretch that role-playing muscle.

OK, you're an idiot. I get it.

"XP" indeed. Because whoever heard of a game that didn't use the artificial constraints of D&D?

Quote from: TristramEvans;929798OK, you're an idiot. I get it.

Not really.  I just called your misguided belief that you are in any way actually role playing real life.

You just happen to dislike being called on your bullshit.  So, like a child, you lash out.  

Your proof is; "They can if you want them to."  
Bullshit.
you can role-play a caricature or if you prefer a simulacrum or if you prefer approximation of real life, but no you are not role-playing real life.  Sorry dice rolls and having a GM stops any semblance of real life

It seems to me that all of this is focused on hypothetical extremes and such.

Practically, there are a lot of classless systems - like Traveller, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Amber, FATE. Characters in these systems often don't split into types to the degree that old-school D&D did.  Do people have a problem with how these real systems typically work?

Quote from: jhkim;929807Practically, there are a lot of classless systems - like Traveller, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Amber, FATE. Characters in these systems often don't split into types to the degree that old-school D&D did.

While this is true, I would argue that just as often, they do.  Traveller's Careers are very much a  class system, in the same vein as WFRP in that you can move from one class to another.  I know in Amber part of the reason my players pushed so hard for First or Second Rank in Attributes was that if they didn't, they had no idea what to do with the resulting fair-to-middling character (although some went for being "the Sorcery Guy" or "the Artifact and Armies guy", which is a "class" of another type.)  Despite superhero comic books not having class archetypes at all, most point-buy superhero games promote the notion that superheroes fall into one of a small number of "types".

I do think much of this comes from expectation-setting by D&D; a lot of roleplayers look to the game mechanics to distinguish their character from others and don't know how to do that if there aren't crunchy bits on the character sheet for it.

Quote from: jhkim;929807Do people have a problem with how these real systems typically work?

It appears that some people do have a problem or they are over-exaggerating the meaning of classes and archetypes to the point that everyone who ever lived in fiction or reality is an archetype. In which case archetype = human being and we can just toss the word "archetype" into the literary dustbin.

Quote from: daniel_ream;929815I do think much of this comes from expectation-setting by D&D; a lot of roleplayers look to the game mechanics to distinguish their character from others and don't know how to do that if there aren't crunchy bits on the character sheet for it.

Then they need to learn that, so a stretch of classless games would only be beneficial;).

Quote from: AsenRG;929861Then they need to learn that, so a stretch of classless games would only be beneficial;).

I ran Amber Diceless for two years.  They eventually matured from "The Strength Guy" or "The Advanced Pattern/Psyche Guy" to "Clone of that guy from that show/movie/book I think is awesome".

I'm not sure how much better that is.

Quote from: Sommerjon;929803Not really.  I just called your misguided belief that you are in any way actually role playing real life.

You just happen to dislike being called on your bullshit.  So, like a child, you lash out.  

You said stupid things, and I called you an idiot for saying them. Thats not lashing out. Your feelings getting hurt is of no concern to me.

QuoteYour proof is; "They can if you want them to."  
Bullshit.

Bullshit indeed, you've mixed up who you are responding to.

I don't need proof. The proof that you have no idea what you are talking about was inherent in your statement about XP. It made it explicitly clear your knowledge of RPGs is so limited that you assume XP is an inherent trait, and anyone that ignorant of role-playing games outside of the D&D paradigm has no worthwhile opinion on what RPGs can or cannot express.

Quoteyou can role-play a caricature or if you prefer a simulacrum or if you prefer approximation of real life, but no you are not role-playing real life.  Sorry dice rolls and having a GM stops any semblance of real life

You 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: Sommerjon;929693Sorry Bub you don't have a voice over for real life.

I want my voiceover to be Ron Howard.

JG

Quote from: daniel_ream;929869I ran Amber Diceless for two years.  They eventually matured from "The Strength Guy" or "The Advanced Pattern/Psyche Guy" to "Clone of that guy from that show/movie/book I think is awesome".

I'm not sure how much better that is.

They need a longer stretch, possibly much longer, but improvement has already begun:).

Quote from: TristramEvans;929878You said stupid things, and I called you an idiot for saying them. Thats not lashing out. Your feelings getting hurt is of no concern to me.



Bullshit indeed, you've mixed up who you are responding to.

I don't need proof. The proof that you have no idea what you are talking about was inherent in your statement about XP. It made it explicitly clear your knowledge of RPGs is so limited that you assume XP is an inherent trait, and anyone that ignorant of role-playing games outside of the D&D paradigm has no worthwhile opinion on what RPGs can or cannot express.



You 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.

As I can see from your posts, you're making a fundamental mistake when it comes to classless systems.
Namely, you're debating them with Sommerjon;).

Quote from: AsenRG;929929As I can see from your posts, you're making a fundamental mistake when it comes to classless systems.
Namely, you're debating them with Sommerjon;).

Yeah, fair enough. I have a hard time keeping track of who the trolls are here these days.

Quote from: TristramEvans;929878You said stupid things, and I called you an idiot for saying them. Thats not lashing out. Your feelings getting hurt is of no concern to me.

Stupid thing = believing you are playing real people, actual fully developed individuals.

Quote from: TristramEvans;929878Bullshit indeed, you've mixed up who you are responding to.

I don't need proof. The proof that you have no idea what you are talking about was inherent in your statement about XP. It made it explicitly clear your knowledge of RPGs is so limited that you assume XP is an inherent trait, and anyone that ignorant of role-playing games outside of the D&D paradigm has no worthwhile opinion on what RPGs can or cannot express.

I did?
Let me quote the exchange then.

Quote from: TristramEvans;929632

Quote from: Sommerjon;929597No.

This debate happens because RPGs do not reflect real life.

They can if you want them to. No one is under any obligation to fit their games into your limited conception of what RPGs reflect, and I reject any such limitations put on my gaming. I'll do what I want, game how I want, have fun however I like, and if anyone says I'm "not really playing RPGs" because my games aren't patterned around someone's obsession with D&D or any other single limited viewpoint of what RPGs can be, they can kiss my arse.

Nope, I am quoting your stupid.

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.

Tripling down on the stupid, wow I'll give you credit.
I never said anything about being bound to fantasy-based archetypes
You can't roleplay real people without real life.  Since you can't roleplay real life you cannot roleplay real people. You can role-play a caricature or if you prefer a simulacrum or if you prefer approximation of real life(people), but no you are not role-playing real life(people).

Quote from: James Gillen;929885I want my voiceover to be Ron Howard.

JG

I would go with Mike Rowe.

Quote from: Sommerjon;929969Stupid thing = believing you are playing real people, actual fully developed individuals.
...
You can't roleplay real people without real life.  Since you can't roleplay real life you cannot roleplay real people. You can role-play a caricature or if you prefer a simulacrum or if you prefer approximation of real life(people), but no you are not role-playing real life(people).

Huh. Maybe Sommerjon's character class is not just Troll, but a dual-class Troll/Anti-Realism Paladin?

Is he the same doofus who once responded to a thread where I was talking about games where the PC's can't get maimed or killed and not resurrected having "no real risk", by saying that all RPGs have no real risk because the players don't get wounded in reality?

Seems like a similar Troll line to the one he's excreting into this thread.

Maybe he just has the special 2nd-level Troll maneuver: Pretend Word Has Preposterous Other Interpretation.

Quote from: Sommerjon;929969Stupid thing = believing you are playing real people, actual fully developed individuals.

Nah, stupid thing = believing other people are subject to your own mental limitations.

Quote from: TristramEvans;929935Yeah, fair enough. I have a hard time keeping track of who the trolls are here these days.

I don't, they're ILed already. If I don't see the posts, it's probably a troll:).
If I see the posts, it might not be;).

Quote from: Skarg;929987Huh. Maybe Sommerjon's character class is not just Troll, but a dual-class Troll/Anti-Realism Paladin?

Is he the same doofus who once responded to a thread where I was talking about games where the PC's can't get maimed or killed and not resurrected having "no real risk", by saying that all RPGs have no real risk because the players don't get wounded in reality?

Seems like a similar Troll line to the one he's excreting into this thread.

Maybe he just has the special 2nd-level Troll maneuver: Pretend Word Has Preposterous Other Interpretation.

Looks like someone needs their diaper changed.

Quote from: TristramEvans;930008Nah, stupid thing = believing other people are subject to your own mental limitations.

Nah, stupid thing = when you are playing Let's Pretend you are playing real people, actual fully developed individuals.

Looks like you need to learn that when we play Let's Pretend the characters we make up are not actual fully developed individuals.  That the characters, whether PC or NPC, are a caricature or a simulacrum or an approximation or a best guess.

Quote from: Sommerjon;929970I would go with Mike Rowe.

Quote from: James Gillen;929885I want my voiceover to be Ron Howard.

JG

Morgan Freeman, maybe Tom Hanks.

No one on earth is cool enough to have James Earl Jones as a voiceover, not even James Earl Jones.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930024Morgan Freeman, maybe Tom Hanks.

No one on earth is cool enough to have James Earl Jones as a voiceover, not even James Earl Jones.

LOL. I want my voiceover to be done by the narrator of Too Cute! :D :cool:

Quote from: James Gillen;929885I want my voiceover to be Ron Howard.

My voice-over is Ian McShane.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;930037My voice-over is Ian McShane.

Ooo, that's a good one.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;930037My voice-over is Ian McShane.

Mine is.  William.  SHATNER!

I'm partial to Ron Perlman.  I think the black man's basso profundo and the supercilious British sneer are overused.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930024No one on earth is cool enough to have James Earl Jones as a voiceover, not even James Earl Jones.

Dammit. I wanted James Earl Jones. Now I'm afraid I'm going to be stuck with young Mark Hamill whining "I Was Going to Toshi Station to Pick Up Some Power Converters."

Quote from: TristramEvans;929935Yeah, fair enough. I have a hard time keeping track of who the trolls are here these days.

So people who disagree with you are trolls now?  How very...  Internet of you.

On topic:  I contend that it's not the system that make Classless systems work it's the players.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;930105On topic:  I contend that it's not the system that make Classless systems work it's the players.

...based on extensive classless system play no doubt?

Every system it's the players that make it work...for them.  I get the feeling that's not what you mean.

Quote from: RPGPundit;928142I think that what this really means is that whether they consciously realize it or not, the ones it does 'work' for are creating some kind of class-structure in the system.

Actually, 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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930109...based on extensive classless system play no doubt?

Every system it's the players that make it work...for them.  I get the feeling that's not what you mean.

Well, it's also the players that make class systems work, or fail, as is more often the case;).

Quote from: Sommerjon;930022Looks like someone needs their diaper changed.

Well, I'm not going to help you with that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;930105So people who disagree with you are trolls now?  How very...  Internet of you.

No, I want people to disagree with me. Can't think of anything worse than having discussions with people who agree with everything I say. Ideas need to be challenged to be properly scrutinized and examined. And nothing helps to focus and crystallize one's ideas than to have to express them to others in a concise and persuasive manner.

But the other person in the scenario has to actually be providing a worthwhile argument, not simply engaging in a repetitious and vapid form of "nuh-huh" , wallowing in their ignorance, or, as the case may be, coming across completely disingenuous and lacking in self-awareness. "Troll" might not be the technically correct term for that, but its at least more polite than the other viable options that spring to mind.

Quote from: TristramEvans;930127But the other person in the scenario has to actually be providing a worthwhile argument

as determined by you of course.

Quote from: yosemitemike;930141as determined by you of course.

Of course.

Quote from: Bren;930074Dammit. I wanted James Earl Jones. Now I'm afraid I'm going to be stuck with young Mark Hamill whining "I Was Going to Toshi Station to Pick Up Some Power Converters."

Or maybe I could have that guy that narrated the Honey Badger video.

JG

Seriously: Classed roleplay doesn't simulate real life.  It certainly doesn't simulate Swords & Sorcery, or even Tolkien-style High Fantasy.  It simulates D&D.  In High Fantasy or S&S novels, the heroes are usually some type of non-spellcaster character (although sometimes with innate magic abilities or items) and real spellcasting is either EVIL or not combat-efficient.  So since nobody is "classed" as a spellcaster, people are usually somewhere between Warrior and Rogue, with "class" being merely specialization and skills.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;930157Seriously: Classed roleplay doesn't simulate real life.  It certainly doesn't simulate Swords & Sorcery, or even Tolkien-style High Fantasy.  It simulates D&D.  In High Fantasy or S&S novels, the heroes are usually some type of non-spellcaster character (although sometimes with innate magic abilities or items) and real spellcasting is either EVIL or not combat-efficient.  So since nobody is "classed" as a spellcaster, people are usually somewhere between Warrior and Rogue, with "class" being merely specialization and skills.

JG

Depends on the novel, might I add, but the number of the old stories where the hero is afirst and foremost spellcaster is vanishingly small. And even in many of them it's often still evil. (OTOH, the number of stories with fighter characters having some occult skills is quite high, but that doesn't map well to class systems:)).

One would think the older stories recounted by many people would reflect the archetypes better;). They probably do, but that's because the Archetypes aren't Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Thief! (In those stories, every man is a warrior and adventurer, possibly because men were expected to fight when necessary. The archetypes would be more like their paths to greatness. Professional Warrior, Jaded Professional Warrior, Smart Guy, Strong Guy, Angry Guy, Son of a Supernatural Creature, Guy Who Sold His Soul For Power, The Ascetic, The Crippled Warrior and The Chick would be much better choices...BTW: all of them are represented amid the heroes near Troy:p).

And yes, classed RPGs emulate settings that were inspired by D&D to begin with, like R. Feist's novels and the like. While there's nothing wrong with that, you don't get to use self-referential stories as arguments:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;930164Depends on the novel, might I add, but the number of the old stories where the hero is afirst and foremost spellcaster is vanishingly small. And even in many of them it's often still evil. (OTOH, the number of stories with fighter characters having some occult skills is quite high, but that doesn't map well to class systems:)).

One would think the older stories recounted by many people would reflect the archetypes better;). They probably do, but that's because the Archetypes aren't Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Thief! (In those stories, every man is a warrior and adventurer, possibly because men were expected to fight when necessary. The archetypes would be more like their paths to greatness. Professional Warrior, Jaded Professional Warrior, Smart Guy, Strong Guy, Angry Guy, Son of a Supernatural Creature, Guy Who Sold His Soul For Power, The Ascetic, The Crippled Warrior and The Chick would be much better choices...BTW: all of them are represented amid the heroes near Troy:p).

And yes, classed RPGs emulate settings that were inspired by D&D to begin with, like R. Feist's novels and the like. While there's nothing wrong with that, you don't get to use self-referential stories as arguments:D!

The other aspect of using S&S as an analog is that because you don't have a "role" for Healer or Wizard (which really means 'glass cannon') individual characters have to be tougher.  Largely because they don't have magical reliable healing.  So they're less "specialist" in terms of where (say) Fighters in a D20/PF type game don't have much in the way of other skills; characters have to be well-rounded, and in the fiction are often independents unless some much greater threat requires them to join forces.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;930166The other aspect of using S&S as an analog is that because you don't have a "role" for Healer or Wizard (which really means 'glass cannon') individual characters have to be tougher.  Largely because they don't have magical reliable healing.  So they're less "specialist" in terms of where (say) Fighters in a D20/PF type game don't have much in the way of other skills; characters have to be well-rounded, and in the fiction are often independents unless some much greater threat requires them to join forces.

JG

Indeed, and I've always supported that notion. When 3.0 was still new, me and a friend started a thread on a Bulgarian forum saying more or less "Fighters without Spot and Detect Motive as class skills are carricatures":).
Still haven't changed said opinion;).

What makes a classless system work is exactly the same thing that makes a system with classes work.

Players and a referee who are smart enough to shit unassisted, and socialized enough to not be utter dickweeds.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930222What makes a classless system work is exactly the same thing that makes a system with classes work.

Players and a referee who are smart enough to shit unassisted, and socialized enough to not be utter dickweeds.

So you're saying neither works, except in theory. ;)

Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930233Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee.

Indeed. :D

JG

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930222What makes a classless system work is exactly the same thing that makes a system with classes work.

Players and a referee who are smart enough to shit unassisted, and socialized enough to not be utter dickweeds.

Indeed:).
The lack thereof is also what makes them fall.

Quote from: Bren;930232So you're saying neither works, except in theory. ;)

And we're on this site to discuss how to apply the theory efficiently;).

Quote from: AsenRG;930253And we're on this site to discuss how to apply the theory efficiently;).

I find a 2 x 4 works wonders.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930300I find a 2 x 4 works wonders.

Let me amend the above to "efficiently but not violently";).

I find people get angry at you and don't want to play if you use a 2 x 4 as an argument. Yes, I know, I also find it weird, but there it is:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;930038Ooo, that's a good one.

Yeah, my life is narrated by the voices of Al Swearengen and Blackbeard. Make of that what you will.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930109...based on extensive classless system play no doubt?

Extensive?  I dunno about that, but I do know that most people I've played with have an idea of what they want to be in a classless system and build towards that.  Polymaths tend to be the exception rather than the norm.

YMMV, as always.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930109Every system it's the players that make it work...for them.  I get the feeling that's not what you mean.

You're right, it's not.

Quote from: TristramEvans;930143Of course.

Oddly enough, the other guy sometimes has a different take on whether their argument is worthwhile or not.  People are funny that way.

Quote from: yosemitemike;930542Oddly enough, the other guy sometimes has a different take on whether their argument is worthwhile or not.  People are funny that way.

Sure. But everyone gets to chose for themselves the value of conversing with any other person. And yeah, I trust my judgement over every other person on Earth. Most people do.

Quote from: TristramEvans;930577Sure. But everyone gets to chose for themselves the value of conversing with any other person. And yeah, I trust my judgement over every other person on Earth. Most people do.

Most people do think they are right which is why most people don't consider arguments they don't already agree with to be worthwhile.  Fans never find criticism of the object of their fandom to be valid either.  It's the way of the world.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;930474You're right, it's not.

So in a classless system when someone chooses to put points in "Skill X" instead of "Skill Y" they're really making classes within a classless system - let me guess, they're also naturally moving towards niche protection and everything else that went into 3e class design because really that's the only way things work either forced by mechanics or naturally done by players...

Yeah. Ok.

Quote from: yosemitemike;930603Most people do think they are right which is why most people don't consider arguments they don't already agree with to be worthwhile.  Fans never find criticism of the object of their fandom to be valid either.  It's the way of the world.

Fucker, please.

It's not that people haven't considered your argument. It's that they considered your argument and decided you're full of shit.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;930616Fucker, please.

It's not that people haven't considered your argument. It's that they considered your argument and decided you're full of shit.

Oh go fuck yourself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930614So in a classless system when someone chooses to put points in "Skill X" instead of "Skill Y" they're really making classes within a classless system - let me guess, they're also naturally moving towards niche protection and everything else that went into 3e class design because really that's the only way things work either forced by mechanics or naturally done by players...

Yeah. Ok.

No doubt that's what Cupcake believes, but as it almost always happens, reality is bound to be slightly different;)!

Quote from: yosemitemike;930603Most people do think they are right which is why most people don't consider arguments they don't already agree with to be worthwhile.

Okay, but that really has no relevance to this conversation.

Quote from: TristramEvans;930647Okay, but that really has no relevance to this conversation.

Well, there certainly haven't been any people dismissing rather than engaging with arguments they didn't agree with in this thread.

Quote from: yosemitemike;930650Well, there certainly haven't been any people dismissing rather than engaging with arguments they didn't agree with in this thread.

I mean the statements don't follow from what was specifically said in the tangent that you're replying to, so I guess I'm just lost as to the point you're making at this point.

So what can (usually will) happen if you are not using classes?

People will be:

A) Building something like a class anyway
B) Building a jack-of-too-many-trades, nowhere reaching the level of useablity (And crying because they are not matching their favorite mary-sue movie hero)
C) Building a monster mixing everything available from all sources into this end-all-speciality aka scry-dimensiondoor-backstab-sharpshooter. The rest gets "roleplayed"
D) Building something "natural" and forgetting half of the essentials (Which 1.lvl classes often tend to do either, so not that much of a problem except for oneshots)
E) anything missing?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930222What makes a classless system work is exactly the same thing that makes a system with classes work.

Players and a referee who are smart enough to shit unassisted, and socialized enough to not be utter dickweeds.

I'm not even sure the "smart" part is required. :p

Quote from: Maarzan;930667So what can (usually will) happen if you are not using classes?

People will be:

A) Building something like a class anyway
B) Building a jack-of-too-many-trades, nowhere reaching the level of useablity (And crying because they are not matching their favorite mary-sue movie hero)
C) Building a monster mixing everything available from all sources into this end-all-speciality aka scry-dimensiondoor-backstab-sharpshooter. The rest gets "roleplayed"
D) Building something "natural" and forgetting half of the essentials (Which 1.lvl classes often tend to do either, so not that much of a problem except for oneshots)
E) anything missing?

Yeah, 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.

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.

Applause, sir. Applause.

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.

You are not understanding,I assume.
If it works out, it will usually resemble some kind of "class", because decent specialisation is usually the most efficient way to do things (even if you neglect that most non-primitive cultures work by creating specialists).

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.

:D
You mean anyone plays those games:p?

Yeah, more to the point, I'm almost starting to think this concept is way too fucking hard for some people to grasp. Don't know why, but I sure hope it's nothing but a consequence of lacking experience with classless systems;).

Quote from: yosemitemike;930603Most people do think they are right which is why most people don't consider arguments they don't already agree with to be worthwhile.  Fans never find criticism of the object of their fandom to be valid either.  It's the way of the world.

That's the way of closedmindedness, not of the entire world.

Quote from: Maarzan;930677You are not understanding,I assume.
If it works out, it will usually resemble some kind of "class", because decent specialisation is usually the most efficient way to do things (even if you neglect that most non-primitive cultures work by creating specialists).

No, he understands what you're implying, it just doesn't work like that! Seriously, I don't know who you've been playing classless systems with and for how long.
But I know that from experience.

You only create class-like PCs in classless systems if you wanted to play exactly like in D&D in said system to begin with.
At which point, you should have just played D&D, and be done with it:D!

And the point about specialization is also untrue in many classless systems, like GURPS.

Not to mention, the point is fucking irrelevant, because no society works by creating PCs. They're always something that just happens, much like tropical storms;).
Well, maybe Drow society works by creating PCs, I'm not an expert on Salvatore's excuse for literature:D.

Quote from: Robert A. HeinleinA human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Quote from: Maarzan;930677You are not understanding,I assume.
If it works out, it will usually resemble some kind of "class", because decent specialisation is usually the most efficient way to do things (even if you neglect that most non-primitive cultures work by creating specialists).

For some widely variable value of "usually", where you seemed to be listing this way and three bad ways and implying there was no other way.

It seems to me this depends greatly on what level of specialization is needed to be considered fun and/or capable in each campaign/adventure, and depending on what you consider resembling a class (is anyone who can fight pretty well a Fighter(tm) class?).

That is, most adventurer characters in the GURPS games I've played in or GM tend to have appropriate values for their race, gender, culture, background, and profession, plus whatever hobbies, unusual backgrounds, and adventure-relevant skills they have. i.e. they make sense and are a lot like people or characters in stories about supposed people. If you are going to tell me that "resembles" classes and is what you were talking about, then the only difference of opinion is about what we're even talking about. I don't think of any of those things as being classes at all.

Quote from: Skarg;930687For some widely variable value of "usually", where you seemed to be listing this way and three bad ways and implying there was no other way.

It seems to me this depends greatly on what level of specialization is needed to be considered fun and/or capable in each campaign/adventure, and depending on what you consider resembling a class (is anyone who can fight pretty well a Fighter(tm) class?).

That is, most adventurer characters in the GURPS games I've played in or GM tend to have appropriate values for their race, gender, culture, background, and profession, plus whatever hobbies, unusual backgrounds, and adventure-relevant skills they have. i.e. they make sense and are a lot like people or characters in stories about supposed people. If you are going to tell me that "resembles" classes and is what you were talking about, then the only difference of opinion is about what we're even talking about. I don't think of any of those things as being classes at all.

Ok, perhaps you can tell me where those characters deviate from a class system (with a decent skill system, say rolemaster).

I consider a character having a "class" when the skills are recognizeable chosen to fulfill a rather typical "job" in a group or in the games I try to do in his cultural background/profession.

Quote from: Maarzan;930691Ok, perhaps you can tell me where those characters deviate from a class system (with a decent skill system, say rolemaster).

I consider a character having a "class" when the skills are recognizeable chosen to fulfill a rather typical "job" in a group or in the games I try to do in his cultural background/profession.

If that's your definition, then I don't disagree with you except about what I mean when I talk about what counts as a class.

My knowledge of Rolemaster is basically what's written at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolemaster . So it has "classes" called Professions, which sound like they just modify proficiency attributes? Unless I misunderstand, that doesn't sound like a class-based system to me at all. It sounds like less of a class-based system than GURPS with templates is. So if I'm not missing something, and that's what you call "a class system with a decent skill system", then again our definitions are very different and we don't disagree on substance.

My definition of a class system is one where a PC has one or more classes that are a major definition of what kind of person they are, and determines what abilities and restrictions they have and don't have, how they relate to the world, what abilities they gain as they gain experience, and perhaps other strange things like how powerful they can get, how many hundred hitpoints they can amass, whether they can learn spells or wear metal armor or not, what weapons they are allowed to wield, whether or not they can sneak around well or learn to pick locks, etc. Oh and also there may be weird rules where some classes or class combinations require high attribute scores, or certain races can't be certain classes or whatever. They generally seem to enforce stereotypes and genre and fantasy-racial expectations more than they tend to represent real logical reasons. They help by removing from consideration the details of what skills would seem appropriate to certain types of characters, but present obstacles to players who want PCs to be able to do things outside their niches.

Classes also represent to me a weird crude measure of character ability and power - weird to me because the classless systems have ability in doing things represented as ratings in those things. Like attack success and abilities being based the class levels of the opponents, as opposed to just the levels of the skills & stats being used.

Quote from: AsenRG;930679:D
You mean anyone plays those games:p?

Yeah, more to the point, I'm almost starting to think this concept is way too fucking hard for some people to grasp. Don't know why, but I sure hope it's nothing but a consequence of lacking experience with classless systems;).

Or some people would fucking argue about anything.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930714Or some people would fucking argue about anything.

No they wouldn't.

Quote from: One Horse Town;930717No they wouldn't.

That's not arguing, that's simple contradiction.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930727That's not arguing, that's simple contradiction.

That was never two minutes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930614So in a classless system when someone chooses to put points in "Skill X" instead of "Skill Y" they're really making classes within a classless system - let me guess, they're also naturally moving towards niche protection and everything else that went into 3e class design because really that's the only way things work either forced by mechanics or naturally done by players...

Yeah. Ok.

???

No, people who want to play Batman will often (Not always) want to stick with being as 'Batman' as possible.  I've noticed in my local circle of gamers that once someone picks 'Batman' (or whatever) the other players will shy away from being 'Batman' too.  Sometimes out of respect, sometimes out of 'needing to fill another area, or play a foil that the party' (remember you're often playing RPGs with friends, but you'd know that if you actually gamed instead of stalking people on the internet) or some such reason.

Is that 'niche protection', Iunno.  I don't much care.  What I'm saying is that I've seen people in classless systems stick to their own special areas to excel, with very little bleed over, because that's what they want to play, inadvertently creating a class system, which may or may not map to traditional fantasy.

For example, my Sunday Mutants and Masterminds game, we have a Batman like Detective, a physical/psychic powerhouse, a flying sonic blaster and a superspeedster archer.  All unique specialties that the players wanted to play.  Is there crossover?  Absolutely, both the Powerhouse and Detective are expert martial artists, but how my players enact them differs.  Bulldog is an ex-Boxer/MMA turned superheroic bodyguard, he tends to deal with problems head on.  Shadowhawk prefers the shadows, but emits violence with quick, brutal, efficient bursts before vanishing back into the dark.

Let me repeat, people in games, whether is has classes or not, tend to want to play a specific type of character, which may map easily or not to whatever options they have.  That to ME feels like they are making their 'own classes' that they want to play.

This has been my experience on and off the Internet for the past 30 years. YMMV.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;930779No, people who want to play Batman will often (Not always) want to stick with being as 'Batman' as possible.  I've noticed in my local circle of gamers that once someone picks 'Batman' (or whatever) the other players will shy away from being 'Batman' too.  Sometimes out of respect, sometimes out of 'needing to fill another area, or play a foil that the party' (remember you're often playing RPGs with friends, but you'd know that if you actually gamed instead of stalking people on the internet) or some such reason.

Is that 'niche protection', Iunno.  I don't much care.  What I'm saying is that I've seen people in classless systems stick to their own special areas to excel, with very little bleed over, because that's what they want to play, inadvertently creating a class system, which may or may not map to traditional fantasy.

My players, one of whom had played MMORPGs but the others that hadn't played RPGs or MMORPGs, talked with each other about what each of them wanted to play and were building for characters (DwD Studios BareBones Fantasy). They talked as they went about how they did this to make the party more flexible, since they could see from the character design process they couldn't all be good at everything. If some things overlapped, that was OK with them, but they made sure they, as a party, could do damage, cast magic, heal, and do "thief things".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;930779Let me repeat, people in games, whether is has classes or not, tend to want to play a specific type of character, which may map easily or not to whatever options they have.  That to ME feels like they are making their 'own classes' that they want to play.

I think that's true to a point. Players will typically begin chargen in a classless system with some archetype in mind that they want to portray. From there, they have the capability to personalize the archetype in many, many, many different directions. (depending on classless system used). They are, in-effect, customizing the "class" of their character.

But, when there are hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of mechanical combinations and customizations that are possible, I think "own class" in this sense becomes a poor description. What the player is actually doing is creating an individual.

Quote from: K Peterson;930786I think that's true to a point. Players will typically begin chargen in a classless system with some archetype in mind that they want to portray. From there, they have the capability to personalize the archetype in many, many, many different directions. (depending on classless system used). They are, in-effect, customizing the "class" of their character.

But, when there are hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of mechanical combinations and customizations that are possible, I think "own class" in this sense becomes a poor description. What the player is actually doing is creating an individual.

Yeah, 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.

Quote from: Skarg;930680That's the way of closedmindedness, not of the entire world.

I never said anything about the entire world.  In my experience though, many people are quite close-minded.  How many people have you met on the internet who only go to news sources that consistently validate their point of view?  Liberals that get all of their news from The Huffington Post or The Daily Kos?  Conservatives that get all of their news from The Drudge Report or Rush Limbaugh?  Take two points of view expressed in this discussion

1) Classless systems let you play a character that is a real person with all of the depth and breadth of a real person.  Of course this is obvious nonsense.  There's no way any RPG PC will ever be as fully fleshed out as a real person.  For one thing, there just isn't time.  Someone just hitting legal adulthood in the US has been growing, maturing and developing for nearly two decades.  Damn few characters are played for even a tenth that long.  Also, they live in a living, breathing complex world.  Even the most detailed RPG worlds are only a sketch of a world.  Most are not really even that.  RPG character, in any system, are not like real living, breathing people.  

2) If a classless system is working, it's because the players made their own classes in the system.  Of course, this is also obvious nonsense.  The games play just fine without classes.  They were written to play that way.  Characters who are used to systems that have classes will tend to make something like classes but this observation has been stretched to an absurd degree to make any character that isn't a random pile of stats into some sort of class.  Building toward a character concept, emulating some fictional character or building around an archetype common in the fiction all become making a character class.  This stretches the definition of character class so far that the term loses all meaning.  If I like fritz Leiber and make my very Gray Mouser knock-off in a Fantasy Hero game, I have created a fighter-thief hybrid class?  Oh, please.  

These arguments are both wildly overstated.  Characters in a classless system like Hero can be more like real people but they are not actually like real people.  Some players build class equivalents in classless systems but it isn't required to make the system work and all players don't do it unless you stretch the definition of class so far that it doesn't mean anything any more.  Yet here we are.

Quote from: James Gillen;929885I want my voiceover to be Ron Howard.

JG

Quote from: CRKrueger;930024Morgan Freeman, maybe Tom Hanks.

No one on earth is cool enough to have James Earl Jones as a voiceover, not even James Earl Jones.

We think samely, Morgan Freeman was at the top of my list. Now that I think about it I would want Makoto Fujiwara or Tōru Ōkawa. They both have epic voices.

Quote from: yosemitemike;930618Oh go fuck yourself.

Been there. Done that.

It wasn't the experience I hoped it would be.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;930827Been there. Done that.

It wasn't the experience I hoped it would be.

So we do have something in common after all.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;930827Been there. Done that.

It wasn't the experience I hoped it would be.

Quote from: yosemitemike;930829So we do have something in common after all.

Yoga?

Quote from: yosemitemike;930829So we do have something in common after all.

Fucking Black Vulema wasn't the experience you hoped it would be?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930854Fucking Black Vulema wasn't the experience you hoped it would be?

The pirate hat kept falling off...

Quote from: TristramEvans;930853Yoga?

Reiki

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930854Fucking Black Vulema wasn't the experience you hoped it would be?

No, that was what I expected.  I just would have like more cuddling afterwards.

Quote from: TristramEvans;930858The pirate hat kept falling off...

That's what hat pins are for.  That and stabbing cads.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930854Fucking Black Vulema wasn't the experience you hoped it would be?

Quote from: TristramEvans;930858The pirate hat kept falling off...

Quote from: yosemitemike;930862No, that was what I expected.  I just would have like more cuddling afterwards.

Even knowing Black Vulmea just from forums, I'm pretty sure you guys didn't even get a reacharound:D!

Quote from: K Peterson;930786I think that's true to a point. Players will typically begin chargen in a classless system with some archetype in mind that they want to portray. From there, they have the capability to personalize the archetype in many, many, many different directions. (depending on classless system used). They are, in-effect, customizing the "class" of their character.

But, when there are hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of mechanical combinations and customizations that are possible, I think "own class" in this sense becomes a poor description. What the player is actually doing is creating an individual.

That's nitpicking, though.  I mean take superheroes, I can pick four crime fighter types that have different methods, but they will share the same skill set on the whole:  Batman, Moon Knight, Nightwing, The Shadow.  All each typically work at night, have extreme physical skills and/or training, uses fear and have iconic tools.  The exact particulars of the characters vary, like personality and exact methods, but they have the same basic archetype.

And I'm wondering if that's the issue.  I'm getting the impression that when some people are say 'Class', they immediately think of cookie cutter cut outs, that every single example of an archetype WILL be the same.

But in my meagre 31 years of gaming, even if the 'class' (in a class based system) is mechanically identical, players will still personalize it.

Maybe it's just my perception of the local players over the time I've gamed.

Quote from: kosmos1214;930801We think samely, Morgan Freeman was at the top of my list. Now that I think about it I would want Makoto Fujiwara or Tōru Ōkawa. They both have epic voices.

Too bad Mako died, he was a great voiceover for Conan's life. :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;930873That's nitpicking, though.

Nitpicking? I think your opinion is a little colored by the types of Rpgs you play, and the style in which you play them. And that you're not considering other types of Rpgs.

QuoteI mean take superheroes...

Ok.. I'll admit I know relatively little about superhero gaming, have never played any superhero Rpgs or read comics, and only idly watch superhero movies. I don't know who Moon Knight or Nightwing are.

QuoteI can pick four crime fighter types that have different methods, but they will share the same skill set on the whole:  Batman, Moon Knight, Nightwing, The Shadow.  All each typically work at night, have extreme physical skills and/or training, uses fear and have iconic tools.  The exact particulars of the characters vary, like personality and exact methods, but they have the same basic archetype.

But isn't that a feature of superheroes and superhero gaming, in general? Very strongly defined archetypes - fast guys, and bruisers, and 'magic-users'. And comparisons between bruisers, like who would win a fight between this hero and that superhero. There are a lot of similar archetypes in superhero gaming, by design, but that same analogy doesn't hold true in different genres of Rpgs.

QuoteI'm getting the impression that when some people are say 'Class', they immediately think of cookie cutter cut outs, that every single example of an archetype WILL be the same.

I don't have that opinion, and am very aware that customization can and does occur in class-based systems. Multi-classing, paths of development within a single class that will provide some differentiation. But, seriously, there is no comparison of the combinations of character possibilities between classless and classes systems.

Quote from: K Peterson;930936Ok.. I'll admit I know relatively little about superhero gaming, have never played any superhero Rpgs or read comics, and only idly watch superhero movies. I don't know who Moon Knight or Nightwing are.

Moon Knight was Marvel's answer to Batman, a billionaire gadgeteer vigilante, who goes by a "moon" rather than "bat" theme. Nightwing is the original Robin, from Batman and Robin, grown up and out on his own.

QuoteBut isn't that a feature of superheroes and superhero gaming, in general? Very strongly defined archetypes - fast guys, and bruisers, and 'magic-users'. And comparisons between bruisers, like who would win a fight between this hero and that superhero. There are a lot of similar archetypes in superhero gaming, by design, but that same analogy doesn't hold true in different genres of Rpgs.

You are absolutely correct.

Quote from: K Peterson;930936Nitpicking? I think your opinion is a little colored by the types of Rpgs you play, and the style in which you play them. And that you're not considering other types of Rpgs.

Quote from: K Peterson;930936There are a lot of similar archetypes in superhero gaming, by design, but that same analogy doesn't hold true in different genres of Rpgs.

Quote from: K Peterson;930936But, seriously, there is no comparison of the combinations of character possibilities between classless and classes systems.

A Trifecta of Truth.

Quote from: yosemitemike;930795I never said anything about the entire world.  In my experience though, many people are quite close-minded.  How many people have you met on the internet who only go to news sources that consistently validate their point of view?  Liberals that get all of their news from The Huffington Post or The Daily Kos?  Conservatives that get all of their news from The Drudge Report or Rush Limbaugh?  Take two points of view expressed in this discussion

1) Classless systems let you play a character that is a real person with all of the depth and breadth of a real person.  Of course this is obvious nonsense.  There's no way any RPG PC will ever be as fully fleshed out as a real person.  For one thing, there just isn't time.  Someone just hitting legal adulthood in the US has been growing, maturing and developing for nearly two decades.  Damn few characters are played for even a tenth that long.  Also, they live in a living, breathing complex world.  Even the most detailed RPG worlds are only a sketch of a world.  Most are not really even that.  RPG character, in any system, are not like real living, breathing people.

Of 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.

Quote2) If a classless system is working, it's because the players made their own classes in the system.  Of course, this is also obvious nonsense.  The games play just fine without classes.  They were written to play that way.  Characters who are used to systems that have classes will tend to make something like classes but this observation has been stretched to an absurd degree to make any character that isn't a random pile of stats into some sort of class.  Building toward a character concept, emulating some fictional character or building around an archetype common in the fiction all become making a character class.  This stretches the definition of character class so far that the term loses all meaning.  If I like fritz Leiber and make my very Gray Mouser knock-off in a Fantasy Hero game, I have created a fighter-thief hybrid class?  Oh, please.

This one seems more recognizable, but it seems to me that the people writing this are just writing from their familiar filters and terms, and don't mean it as literally as it sounds to some of us who avoid class-based games and are used to classless ones. That is, it's not that we aren't interested in what the others are saying; it's that we have different definitions and ways of thinking about the subject, but it seems to me at least some of us here have been interested in what that difference is, and whether the other people have an interesting perspective we might like to consider, or not.

QuoteThese arguments are both wildly overstated.  Characters in a classless system like Hero can be more like real people but they are not actually like real people.  Some players build class equivalents in classless systems but it isn't required to make the system work and all players don't do it unless you stretch the definition of class so far that it doesn't mean anything any more.  Yet here we are.

That all makes sense to me, except the part where you seem to suggest we've all been overstating wildly and butting heads. And of course, I'm probably overstating what you do mean, but just for the point of explaining where I think the disagreement is.

What you wrote that I was responding to was:

Quote from: yosemitemike;930603Most people do think they are right which is why most people don't consider arguments they don't already agree with to be worthwhile.  Fans never find criticism of the object of their fandom to be valid either.  It's the way of the world.

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.

Quote from: K Peterson;930936I don't have that opinion, and am very aware that customization can and does occur in class-based systems. Multi-classing, paths of development within a single class that will provide some differentiation. But, seriously, there is no comparison of the combinations of character possibilities between classless and classes systems.

Let me repeat again, class based systems typically have a pre-built archetype system for players, classless let's players do whatever they want, but in MY (purely) anecdotal experience, players often make archetypes.  And sometimes they can be mapped out to a class based systems. And I'm talking things like D20 Modern, or Amber Diceless with it's four Stats, even Champions and M&M will call out archetypes (The 'Brick' for example is a superhero strong man, like if you've seen the Movie Deadpool, the metal covered Russian, Colossus) that the genre has, not just fantasy games like the ubiquitous D&D and the lesser known Palladium Fantasy game.  Even some editions of Runquest, Knights for example, weapons, nobility skills (Like some sort of Heraldry knowledge), horsemanship all come with the archetype, which in my opinion can also be called a 'class'.

But in summary, most of the players I've ran games with, they gravitate to an archetype, to specialize in an area, like what a class based system does inside it's little box of player options, whatever the system allows.

At least in my little circle of gamers.  As always, YMMV.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;930981...

But in summary, most of the players I've ran games with, they gravitate to an archetype, to specialize in an area, like what a class based system does inside it's little box of player options, whatever the system allows.

...

I 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.

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 (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/01/gimli-of-arabia.html)?

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 (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/01/gimli-of-arabia.html)?

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 (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/01/gimli-of-arabia.html)?

* 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35246-What-Makes-A-Classless-System-Work&p=930113&viewfull=1#post930113) in this thread. Gronan said it already. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35246-What-Makes-A-Classless-System-Work&p=930222&viewfull=1#post930222) And the Green One (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35246-What-Makes-A-Classless-System-Work&p=930109&viewfull=1#post930109) 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

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 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?113233-Wing-and-Sword-a-d20-Modern-military-campaign-METAGAME) 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 (https://promisecity.blogspot.com/2016/11/secondary-skills.html). 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! ;)

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

No. It means that Call of Fucking Chthulhu is indeed a classless game:).
You want to shoot people in the face? Become a Soldier and learn how to do it best.

You want to be a soldier who relies on knowledge and administrative skills for his "contribution to the war effort", but never overcame his (possibly religiously-motivated) unwillingness to hurt another human, or even learned how to do that? You can play that, too. And you're still in the Soldier profession.
Can I play it and make it fun? Of course I can, just like my Kung-fu Master in WHoOG is focusing on knowledge skills. It's lots of fun!

So, there goes your theory that "only classes work"...unless you want to call CoC "bad design".

Quote from: James Gillen;931938I thought that was Quartermaster Corps.

JG

Or they've just got good scores in other skills.

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

Yes, the class description does include it;).
But we're talking about the Profession of Soldier, as found in BRP and the like, CoC (https://montereycthulhu.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/character_creation_process_for_call_of_cthulhu_6th_edition.pdf) included. Pundit believes the profession equals "a hidden class in a supposedly classless game". I'm telling him that it's nothing like he imagines it;).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;932028When I ran a modern military campaign (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?113233-Wing-and-Sword-a-d20-Modern-military-campaign-METAGAME) 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."

That's your way of setting it up. It's not the only way.

Moreover, d20 Modern isn't a classless game, so your solution simply has no bearing on what is possible in classless games:D.

Quote from: AsenRG;932059That's your way of setting it up. It's not the only way.

Never claimed otherwise.

Quote from: AsenRG;932059Moreover, d20 Modern isn't a classless game, so your solution simply has no bearing on what is possible in classless games:D.

It's also not a game which has a 'Soldier' basic class, so to account for a soldier's training in the campaign it was necessary for me to say that each character's abilities reflect their training by investing in those skills, which is one way a class-less system could handle it.

d20 Modern remains my favorite d20 game precisely because there are so many ways to skin a vocational cat within the rules. A Strong Hero could be the basis for a Jersey wiseguy, an Atlanta police officer, a Burgundian crossbowman or a Dutch pirate - and so could a Tough Hero, a Fast Hero, and so on. My favorite toolkit system to date.

The inherent failure of class based systems is demonstrated by there really being only one. All class based systems are functionally D&D in costume dress. The imagination-stunted retreading of an archaic system in an attempt to capture some of its market.

The inherent superiority of classless systems is demonstrated by there being so many of them, each examples of the hobby pushing beyond the narrow boundaries of a single outdate approach cribbed from wargames and allowing RPGs to grow into a hobby on its own, focusing on the strengths of roleplaying as unique to miniature skirmish games and not perpetually bound by the arbitrary limitations perpetrated by a pedantic nerd capitalizing on cribbed notes from Dave Anderson's innovations.







Yeah, its all nonsense, but so is the argument that its parodying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;932030The 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.

Exactly.

Lifepath can also include stuff unrelated to the 'class/profession'.

Most 'class based' systems are best for niche protection and when you have specific roles that are really needed for a game to run properly.  Classless games thrive when the collection of experiences, before and especially after, create the character.  In these, optimization becomes much harder, but storyline becomes a bit more tied to the character's abilities.

There is more to class systems then 1970s D&D.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;932063Never claimed otherwise.

No, you didn't, and I didn't point it out for you;).

QuoteIt's also not a game which has a 'Soldier' basic class, so to account for a soldier's training in the campaign it was necessary for me to say that each character's abilities reflect their training by investing in those skills, which is one way a class-less system could handle it.

Yes, but "games without a Soldier-specific basic class or vocation" aren't really covered by my example. It was aimed at debunking the Pundit's idea that BRP is actually "a class game in drag":).

Quoted20 Modern remains my favorite d20 game precisely because there are so many ways to skin a vocational cat within the rules. A Strong Hero could be the basis for a Jersey wiseguy, an Atlanta police officer, a Burgundian crossbowman or a Dutch pirate - and so could a Tough Hero, a Fast Hero, and so on. My favorite toolkit system to date.

No dispute about that, it is one of the better iterations of the d20 system. Still, I find that using classes to represent anything at least close to real people is like using 50-centimeters squares to cover a human figure in a random position. You either have an excessive amount of coverage, not enough, or both:D.

Quote from: TristramEvans;932072The inherent failure of class based systems is demonstrated by there really being only one. All class based systems are functionally D&D in costume dress. The imagination-stunted retreading of an archaic system in an attempt to capture some of its market.

The inherent superiority of classless systems is demonstrated by there being so many of them, each examples of the hobby pushing beyond the narrow boundaries of a single outdate approach cribbed from wargames and allowing RPGs to grow into a hobby on its own, focusing on the strengths of roleplaying as unique to miniature skirmish games and not perpetually bound by the arbitrary limitations perpetrated by a pedantic nerd capitalizing on cribbed notes from Dave Anderson's innovations.







Yeah, its all nonsense, but so is the argument that its parodying.

OK, until I read that last line, I was going in my head "what's wrong with TriEv"?
Then it all became clear, and I agreed:D.

Quote from: LordVreeg;932202Exactly.

Lifepath can also include stuff unrelated to the 'class/profession'.

Most 'class based' systems are best for niche protection and when you have specific roles that are really needed for a game to run properly.  Classless games thrive when the collection of experiences, before and especially after, create the character.  In these, optimization becomes much harder, but storyline becomes a bit more tied to the character's abilities.

That conforms to my experience as well;).

I just figured Tristram was taking the piss at me for my "One True Way" post, which he so well satirized. My own having been meant as satire as well.  I missed his tiny print final line until you quoted it.

Quote from: DavetheLost;932427I just figured Tristram was taking the piss at me for my "One True Way" post, which he so well satirized. My own having been meant as satire as well.  I missed his tiny print final line until you quoted it.

Glad I was able to help;)!

Quote from: DavetheLost;932427I just figured Tristram was taking the piss at me for my "One True Way" post, which he so well satirized. My own having been meant as satire as well.

And like the best satire, they're trenchant because they're built around a kernel of truth. You can argue both points with a straight face.