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.

(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?