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.

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.