how many classes is too many?

[Janx]

To be honest I have always preferred games with ZERO classes and that players build what they want.

What I didn't like about classless games was they tended to lead to masterful jacks of all trades who all look the same. In a truly "generic" RPG, the players would cherry pick abilities to make a sneaking, fighting, casting PC who performed better overall, than somebody who made a PC that was arranged like a D&D class stereotype.

In D&D, the same problem would happen with multi-classing to dip into class abilities for their tactical benefit, rather than roleplay purpose.

Thus, I preferred games with classes that defined the roles the players could choose from.

Bear in mind, I also subscribe to the school of roleplaying that says the player declares what his PC is like (alignment, class, personality) and then MUST act within those self-chosen constraints.

Conversely, I'm less keen on 100 classes that are really just variants of a Fighter. I'd rather there be a single Fighter class and skills/feats/etc that let me shape him like a swashbuckler, ranger, mounted knight, or barbarian, than to have all those as individual classes.

For myself, there's more need to isolate the magic users from the weapons guys by a class barrier for game balance than there is to isolate Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger abilities from each other.

To date in 3.x, I've never played a prestige class and I've only stuck to the core PH classes. I've been happy with that amount of variety.

 

[Dethklok]

To be honest I have always preferred games with ZERO classes and that players build what they want.

Ah yes; the sages know that this is the way of heaven. One class is too many for a good roleplaying game.

What I didn't like about classless games was they tended to lead to masterful jacks of all trades who all look the same.

They are badly designed. In a game where attributes play a strong role, it is impossible to design a jack of all trades that can compete with any specialized character on the specialized character's ground.

(Arguments to the effect that "GURPS is a well designed game" are undermined by this point. GURPS has only four attributes - and functionally, only two, DX and IQ. Such an environment discourages specialization.)

As a final aside, it might be possible to design a game with weak (or no) attributes that still rewarded specialization by having skill improvement slow down with global rather than local ability. What I mean by this is, instead of having skill improvement in skill X slow down the more levels you have in X, have all skill improvement across all skills slow down the more total skill levels you have. Under such a system, Level 1 could be put towards any skill; level 2 towards any skill, and so on. But as each level gets harder to reach, spending your 20th skill level to achieve level 1 in Stealth isn't very appealing when you could put it into one of your higher-level skills.

 

[Celebrim]

Ah yes; the sages know that this is the way of heaven. One class is too many for a good roleplaying game.

I've played point buy, and in general it doesn't work.

Point buy is inevitably plagued by three basic problems:

1) Not all things you can buy are priced according to their utility. From a purely utilitarian perspective, some choices are so good that you would be foolish not to make them. This tends to result in all characters looking a like unless some sort of table rule or social pressure is in place to not abuse the rules.

2) Some things are so useful, that specializing in them results in you having a single tool that can solve all problems. There is usually no reason in a point buy system to build a character with any sort of depth. Instead, point buy encourages you to find some concept that makes you unbeatable, spend everything on that, and then use that hammer in every situation. GURPS calls this 'Johnny-One-Trick', and knows it is a problem. In WoD this is called, 'Potence is every discipline.' Once you have a big enough hammer, you don't need depth. The only thing that keeps things balanced is player unspoken agreement not to do things, and point buy produces far greater disparity in power level between characters than even badly designed class systems (D&D 3.5 for example). Point buy is also a huge hassle for story tellers for the same reason.

3) It's very very hard for a point buy system to produce anything other than completely helpless and massively powerful characters. There is seldom a middle ground. If you give the player few points to spend, he ends up unable to do much of anything. If you give the player many points to spend, or the player earns many points, he can invest in a single all purpose skill or power that either forces you to meta game or becomes highly munchkin-y in a hurry. All this can be avoid by group agreement to hold to certain standards of 'fair play', but then, problems with class systems can be avoided in the same manner.

I haven't noticed that in practice point buy leads to better characters than classes. Both systems have potential problems. Both are poorly designed more often than not.

They are badly designed.

Class based systems that don't provide you the freedom to create what you want are just as badly designed as point buy systems that don't provide balance. Good design of both can resolve problems and different sorts of games might suggest different approaches. There is no one right way here.

In a game where attributes play a strong role, it is impossible to design a jack of all trades that can compete with any specialized character on the specialized character's ground.

 

[Fetfreak]

I've played point buy, and in general it doesn't work.

Point buy is inevitably plagued by three basic problems:

1) Not all things you can buy are priced according to their utility. From a purely utilitarian perspective, some choices are so good that you would be foolish not to make them. This tends to result in all characters looking a like unless some sort of table rule or social pressure is in place to not abuse the rules.

This can be easily solved. Simply make things in the same price equally useful. This way players just might pick what makes most sense for their character and not what gives the best bonuses.

2) Some things are so useful, that specializing in them results in you having a single tool that can solve all problems. There is usually no reason in a point buy system to build a character with any sort of depth. Instead, point buy encourages you to find some concept that makes you unbeatable, spend everything on that, and then use that hammer in every situation. GURPS calls this 'Johnny-One-Trick', and knows it is a problem. In WoD this is called, 'Potence is every discipline.' Once you have a big enough hammer, you don't need depth. The only thing that keeps things balanced is player unspoken agreement not to do things, and point buy produces far greater disparity in power level between characters than even badly designed class systems (D&D 3.5 for example). Point buy is also a huge hassle for story tellers for the same reason.

This is also easily solved by making a narrow specialization only useful in a single field so it can't solve all problems.

3) It's very very hard for a point buy system to produce anything other than completely helpless and massively powerful characters. There is seldom a middle ground. If you give the player few points to spend, he ends up unable to do much of anything. If you give the player many points to spend, or the player earns many points, he can invest in a single all purpose skill or power that either forces you to meta game or becomes highly munchkin-y in a hurry. All this can be avoid by group agreement to hold to certain standards of 'fair play', but then, problems with class systems can be avoided in the same manner.

As you said this can be easily avoided by group agreement, or better yet, implement the best agreement as a part of the rules. This gives the GM power to easily arrange the point buy system according to the situation.

All of the issues you listed are valid and are a problem, but it's a problem of poor game design, not of a character building principle.
Poorly designed games will always be bad, whether it's class based or class less.

 

[Jhaelen]

This can be easily solved. Simply make things in the same price equally useful.

Well, if it's so simple, then why has no published game ever managed to achieve this kind of balance?

And even if all of the 'equally' good options had the same cost, cheaper options that don't help to increase power, only depth, would never be chosen unless there aren't any more options increasing power (or they're too expensive to buy with the points left), or the system has some kind of siloing.

This is also easily solved by making a narrow specialization only useful in a single field so it can't solve all problems.

This is indeed probably a better approach: If there are several, equally important, but completely orthogonal fields, then you can have variety on an individual basis, at least. You still won't get variety at a group level, though. Because in such a game, the players will make sure to cover all the bases by having their characters specialize each in a different field. In a way, this introduces the new problem of 'standard roles' that have to be covered to create a functional party.

My preferred approach is to only offer 'package deals', e.g. feat chains, backgrounds, or templates that include both good and bad options. Packages are a lot easier to balance than individual options.

 

[Fetfreak]

Well, if it's so simple, then why has no published game ever managed to achieve this kind of balance?

And even if all of the 'equally' good options had the same cost, cheaper options that don't help to increase power, only depth, would never be chosen unless there aren't any more options increasing power (or they're too expensive to buy with the points left), or the system has some kind of siloing.

Well in all honesty, that is the problem of a player and GM, not of a game. If a game is written in such a way that character depth should be explored and yet GM only encourages tactics and combat, it's only natural that players will only build combat characters. The game I'm working on (class less) is more focused on the story and mystery solving, so the players aren't too keen on making powerpuff characters.

As for the balance. If powers and abilities are equally powerful and with a correct price tag (it all comes down to math) than the balance is achieved. It's not a game's problem some player made a bit weak character and other player a bit better one and GM should understand this and not punish the player for his choices.

This is indeed probably a better approach: If there are several, equally important, but completely orthogonal fields, then you can have variety on an individual basis, at least. You still won't get variety at a group level, though. Because in such a game, the players will make sure to cover all the bases by having their characters specialize each in a different field. In a way, this introduces the new problem of 'standard roles' that have to be covered to create a functional party.

I don't see nothing wrong with specializations if they only work on their specialized field. That's just the way of the world. The trick would be to have as much as you can make specializations in the game (5, 10, 20) and yet only have 3, 4 of 5 needed roles. So players can make unique specialized characters and still fill a role.
In my game, when it comes to damage dealers, you can focus on fire magic, on evil sacrifice, specialized weapon masters (any kind) and sudden strikers (rogue types), so you have many different ways of dealing damage. For battle control you can use tactical warriors (talents focused on stoping and moving the opponent around) or spell casters that focus on magic that controls the battlefield. Powers are equal when it comes down to math but their flare, appearance and the way you use them is worlds apart.

My preferred approach is to only offer 'package deals', e.g. feat chains, backgrounds, or templates that include both good and bad options. Packages are a lot easier to balance than individual options.

Packages, backgrounds and what not are awesome way to introduce the game to new players, but I would never rule them as mandatory. They are a great option for players that don't want to bother with number crunching or just want to try out the game.

 

[Celebrim]

Well in all honesty, that is the problem of a player and GM, not of a game. If a game is written in such a way that character depth should be explored and yet GM only encourages tactics and combat, it's only natural that players will only build combat characters.

I think that's incredibly naïve. Players don't build combat twinks because the GM only encourages tactics and combat. They generally build combat twinks despite what the GM encourages, but there is a certain logic behind this decision:

a) Regardless of the game focus, combat is usually eventually present, critical, and one of the few ways to lose control/forcibly retire your character.
b) Brute force is a potential solution to almost every problem (or at least, every problem that impacts the health of your character). Everything else tends to only solve some problems.
c) In general, for any other skills but combat, the party can rely on just one member of the party to have that skill. Having two experts in ancient Greek or Botany is of marginal utility - even if tests of those abilities ever come up. Having two experts in combat however is great utility.
d) Combat skills tend to be the one area of a game in which a player can't partially fall back on his knowledge and understanding as a player. They tend to be far and away the most rules relevant area of a game. To the extent that combat is not the most rules relevant area of a system, and that is really rare, 'brute force' and specialization can generally be applied to whatever area that is.

Since genera's like Fantasy and Supers tend to allow for massive amounts of brute force, and better yet highly controlled and precise brute force there is almost never any gamist reason not to make some sort of very narrow focused hammer of a character and then treat every problem like a nail. These include characters that can take very large numbers of actions relative to the norm, characters that can't be observed, characters that can overwhelm any foes defenses, near omniscient characters, mind-controllers, invulnerable characters, and plain generic omnipotent characters. Characters like this not only have combat 'I win' buttons, but very generic 'I win' buttons. When considering how to allocate points, it's almost always better to spend more points toward being unobservable or omniscient or invulnerable than it is to be a little stealthy and a little knowing and a little durable. This gives you a reliable mode of operation that can't be countered, rather than an undependable chance that maybe you might succeed. An invulnerable character has a way to solve almost every problem just by pushing through it. An omniscient character has a way to solve almost every problem by knowing all the answers. A combat twink simply destroys any problem placed in front of him. Anyone that has played GURPS, World of Darkness, D6 Star Wars or any other number of classes systems knows that there is really no point in being broad. You can in GURPS make a really broad 300 pt. character who roughly corresponds to a well competent real world person, or you could spend the same 300 pt. in the same genera to make a demi-god or at least an action movie hero. You can spread your dots around a WoD character sheet to create evidence of a rich and complex life, or you can do what everyone else does and pick a couple of valuable complimentary general problem solving skills and abilities put 5 dots in them.

Where is this really balanced point buy system of which you speak, and why hasn't achieved greater market penetration?

 

[Fetfreak]

Where is this really balanced point buy system of which you speak, and why hasn't achieved greater market penetration?

With a great chance of sounding like a pretentious douche, my friends and I are currently making such a game. Starter pack of our game will be available soon.

a) Regardless of the game focus, combat is usually eventually present, critical, and one of the few ways to lose control/forcibly retire your character.
b) Brute force is a potential solution to almost every problem (or at least, every problem that impacts the health of your character). Everything else tends to only solve some problems.

Not really, traps, puzzles, imprisonment and so forth all threaten your character and yet you are not in a position to "bash the nail".
-

You do make valid points; however, games that you mentioned are broken but the game as vampire the masquerade really encourages to engage in the story, not combat or I have been playing it wrong?

Another thing to mention is that if every encounter is solved by simply bashing the nail, then the encounter setup is wrong. A good opponent will exploit player's weakness and in such situations, bashing the nail shouldn't that easily work. If a narrow specialization works every time and in every scenario, then the game design is bad.

 

[Janx]

I think that's incredibly naïve. Players don't build combat twinks because the GM only encourages tactics and combat. They generally build combat twinks despite what the GM encourages, but there is a certain logic behind this decision:
...snip..

Here's some supporting evidence of how smashing solves problems:
[video=youtube;2uaPZdhxnek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uaPZdhxnek[/video]

Other than a GM being obstructionist or obtuse, there are few solvable problems that can't be solved with excessive brute force.

school bully picking on you? smash his head in with an engine block
need some fast cash to pay a bill? cut open an ATM and take some money
need to get the bad guy to tell you how to disable the bomb? break his arms and legs until he talks
Need to infiltrate secret high society club? Light it on fire and sort out the mess later
Need to convince the mayor to send in the national guard? blow up a few buildings
Need to weed out the BBEG from the NPCs? beat them all up, the one who fights back well is higher level and evil

The more stronger you are than the average person, the BETTER these brute force techniques work because your risk of harm diminishes as your probability of success increases.

The only reason humans are civil to each other is because we each have a 50:50 chance of getting killed in a fight if we tick off our neighbor.

Being great at combat is a self-rewarding investment. You simplify your possible solution set down to the very thing you're very good at. Which also makes you highly resistant to the one significant threat we all face.

You can throw all the lawyers and red tape you want at superman, but talk and bureacracy can't stop him from saying "screw you guys, I'm going home." Brute force wins. Might makes right.

 

[Fetfreak]

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION]
school bully picking on you? smash his head in with an engine block - He comes back and beats you to death.
need some fast cash to pay a bill? cut open an ATM and take some money - Cops come and get you.
need to get the bad guy to tell you how to disable the bomb? break his arms and legs until he talks - He doesn't talk, bomb explodes.
Need to infiltrate secret high society club? Light it on fire and sort out the mess later - They want retribution and send assassins.
Need to convince the mayor to send in the national guard? blow up a few buildings - Life imprisonment.
Need to weed out the BBEG from the NPCs? beat them all up, the one who fights back well is higher level and evil - He was well prepared and kills you.

Who is your GM? Did these scenarios work in the past?

On my table you would probably fail taking these actions.