The Niche Protection Poll

[Derren]

You mean other than, "D&D is a class-based game?"

That is not a reason, that is a statement and one that specifically gets challenged as part of the poll

No. What they do is give players a framework to design in.

As I said I do not see why players would need a framework that restricts what they can do with their characters as opposed to a framework which only shows them what they can do, but leave them the freedom to do whatever they wants (Archetypes). What additional values has this restriction?

When someone wants to play a sneaky thief for example, he will make sure by himself that his character is stealthy and play him as a thief. He does not need a class to spell it out for him or prevent him from doing anything else than sneaking and stealing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You mean other than, "D&D is a class-based game?"

That's a circular argument. (Is there a monster for that?)

Any number of "sacred cows" have been killed. Classes are not unkillable. The wisdom of doing so would be debatable, but classless D&D would be exactly that: classless D&D.

I have yet to see any good reasons for classes. All they do is to restrict players.

That's what rules do, period. The question is whether the game that is silhouetted by those restrictions is a good one, better than it would be without them.

To my way of thinking the rationale for classes is that they provide an easy entry point to playing a character. Choosing between fighter and wizard is a much more comprehensible choice than trying to allocate a swath of resources among various magical and nonmagical abilities. This purpose does not require any amount of niche protection.

Obviously, some other people have (or think they have) a rationale for classes that does require niche protection, for which that protection serves some useful purpose that would be lost if we allowed more flexible character creation. That I'm not sure of; I don't know what the purpose of those limits is.

 

[steeldragons]

That is not a reason, that is a statement and one that specifically gets challenged as part of the poll

As I said I do not see why players would need a framework that restricts what they can do with their characters as opposed to a framework which only shows them what they can do, but leave them the freedom to do whatever they wants (Archetypes). What additional values has this restriction?

Well, let's see...for one: learning to work and be content within a restricted framework? Life, though no one likes to say it and certain cultures and ages avidly disagree, is not "do whatever you want."

For two: Learning to exist in and deal with consequences. i.e. I'm a Fighter. I like to Fighter. I am good at fighting. AH, but now this situation arises and I want to cast a spell! Well, no. You can't. You chose to be a Fighter. Or vice versa. I'm a mage, but now I have a dozen orcs barreling down on the town. I need armor!!!! No. You can't. You chose to be a Mage. Deal with the consequences. Which is not to say, "die honorably." But "come up with some solution that gets you out of the situation without armor. Work with wutcha got!

Which, I suppose goes to a wider #3: Creative thinking. possibly meshing with "thinking outside the box." The "box" in this case being the limitations of your class.

So...there's three...or two and a half since I think 2 and 3 kinda go together.

 

[Bluenose]

I have yet to see any good reasons for classes. All they do is to restrict players. Archetypes like in Shadowrun are enough to explain the character system to new players, but for the most part I assume that a RPG player is invested enough in the game so that he doesn't need the rulebook to explain his character to him.

And as this certainly will come up as an answer, no I do not consider "every character must be combat effective and classes make sure of that" a valid answer as I disagree with the premise.

I'd actually go the exact opposite way, and say that classes can be useful because they define the areas where a character isn't going to be an expert. One thing I despise is the character who is a Jack-of-All-Trades and master of all trades too. Classes should make that impossible.

 

[Derren]

Well, let's see...for one: learning to work and be content within a restricted framework? Life, though no one likes to say it and certain cultures and ages avidly disagree, is not "do whatever you want."

For two: Learning to exist in and deal with consequences. i.e. I'm a Fighter. I like to Fighter. I am good at fighting. AH, but now this situation arises and I want to cast a spell! Well, no. You can't. You chose to be a Fighter. Or vice versa. I'm a mage, but now I have a dozen orcs barreling down on the town. I need armor!!!! No. You can't. You chose to be a Mage. Deal with the consequences. Which is not to say, "die honorably." But "come up with some solution that gets you out of the situation without armor. Work with wutcha got!

Which, I suppose goes to a wider #3: Creative thinking. possibly meshing with "thinking outside the box." The "box" in this case being the limitations of your class.

So...there's three...or two and a half since I think 2 and 3 kinda go together.

All these arguments seem to assume that in a classless game everyone can do everything. But I have yet to see a game where this is the case.
In a classless system every character can theoretically get everything if he choses to spend his limited resources on it. But during play he will have a limited set of skills and abilities, the ones he chose at creation and levelup, and has to work with it.

I'd actually go the exact opposite way, and say that classes can be useful because they define the areas where a character isn't going to be an expert. One thing I despise is the character who is a Jack-of-All-Trades and master of all trades too. Classes should make that impossible.

I do not see how this is a problem with having no classes. Its more a balance problem similar to having an overpowered class. As I wrote as response to steeldragons, even in a classless system a character will have a limited and defined skillset. The only difference is that the player chose this set instead of the designer.

 

[steeldragons]

Any number of "sacred cows" have been killed. Classes are not unkillable. The wisdom of doing so would be debatable, but classless D&D would be exactly that: classless D&D.

While I generally agree with you and your posts, this is a dealbreaker. A "classless D&D" is a different game. I don't know what it is...and I do not deny they could certainly make such a game and slap a D&D logo on it. But it would no longer be the D&D we know...or I want to play.

That's what rules do, period. The question is whether the game that is silhouetted by those restrictions is a good one, better than it would be without them.

Ah. Well, these are two different questions. The answer to the first is, "Sure. It could be a 'good one'." It wouldn't be D&D, but it could certainly be a "good game." The answer to the second is strictly a person-by-person preference, as "better" has no objective meaning.

To my way of thinking the rationale for classes is that they provide an easy entry point to playing a character. Choosing between fighter and wizard is a much more comprehensible choice than trying to allocate a swath of resources among various magical and nonmagical abilities. This purpose does not require any amount of niche protection.

How does this not confer niche protection? If the fighter can cast spells and the wizard can wear armor...then where's the niche? By definition, a class-based system must provide classes with niche protection, to some degree.

Obviously, some other people have (or think they have) a rationale for classes that does require niche protection, for which that protection serves some useful purpose that would be lost if we allowed more flexible character creation. That I'm not sure of; I don't know what the purpose of those limits is.

I...do. I guess. I dunno. It seems very natural and obvious to me...even if I'm not describing or defending it clearly/well.

 

[steeldragons]

All these arguments seem to assume that in a classless game everyone can do everything. But I have yet to see a game where this is the case.

Is that not the case? Any character has the options of every other character. So, yeah. Those arguments are valid.

In a classless system every character can theoretically get everything if he choses to spend his limited resources on it.

Soooo...??? Yeah, if he chooses to spend his resources he can be/do what every/any other character can do. How is this contradict what you just said?

IBut during play he will have a limited set of skills and abilities, the ones he chose at creation and levelup, and has to work with it.

I'm still not seeing a difference.

II do not see how this is a problem with having no classes. Its more a balance problem similar to having an overpowered class. As I wrote as response to steeldragons, even in a classless system a character will have a limited and defined skillset. The only difference is that the player chose this set instead of the designer.

Yes, but that "limited/defined skill set" can be the same as any other character. And how is a limited/defined skill set in a classless system any different or "better" than a system that already applies the limits/definitions for you?

Because you/the player gets to choose them? That's your ace-in-the-proverbial-hole/reason for being? One (or several) less thing to choose in a class-based system. Easier for player entry...AH #4: ease of player entry....if you ask me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd actually go the exact opposite way, and say that classes can be useful because they define the areas where a character isn't going to be an expert. One thing I despise is the character who is a Jack-of-All-Trades and master of all trades too. Classes should make that impossible.

That's a legitimate end, but I don't see why classes are necessary to achieve it.

Well, let's see...for one: learning to work and be content within a restricted framework? Life, though no one likes to say it and certain cultures and ages avidly disagree, is not "do whatever you want."

There is a certain wish fulfillment aspect of D&D; it's not out of line to want to play larger than life characters. But okay, you do sometimes have to make choices. However, I think some versions of D&D's class system have done a better job of capturing those choices than others.

For two: Learning to exist in and deal with consequences.
...
Which, I suppose goes to a wider #3: Creative thinking. possibly meshing with "thinking outside the box." The "box" in this case being the limitations of your class.

You can get all that without classes as well though. Sometimes even more so. I frequently find in modern/future games that when I give players very open-ended prompts, they'll come back with characters that have virtually no fighting ability, or none of some other really important commodity. It's pretty hard to do that in D&D classes, where some basic level of competency is enforced. With more flexible character creation systems, it's so easy for players to gimp themselves that I have to very carefully disseminate what I expect of them to guide their choices. Even so, those choices end up being very impactful.

 

[Derren]

I'm still not seeing a difference.

You really do not see the difference between every character being able to become trained in horse archery during levelup and every character being able to shoot from the back of a horse with good accuracy?
Classless systems allow for the former, but when the party is on the run from the warg horde, only the ones which actually spend their resources on horse archery can shoot back while they ride away from them.

Yes, but that "limited/defined skill set" can be the same as any other character. And how is a limited/defined skill set in a classless system any different or "better" than a system that already applies the limits/definitions for you?

Because you/the player gets to choose them? That's your ace-in-the-proverbial-hole/reason for being? One (or several) less thing to choose in a class-based system. Easier for player entry...AH #4: ease of player entry....if you ask me.

How are two characters with the same class different?
Me as player being able to do things opposed to a writer is to me the difference between playing an RPG and reading a book. So yeah, I do consider it quite an important part of RPGs.
Ease of player entry? Archetypes provide the same benefit without being restrictive.

 

[Ahnehnois]

While I generally agree with you and your posts, this is a dealbreaker. A "classless D&D" is a different game. I don't know what it is...and I do not deny they could certainly make such a game and slap a D&D logo on it. But it would no longer be the D&D we know...or I want to play.

To some people, there's another kind of niche protection; the niche that D&D occupies as being distinct from other rpgs. I don't believe much in that one either. To me, when I'm running CoC or Cortex (generally my non-D&D choices) or when I'm experimenting with something else, that's still "playing D&D".

To me, D&D is a creative medium; the sine qua non is the idea of a group of people with one in charge and the others adopting the roles of specific characters. Fantasy is part of the deal, but not essential. Killing things and taking their stuff is part of the deal, but not essential. Likewise, six ability scores, quasi-Vancian magic, and a fairly standard retinue of classes are part of the deal, but not essential. I'd miss the ability scores more.

Moreover, let's (oh joy) consider 4e. It establishes roles and creates new niches that didn't previously exist, carving them out more discretely than 2e or 3e. By doing so, it became, in the eyes of no small number of people, un-D&D. D&D classes often (always?) don't occupy one niche, and trying to force them into one seems more unnatural to me than losing them altogether.

How does this not confer niche protection? If the fighter can cast spells and the wizard can wear armor...then where's the niche? By definition, a class-based system must provide classes with niche protection, to some degree.

In practice, it still does, but it doesn't have to.

For simplicity's sake, let's say we have a new skill-based system, where attack bonus, hp, saves, AC, and caster level have been subsumed with skills and feats. A character starts with 10 points. One could design a "fighter" that automatically spends eight points in the stuff fighters do, attack, saves, health, whatever, and then two left unspent for the player's choice. The player could spend those last points on the good ol' Intimidate and Swim just like a 3e fighter does, or he could spend them on picking up thief skills or magic.

And the class itself might be optional, functioning much like a starting kit in 3e. If you want to trade in some of the fighter stuff, you simply subtract points in the things you decide you no longer want, and add them elsewhere.

3e is almost like this, but not quite, because there are some things that are not available as feats and skills. For those parts of the game that are (which include some things that used to be class-specific), 3e/PF works exactly as I described.

I...do. I guess. I dunno. It seems very natural and obvious to me...even if I'm not describing or defending it clearly/well.

I can imagine several possible rationales, but I can also imagine tearing them down pretty easily. To me, the real reason we use classes is the same as the reason we do many things in life, the reason why we eat the diets we eat, do the work we do, treat people the way we treat them.

Habit.