Do we really need Classes anymore?

[Umbran]

If you read these two quotes together, seemingly, GURPS characters should all devolve to the same, supposedly optimal killer build, and yet any two characters will not be of comparable power, suggesting they are not built to the same killer build.

It is possible that one of these things is true and the other isn't, both are true in an inobvious way, or neither is true.

I find both are true. And I don't find it inobvious.

The system is not balanced. There's a cap on how much power a character can have with a given number of points, but the system does little or nothing to ensure the various characters built with the same number of points will be of anything like equivalent effectiveness.

But the system is by no means the only place balance can be found. If everyone builds along the same optimization lines, the result will probably be mostly balanced characters, even though the system didn't impose that upon them. People can give balance where the rules don't.

The system does not enforce patterns - that doesn't mean the players won't create their own.

Umbran, I don't know what your experience with GURPS is, but "If the choice to build characters that are of equivalent power, or not, is so entirely in the hands of the player, then it isn't the system that is balanced," is a great misconception.

No. It is in large part my definition of what I mean by the system being balanced. If the power balance between characters is largely in the hands of the players (by all building in the same direction) and/or GM (by building adventures to make sure spotlight is shared), then it by definition isn't in the system itself.

Maybe your definition of balance is different than mine.

Mind you, my saying "the system isn't balanced" is by no means my finding a major flaw with it. I've never done a survey, but I expect most systems are poorly balanced, or not really balanced at all. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it - it just means a bit more work for the GM to watch things.

I'm running classic Deadlands now, and I'd call it even less balanced than GURPS, in that it doesn't even have that same kind of power cap from having a flat number of points to spend, and stat generation is highly randomized. But my players and I are having a fine time. I do, however, have to spend a lot more time thinking about my adventure design, to make sure that everyone's going to be able to contribute, than I would with 4e, or even 3e D&D.

It is decidedly not the case that all D&D characters are created equal.

You seem to be making perfect the enemy of good, here, trying to say that because you can build disfunctional characters in both, they are similarly balanced. I find that to be an oversimplification. D&D (I'm talking 4e here, btw) isn't perfectly balanced as a system, no. But the system is distinctly and deliberately designed to enforce a significant level of balance, where GURPS simply lacks structures that serve the same functions.

 

[airwalkrr]

There's something magical about a rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric getting together, stomping into a dungeon, killing a bunch of orcs, and taking their pie.

 

[pawsplay]

I find both are true. And I don't find it inobvious.

The system is not balanced. There's a cap on how much power a character can have with a given number of points, but the system does little or nothing to ensure the various characters built with the same number of points will be of anything like equivalent effectiveness.

This confuses me, since the purpose of the point-based system is to make characters equivalent in effectivness. For instance, if you have Broadsword-14 and I have Lockpicking-14, then you are as good at using a broadsword as I am at picking locks, and if we both have Broadsword-14, then we are both equally good at using a broadsword.

But the system is by no means the only place balance can be found. If everyone builds along the same optimization lines, the result will probably be mostly balanced characters, even though the system didn't impose that upon them. People can give balance where the rules don't.

The system does not enforce patterns - that doesn't mean the players won't create their own.

Unless the system allows for little or no choice at all, the system isn't going to enforce "balance."

No. It is in large part my definition of what I mean by the system being balanced. If the power balance between characters is largely in the hands of the players (by all building in the same direction) and/or GM (by building adventures to make sure spotlight is shared), then it by definition isn't in the system itself.

By balance do you mean something other than homogenity? You seem to be saying that a game that allows you to a master swordsman while I am an expert lockpicker is not balanced. Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

Maybe your definition of balance is different than mine.

Mind you, my saying "the system isn't balanced" is by no means my finding a major flaw with it. I've never done a survey, but I expect most systems are poorly balanced, or not really balanced at all. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it - it just means a bit more work for the GM to watch things.

I'm running classic Deadlands now, and I'd call it even less balanced than GURPS, in that it doesn't even have that same kind of power cap from having a flat number of points to spend, and stat generation is highly randomized. But my players and I are having a fine time. I do, however, have to spend a lot more time thinking about my adventure design, to make sure that everyone's going to be able to contribute, than I would with 4e, or even 3e D&D.

Sure, but that's not a lack of balance, that's "choice."

You seem to be making perfect the enemy of good, here, trying to say that because you can build disfunctional characters in both, they are similarly balanced. I find that to be an oversimplification. D&D (I'm talking 4e here, btw) isn't perfectly balanced as a system, no. But the system is distinctly and deliberately designed to enforce a significant level of balance, where GURPS simply lacks structures that serve the same functions.

That may be the intention, but I don't see any evidence D&D 4e is necessarily any better than GURPS at making sure you don't create an obviously non-viable character. You say I am oversimplifying, while I don't think I am. GURPS is not rocket science, it's not even that different than D&D in important respects. Making your Strength too low in GURPS has the same significance it does in D&D. Mixing and matching powers in D&D can have unwanted consequences; the same is true if you allow endless mixing and matching in GURPS.

Not only is 4e not necessarily more balanced, but the fact that everyone is geared toward the same niche (skirmish combat) means that any differences in effectiveness are all the more glaring.

GURPS does allow a wider range of options. If you choose to make your character incompetent, there are a wider variety of approaches to use. Similarly, if you choose to be competent, there are a wider choice of competencies. D&D has fighters and rogues; the only major difference in making a fighter or rogue in GURPS is that you can blend between the two to whatever degree of fineness you prefer. You could makey our fighter one-armed, but that's not something that's going to happen accidentally during character creation.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

We've never needed classes in any meaningful way. But there's nothing inherently wrong with them, and as stated upthread not every game needs to have the same approach to building characters.

Beat me to it.

 

[Azgulor]

Why restrict the players or yourself as a GM and more importantly why go through the work of creating the classes in the first place?

Because:

1. It's a time saver, both for the player and the DM. I'm digesting game info and selcting character elements in digestable chunks. I only have to focus on elements pertinent to the class. I don't have to have a working knowledge or system mastery of the entire game just to make a viable character.

2. It's easier to contrast/compare for encounter design, character balance, and a whole host of other mechanical benefits.


The above is coming from someone who spent many, many years banging the "anti-class, give me freeform flexibility" drum. It was eye-opening to me to see how readily my players embraced the return to class-based systems. It was also shocking to me to see how my NPCs were better realized under a class system. I also felt a greatly reduced urge to hand-waive NPC stats because I wasn't "boiling the ocean" evaluating every option.

Also, IMO, "archetypes" is just a lite version of classes. If that works for you, go for it.

 

[pawsplay]

Arguably, feat-tree based systems or other freeform type d20 systems tend to be somewhat more class-based than something like GURPS (even accounting from templates and archetypes). In GURPS, every trait selected is only chosen in relation to that character. Whereas, in a hypothetical Feat20 system, each feat might be chosen in relation to other feats and constructs within the game.

Ascending scale of classfulness:
Freeform Fudge
D6
GURPS, Hero
Shadowrun
Silver Age Sentinels d20
BESM d20
World of Darkness
True20
D&D 3.5
Rolemaster
D&D 4e
OD&D

 

[balam_br]

your point budget roughly amounts to a purchase of screen time in a particular area.///
For instance, if you have Broadsword-14 and I have Lockpicking-14, then you are as good at using a broadsword as I am at picking locks,

Correct me if im wrong, but optimization is all about choosing bonus and builds that will be better in lots of situations. I never saw a game where you rolled as many Lockpicking checks as Broadsword attacks... Both buildings will be fine in this kind of game. But in most games ive played, disregarding combat skills for Lockpicking skill is a Unoptimized Flavor choice.

If GURPS balance is all about purchasing screen time... There is a very small number of game that a Lockpicking Character is balanced against a combat character. I dont want to think about the Dead languages guy...

 

[pawsplay]

Correct me if im wrong, but optimization is all about choosing bonus and builds that will be better in lots of situations. I never saw a game where you rolled as many Lockpicking checks as Broadsword attacks... Both buildings will be fine in this kind of game. But in most games ive played, disregarding combat skills for Lockpicking skill is a Unoptimized Flavor choice.

If GURPS balance is all about purchasing screen time... There is a very small number of game that a Lockpicking Character is balanced against a combat character. I dont want to think about the Dead languages guy...

There is no way of knowing which situation will be more common. It should probably be noted that in GURPS, someone who makes a habit of exercising their Broadsword-13 skill is probably going to end up dead (think 1st level AD&D fighter). Have you ever played GURPS? As I said before, the options presented more easily support a broader playing experience. Naturally, Lockpick Boy is going to be a little sad in a D&D 3e game, since his specialty consists of a few skill ranks, and maybe a feat, and if the going gets really rough, brute force or magic may be used to take out a locked door. Fortunately for him, that's just one piece of his competencies; he can also sneak attack and so forth. In GURPS, it's possible to specialize in lockpicking to a degree that amateurs just can't compete. Furthermore, GURPS doesn't offer XP-on-the-hoof, so avoiding losing battles is a good strategy. That's not to say you can't play a brave, slightly mad swordsman from the North, it's just not the only supported playstyle.

Further, GURPS combat tends to be fairly precise. Hence, even cowardice can be interesting. Even a lowly lockpicker can execute an All-Out-Dodge and Hit the Dirt. In D&D the noncombat is sort of baggage, but in GURPS, surviving long enough to pick that lock and speak in an ancient language to that mummy could be a laudable goal. And again, there is nothing that prevents Lockpick Boy from being able to understudy the Broadsword and maybe a bit of lute-plucking as well. He just won't be as good as a specialist.

A GURPS character concept might be, "21st century computer program residing in a chipslot in a canine bioroid, hacking the future and searching for meaning." How often will it be necessary to crack into a secure computer network? Unknown. How often will it be pertinent that his body is a swift quadruped that needs to breathe and eat? Unknown. Will he need to upload to a new chassis at some point for a special mission? Unknown. Will his interest in haiku lead to an important connection with an NPC sympathetic to rogue AIs? Unknown. And when it comes down it, will he need to program a droid as a rocket-launching assassin? Unknown.

"People swing broadswords much more than they pick locks," only describes a subset of games. And even if it's true, the lockpicker can draw self-esteem from the depth of his ability when it is needed. He may not be a sword-wielding mercenary extraordinaire, but he's a lockpicker with High Manual Dexterity who can handle a dagger in a pinch. Umbran's hypothetical less useful character is mostly a self-inflicted wound, born of some combination of inexperience, masochism, or adherence to a concept. I don't think I've ever seen but one GURPS character that didn't have a combat skill of some sort.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Levels provide an aid in defining, developing and organising what a character can do. This will help a lot of players, while for others such assistance is unnecessary and can possibly hinder them achieving their character concepts.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[MerricB]

The joy of the class/level system is that it allows characters to build characters that they know will have a certain effectiveness, and that it allows the DM to create adventures that will challenge those characters without needing in-detail knowledge of those characters.

GURPS doesn't even come close to that. GURPS characters can have a wide variance in what they do, and it's very easy to build a character that is useless in the adventure it plays. (It should be noted that the only edition of D&D where this was true was also the edition that abandoned the class structure to the greatest extent yet seen in core D&D: 3E).

Cheers!