No classes, no levels, OGL - how does that sound?

[seasong]

I would, however, like a more customizable class system. The number of prestige classes is crazy! And too many times players multiclass into just one level of a class to take the front loaded abilities (Ranger, anyone?) Something a bit more smoother or cleaner would be nice.

I'd imagine a game with just one class, say, 'Adventurer' and then you'd choose abilities based on the character concept. It would be a task balancing the abilities, however.

Check out my d20 rules here for the system I'm using. I went a rather different route from the usual class building methods .

I voted for the first option, primarily because I'd love to see ever more variety. I also think that most of the people poo-pooing the idea are focusing too much on large-scale success. A system only has to please the people who use and maintain it, and an OGL system can take a much longer time to build momentum.

 

[LordAO]

I have no problem with classes so long as they aren't straight jackets. I do like a levelless skill based system though (like White wolf or shadowrun). I think the level thing has been D&Ds greatest weakness. We wouldn't have an epic level handbook full of crap if they had done it right in the first place. I like freeform exp. i.e. you get x amount of exp and you may improve whatever you like, the cost in exp depends upon what you wish to improve and how high you're improving it to.

 

[Gez]

When I buy a game, I'm not too concerned with OGL issues. I'm more interested by the setting, the style of play, the rules, etc.

If I where interested in a system because it's an OGL system, it would then have to have good rules. I would less care for the setting, since the setting would be IP and thus not usable by other publishers, and thus irrelevant to the OGL-ness of the game.


Oh, and there is another OGL system than d20 around: Everquest RPG !

Well, it's awfully similar to d20, so similar it's rather compatible, but what do you want ?


Myself, I would be more interested by a classless-yet-levelled system compatible with d20. Something that may be a bit similar to Daggerfall and Morrowing (who are classed, but that's not to the point), where you would increase skills with exp, practice, and training, and gain new level when your skills have sufficiently increased.

This would offer the flexibility for players of a skill-based system with the NPC generation ease of use for the DM of a level-based system (just choose a level and spend a corresponding amount of skill points).

Levels are a very handy tool for estimating PC and NPC power. When you have "an adventure for level 7-9", you know what this mean; and you know a level 6 party is going to have a hard time in it, while a level 12 party will find it too easy. Without levels, you'll just have "an adventure for beginning characters" or "an adventure for veteran characters" and that's harder to gauge.

 

[Happy Monkey]

skills based systems have horridly complex stat blocks for characters and npcs. Ok for players, impossible for dms, no sir, I do not like it.

If the complexity was no worse than 3rd ed. (which is approaching borderline) then it'd be fine.

 

[Umbran]

Athe only generic OGL system is currently D20.

Except that d20 isn't generic.

 

[Gez]

skills based systems have horridly complex stat blocks for characters and npcs. Ok for players, impossible for dms, no sir, I do not like it.

If the complexity was no worse than 3rd ed. (which is approaching borderline) then it'd be fine.

Not necessarily. This depends on the granularity of skills. If wielding a dagger use a different skill than wielding a shortsword; if making a teapot from clay use a different skill than making a dish from clay; then it's awfully complex. GURPS level skills are so numerous and dense it's easy to get confused and botch a character generation by forgetting essential skills to the concept.

With a layer of abstraction and generalization, a skill based system could be simple and straigtforward.

I was thinking about a "profession-based" system recently. People would have skills that encompass everything one need to practice a trade. For example, combat rolls would be made with the "Fighter" profession. There should be less than 20 professions. Also, each rank in a profession would grant a trick -- a sort of feat related to that profession. That's just food for thought.

 

[LostSoul]

i dropped GURPS and HERO for 3e because d20 uses classes and levels. IMO it's just too much of a chore for the GM making up NPCs in those systems.

I'm not familiar with GURPS or HERO, but I have played d6 Star Wars and it was a skill system. It was much, much easier to create NPCs in that system, because it was a skill-based system. I could create NPCs on the fly, in the time it took me to decide how skilled I wanted the NPC to be.

I think that's because in d6, in-game characterizations drove game mechanics, and in d20, game mechanics drives characterizations (at least for character creation, PC or NPC).

 

[KDLadage]

I have never found a skill based system to be a "chore" when it came to making characters.

GURPS, for example, is not a chore because it is a skill based system, it is a chore because it ceased being a "system" a long time ago.

HERO, for example, is not a chore because it is a skill based system (a debatable point at best), it is a chore because it does things that, although internally consistant with the rules, are not the way people tend to think...

Both of these are great games. Both of these are excellent choices for skill-based, non-class RPGs. In fact, there are so many great choices for this style of play, one has to wonder what would be gained by adding a skill-based, non-class version of d20.

I am not saying it cannot work. I am not saying it cannot be done well. I am just wondering if it is worth the effort.

 

[LostSoul]

In fact, there are so many great choices for this style of play, one has to wonder what would be gained by adding a skill-based, non-class version of d20.

You'd get a system that could use any d20 monster, feat, skill, magic item (and maybe even spells). While advancement and character creation might be different, it should be flexible enough to allow any current class-level combination. That means that all d20 resources, although class and level based, can still be used.

 

[Zappo]

Re: Re: No classes, no levels, OGL - how does that sound?

Except that d20 isn't generic.

Huh? Why not?

In fact, there are so many great choices for this style of play, one has to wonder what would be gained by adding a skill-based, non-class version of d20.

But, first of all, I repeat that I, too, have no interest whatsoever in a skill-based version of D20. I am asking about a new OGL system, not based on D20. Secondly, I can easily see why gamers don't see an advantage in having an OGL skill-based system. They already have GURPS and the like. I am more concerned about authors, because currently if you want to publish a skill-based game you are forced to write your own system, and this is bad in many ways. A gamer can play his homebrew with GURPS rules; an author cannot publish his setting with GURPS rules.