Swanosaurus
Adventurer
This is one idea for describing two possible and rpg paradigms that seem to run counter to each other; not sure if it makes any sense, so let's see:
I have the notion that a lot of people tend to prefer either class/level based games or games that have neither. There is, of course, a middle-ground that runs the gamut and combines all kinds of elements of both traditions, but I'll try and stick to the clearest examples.
Class/Level games are obviously all kinds of D&D and more or less closely adjacent stuff like FantasyAGE, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Daggerheart, maybe Cypher (though that approaches the middle ground in some ways).
The "other" games are stuff like Call of Cthulhu/Basic Roleplaying, GURPS, Fate, Modiphius 2d20, Year Zero Engine, Traveller, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun (yes, both have archetypes, but bear with me), to a degree maybe World of Darkness (though I'm not so sure there). pbtA is also in the middle-ground when it comes to this paradigm.
I'd argue these two paradigms tend to structure how you approach the game world in different ways. While class/level games often come with settings, I think they tend to assume that the setting mainly emerges from the rules, from whatever the specific classes "say" about the world - I suspect you can start a 5e campaign with some D&D assumptions and just build on whatever comes with the PC's classes. This is great. 5e and other RPGs like it come with its core story baked into the rules. The downside is that if you have something very specific in mind for your setting, it will probably collide with the rules.
In the classless games (maybe they could be called "organic games"?), however, while a lot of them are universal engines, you'd often be lost without a setting. I think they tend to assume that you decide on a setting and on characters and then see how the system enables you to play in it/create them. Without some kind of a setting (or at least a core story), there'd be no guiding rails to even create characters. You can sit down and just create a D&D character without knowing which specific setting you'll be playing in, but try that with GURPS or Fate or BRP ... so these either come with inbuilt settings (Cyberpunk, CoC), setting supplements (GURPS, Fate) or a very strong implied setting (in Traveller by way of lifepaths). The downside is that usually, you'll have to learn the setting separately from the rules - the rules won't teach it to you. The upside is that these systems typically are easier to apply to different settings, because the setting assumptions are not as baked-in, and when there are no levels and classes, there's usually little need to come up with a steady stream of feat-like abilities that might be hard to explain within the bounds of certain settings. It's generally okay in many of these systems that characters just gradually get better at what they do (or not even that, as in Traveller).
That's not to say that class/level games can't be applied to lots of different settings, but I do think it's usually harder to adapt them to something they weren't made for.
So preference for one paradigm or the other might be about your approach to setting. Does that make sense?
I have the notion that a lot of people tend to prefer either class/level based games or games that have neither. There is, of course, a middle-ground that runs the gamut and combines all kinds of elements of both traditions, but I'll try and stick to the clearest examples.
Class/Level games are obviously all kinds of D&D and more or less closely adjacent stuff like FantasyAGE, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Daggerheart, maybe Cypher (though that approaches the middle ground in some ways).
The "other" games are stuff like Call of Cthulhu/Basic Roleplaying, GURPS, Fate, Modiphius 2d20, Year Zero Engine, Traveller, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun (yes, both have archetypes, but bear with me), to a degree maybe World of Darkness (though I'm not so sure there). pbtA is also in the middle-ground when it comes to this paradigm.
I'd argue these two paradigms tend to structure how you approach the game world in different ways. While class/level games often come with settings, I think they tend to assume that the setting mainly emerges from the rules, from whatever the specific classes "say" about the world - I suspect you can start a 5e campaign with some D&D assumptions and just build on whatever comes with the PC's classes. This is great. 5e and other RPGs like it come with its core story baked into the rules. The downside is that if you have something very specific in mind for your setting, it will probably collide with the rules.
In the classless games (maybe they could be called "organic games"?), however, while a lot of them are universal engines, you'd often be lost without a setting. I think they tend to assume that you decide on a setting and on characters and then see how the system enables you to play in it/create them. Without some kind of a setting (or at least a core story), there'd be no guiding rails to even create characters. You can sit down and just create a D&D character without knowing which specific setting you'll be playing in, but try that with GURPS or Fate or BRP ... so these either come with inbuilt settings (Cyberpunk, CoC), setting supplements (GURPS, Fate) or a very strong implied setting (in Traveller by way of lifepaths). The downside is that usually, you'll have to learn the setting separately from the rules - the rules won't teach it to you. The upside is that these systems typically are easier to apply to different settings, because the setting assumptions are not as baked-in, and when there are no levels and classes, there's usually little need to come up with a steady stream of feat-like abilities that might be hard to explain within the bounds of certain settings. It's generally okay in many of these systems that characters just gradually get better at what they do (or not even that, as in Traveller).
That's not to say that class/level games can't be applied to lots of different settings, but I do think it's usually harder to adapt them to something they weren't made for.
So preference for one paradigm or the other might be about your approach to setting. Does that make sense?
