Possible Paradigm: Class/Level-based vs. setting-based

[Swanosaurus]

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?

 

[Aldarc]

While I ponder the points of your post, please watch this video from Seth Skorkowsky:

 

[payn]

So preference for one paradigm or the other might be about your approach to setting. Does that make sense?

Im not really following the setting thread. I might find the idea of specific playloop vs a general one persuasive, but I find settings to be independent of rules mechanics unless the system is particularity made with a setting in mind (both class and classes systems have those).

 

[Swanosaurus]

Im not really following the setting thread. I might find the idea of specific playloop vs a general one persuasive, but I find settings to be independent of rules mechanics unless the system is particularity made with a setting in mind (both class and classes systems have those).

Maybe I'm misled by the fact that typical "D&Dish"games tend to have a lot of hardwired assumptions, so it seems hard to me to use them for any setting that is high concept in the sense that it isn't open to random elements. It might not be an integral thing about class/level based design, and more about the D&D tradition and its adjacents. Though I have a hard time imagining classes that are not in one way or the other heavily rooted in setting assumptions.

EDIT: Watching the video, I think I'm mainly getting at the "you can usually create any kind character you want in a skill-based system" thing: Because setting implies character concepts/character concepts imply setting. The more ready-made your character concept, the more truths it already holds about the setting. Using a skill-based system, it is usually easier to make sure that characters and setting work with, not against, each other.

Of course, this is only important if you already have some high concept setting in mind. Otherwise, having classes that tell you things about the setting might be a boon.

 

[GMMichael]

Though I have a hard time imagining classes that are not in one way or the other heavily rooted in setting assumptions.

That's what a class is to me. A character class is a predetermined point-buy plan over levels of character advancement.* The process of predetermining is a game designer saying, "what character features are going to be fun and interesting to play," which is (should be) heavily influenced by what the characters will be seeing and doing. There's your setting assumption.

If a class determines the setting, somehow, it's in the same way that a hammer needs a nail. If you've never seen a nail before, you can guess at what the hammer is supposed to hit, but in all likelihood, the game designer had a pretty clear picture of it first.

In the classless games (maybe they could be called "organic games"?) . . .

How about "class-free games?"

. . . 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.

True, it's hard to make a character if someone tells you, "you can be whatever you want, in any genre, any world, any time!" That's why the GM brings the setting. That's why the GM takes part in character creation. If you're playing a universal game and the GM isn't providing setting ideas, you should probably tell her to get back to you when she has some.

* A character concept, however, is a fighter. Ranger. B... bar... I can't say it.

 

[dragoner]

Ultimate in level based is Nietzschean: "God is dead, because we have killed him."

Though I know there are different phases: lvl 1-4 gritty, 5-9 heroic, 10-13 super, etc.. The regular non-leveling is more singular, this is the universe which you will interact with. This is also encouraging different playstyles, such as combat is often deincentivized in the non-leveling game.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I love throwing Earthdawn into these discussions because it is a point-buy/skill-based system with classes. Matter of fact, the only way to increase your class level is to buy skills in a particular pattern. But nothing prevents you from being a 2,000-XP character who has fewer skills with higher ratings than another 2,000xp character is class level 4 and has their points spread across more skills, giving them access to abilities the 1st level one doesn't have.

 

[dbm]

Class and level versus point-buy is a fairly well established spectrum of character system. There are definitely different degrees, though.

GURPS is completely free of mechanical constraints, only what the GM decides. HERO has the concept of restrictions on points in different categories to help avoid massive disparities (Mutants & Masterminds in similar in this regard). Savage Worlds kind of has levels through its ranks and advances system, and some picks are limited to once-per-rank; no classes though.

Rolemaster is an interesting one where there are levels and classes and each class has its own set of development costs which you get points to spend on every time you level up. Modern D&D with permissive multi-classing is seen as an archetypal class & level system but it’s almost a point-buy system where each point is a level (big bundle of stuff!). Systems like Shadow of the Weird Wizard have multi-classing baked in to character development but in a more structured way. AD&D had very constrained multi-classing in top of a more rigid class system. And there are some systems like Draw Steel where multi-classing isn’t an option at all but there are sub-classes which provide some variation. OSR games quite often have no multi-classing at all with pretty rigid classes and levels.

Personally I prefer systems on the more points-buy end of the spectrum, but there are still great class & level oriented systems I enjoy, too.

And, perhaps most relevant to this thread, I like that point-buy systems allow me to make pretty much any character I want to play, where as the more rigid a class & level a system becomes, the more you can only play characters envisaged by the authors.