Seriously, what's so great about a class-less system?

[Allister]

Perhaps we should resume this discussion after next month's release of CoC. If today's (the 19th of Feb) scoop is anything to go by, the CoC rulebook will offer some interesting ideas.

(The save progression track vs attack bonus track seems interesting and looks like something many might consider for implementation into D&D).

 

[kenjib]

A potential 4e D&D: Create an underlying nuts and bolts system that allows you to construct a character level by level cafeteria-style from various abilities and use prerequisites and synergistic bonuses to encourage characters with multiple skills in related areas. Create templates for all of the traditional D&D classes using this system. This allows you to play D&D both ways. You can play it classless or you can use the templates to provide the conveniences of classes all the while retaining the flexibility of the classless underpinnings should you choose to deviate from the standards.

There are netbooks out there that kind of do this but they are suffering from a fundamental design flaw - the original D&D classes were not built with their systems, so they have to retrofit and make compromises. If built from the start like this, the whole system would be more consistent. They also lack two essential things:
1. WotC's large resources and experience in both design and playtesting.
2. The official stamp of approval. Don't underestimate this. It's a large part of where your playerbase comes from.

As Joshua Dyal pointed out, if D&D provided a solid, consistent, and mechanical way to custom build classes, it would effectively become a classless system. It's no different, other than semantically, from what I described above.

What is the advantage to a classed system when you consider an alternate option like this? In theory it provides all of the benefits of a classed system but also opens up new realms of flexibility should you choose to use it (and with the templates you wouldn't even have to). You could make the thing work so transparently that players playing this hypothetical D&D 4e wouldn't even be able to tell that there was a classless system underlying it at all if they don't buy "Core Rules IV: Class Building Rulebook

 

[Psion]

It is the same concept. Unless you believe that class-building to be the sole province of the DM. Maybe this is what you believe, but you have not said so.

Au contraire, I did. If you look back you will see where I say that I that I beleive that it is the DMs province to decide where deviations are justified.

To me, merely telling me to do so without providing me the tools to do so is hardly encouragement. Without some guidelines for doing so, they would have been better off not mentioning it at all.

But it does give you guidelines. I would agree that it needs better guidelines. And no, I do not agree they would have been better off mentioning it at all.

 

[Desdichado]

kenjib, I think you hit on the compromise that I've been looking for, really. Keep the classes, but just give us a toolkit to make our own classes appropriate for our own setting.

Sure, we can sweat out our own classes the hard way if we really want to. But some real guidance would make that unnecessary, and a lot more fun. BTW, I just picked up Dragon #293 on world building and there seems to be an article or two on classes. I think it's more on picking the right prestige classes for your campaign, but I haven't really read it yet to see. This would actually probably be appropriate material as a web enhancement or article in Dragon. After all, if we can get the guidelines for making custom monsters in a Dragon article, presumably the guidelines for making custom classes shouldn't be too much more complicated.

 

[Psion]

I think that "justification for WHY a given character would have an odd or unique ability" should be left up to the GM or player who is creating the character. Not the game designers.

Of course, I've said this a couple times... This is the reason that, for me, classless systems work better than classed ones.

Ah, but you see, with point based you are giving the player the tacit permission to do what he will, and it becomes the GMs task to reign the player in. This hand-holding is precisely why I don't like (to put a fine point on it) GURPS.

I agree that it should be the GMs call what is permissible. With 3e, that is where it lies.

And unlike you, I do not disdain the efforts game designers. I chuck out there takes on things if I don't like them... but by and large, I know which designers and publishers design classes that make sense. This investment of forethought into the product is of great value, despite you and Joshua's protestations to the contrary. As a GM it takes me much less time to make a list of safe prestige classes and entertain occasional exceptions than it is to handhold each player through a point-buy system.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: So why are classless systems popular?

They're not. D&D has such a large market share that all other systems are in the noise. I think it has a lot to do with ease of use, large player networks, and strong support. Most people who look at D&D see only the last two, but forget that without ease of use (which none of the class-less systems really have to date), you're not going to get anyone to play the game.

You have it turned upside down.

Classless systems are typically faster and easier to use in play than D&D of any stripe. That is because most classless systems are built on a consistent skill system (which even 3e does not quite have).

The real downside to flexibility is you have to do your number crunching at the character creation, and that can be intimidating to a newbie. So in that sense you are correct.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

As a former heavy GURPS player I always chuckle when people claim it is so abuse sensitive.

A decent group will make any game good and a lame group can screw up any game just as much.

I know people will say that this is a cliche defense, but that does not make it any less true.

I played GURPS because I thought it was a much better game than 2e.

I think 3E is also a much better game than 2e as well. I probably prefer 3E over GURPS, but I like both. The major deciding factor is what the people I game with prefer.

I never once felt I had to hold my players hands. As a matter of fact, I have more trouble with max/min-ing with my current 3E game than I ever did with GURPS. But that is becuase of the players, not the system.

On the main topic, I honestly never saw the class vs classless aspect as being significant. I think they are both valid. The 3E multiclassing and Pclass system make it quasi-classless, at least compared to the old "I'm a fighter" 2e system. You could probably develop a system for GURPS where every 10 to 20 points must be spent within a select block of skills and advantages to create a quais-classed system.

But 3E has done the best job I have seen of finding the best of both worlds. I like that.

 

[Skywalker]

Psion:

Ah, but you see, with point based you are giving the player the tacit permission to do what he will, and it becomes the GMs task to reign the player in. This hand-holding is precisely why I don't like (to put a fine point on it) GURPS.

Sorry to pop up again. Obviously there is both a difference of preference and experience here. I have rarely found the need to "hand-hold" players. Most games I have played I have been able to trust my players to use the system in front of them (whether classless or not) to create their PCs. I would say that if I did feel that I a game made it necessary for me to "hand-hold" players I would likewise not like that game also.

However this handholding feeling has very little to do with classes. Its about a balanced system which can be achieved with or without classes.

Just a quick point (and I am not trying to be antagonistic here). Of all games out I probably find D&D requires me as GM to be "hand-hold" players more. Multi-classing , prestige classes and the modifying of classes I find often create the opportunity to cause imbalance between players.

Some of this is to do with the graininess of the classes and the difficulty of dissecting them. Its like currency selling and arbitrage, where there is a gap there is a chance to exploit This is most apparent in multiclassing.

However I think ultimately some of my problem arises from the power level of D&D and not classes. In Cthulhu it doesn't matter what you choose everyone is of similar power (puny mortals). This is the same as Silhouette, Blue Planet and Unknown Armies. In D&D though increases in power bring fantastical power which when manipulated can become difficult to balance. This is not a class problem but something I would expect from a game with D&Ds advancements rate (there's that damned level issue again )

And unlike you, I do not disdain the efforts game designers. I chuck out there takes on things if I don't like them... but by and large, I know which designers and publishers design classes that make sense. This investment of forethought into the product is of great value, despite you and Joshua's protestations to the contrary. As a GM it takes me much less time to make a list of safe prestige classes and entertain occasional exceptions than it is to handhold each player through a point-buy system agree that it should be the GMs call what is permissible. With 3e, that is where it lies.

I think you are making an assumption opposite to what many here have done. Some classless system are extremely balanced. So I ask if you had a classless system where you didn't need to "hand-hold" throughout creation would you be happy? Again this may relate to experience and preference. Your past comments about Cthulhu PCs being abusable because of their open nature suggests to me that we differ wildly here. In Cthulhu no matter what skills you take it has in my experience had very little impact on balance. However in D&D I have found the opposite.

Again this has something to do with power level as well (though its moving off topic). In Unknown Armies all PCs are relatively the same power no matter how you try and rig it. A gun will kill you, gibbering monsters make you go insane and your human. There is still plenty of room to move and have interesting PCs but you don't get fantastical powers that are difficult to balance (or if you do they are meant to be unbalancing)

Well at least I learnt something. I think my issues with D&D have more to do with its epic feeling and difficulty in balancing the fantastical powers PCs get. Most classless system I like are for low powered games. I think the more high powered you get the more I like classes to control Players egos

Actually one last thought it also depends on how you view balance vs player freedom. Again as I have played more and more I want balance but not as much as freedom for my players to make interesting PCs. As long as everyone is happy (and some of my PCs like playing low powered bundering idiots even if they have the choice of playing that spiffing warrior) I find that the need to have a rule system to enforce a balance on me annoying. Again there are power issues here. In a game like D&D and other epic fantasy games where power and level of power are important then classes are more acceptable.

Maybe levels and classes are more integral than I thought?

 

[Desdichado]

Psion again:
Au contraire, I did. If you look back you will see where I say that I that I beleive that it is the DMs province to decide where deviations are justified.

Ah, well, there's lots of text to try and remember in this thread. I must have missed that. However, I find it interesting that you prefer to give all that responsibility to the DM when in general you have said multiple times that you don't like that DMs are required to "hand-hold" in GURPS.

But it does give you guidelines. I would agree that it needs better guidelines. And no, I do not agree they would have been better off mentioning it at all.

The "guidelines" consist of "look at what we did on these other classes and use it as an example. That is worse than useless. I don't need someone to tell me I can tinker without giving me any guidelines on how to do it; I can do that on my own.

And unlike you, I do not disdain the efforts game designers. I chuck out there takes on things if I don't like them... but by and large, I know which designers and publishers design classes that make sense. This investment of forethought into the product is of great value, despite you and Joshua's protestations to the contrary. As a GM it takes me much less time to make a list of safe prestige classes and entertain occasional exceptions than it is to handhold each player through a point-buy system.

I never said I disdain the game designers' efforts. Sure, they have the advantage of an intimate knowledge of the system behind them. Meanwhile, I have the advantage of intimate knowledge of the character concepts most important in my campaign. I value both of them, but not equally. It's not necessary to reduce our positions to binary equations, on or off. I think a knowledge of what is appropriate for my campaign is more important. What galls me (a little bit) though is that both problems could have been solved with some kind of class-customization rules.

 

[Skywalker]

Joshua:

However, I find it interesting that you prefer to give all that responsibility to the DM when in general you have said multiple times that you don't like that DMs are required to "hand-hold" in GURPS.

Actually I think what Psion said is consistent. Where you and he differ is on how much responsibility the players get. Psion seems to prefer a balanced framework to let his players run around in. You seem to prefer to let the players run free. You both agree that GMs have ultimate responsible.

You also both agree that game designers have better insight into their games. The difference being that Psion sees class systems being an example of a balanced structured and classless systems being unstructured. Where as you see that classless systems can be balanced and what's more due to their inherent design they can cater for many different concepts so there is no need for tinkering which can unbalance what the game designer designed.

You say potatoes he says patotoes