Seriously, what's so great about a class-less system?
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
Psion
Adventurer
Skywalker said:
And you are missing my point of protest against such systems (and again, I am primarily talking about GURPS here, because as I have stated earleir, there are indeed few games that are truly classless like GURPS.) As I stated earlier speaking to Joshua, my primary objection isn't balance.
The issue was the essentail logic and beleivability of the character conepts.
Again, what's classless?
Effectively, sure I would... because I have been. Do not go off thinking I am the champion of class based systems and that is all I have ever played. Au contraire, my own homebrew game Starfarer is skill based. I have played a lot of skill based systems... but many of the ones out there that I think work have some sort of implicit class or archtype structure.
When people dismiss classes out of hand, sometimes I think they are doing so at their own peril.
Good freaking lord people! How many misatributions must I suffer? Did I EVER say I thought CoC was abusable? I said it was less abusable that pure skill based systems because its chargen was class-oritented and ergo the characters usually made sense. I did say that the supplement someone mentioned that I never played with sounded like trouble though.
Skywalker
Adventurer
No I understood your point everytime you have made it. Two points that you fail to recognise though is that:
1. GURPS is not the only classless system. Unknown is a very good example of a balanced classless system.
2. There is a spectrum of how far classes are applied. By lumping together any system with a hint of class I think you distort much of the discussion here. But we have already gone over this
Agreed but the opposite is also true as you pointed out. Classes are a tool. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.
You did mention that in CoC a person was able to take use the career system to make a powerful character. You seem to suggest that this was a problem arising from the ability to pick whatever skills you wanted and this arises from a lack of defined class. This seemed to coincidence with you thoughts on "hand-holding". I didn't want to explain this all out because I think it was clear from my post. If its wasn't I apologise.
Psion
Adventurer
Joshua Dyal said:
Yes, well, if you look at the second paragraph you quoted right after the one the above statement, you will see it spelled out. Plus Skywalker sums up the situation pretty well (thanks, Skywalker). I don't have to hand-hold them because the existing system provides a structure the generally keeps their characters in fairly logical and consistent guidelines so I don't have to personally supervise every step, and I can simply worry about the few instances that the player wants to go outside the lines when they happen. Caphiche? The existing system does the work for me.
Re: The existing guidelines for prestige classes. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I've owned as much as I am going to own and agree it could be better, but you feel you have to doggedly drive something home on that point. Whatever, dude.
Don't read too much into the word "disdain". All I was referring to the protest that the final say shouldn't be with designers but with the GM. Of course the final say should be with the GM, but that does not mean that the designer's input cannot be a boon. And it is.
Last edited:
Psion
Adventurer
Skywalker said:
As I am not familiar with Unknown, I cannot comment.
Distort it? Eh. I agree there is a continuum, but I am not about to back off my position because you don't like how I categorize games or that which ones I find acceptable go quite a ways into the other end of the spectrum. Call of Cthulhu works adequately in my opinion (in fact, I have no intentions to buy d20 CoC) precisely because of its "hint of class". That's telling, that's important, and I maintain it is true. That's my position. If you don't want to talk about that, that's fine, but you can't really shoehorn me into defending something I don't beleive in.
Right... well powerful, and more importantly, illogical. Beleive me, there is no such thing as a Cthulhu character built by the rules who is impossible to challenge.
It would bother me more that the character is a blatant metagame cosntruct. But again, this is using the referred to supplement (which I have never used... sorry, Cthulhu is a static game for me) which seems like it would send it over the brink into that ugly GURPSish realm.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Psion said:
Yep. I like that approach.
Look at 3e the same way: a player comes to my game; makes a min/maxed Cleric with a prestige class. I "reign the player in" because the Cleric class does not fit the campaign world.
I don't see the difference between that and saying, "You've got to balance out your Sword skill with something else."
Psion said:
The thing is, I like the fact that the game designers say "all these classes are balanced." Cool. But then I'm left with classes (Clerics, for one) that I can't use because they don't fit in my game world. Even if they are balanced. So, in the end, that game balance and all the work the designers have done is for naught.
I guess I'm trying to say that: I don't think that game designers should make decisions that (I think) the GM should make - decisions that should be based on his campaign and setting. I think that the limitations imposed by those decisions may hamper the GM or the player's imagination or suspension of disbelief (I know it hurts my game world). And that's not a good thing.
Victim
First Post
LostSoul said:
Consider: "Whatever is not specificly forbidden is allowed" and "Whatever is not specifically allowed is forbidden."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one of the main problems with point based character creation systems is the tendency to have people with lots of useful skills, and no corelation between those skills. Consider how odd a class would be that gave a fighter attack bonus and wizard HP, both relate to fighting skill and thus are usually related. Or a class with d12 HD and poor fortitude saves even though both relate to toughness. It's possible to create a character with amazing skill in one area and yet no talent in related areas, such as a doctor without first aid (actual occurence in a sci-fi game) or a hacker that has no normal skill with computers.
Uh... has anyone else on this thread read kenjib's fantastic post?
Not to steal his thunder or anything, but I've been crying for the exact same thing since 3e was released and I've said it many times on the old version of these boards. In fact, I feel that they made a huge mistake by releasing 3e, and conversely d20, in the state that it is currently in. Without an underlying system for building classes, d20 will never live up to its true potential as a universal RPG.
Personally, I have nothing against classes. They make the game move a lot faster in certain circumstances. However, I don't always like the classes provided by the game designer, and sometime I don't think that classes are appropriate. Thus I really want to see defined rules for making classes, as well as rules for true classless play.
Furthermore, kenjib's comment also outlines a way in which the original flavour of DnD can be kept when using classless underpinnings. It is the right thing to do. All else is just poor excuses.
kenjib said:
Not to steal his thunder or anything, but I've been crying for the exact same thing since 3e was released and I've said it many times on the old version of these boards. In fact, I feel that they made a huge mistake by releasing 3e, and conversely d20, in the state that it is currently in. Without an underlying system for building classes, d20 will never live up to its true potential as a universal RPG.
Personally, I have nothing against classes. They make the game move a lot faster in certain circumstances. However, I don't always like the classes provided by the game designer, and sometime I don't think that classes are appropriate. Thus I really want to see defined rules for making classes, as well as rules for true classless play.
Furthermore, kenjib's comment also outlines a way in which the original flavour of DnD can be kept when using classless underpinnings. It is the right thing to do. All else is just poor excuses.
Last edited:
I am going to try and dispel some of the things I believe are either myths or not directly related to if a system is class based or not.
Many of the examples are going to use D20 and GURPS because I believe many gamers are familiar with these systems. It doesn't hurt that I am very familiar with both of these systems.
Myth: A game system has to be balanced
I don't consider it necessary that a game system be balanced. It is almost always important that the game be fair, but that is different than balanced. There are also games, like "The Great Dalmuti", which are intentionally unfair yet still enjoyable.
I believe that it is much more important that a game be fair to all the players than that it be balanced. As seen by this statement by the GURPS line editor, not all games even try to be balanced.
There are classless systems that do attempt to use points as a balance mechanism, the best known being Hero/Champions. One of the design principles in that system is that the defense costs half as much as the attack form it protects against. That doesn't mean that all point systems do things that way.
The points in GURPS are more a measure of how unusual a character is than how powerful it is. Since every character would be choosing skills, advantages and disadvantages from the same available pool of capabilities, this can still be fair. It just doesn't pretend that a high skill in Celestrial Navigation is automatically more useful than a high skill in Desert Survival.
Game balance is heavily dependent on the type of campaign you run. As anyone who has read the D20 Rules forum can attest to, not everyone agrees what is balanced. Even within this thread, not everyone appears to agree how useful within D20 the skill set and social background of a Noble would be to a Wizard. Some have said they would just modify the Wizard skill list, while others would penalize the Wizard's magical powers by forcing the character to multiclass.
Given that not all abilities will be equally useful in all campaigns, it is understandable that some game designers would not put a high priority on this.
Myth: I can't balance an encounter without a class system
This is a very rough paraphrase of what some people have said in this thread. Calling it a myth is a bit of an overstatement, so please forgive me for that.
Balancing an encounter is more dependent on the growth curve of character advancement than if the system uses classes or not. In a system like D20, the growth is almost exponential with sudden jumps (as you gain certain levels) in power. With something like GURPS, the growth is much smoother and more linear.
For D20, most people would not consider it fair to require that a new character come in at 1st level when most of the group is at 5th to 7th level. The lower level character would have a very hard time surviving, and quite often would not have any powers of significant use to the group.
For GURPS, I've played in games where new characters came in as 100 point characters when there were other characters with more than 200 points. The characters could still contribute to the group, partially because most characters don't increase in hit points as fast and partially because there was some useful skill or capability that was unique to their character and useful to the group. Many of them were actually better in combat than one of the existing characters with other 200 points, because of the difference in character focus.
There is also a difference in the way that encounters are set up in the two systems that make a difference. A GURPS campaign almost always uses a goal based system for awarding experience. There is no standard XP method based on creatures defeated. Instead of setting up a series of encounters, more GURPS GMs set up situations and enemy capabilities and then allow the players to choose what they can handle and how they will do so.
Since the players can choose their capabilities, they learn what skills and advantages they find useful. They will not tend to put many points in the stuff that doesn't work, focussing more on skills or advantages that allow them to accomplish their goals.
Myth: A class system is just as flexible as a class less system
In my opinion, this is a myth. I recognize this is a matter of opinion though.
In general, a class based system needs new classes each time you change the campaign background. The character classes in a science fiction campaign with FTL travel and multiple sentient species will be different than that of a campaign set in a pre-gunpowder world in which magical abilities exist. If each class has unique capabilities, you have to look at how useful those capabilities are within a specific setting. When you change the campaign settings, you now have to look at how that affects all of the existing classes and what (if any) new classes are required.
People who say the can easily customize the system are missing the point. In a classless system, you don't have to adjust the (non-existent) classes. You decide what rules you are using and everyone makes their characters using those resources.
In the example I gave previously of a Noble Wizard, it would be relatively easy and consistent for a GM to make the decision in GURPS. First the player would have to check with the GM to see how such a character could fit within his campaign. Assuming that the GM is willing and explains the campaign social structure, the player would already have all the rules needed to create the character.
How many GMs would really object to a player that wants to customize a character so it fits within the campaign background?
Myth: One system is the best in all possible genres.
Once again, this is more a matter of opinion. In my opinion, different systems (because of their differing design objectives and assumptions) work best in different situations.
A number of people have already mentioned how they thought GURPS makes the best system for Science Fiction settings, especially something like Traveller. I would say that it is a good fit for any setting that trys to be more realistic. In my opinion, it does not work well for very cinematic settings such as four-color Supers.
The D20 system has a number of feats that allow characters to preform extremely cinematic physical stunts. It also is not overly concerned with anachronisms. If you want the type of physical stunts like the TV shows Hercules or Xenia featured, this system works pretty well.
If you want to emulate the various HK style action films, you should really look at Feng Shui.
In my opinion, people should find a game system they like and that does a good job of representing the type of setting they want to play in.
Many of the examples are going to use D20 and GURPS because I believe many gamers are familiar with these systems. It doesn't hurt that I am very familiar with both of these systems.
Myth: A game system has to be balanced
I don't consider it necessary that a game system be balanced. It is almost always important that the game be fair, but that is different than balanced. There are also games, like "The Great Dalmuti", which are intentionally unfair yet still enjoyable.
I believe that it is much more important that a game be fair to all the players than that it be balanced. As seen by this statement by the GURPS line editor, not all games even try to be balanced.
There are classless systems that do attempt to use points as a balance mechanism, the best known being Hero/Champions. One of the design principles in that system is that the defense costs half as much as the attack form it protects against. That doesn't mean that all point systems do things that way.
The points in GURPS are more a measure of how unusual a character is than how powerful it is. Since every character would be choosing skills, advantages and disadvantages from the same available pool of capabilities, this can still be fair. It just doesn't pretend that a high skill in Celestrial Navigation is automatically more useful than a high skill in Desert Survival.
Game balance is heavily dependent on the type of campaign you run. As anyone who has read the D20 Rules forum can attest to, not everyone agrees what is balanced. Even within this thread, not everyone appears to agree how useful within D20 the skill set and social background of a Noble would be to a Wizard. Some have said they would just modify the Wizard skill list, while others would penalize the Wizard's magical powers by forcing the character to multiclass.
Given that not all abilities will be equally useful in all campaigns, it is understandable that some game designers would not put a high priority on this.
Myth: I can't balance an encounter without a class system
This is a very rough paraphrase of what some people have said in this thread. Calling it a myth is a bit of an overstatement, so please forgive me for that.
Balancing an encounter is more dependent on the growth curve of character advancement than if the system uses classes or not. In a system like D20, the growth is almost exponential with sudden jumps (as you gain certain levels) in power. With something like GURPS, the growth is much smoother and more linear.
For D20, most people would not consider it fair to require that a new character come in at 1st level when most of the group is at 5th to 7th level. The lower level character would have a very hard time surviving, and quite often would not have any powers of significant use to the group.
For GURPS, I've played in games where new characters came in as 100 point characters when there were other characters with more than 200 points. The characters could still contribute to the group, partially because most characters don't increase in hit points as fast and partially because there was some useful skill or capability that was unique to their character and useful to the group. Many of them were actually better in combat than one of the existing characters with other 200 points, because of the difference in character focus.
There is also a difference in the way that encounters are set up in the two systems that make a difference. A GURPS campaign almost always uses a goal based system for awarding experience. There is no standard XP method based on creatures defeated. Instead of setting up a series of encounters, more GURPS GMs set up situations and enemy capabilities and then allow the players to choose what they can handle and how they will do so.
Since the players can choose their capabilities, they learn what skills and advantages they find useful. They will not tend to put many points in the stuff that doesn't work, focussing more on skills or advantages that allow them to accomplish their goals.
Myth: A class system is just as flexible as a class less system
In my opinion, this is a myth. I recognize this is a matter of opinion though.
In general, a class based system needs new classes each time you change the campaign background. The character classes in a science fiction campaign with FTL travel and multiple sentient species will be different than that of a campaign set in a pre-gunpowder world in which magical abilities exist. If each class has unique capabilities, you have to look at how useful those capabilities are within a specific setting. When you change the campaign settings, you now have to look at how that affects all of the existing classes and what (if any) new classes are required.
People who say the can easily customize the system are missing the point. In a classless system, you don't have to adjust the (non-existent) classes. You decide what rules you are using and everyone makes their characters using those resources.
In the example I gave previously of a Noble Wizard, it would be relatively easy and consistent for a GM to make the decision in GURPS. First the player would have to check with the GM to see how such a character could fit within his campaign. Assuming that the GM is willing and explains the campaign social structure, the player would already have all the rules needed to create the character.
How many GMs would really object to a player that wants to customize a character so it fits within the campaign background?
Myth: One system is the best in all possible genres.
Once again, this is more a matter of opinion. In my opinion, different systems (because of their differing design objectives and assumptions) work best in different situations.
A number of people have already mentioned how they thought GURPS makes the best system for Science Fiction settings, especially something like Traveller. I would say that it is a good fit for any setting that trys to be more realistic. In my opinion, it does not work well for very cinematic settings such as four-color Supers.
The D20 system has a number of feats that allow characters to preform extremely cinematic physical stunts. It also is not overly concerned with anachronisms. If you want the type of physical stunts like the TV shows Hercules or Xenia featured, this system works pretty well.
If you want to emulate the various HK style action films, you should really look at Feng Shui.
In my opinion, people should find a game system they like and that does a good job of representing the type of setting they want to play in.
Similar Threads
