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

[Shard O'Glase]

I think BenBrown hit the nail on the head. In fantasy games it isn't that important usually. The genre even in literature really supports archtypes to such a degree that class systems with a degree of customization like 3rd edition d&d work perfectly fine. In other genres where characters from novels etc. don't easily fit an archtype and variation is more extreme a class system and archtypes don't work nearly as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

DM Innovation

With a class system, if you have an idea for a character who doesn't fit into any of the categories offered, you need to change your character, often quite a bit, before you can play.

This could be a draw....but I thought that was what Rule 0 was for.

The idea of a paladin who doesn't cast spells is a fine one...an exception to the rule. Why couldn't a DM and Player agree on some sort of exchange so that they are compensated for the loss and play like that?

If someone wants a spider-man-like class that none of the ones right now imitate, couldn't they make one?

I'm pretty sure there's a sidebar in the DMG that deals with just this sort of thing...though it doesn't give guidelines.

Despite how my original post sounded, I really do want to be persuaded that a class-less system is different enough for good reasons. I don't want to be convinced that a class-less system is the *best*, I just want to know the appeal of it so I can say "Okay, d20 doesn't offer that, I can see why you'd play it a different way."

...but I haven't, and that worries me.

The ultimate and most perfect classless RPG system would incorporate a learning system similar to the way we learn in the real world.

Here, I can more or less see it...for realism. Okay, right, D&D, and any class-based system doesn't offer a whole lot of realism. Valid point that I disagree with, but valid.

But realism can't be it all, right? I mean, certainly you can play an unrealistic class-less game, with all the unrealistic trappings of high fantasy and such? In the same way you can make D&D more realistic?

 

[Numion]

Classless system probably work best if you have a strong mental concept of what kind of character you really want. If no clear image exists, the 'jack-of-all-trades' syndrome takes over.

Gurps is a bad example, because it's so easy to make a 'jack' in that game; put most of your points into DEX ja IQ and scatter half-points in to many skills - voila.

I've tried Gurps once with my layers. One character had no direction whatsoever, and the other was the master of garrotte. (Once he got someone on the garrotte there was little hope of getting out.)

Someday, when my players are up to the task, we'll try it again. But until that day 3e it is.

 

[BluSponge]

::sigh::

If the extent of your exposure to "classless" systems is GURPS, you're missing out.

For swords and sorcery genre rpgs, nothing is wrong with archetypes. But many times these force incrimental changes on skills and abilities that are not the focus of the character. Skill-based games allow more accurate rewards and customization in this regard. People rave about all the "options" d20 provides, but look at the classes available in some of the other, non-DnD, d20 games. Classes just don't seem to fit many genres, where the span of skills and expertise is much more broad.

Of course, if you're happy with them, stick with classes. But don't believe they don't limit the spectrum of character types available. If they didn't, why would 3e have incorporated such radical changes to the multiclassing rules (a band-aid that doesn't fit the archetypal concept AT ALL). Why the proliferation of feats? Why did 1st ed, have so many unofficial classes? Why did 2nd ed resort to kits as a back door route to break the rules in regards to classes? None of these stop-gap measures are necessary with skill based systems. And I think, all things considered, its much easier to balance a skill than an entire class.

Tom

 

[BenBrown]

Re: DM Innovation

This could be a draw....but I thought that was what Rule 0 was for.

The idea of a paladin who doesn't cast spells is a fine one...an exception to the rule. Why couldn't a DM and Player
agree on some sort of exchange so that they are compensated for the loss and play like that?

If someone wants a spider-man-like class that none of the ones right now imitate, couldn't they make one?

I'm pretty sure there's a sidebar in the DMG that deals with just this sort of thing...though it doesn't give
guidelines.

Despite how my original post sounded, I really do want to be persuaded that a class-less system is different enough
for good reasons. I don't want to be convinced that a class-less system is the *best*, I just want to know the
appeal of it so I can say "Okay, d20 doesn't offer that, I can see why you'd play it a different way."

Sure, you could make a Spider-Man-like class. Or anything else. But remember, for making a class you have to figure out a lot of stuff in advance, and will spend lots of time in arguments with players.

Plus, if you have really loopy players who like trying different stuff all the time, you'll end up practically having to create a class for each new character.

At some point it becomes enough work that you say "okay, instead of a new class, how about we assign values to abilities and you can take a certain number of them for each new character"

Your mileage may vary. Neither is "better". They're just used for different things.

 

[Psion]

The classic example is Spider-Man.

He's very strong, and very agile.

He's also got these web shooters that he built because he's a science whiz.

So is he an agile martial artist? A strong man? A techno hero?

Really, he's all of these. He doesn't fit into any category perfectly.

Ah, but notice something here. The first thing you do is throw archetpypes at him that fit somewhat. Under the d20 system paradigm, he is obviously multi-classed.

 

[Henry]

Re: DM Innovation

But realism can't be it all, right? I mean, certainly you can play an unrealistic class-less game, with all the unrealistic trappings of high fantasy and such? In the same way you can make D&D more realistic?

Absolutely! However, there's realism, which is silly for any RPG game, and then there's verisimilitude.

One test that a class based RPG fails, and can only be made to pass through role-playing compliance from all players, is the "power-up" effect. It totally blows the human train of suspension of disbelief if a person never learns anything, then all of a sudden BLAM! UNDERSTANDSEVERYTHINGATONCE! The wizard in the span of three weeks time (or however long you define training time) all of a sudden knows how to cast second level spells, can pilot a ship, gets the knack of extending the length of his spells, gains knowledge in geography and history, AND gains spellcraft knowledge? I can understand two or three related disciplines, but five or six unrelated ones require complicity on the part of players and DM.

Again, this is not too big of a mental leap, but some people hate it and want a more rationed response to someone gradually learning how to be a better fighter/ mage/ gunfighter/ healer/ diplomat/ rogue.

 

[LostSoul]

I like classless systems for the customization. You don't have to argue with your DM if you want to switch Ranger divine spells for psionic abilities. Everything is already calculated for you.

And sometimes your character concept is the jack-of-all-trades.

 

[Skywalker]

Just a few points. I like both systems though would probably fall on the classless side of the argument.

First, don't base classless systems on GURPS which is IMO a bad rule set. Better classless systems would be Cthulhu and Unknown Armies.

Classes are an arbitrary rule element designed to enhance playability. For this reason sometimes classes can be extremely useful. For beginning RPGers it is very important and why I think D&D makes the perfect entry game. Classes do a number of things for new RPGers. They encourage cooperation. They help develop character concepts. They also foster a "game" mentality which is important for new RPGers who find the idea of playing highly realistic games intimidating. I once ran some RPGing with 10 year olds and class systems were far superior.

However after yopu have roleplayed for some time I think you get to see good and bad class systems. Some are flexible and make certain sense. Examples include Cthulhu professions, Warhammer Careers and Outlooks and Tribes in Tribe 8. Even the Clans in Vampire make a certain amount of sense and there are strong in game reasons for the divisions. However these games' classes only provide starting points to start the creative juices flowing.

My issue with some class systems (and D&D is a good example) is that there is often not enough flexibility within the classes. At have got to a stage with roleplaying that I don't want to be restricted by arbitrary rules like Rangers have spells if such doesn't fit my concept. Also advancement is lumpy. The game aspects of classes get in the way of roleplaying. Some say that DMs and players can modify the classes as they see fit but this ignores that many people do not like going outside the rule set inf ear of unbalancing things.

D&D has recently refocused on balance which in my mind is a two edged sword. It discourages change and encourages a "game"mentality much as GURPS does. Its a throw back from its wargaming roots, where it was a contest between 2 people who needed even sides.

The strange thing I see is that D&D does not need to be so artificial. I do hope that D&D classes never go away. However as we have seen in a number of places - Fading Suns d20, Monte Cook's variants - and will see more of in the future - d20 Modern, D20 Cthulhu and d20 Godlike - D&D classes will become more flexible. Toolkits to create the concept that PC desires more accurately.

So I think classes if done right are the best as they provide in game assistance and guidance. However I prefer something completely classless over D&Ds current class artificiality. But there is hope on the horizon.

 

[BluSponge]

Re: DM Innovation

This could be a draw....but I thought that was what Rule 0 was for.

The idea of a paladin who doesn't cast spells is a fine one...an exception to the rule. Why couldn't a DM and Player agree on some sort of exchange so that they are compensated for the loss and play like that?

If someone wants a spider-man-like class that none of the ones right now imitate, couldn't they make one?

I'm pretty sure there's a sidebar in the DMG that deals with just this sort of thing...though it doesn't give guidelines.

Yes, but you have to modify the existing package to do this, and when you start doing that, what's the point of archetypes? Creating new classes, combinations, etc. is a natural side effect of the limitations of the class based system. Now, with a skill-based system, even one that relies somewhat on archetypes, this is never an issue, because the rules system covers it already. You don't have to worry about changing something in the future because you realize you must have been smoking crack that day and the player in question is having a ball exploiting it.

Despite how my original post sounded, I really do want to be persuaded that a class-less system is different enough for good reasons. I don't want to be convinced that a class-less system is the *best*, I just want to know the appeal of it so I can say "Okay, d20 doesn't offer that, I can see why you'd play it a different way."

Hmmm...let's see. Here are some good games to check out:

Deadlands (the non-d20 version, obviously): skill-based, but provides archetypal examples.

Ars Magica: skill-based (I believe) and a radical take on a fantasy rpg. Also written by Jonathan Tweet, who contributed to 3e.

Over the Edge: not skill based, but concept based. VERY DIFFERENT. EXTREMELY FLEXIBLE. Also by Jon Tweet.

Talislanta: Archetypal character gen, skill-based otherwise. Also fantasy.

7th Sea: Skill bundles are based on archetypes. So again, you get consistency and flexibility and none of the drawbacks of classes.

Lejendary Adventure (had to mention it): broad based skill bundles, provides archetypes for those who want them as well as options for those who want complete freedom in character design.

That's just a few. I'm sure you can find tons of others. You might want to repost your query on RPG.net. You're bound to get a huge variety of responses there.

Tom