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

[Psion]

Re: ::sigh::

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

N.B.: It's not. So please do not go the arrogant but all-too-typical route of assuming that if I don't like classless systems I obviously have no exposure to the world.

That said, there are actually rather few truly classless systems. A great many (including 3e) occupy a middle ground in which there is some structure and some freeform choice.

For swords and sorcery genre rpgs, nothing is wrong with archetypes.

For any genre, nothing is wrong with archetypes if they are done flexibly enough.

Skill-based games allow more accurate rewards and customization in this regard.

More accurate? Maybe... but I have conferenced on the creation of many games and very few games, even skill based, concern themselves with modelling learning as it happens in the real world. Most use a simplified experience model and often grant points for role-play or other actions that fit no definition of the word accurate.

But that's okay, because few games pretend to be perfectly accurate training models or that such is a desirable characteristic.

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,

I disagree. It fit traveller great. I assert it can fit most genres great, if you pick the right classes and allow the right latitude.

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).

Utter bogus.

I used to be in the navy. Now I am engineer. Two different career paths with two different sets of core competancies. But at least each individual "class" I have has an attendant skill set. Were I a skills-based character, odds are I would have a min/maxed and logically inconsistent "goody bag" of skills that some player making me thinks is necessary for my survival in stressful situations.

Why the proliferation of feats? Why did 1st ed, have so many unofficial classes?

And how would this be that much different than the umpteen dozen new skills and advantage in GURPS, for example? They are just new takes on player capabilities.

But unlike some skill-based system, D&D's classes and feats force you to put them in context.

 

[Psion]

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

Ah, but CoC is one of those "middle ground" games I was referring to. The bulk of a beginning character's skills are drawn from a list defined by their profession; the advancement system is not a buy system but primarily focusses on skills that you use successfully, i.e., already have. The use of a classlike structure overcomes the fact that it is a skill based system.

 

[Skywalker]

That said, there are actually rather few truly classless systems. A great many (including 3e) occupy a middle ground in which there is some structure and some freeform choice.

Psion. I agree that it is more a spectrum but I think that to call D&D and CoC both "middle ground" class systems is misleading.

In Cthulhu the only class element is choosing 6-8 career skills. These career skills can be any combination and so it is extremely easy to create any career. The 1920s Investigator Handbook has some optional careers that set out the career skills and perhaps gives a small bonus.

D&D classes are a lot more stringent, restrictive and prescribed than that. IMO D&D sits close to the class heavy end of the spectrum. This no doubt is derived from the fact that it is the oldest RPG game out there and fundamental to the original game was classes. D&D 3e is more flexible than its predecessors yet D&D3e is just one small step to being "middle ground" class system.

D&D classes make all kinds of decisions and assumptions about a PCs concept that do not need to be made. Cthulhu (and even WW with their splat divisions) does not make these assumptions. Why should Rangers have spells? Why should Thieves get sneak attack if they are a merchant concept? Why should my Expert's attack bonus get bigger because he is more experienced?

Again I like D&D and see that its classes have a place. However D&D has lots of artificiality that helps gameplay but IMO hinders player freedom. High game play is good but D&D's restrictions force people to spend extra effort to tinker with the rule set. As I have become more experienced I have found the detriments outweigh the benefits.

Fortunately for me I do see D&D moving to classes that provide a tool kit for players (the Fighter is a good example) in d20 Modern and d20 Cthulhu amongst others so D&D is moving towards a more "middle ground" approach and driving away heavy handed class divisions.

Again as you mention it is possible to modify the classes. However the difference in D&D to Cthulhu is phenomenal.

In Cthulhu a GM can be sure that no matter what 8 career skills the player picks it won't have a large impact on the game. The reason being the game was designed to be extremely flexible and not necessarily balanced.

D&D on the other hand is finely balanced and complex when it comes classes. Changing the classes can have serious impact and one needs to balance the old class to all the other classes as well as all kinds of other factors. A good example is looking at the amount of controversy surrounding Monte's variant classes.

 

[Skywalker]

One point about GURPS and D&D that Psion pointed out. The reason both get so much tinker after they come out is nothing to do with class systems. You are correct in this. IMO what causes it is the focus of both games on game balance between players rather than fulfilling the players and GMs needs. This suits some games (both games are extremely popular) and not others.

 

[DMaple]

To give you an example of the sort of problems that a class system like D&D can't handle (at least not without a whole lot of house rules and designing a new class) but most classless systems can.

Say you want to play a priest, who has access to divine spells but is not a war-like character and thus has no knowledge of armour and only the most basic of defensive weapons. He also has no experience of undead and his deity grants him no special power over them. But he does have access to many arcane spells to do with fire but cast them as part of his normal divine spell list as he worships a fire god.

Now you could in D&D make the character as a Cleric/Sororcer to reflect his range of spells but then he has two different casting rules, plus he is a military priest and can turn undead. So the character concept is lost unless you design a whole new class.

In most class-less systems this wouldn't be a problem.

3E D&D is a lot more flexible than its older editions and with multiclassing fixed you can design a wider range of character types but you still can't always be true to what a player wants for their character.

 

[Psion]

Psion. I agree that it is more a spectrum but I think that to call D&D and CoC both "middle ground" class systems is misleading.

And just how is it misleading. I never asserted CoC and D&D are the same... but what I am trying to show here is that CoC is not truly classless, and this is a strength of the system.

In Cthulhu the only class element is choosing 6-8 career skills.

Coupled with the "learn by use" class mechanic, that has a pretty strong effect on the shape that the characters take. And they do tend to be logical and consistent, unlike many pure-skill type systems. The presence of even this meagar of a classlike structure is telling.

However the difference in D&D to Cthulhu is phenomenal.

It's not as big as you make it out to be.

In Cthulhu a GM can be sure that no matter what 8 career skills the player picks it won't have a large impact on the game.

I must not be familiar with this investigator book you speak of. When I played, you picked a career than had a logical association of skills; the players didn't pick the skills unless you were a dilletante (and then, you only got 5).

Players picking 8 skills of their own sounds like a GURPSish pandora's box and a shove in the wrong direction. Note here that the issue is not just balance, but beleivability of the character withing the context of the setting. I can just imagine what type of GURPSish wacko character some min/maxing players I knew would have come up with for that one. "Lessee... what's important in CoC... dodge, shotgun, psychoanalyst, occult lore..."

Changing the classes can have serious impact and one needs to balance the old class to all the other classes as well as all kinds of other factors. A good example is looking at the amount of controversy surrounding Monte's variant classes.

Eh. Much grousing about nothing. For some people they work, for some people they don't, but I imagine that on the whole they are balanced -- regardless of the fact that I don't care for them. That proves next to nothing.

 

[LostSoul]

And they do tend to be logical and consistent, unlike many pure-skill type systems.

I would rather it were up to me (as the Player, designing his character) to decide what is logical and consistent, not a game designer.

 

[Psion]

Say you want to play a priest, who has access to divine spells but is not a war-like character and thus has no knowledge of armour and only the most basic of defensive weapons. He also has no experience of undead and his deity grants him no special power over them. But he does have access to many arcane spells to do with fire but cast them as part of his normal divine spell list as he worships a fire god.

Does anyone else see the same problem here that I do?

You are stating what you want to do in mechanical terms... e.g. arcane spells versus divine spells. That sounds mildly like metagaming to me. If you were to express this in terms of the basic concepts, I see little or no problem with writing up this character as a cleric/sorcerer.

If that didn't satisfy you and you satisfy your DM that you are not trying to be a weasel by sneaking in arcane type spells under the divine banner, I could see the DM invoking the suggestion in the PHB that lets the DM swap abilities... swap armor ability for access to fire spells at 1 level higher than the sorcerer/wizard list.

That said, I do think that the system needs a more rigorous method for tweaking class abilities... as I have said in the past, the one main thing I miss about 2e is Skills & Powers. But even that book was rife with abuse.

Would I jump ship for a classless system and accept all of its foibles to get that? No, I will make the call and be comfortable with that. As with many things, there is a tradeoff to be had here.

But I still maintain totally classless is an empty cup.

 

[Psion]

I would rather it were up to me (as the Player, designing his character) to decide what is logical and consistent, not a game designer.

The player is the last person I would allow that decision to. My experience is that even a fairly responsible player can make some illogical characters and generous justifications when it comes to making their characters. And I generally trust the judgement of a person with a vested interest in making their product playable over one with a vested interest in making their character competative.

I would rather the GM have the ultimate authority. Now you can really do this either way - rely on the GM to tweak the character until it is in bounds or allow the GM to make exceptions to the rules.

Personally, I find it far more acceptable for the GM to be empowered to decide what deviations from the designer's are acceptable than having to reign in and handhold a player every step of the way... having done both over the years.

 

[LostSoul]

The player is the last person I would allow that decision to.

We have two totally different takes on this.