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

[I'm A Banana]

This is not meant as an attack or a "your position is obviously inferior" flamable thread...I seriously want to know...what's the draw of a class-less system?

Customizability? "Realism"? What is it?

What is so great about a class-less system, and why can't a class-based system give that?

I have so far failed to see anything great about a class-less system. I have done a bit of GURPS, but the system seemed rather confusing and counter-intuitive (Never did understand why a powerful magician would have to be able to lift cars with a high STR needed to be able to cast lotsa spells). It failed to impress me, though a lack of classes wasn't what distanced me most.

What's wrong with the Archetypes, especially when they're as flexible as 3e D&D classes?

So I want to be persuaded to give a class-less system a fighting chance. So describe some to me, and why they are "better", or at least equal to, the D&D class-based system. Please?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Classes systems that really shine are Runequest and Star Wars (the West End Games version that used d6 not the WotC one).

Basically it has to do with a larger degree of customization and a finer gradient of advancement. In Runequest, if you use your sword a lot you advance in sword skill. There isn't the sudden flood of skill, saving throws, hit points, and feats that a D&D fighter might have.

But the bottom line is that most people like to be able to describe their character in 25 words or less, "I have a 5th level Lawful Neutral gnome necromancer" is an easy phrase to digest. "My character has 85% in spear and is working on his spirit magic" is more ambigious.

I prefer skill-based. But level-based is so much simpler that it doesn't bother me.

Incidentally, if you want to check out a hard-core skill based game, try Pendragon. Who says you can't roll dice in role-play?

 

[Psion]

I actively dislike truly classless systems. Though I have played many types of systems, I find that I strongly prefer systems with some sort of archtype or package mechanic that helps enforce a little consistency in character concepts.

The chief offender in this realm, IMO, is GURPS. It seems to be the poster boy of classless systems that skill-based fans like to prop up.

I have played GURPS and have yet to be impressed by a game run under it. IME, the "anything goes" methodology tends to produce jack-of-all trades characters with skills scattered everywhere. Of those players who DO have the wherewithal to pick out a concept and build it out of the system end up with characters that surprisingly look like they fit one of the D&D classes (when playing fantasy, natch.) That being the case, I can live without the illogic and scattered concepts of do-it-all characters, so what does that leave? Concepts that are essentially easily captured by classes.

I could see the classless arguments in the 1e days, where there were no feats or skills and little or no means to individualize your characters. These days, skills-only systems seem like an empty cup to me.

 

[Ysgarran]

Tongue firmly in cheek:
It seems to me that you are going to the wrong web site to get into a really good argument about the merits of a classless versus a class based system. There are some people who have been gaming a long time and have tried a wide variety of systems (Colonel H. comes to mind) but I doubt they would be here at this site unless they really like third ed. D&D. The deck is going to be stacked to towards those like D&D.

It is sort of like going to the Enron Executives and asking them why greed is bad.

Tongue removed.

Honestly, it all gets down to what kind of gaming you enjoy. I like archetypes so don't have any problems with that part of the D&D system.

 

[Galfridus]

Hero System is my favorite classless system, and I find it works very well for fantasy because of the complete flexibility you get, both through lack of classes and lack of levels. In D&D you can't be the master of a skill unless you are high level; in Hero you can have a starting character who's a Stealth master if you want.

You do lose a lot of "common knowledge", however; there isn't a list of spells/items/etc. that every players is familiar with. (Well, there is, but the whole point of using such a system is "rolling your own".

If you are making a truly homegrown world, where the magic system doesn't neatly fit into the D&D model and where you don't want the simplicity (which has good and bad implications) of the class/level system, a classless system is the way to go.

 

[Codragon]

This is not meant as an attack or a "your position is obviously inferior" flamable thread...I seriously want to know...what's the draw of a class-less system?

Customizability? "Realism"? What is it?

"Customizabiity" is a big reason for a classless system. Even with the liberal multi-classing rules and the feat/skill system of D&D, you still don't have TOTAL customizability. You can't be a non-spellcasting paladin, you can't be a ranger that can rage but can't wear armor. Sure you can multiclass, but then you get abilities of other classes that you may not want.

What is so great about a class-less system, and why can't a class-based system give that?

I don't know how great class-less systems are, because I never played one. I do know that it would be cool if the "immutable" class abilities (like sneak attack, rage, spell casting etc.) were broken down into a feat-like system, with certain point values assigned to each. Maybe something like the 2E DMG's rules for custom class creation. Thus you would have classless D&D system. The existing classes would stay as archtypes. I'd like to see this as an optional rules set. Perhaps if they released the mathmatical formula WotC used to balance out the existing classes..

I have so far failed to see anything great about a class-less system. I have done a bit of GURPS, but the system seemed rather confusing and counter-intuitive (Never did understand why a powerful magician would have to be able to lift cars with a high STR needed to be able to cast lotsa spells). It failed to impress me, though a lack of classes wasn't what distanced me most.

Never played GURPS....

What's wrong with the Archetypes, especially when they're as flexible as 3e D&D classes?

Nothing. But that doesn't mean a classless system would be considered "wrong".

So I want to be persuaded to give a class-less system a fighting chance. So describe some to me, and why they are "better", or at least equal to, the D&D class-based system. Please?

Um, no offense, but it doesn't sound like you want to be persuaded. That said, I wish I could help you find a classless system to peruse, but I've never played one. Good luck in your search.

 

[kenjib]

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

Perhaps if they released the mathmatical formula WotC used to balance out the existing classes..

I would be really, really surprised if I found out that such a thing ever existed. I think they did it through eye-balling and play testing.

 

[dagger]

Class based and classless system are to me like Dr. Pepper and Coca Cola. I like them both, but at times I prefer one over the other, but I am happy with either one!

 

[Henry]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a minute, here...

The ultimate and most perfect classless RPG system would incorporate a learning system similar to the way we learn in the real world. Each skill would have a separate learning curve, and would impact on about a half-dozen other skills related to it. Learning to drive an automatic transmission car would allow you to learn some of the basics of driving a stick-shift, but still give you a chance to badly damage the transmission of your car. It might even give you the rudiments of driving a semi-tractor-trailer, though driving it with any competence is right out.

It would also give you experience only through training and real-world experience, rather than an arbitrary pool of points.

The disadvantage of a class-based and level-based game is the "power up" syndrome - you get all your benefits at one time, rather than gradually as one would in the real world.

Think of military boot camp. At the end of boot camp in a level-based system, all recruits would come out with one level of soldier, and would look more or less identical in most respects - there is room for some variation, but everyone will come out knowing how to use a rifle identically as well as hand-to-hand combat. In a skill-based system, each person would emerge being good in some things, poor in others, but would have a minimal level of skill in each, and a wide variation in between.

A class-based system presents you with a "base package" and some customization - All wizards cast the same amount of spells, etc. But the best skill-based system would give you a hundred shades of gray to distinguish what you knew compared to the other guy.

Finally, the ultimate skill-based system would not be prone to rules abuse.

Here is an example, taken to the extreme - in a system such as GURPS, a person with a naturally phenomenal DEX can fake knowledge with almost every physical skill known to man. A 100-point GURPS character with a 17 DEX and 1/2 a point of skill can can shoot, drive, fence, run, tumble, tightrope walk, play piano, and play hockey with the same competance as someone with a 10 DEX who took several years (and many skill points) to gain the same level of skill. I don't care what your natural Dexterity is, you are not going to out-shoot a champion marksman, out-drive a professional stunt driver, and out-shoot Wayne Gretsky in hockey - all with one week of training in each skill.

A skill-based system is going to have some natural advantages over a class-based one, verisimilitude being one of them. Even Ryan Dancey, one of the biggest proponents of the d20 system, has publically stated that he doesn't believe d20 can or should simulate every genre out there (on his forum in www.gamingreport.com) - but it has its strengths and can cater to huge sections of the market.

 

[BenBrown]

Judging the merits of classless systems in general by GURPS isn't something I'd recommend. GURPS has its quirks, some of which (spellcasters needing a high strength) are as goofy as anything any system ever came up with.

In general, classless systems are favored by those who feel constrained by the abilities of class-using systems. D&D3 has done away with some of the worst problems of class systems, simply by having a lot of variety within classes and liberal multiclassing rules.

But still, sometimes you want to play a character that just doesn't fit. In fantasy, it's not so noticeable, but when you get into, say, superheroes, the number of potential options is so great that attempting to come up with classes for everything is silly.

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.

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.