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

[mmadsen]

I don't play games to build myself. I play them to build Conan, or Gandalf, or Han Solo, or things like that. I'm boring.

Then I can assume you've never played a game where your friends, in their "real" lives, encounter eldritch horror. Or get transported to world of elves and dragons, and find that they're heroes of myth and legend, inheritors of powerful artifacts forged to fight evil. Or get irradiated and develop superpowers. Or get caught up in international espionage.

More to the point though, if you can't build real people you know personally, the system you're using probably can't build fictional people you'd like to know (and play the role of).

 

[Skywalker]

I've played many other systems, but those are the most famous ones. Some are good, some are bad, but I haven't seen a single setting that couldn't be done just as well with a class-based system.

This statement is a little strange. I could say I haven't seen a single setting that couldn't be done just as well with a classless system. Whether you use classes or not does not necessarily impact on the quality of the system.

This seems to be everyone's overall misunderstanding neither one is superior. What is important is whether they are easy to use, intuitive etc. D&D for example is reasonably easy to use but I find counter-intuitive at times.

Some games lend themselves to class concepts (D&D) and some don't e.g. Unknown Armies and Over the Edge. Both have enormously varied and often down right strange settings and concepts that don't need classes. In fact the creation of your own skills and psychology does an excellent job of grounded the player in the setting. Picking class wouldn't do this.

 

[Synicism]

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?

Mainly because archetypes are just that. Archetypes. Why, simply because I am a skilled fighter (Fighter class) am I limited in my ability to be educated? How come I know how to fight with swords, axes, maces, bows, spears, hammers, and any number of other bizarre weapons, but it takes extra effort to learn to dance, survive in the wild, or pursue a field of study?

Why can't my fighter be a trained fencer (rapier, dagger, and unarmed combat) without knowing how to wear full plate and fight with a polearm? In a classless, skill based system like GURPS, I can buy the skills Rapier, Buckler, Dagger, Wrestling, and Brawling. Then I can take things like Savoir Faire, Dance, Acrobatics, and so on. And I don't have all the excess baggage of knowing how to use a longsword, great axe, and other weapon that are completely inappropriate for the character.

A classless system allows you to make a character into a unique individual, not a customized template.

 

[Tsyr]

Then I can assume you've never played a game where your friends, in their "real" lives, encounter eldritch horror. Or get transported to world of elves and dragons, and find that they're heroes of myth and legend, inheritors of powerful artifacts forged to fight evil. Or get irradiated and develop superpowers. Or get caught up in international espionage.

More to the point though, if you can't build real people you know personally, the system you're using probably can't build fictional people you'd like to know (and play the role of).

Wrong on both counts.

First of all, I _have_ played games like the former. But the key there is those _aren't me_. They don't need to have Skill: Algebra, Skill: Physics, Skill: Cleaning computer mice, Skill: Cooking (focus: Japanese)...

I can be quite handily represented by a first or second level commoner. Give me the feats Weapon Prof: Pistol and weapon prof: katana, a few ranks in Knowledge: Highschool, RPG, Anime, and Journalism and you have a pretty good me. It doesn't need to have every last detail.

As for the later, I can quite easily build many fictional characters... Conan, Bilbo, Legolas, Merlin, Gandalf (adjusting for radical differences in the magic system which is a debate totaly removed from this one... you could have a point-based vancian system), etc etc. Sure, there will be exceptions... For example, Vanyel from the Magic's Pawn series. But he would be hard to build in GURPS too. About the only system I would want to try building him in is BESM.

 

[LostSoul]

Star Wars d6: OMG, that's got to be the ugliest system I've ever played. There are a helluva lot similar skills, but if you are a master in one, it has no influence on the others. This wouldn't be so bad, if not for the fact that the skills are vital. So, to be a good pilot you must raise a half dozen skills, while to be a fighter you only need two (shoot and dodge). And to be a Jedi and do all the incredible stuff a Jedi can do, it's just three skills, less if you only want certain powers. Since they cost the same, it means that when the fighter of the group is a real badass, and the Jedi even more, you will still be just an average pilot. Good points? Can't think any, really.

I've got to stick up for Star Wars.

I like the system. You can create a character in 2 minutes. Combat (and gameplay) flows quickly. Players always come up with strange things to do (not the old "I attack" of AD&D). It's very cinematic. With the "Wild Die" you always feel like you can do anything. Or that something awful might happen. Nothing's routine; it's all got that "movie-screen" quality.

Pilots don't need more than Starfighter Ops (or Space Transports if you're a smuggler-type) and Starship Gunnery. And (with 6d in those two skills) you can be pretty bad-ass to start off with. Jedi... well, what are you going to do? Jedi are weak in the beginning, too powerful in the end. But hey, they are Jedi.

And there are no dungeons.

 

[Skywalker]

I can be quite handily represented by a first or second level commoner. Give me the feats Weapon Prof: Pistol and weapon prof: katana, a few ranks in Knowledge: Highschool, RPG, Anime, and Journalism and you have a pretty good me. It doesn't need to have every last detail.

But would get better at combat everytime you approve your cooking skill Sorry I know this relates to levels but I couldn't resist

"I have gone to night school to learn how to cook and suddenly I was beating up thugs"

 

[Feliath]

???

Something I immediately react to while reading this thread:
Why does everyone equate a Class-based system with a Level-based one?
Class-based systems are really quite predominant, in some shape or other. Level-based systems are less common, it seems to me - and half the debate seems to be over things like "chunk proficiency gain", which really has nothing whatever to do with Classes, if you look at it.

 

[Desdichado]

Some of these arguments sound a little bit silly, frankly. Sure, many of us don't want to play ourselves, but that doesn't mean someone else won't. That's a big draw for horror RPGs, is to play a "normal" guy. There are other RPG concepts out there that also don't want heroic archetypes, and they don't work.

Not only that, which has been said many times before, there aren't enough D&D classes out there to fit everyone's character concept. Tweaking classes isn't always an option, if your DM doesn't go for it, or for whatever other reason. System integrity is a good reason already. Or not wanting to have to tweak stuff on your own.

That said, I don't know that I necessarily want a class-less system. I'd like a system that allowed you to pick and choose class-like abilities as an hors d'ouevre table; kinda like mega-feats or something like that, with each ability point-based. That way, you get the best of both worlds, and you don't have to tinker with the system yourself: you can do it all legally.

 

[Psion]

Nor as little as you make it out to be.

And just how "little" do I make it out do be? I do not beleive I have misrepresented the game at any point.

In Cthulhu you learn skills that you use, whether or not they are career related. This is not class related.

But since to use skills successfully, you have to have some levels in the skills, it is, on an order, class related.

You can never take into account abusers of systems.

I beg to differ, on two counts.

First off, I disagree that you cannot compensate. You can and you should. And the system certainly CAN help reinforce logical character design.

Second, I intensely dislike dismissing the problem of illogical character design as being a mere symptom of one's players being part of a nebulous category of people dubbed "system abusers." My experience is that almost any player, when given a budget to work with and confronted with the fact that his character's success may well depend on their characters capabilities in the game, can make some irrational character design choices.

(Though I admit I brought that on myself by mentioning "min/maxers"; I now submit to you that while they are the paramount problem, they aren't the only problem. I did only use that term to refer to someone who would make the referred to CoC character. A more typical player would make less egregious errors by simple over-justification.)

Actually it does. Whether or not they are out of balance is not important. What is important is that the changes generated much discussion. This would not happen if someone wanted to modify the Priest Career Skills in Cthulhu. Again because Cthulhu is designed to be modified in such a way.

Feh. The discussion came up primarily because different people have different ideas of points of balance and what sorcerer and/or bard should be in their respective game. A have seen these types of discussion regarding numerous different games, class based or no regarding the effects of new skills or advantages or alterations thereof; this is NOT significant.

Its not metagaming. Its a complaint that the rules fail to give effect to player concept.

A concept that is stated in meta-game terms (i.e., "with access to arcane spells"). You would never see those terms in a novel, for example. Now if the concept was "a character naturally gifted by his deity to cast fire magic", that's not metagame and sorcerer is a shoo-in. The example only flies in the face of the system because you engineered it to do so by invoking metagame terms specifically because you knew the system wouldn't accomodate it based on the fact that you, as a player vice a character in the mileu, clearly see the arcane versus divine dichotomy. That is a cracked example.

Though I agree that the GM should hold ultimate balancing power I don't agree with your judgment of players. I understand that there are some players out there who see RPGing as a competition rather than roleplaying out interesting concepts.

And again, I don't agree that it takes some special sort of rules rapist to make an illogical character.

Again this is going a little off topic so I'll reserve any further comment. However I will just say that with a classless system the need for tinkering is reduced and that this issue does not even arise.

It's not off topic at all, and is in fact central to the discussion. Easily making self-consistent characters without requiring GM intervention is one of the central strengths of classes/archetypes, and you do ill to ignore that.

Psion you seem to consider that all systems with any form of "class" is a class based system. I think that is a bit simplistic given the spectrum of games out there.

And of course, I beg to differ. People rail against classes failing to recognize the whole time that they are right under their nose. It's a false dichotomy, and by pegging D&D as one of a few class based systems, I think it is YOU who are over-simplifying.

 

[Synicism]

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.

I actually like GURPS. Granted, a lot of the things Psion said about it are true, but GURPS is a very game-master intensive system.

I'm an attorney. I also have a degree in biology. I am also an experienced rapier fighter and a black belt martial artist. I'm also a writer and a part time RPG designer.

But I am not a multiclassed expert/monk/bard/fighter. I don't know how to wear plate armor, fire a bow, wield an axe, or play an instrument. I am a person who has training in law, zoology, a little chemistry, writing, swordplay, hand to hand combat, and so on.

And BTW, I don't seem to be suffering any experience penalties. I don't learn any slower than I used to.

With a skills based system, I can define who my character is by choosing the things he can do, rather than by pigeonholing him into one or more "classes." And I can have the modest, constant improvement that characterizes actual learning rather than the long periods of stasis followed by phenomenal leaps of insight that are characteristic of "gaining a level."