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

[Synicism]

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.

How is that a class-based system? If you spend points to purchase perks and skills for a character pretty much as you choose, then you're not really playing much of a class.

 

[Humanophile]

I think the idea is pretty much summed up in an exchange I overheard at a game a while ago;

"Ohh, and we don't play with alignment. Sometimes it's too hard to figure out who would be what."
"How come? What's so hard to understand about playing Lawful Good?"

I'd venture to say that people would have the same taste for classes and alignment, some seeing them as useful guides, and others seeing them as pigeonholes for your character. And while there is a bit of fluff in both the DMG and PHB about customizing classes, it doesn't give you any guidelines or templates to go on. I think those would quell a lot of the classless fervor, at least for a while.

I will give classless the following, though. It allows for easier creation of the true oddballs (even if most of the results are either skill mishmoshes or virtually indistingishable from classes), and a points => skills system is a lot better at showing character growth than classes are (both because of the sudden power jumps, and the unlikelihood of getting those extra skills/proficiencies/what have you when you really need them storywise... would you be unable to learn a new language because you levelled up a sesson or two before being washed up on some strange shore?) But customizability is the keystone of freeform, as opposed to the easier time working with and balancing static packages. YMMV.

Of course, classes are much better from a game design standpoint. But freeform/classless is better from a story standpoint, provided that you and your players can handle the lack of structure. Your play style and opinion of other gamers should show your preferred style.

(Although as for people who think that class-race-alignment should explain them in full detail, I'm allowed to wonder.)

 

[LostSoul]

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

Of course not. But what is "illogical" should be up to the player. It's his character; the GM's version of "illogical" might be his version of "fun". So he wants to play a guy who races jet-cars, plays in a rock band, and is a world-class neurosurgeon. It's his character. If he can't play the type he wants, and has less fun because of that, I think you've got a problem.

And I have not yet been able to nail down the character I want to play (basically a psychic ranger) in D&D.

 

[Zappo]

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.

I dunno about Psion, but I haven't, and I wouldn't like to. Anyway, I can't build myself in GURPS too, for that matter.

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).

That's quite a jump. I strongly disagree. The D&D system can't build myself well, since I'm a 21st century CS student, but it can build very well any character I could care for in a D&D fantasy setting. I don't see how the system can be abstracted from the setting: even GURPS has to introduce particular rules for its settings. A system can totally suck for all settings but one, and still be the best systems of all, because that one is the setting used to play.

 

[Desdichado]

How is that a class-based system? If you spend points to purchase perks and skills for a character pretty much as you choose, then you're not really playing much of a class.

I didn't explain it very well. What I mean is, I would like a game that had classes, but also had easily imlemented rules for customizing classes.

Psion makes a good point that you can always just customize classes anyway, but fails to take into account that many groups don't want to have anything to do with tinkering with the rules. Or GMs might want to tinker with rules in all kinds of weird ways (I had a DM not long ago that wanted to make wizards more powerful, because he thought that made them special. He also wanted to make about half a dozen other classes more powerful, not to mention certain feats, etc. I didn't really agree with his playing philosophy much...) But rules for adding the sneak attack bonus to a fighter-like character, what you have to give up to get it, etc. would be great. And multi-classing really just doesn't do quite the same thing.

 

[Psion]

Of course not. But what is "illogical" should be up to the player.

Uh, no it shouldn't. The GM is the maker of the milieu. The GM has the best idea of what will and will not work within the setting.

And further, the position of making a character warps one's perspective somewhat.

Of course I've said this. Recently.

It's his character; the GM's version of "illogical" might be his version of "fun". So he wants to play a guy who races jet-cars, plays in a rock band, and is a world-class neurosurgeon. It's his character. If he can't play the type he wants, and has less fun because of that, I think you've got a problem.

So, the GM is to allow Buckaroo Banzai here into his game, at the expense of the suspension of disbeleif and world verisimilitude while possibly stealing half of the party's own schticks?

Sorry, I don't think so. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

 

[mmadsen]

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)...

That's not an issue of classes vs. classless; that's an issue of detail.

I can be quite handily represented by a first or second level commoner.

Which? First or second? The difference is crucial, since it means the difference 1d4 and 2d4 hit points. Or are you an Expert? That's worth 1d6 hit points -- unless you're quite an Expert, in which case you should have 2d6 or 3d6 hit points. Naturally, college professors have more hit points than the school's football players.

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.

You're right; it doesn't need every last detail. It should make sense though. Instead, all those Knowledge skills are cross-class skills, and as you improve them, you increase your hit points dramatically (and your BAB and Saves a bit too).

 

[Psion]

Psion makes a good point that you can always just customize classes anyway, but fails to take into account that many groups don't want to have anything to do with tinkering with the rules.

Actually if you look back, you will see a statement in one of my posts, you will see where I said that I with that they had made a more concrete method of tweaking the classes beyond the feeble "tweak away" statement in the PHB.

Nonetheless, I maintain there are distinct strengths to classes and archtypes.

 

[Tsyr]

It's his character; the GM's version of "illogical" might be his version of "fun". So he wants to play a guy who races jet-cars, plays in a rock band, and is a world-class neurosurgeon. It's his character. If he can't play the type he wants, and has less fun because of that, I think you've got a problem.

Gyah. Naaar. No. I play with a guy like this. He plays a vampire in Whitewolf... who is an overweight highschool shop teacher (teaches night classes), and acts nothing like a vampire. Doesn't even seem to realize he is one except when he uses his powers.

Or he plays a half-elf mage named "Alfredo McFusion" who acts like Austin Powers.

Or he plays a cubicle dweller in Shadowrun that, while a decker, spends the entire run ordering pizza over the 'trix, then offering it to the bad guys that we capture, instead of actualy doing anything. Then gets fired and commits suicide because his job was his life. For no apparent reason.

Trust me, this gets old _VERY_ fast. And yes, the DM has often stepped in and said "NO! That character is too innane/insane/out of place for my campaign, make a new one!". And I cheer every time he does. You know how much that detracts from the fun of the game for others?

 

[Tsyr]

I think you have "class" confused with "level", MM. The CLASSES work fine. Levels might need some tweeking, that's another arguement.