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

[SableWyvern]

Re: ???

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.

There also seem to be more than a couple people who assume a class-based system cannot be a skill-based system. (Rolemaster is a class, level and skill based system).

Futhermore, there seems to be a very strong feeling that the pros and cons of d&d summarise in a nutshell the pros and cons of all level/class based systems. (Again, using Rolemaster as an example, the issues of the system's pros and cons are almost completely different to the issues with d20).

I don't think it is feasible to compare class-based with non-class-based. You can compare any two systems, but a comparison between two categories of games that are each so vast is almost nonsensical. Such a debate can only move beyond a very limited scope when one looks specifically at two specific systems and how they makes use of class, level, skills, archetypes, acquired learning etc...

 

[kenjib]

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

I read somewhere that such a thing DID exist - Monte Cook's board I think - I'll try to post a link to the post when I get time.

For those who missed my first post, "thing" refers to a document that contains mathematical formulae WotC used to balance out the classes when they designed 3E.

That would be very cool to see. Please do give a link if you find it.

 

[LostSoul]

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

I read somewhere that such a thing DID exist - Monte Cook's board I think - I'll try to post a link to the post when I get time.

For those who missed my first post, "thing" refers to a document that contains mathematical formulae WotC used to balance out the classes when they designed 3E.

I think Monte was talking about trying to get Wizards to release something like that. They had already done the work on it, after all. I don't think there is anything out there like it, though.

 

[LostSoul]

Re: Re: Re: amusing

Make an Expert. Anyway, D&D is a heroic fantasy setting and it isn't supposed to model high-level characters that aren't heroes.

But I've only got my PHB...

I've never liked the idea that D&D is only good for high-powered heroic fantasy settings. I've always believed that you should be able to use the D&D rules to play pretty much any fantasy game.

 

[Tsyr]

"high powered" and "heroic" aren't the same thing. I think what he meant was that DnD isn't really meant to model things like pacafists... it really doesn't fit the "model" of DnD. You can do it, but...

 

[bret]

Re: amusing

What I find amusing in read this and the GURPS thread is that there is some measure of incompleteness in the comparisons of the two systems, as presented by the classless partisans.
In the GURPS thread, it is stated that a 100 point GURPS character is roughly equivalent to a 3rd level D&D character in abilities and skills. However here everyone is complaining that a 1st level D&D character can't have the background and abilities of that GURPS character. Well gosh darn it, what a surprise! Maybe if you compared that GURPS character to a 3rd level D&D character you might have a valid case.

The example cited here was the mage with noble background. In 3 levels he could have one level of noble (or rogue), and 2 levels of mage. The skills would be there, as would the background you need. Try building that GURPS character with 70 points maybe (or less - I am not GURPS savvy), and see how much of any background you manage to assemble.

Buzzard (who prefers to compare oranges to oranges)

Actually, the D20 mage I was complaining about earlier in this thread is currently 10th level. I had not considered it important, so I didn't include that detail. If he had multiclassed Wizard/Rogue in a 2:1 ratio, he couldn't create as many magical items nor cast Teleport or Wall of Stone. He would have a Sneak Attack ability, which would be totally inappropriate for that character.

In the other thread, someone asked how many points it would take in GURPS to have the equivilent ability scores to 32 point buy in DnD. Anyone who has tried doing mechanical conversions of systems eventually realizes that the results are not very good. In order to avoid the eventual comparison to an X level character, I tried to give a rough indication of how competent a 100 point character would be in general. Guess I failed to provide enough 'weasel words' to cover myself.


As for how much of a background you can put on a 25 point or 75 point character, maybe these characters can answer your question. These are highly (in my opinion, over) optimized characters that resulted from a challenge on the GURPS mailing list.


Personally, I think that people should use the type of system that best fits the setting they want to create. It is just that I find D20 constraining in illogical ways.

 

[Henry@home]

from a post by Ryan Dancey on www.gamingreport.com

The other would be the book I keep suggesting that WotC consider publishing: Core Book IV: Game Designer's Guide. The GDG would contain all the systems and mathematical analysis used to construct 3e, and explain how the system works at a low level, and how to add to it and extend it correctly. That book would be a guide to effective encounter, scenario, story and world design, all using the d20 System. It would require tremendous R&D work to do things like figure out a quantifiable CR/EL system, among other monumental tasks. The great thing about that book is that not only would it be a boon companion to the 80+% of DMs who write their own content, but it would be a huge step up for all the OGL/d20 designers who are working from the black box of the DMG.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Classes are more flexible than many realize...

The example was made of a class-based system being unable to replicate certain things in life...while I'm not begrudging those who like the classless system, I do think that classes are a lot more flexible than many realize.

Someone said that a college professor, by the class's system of bundling HP with level (actually not a class problem but a level problem anyway, would have more HP than the school football player...I beg to differ.

'Cause while the professor may have levels of Expert, the football player has levels of Barbarian, and probably more Con. It doesn't take much to be a college professor in D&D terms...you could be a 4-5th level Expert and be quite good in your skills...not legendary-good, but better-than-your-average-bob good.

I'm not saying that classes are nessecarily the way to go, just that they're a lot more flexible and open to interpretation than many seem to think. Think of them as packages of abilities, not as strict flavor imposed on you.

If that same professor was a rogue instead of an expert, I'd say for sneak attack he could know enough about anatomy to determine where a strike would do the most damage.

For that noble wizard, the thing to realize is that when he renounced the "family business," the character may not have taken as much of an interest in diplomacy and gathering information as he did in the arcane sciences. If he went away to a mage's school or was tutored by some sage, wouldn't his usually emphasised nobility skills fall by the wayside, in favor of magical abilities?

I can understand the resentment to being pigeonholed, but I don't see classes as very limiting, myself. It's perfectly acceptible for me to buy the idea of a football player as a barbarian (high hit points, ability to 'rage' by going into a frenzy of energy, wearing medium armor in the form of all that padding, able to move a bit quicker than your average person)...it's not that hard of a leap to make.

I do realize this is a bit backwards...it's designing a character to fit a class, somewhat. But, IMHO, a character concept is always more important than the class they belong to, and I'd rather explain a class ability in-character than say "nope! It doesn't work!" and renounce class systems altogether...

I'm still open to people telling me why class-less is..well..decent. I still don't see an argument that would make me play a classless system, and a bunch that would make me *not* want to play it...

 

[kenjib]

It would require tremendous R&D work to do things like figure out a quantifiable CR/EL system, among other monumental tasks.

From this I infer that such systems don't already exist. Maybe I'm reading too much into it though. It seems like one of the biggest challenges would be retro-fitting all of the D&D current info which would not fit into such a system. For example, if they created a system for calculating CR, how do they address issues with critters in the MM not following the rules since they were created before the rules were...

 

[Allister]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned that class-less systems face is the lack of adventures.

It's practically impossible to write a "generic" fantasy (or even-worse yet, modern day) GURPS adventure since designers have literally no idea as to what the average character might look like.