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

[Zappo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: amusing

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.

What makes you think that? Well, believe what you want, but D&D is not a generic fantasy system. Or better, it is but it's not good for all fantasy, just for a subset of it. It's D&D.

GURPS only has to introduce special rules for things that don't exist (psionic, magic, starships, etc.); the core rules handle most things just fine. Creating a 21st-century college student doesn't require special rules.

But if I wanted to model a D&D 7th level fighter with 56 HP, in GURPS I'd have quite a hard time. How many points does it take to make a character in standard GURPS that can take a full round of machinegun and still feel fresh as a rose? Would the character be balanced against, say, a wizard made with the same points - who probably has every spell ever conceived at an incredible level and could just find one that doesn't deal direct damage to screw the warrior royally?

If the NPC classes are there for non-heroes (i.e. NPCs), then high-level Aristocrats, Commoners, Experts, etc. are high-level and not heroes. But they have heroic hit points, BAB, and Saves. It doesn't make much sense.

NPC classes aren't technically heroes in the same sense that the PCs are. They don't go out adventuring. However, they are heroes in a broader sense IF they are high-level: they are formidable rulers, legendary crafters so good that gods go to them to have their armors mended, or the peasants that get talked about in folk tales. In a story, they wouldn't get killed in a side-note by tripping over a stone or by being attacked by a wild cat. Thus the high "death resistance" - HP and saves. High-levelers having a good fighting skill too (BAB) is something more specific to D&D but it is intentional nevertheless, and part of the feel of the game - the setting.

 

[LostSoul]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: amusing

What makes you think that? Well, believe what you want, but D&D is not a generic fantasy system. Or better, it is but it's not good for all fantasy, just for a subset of it. It's D&D.

If this is true, it explains why I'm not "in love" with the game system.

It seems to me that creating the D&D rule set to work with only one very specific (and strange, in that it doesn't mirror fiction as well as it mirrors itself) campaign setting is awfully shortsighted. As though you're asking people to play for a while but switch to a different game system when thier tastes change.

 

[Tratyn Runewind]

Hello!

Posted by Zappo:
But if I wanted to model a D&D 7th level fighter with 56 HP, in GURPS I'd have quite a hard time. How many points does it take to make a character in standard GURPS that can take a full round of machinegun and still feel fresh as a rose? Would the character be balanced against, say, a wizard made with the same points - who probably has every spell ever conceived at an incredible level and could just find one that doesn't deal direct damage to screw the warrior royally?

Actually, the Hit Point debate is mostly a seperate subject from the Class/Level debate, though the two are tied together by the fact that hit points are something every D&D class gains with every level, however appropriate that may be to the character.

I don't remember explicitly seeing this justification repeated in 3E, but the word on hit points has consistently been that they represented not just sheer physical toughness, but were a nebulous abstract mix of both that and the ability to roll with blows or otherwise avoid damage by skill or luck. Thus the 16-point long sword critical that would be a beheading or quartering for a 1st level Commoner would be just a minor flesh wound for a fully-healed 20th level Barbarian. Whereas in GURPS, Hit Points really are supposed to be just physical toughness, and things like luck and skill at avoiding damage tend to be represented by their own explicit character abilities.

To munchkinize a fighter-type in GURPS really takes only two things. One, jack your Dodge score up by any means the DM allows, preferably to a minimum of 15 for a character as cinematic as a mid-level D&D character. And two, take as much Luck as you can to let you re-roll enemy critical hits, surprise attacks, unlucky dice rolls, or anything else that messes up your dodging. The cinematic version of the GURPS "Flesh Wounds" rule is a final insurance policy for such characters, though it is a part of campaign setup rather than character creation, and is a last resort because it costs unspent experience points to use. For those worried about hostile magic, 40-60 points or so of Magic Resistance and/or Strong Will will give you even odds against just about any non-damaging spell out there, no matter what skill level it is cast at, since the advent of the "Rule of 16".

Posted by Voneth:
Since I have seen this example twice. I'd like to clarify. Gurps opted a rule where spellcasters could "buy" thier spell casting fatigue seperate from their physical strength. Sort of like creating a marthon runner who would never be a weightlifter. The other reason I mention this rule is becasue it was presented more than 10 years ago.

Yes, for all the talk about Min/Maxers in GURPS, it's a pretty poor Min/Maxer who'd blow 175 character points to pump his ST from its base 10 up to 20 just for spellcasting energy, when the same extra 10 points of energy can be had simply as Extra Fatigue for 30 character points, or even 20 if the GM allows the Spellcasting Only limitation on it (which would also actually prevent complaints about weight-lifter mages from turning into complaints about marathon-runner mages).

Hope this helps!

 

[SableWyvern]

I hope everyone realises that this is now a "Which system is better: GURPS or d20?" thread.

As I stated earlier, class vs classless is a virtually impossible argument - because each category includes far too many compeletely diffent styles of game. What you can do, and what is being done, however, is to argue the merits of one classed system vs one classless system.

 

[Desdichado]

I hope everyone realises that this is now a "Which system is better: GURPS or d20?" thread.

As I stated earlier, class vs classless is a virtually impossible argument - because each category includes far too many compeletely diffent styles of game. What you can do, and what is being done, however, is to argue the merits of one classed system vs one classless system.

Sorta. But then again, it kinda started out that way. I think it should be a thread about the inevitable day when some d20 publisher comes out with a class-less d20 game, and what that means for D&D. Your assertion that we can only compare two existing systems is wrong, IMO, because ideally we should be talking about what it would do to D&D to introduce class-less rules into the system as an option.

Some of the other complaints are actually parsimonious with class-based systems, because historically they are all bundled; that is level-based and the tie between growth and killing things. These are, as I said, historically tied, but not necessarily tied to the presence or absence of classes as well. d20 Call of Cthulhu is supposed to be class-less yet retain levels, so we'll see in just a few weeks what differences that makes.

 

[Codragon]

Thanks

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

That's it!

Thanks Henry!

 

[WizarDru]

It seems to me....

That there are actually three systems in debate, here.

Class/Level Systems, Class/Point Systems, and Classless Systems. All three have individual merits, and all three are equally effective for playing a game, IMHO.


D&D 3E & d20 is a Class/Level system, but much more diverse than, say 1e, the grandfather of all such systems. The d20 system is much more flexible with regards to character classes, prestige classes, and more importantly skills and feats. Two 10th level fighters can be very different in terms of their abilities (archer versus cavalier, for example).

Class/Point systems, such as Shadowrun, for example, start the character off with a base template or package, and then allow customization from there. For example, taking a Street Samurai, and then putting all of your points into a particular skill or two.

A Classless system, such as GURPS, makes no assumptions about the character, and forces the player to assemble the character almost from scratch. A character concept often drives this more successfully.


Fact one: None of these approaches are inherently better than the other.

Fact two: All of these systems allow for a great deal of customization, and even can allow for very unique character concepts.

So why are classless systems popular? A variety of reasons.

First off, as some have mentioned, a class based system is dependent on the number of archetypes available. Fantasy has many very well-established archetypes. The problem is that to build characters that don't adhere to these archetypes, you often need to do extensive work to make these characters a reality. All D&D 3E rangers have two weapon-fighting, if you use the class as written.

A Classless system avoids this, by allowing much more diversity in character concept. However, a classless system can result in significantly more work for everyone with regards to creation and upkeep of characters. Where before, a DM needed to know the abilities of his d20 party, a GURPS DM has to know all of the varied abilities of his group, and guage their effectiveness. Also, a classless system, such as GURPS or FUDGE, requires careful balancing of all abilities. Since every ability score, skill and advantage has a point cost, they need to be balanced against each other. Is the GURPS Luck advantage equal to Eidetic Memory? (Trick question: EM is badly broken in GURPS )

I prefer both approaches. 3e offers me the flexibility and variety that I prefer, while maintaining a good level of balance with the various rock-paper-scissors aspects of each class. GURPS offers a great deal of flexibility across a large number of settings. I can move from GURPS Traveller to GURPS Fantasy to GURPS Atomic Horror to GURPS Aztec without having to make massive changes to the ruleset. I can't do that with D&D 3e to d20 Modern. Is it a massive change? Not really, but it still requires learning new classes, understanding new approaches, and generally is more work than switching between GURPS settings.

d20 Pulp and ShadowChasers highlighted this difference for me. One place where GURPS or FUDGE succeeds more than d20 is in modeling the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' cast. What class is Xander, for example? Yes, I can make a class for him, ("Whipping Boy"), but he's easier to model as an individual in GURPS. I'd make the same case for Willow, as a character over time. However, Buffy and Riley are much easier to mold as Class-based characters, as is Giles. Spike is another story, entirely (although I'd favor GURPS, here). I could go on, but it's not necessary. Understand, I'm not saying you couldn't do the characters in either system....FAR FROM IT. What I'm saying is that some would be easier using one method, and some easier using another. Both can be modeled in either system...the question is the amount of work that can be used.

What I don't understand is the animosity that 'One MUST FALL!' They've stood side-by-side for decades. Why can't one be better at some things and the other better at different things? How do we, as players, lose out having more than one system?

I don't think we do.

 

[DMaple]

Okay so I used metagame concepts to discribe the arcane / divine spells, it doesn't remove the problem to think of it in none metagame terms.

If you do say "the priest diety gives him access to fire spells" and multiclass to sorcerer to represent this, even if he only picks fire spells form the sorcerer list it doesn't stop him picking up a wand of frost and using it. As a Cleric he gets the ability to turn undead even if it isn't part of the character concept, and also the ability to fight in heavy armour.

Now you have the problem of gaining a whole range of abilities that aren't part of the character concept just because they are all tied into the class if you want one part of it you have to take them all. Otherwise you need to develop "House Rules" and your own character classes.

Classless systems let you do this sort of thing 'straight out of the box'.

Classless systems do have their drawbacks and Class based systems do have their advantages but that's not what the original poster asked about.

 

[Darklone]

Welllll

Just wanted to point out a simple thing:

I like D&D. It's rather simple. You can learn it fast. You can have major battles with it without problems.

Why I like classless systems for D&D? Well... I like monk core classes where you get feats instead of certain abilities at certain levels. I like ranger classes where you don't get TWF and stuff at Lvl1. I like rogue classes where you don't have to pick sneak attack.

I like versatility.

That's why they flood us with Prestige Classes (I don't like Prestige Classes). What I would have liked: A system of feats for the different core classes. Why should all monks look similar? Why should you buy books and books and books or make your own Prestige Class?

I think it would have been easier the other way. More complicated, ok, but more fun.

May the sun shine always on the dagger in your back.

 

[Numion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: amusing

If this is true, it explains why I'm not "in love" with the game system.

It seems to me that creating the D&D rule set to work with only one very specific (and strange, in that it doesn't mirror fiction as well as it mirrors itself) campaign setting is awfully shortsighted. As though you're asking people to play for a while but switch to a different game system when thier tastes change.

Shortsighted? Maybe not. Because a system can't do everything well, making it work better in a certain style of play makes it worse in others. They wanted D&D to work well for fantasy, and specifically a kind of fantasy which their marketing studies considered the most 'popular'* If they had made d20 into a truly generic system, it would've hurt the D&D playing.

* The one most popular style of gaming does not exist (no two games are alike, really), but you know what I mean.. I hope