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

[Henry]

THe best way to put it in my opinion is: Do you like your gaming systems as one price fits all, or a la carte?

A class based system, no matter how flexible, still gives you several abilities at once, some of which do not necessarily have to do with one another. The ability to heal with magic does not imply the ability to turn undead. The ability to cast spells well does not imply a poor attack bonus. The ability to cast arcane magics spontaneously does not necessitate having the ability to call a familiar for cheap.

The advantage to a class-based system however, is that a DM does not have to think as much about issues of balance between other players - how importantly DO you weight that familiar, for example? How important IS the ability to turn undead or cast spontaneously?

Ask 20 designers that question and you'll get 25 responses.

With a classless system, and with the ability to buy a la carte, you come into the problem of weighing different abilities one against another. Is turning undead worth the same as spontaneous healing? Is a sorcerer's "spells known" limitation worth the same as a paladin's lawful good restriction? Is the sorcerer's spontaneous casting balanced successfully by an alignment restriction and an armor restriction? The mind boggles.

If someone can come up with the perfect skill-based, points-driven classless system that doesn't bog down the rules to play too much, let me know. You'll have about 7 to 12 converts for life in our group.

For now, however, d20 gives me:
-Customizability
-Sensible mechanics
-Speed of play
-The ability to switch between bashin' heads and solving intrigues easily

And that's what I need to properly waste my weekends.

 

[Desdichado]

Originally posted by Darklone
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.

I think this really hits the nail on the head. You wanted a good reason to use classless instead of classed? You wouldn't have to buy books full of prestige classes. What's the point of a prestige class if you can tailor your own individual class to give you the abilities you need?

 

[Synicism]

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

You're right. Though you can also do the same sorts of things with a skill-based system by creating packages that produce archetypal characters like "swordsman," "ranger," or "burglar," which can sort of be identified as "classes." The disadvantage of this approach is that it requires work to create the packages. The advantages is that you can have lots of packages and custom tailor them to your campaign, and it's probably easier than working backwards from a preexisting class.

 

[Zappo]

I think this really hits the nail on the head. You wanted a good reason to use classless instead of classed? You wouldn't have to buy books full of prestige classes. What's the point of a prestige class if you can tailor your own individual class to give you the abilities you need?

Yeah, you would have books full of new advantages/disadvantages instead. Most abilities of the prestige classes are not exactly mirrored by any ability of any core class. And therefore, if the system was point-buy, you wouldn't be able to replicate a prestige class exactly using the core stuff.

 

[Psion]

I think this really hits the nail on the head. You wanted a good reason to use classless instead of classed? You wouldn't have to buy books full of prestige classes. What's the point of a prestige class if you can tailor your own individual class to give you the abilities you need?

As Zappo said, so you can buy books of advantage / disadvantages instead? Yeah, okay.

What it does give you that is context. An ability alone is naked. In D&D, special abilities are character schticks that people with specific training and association use. In a skills only system, there needs be little or no justification for WHY a given character would have an odd or unique ability.

This is a positive quality on two counts. One, it gives you more ideas (both the GM world ideas and the player character ideas) than an ability alone ever could. Two, it adds to the consistency of vision of the ability and minimizes the practice of picking out this or that ability because it benefits your character vice because you have a good, justified reason to take it.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

So why are classless systems popular?

They're not. D&D has such a large market share that all other systems are in the noise. I think it has a lot to do with ease of use, large player networks, and strong support. Most people who look at D&D see only the last two, but forget that without ease of use (which none of the class-less systems really have to date), you're not going to get anyone to play the game.

I'm willing to bet that d20 modern will do no better than Wheel of Time or even Call of Cthulhu d20. Without a built-in fan base, you're asking only for hard core gamers to buy it, and those are relatively few.

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

OK. But if you want to talk about making D&D classless, than you can't say that it will fail because "this" happens in GURPS, or succeed because "that" happens in Heroes. Each game system represents itself, not a broad category of systems. Neither GURPS, nor heroes, nor any other system, is representative of What it Means to be a Classless System.

IOW, it's very hard to argue the merits and flaws of classless d&d without specifying the particular framework that you will use. OTOH, that is a damn sight easier to argue that than "Is classless better than class", which is what I originally meant to declare a fairly silly argument.

 

[SableWyvern]

Re: So why are classless systems popular?

Most people who look at D&D see only the last two, but forget that without ease of use (which none of the class-less systems really have to date), you're not going to get anyone to play the game.

No classless system has ease of use? Not one?

The classless silouhette RPG rules (heavy gear, jovian chronicles) are some of the simplest, most fun, easy to use rules I've ever come across.

Chaosiums Call of Cthulhu (in which class has no system based relvance beyond character generation, when it does nothing but direct some the players skill choices) has a ridiculously simple advancement system - definitely the easiest I have ever seen).

At the same time, there are many classed systems that do not have "ease of use".

There many, many classless systems. Some are good, some are not. Most have pros and cons. The only blanket statement that can be made about them is that they are all classless.

 

[Desdichado]

As Zappo said, so you can buy books of advantage / disadvantages instead? Yeah, okay.

Except that advantages, or "features" would have a much broader utility than prestige classes. You could also pack a ton more of them in one book. One splatbook the size of Sword and Fist could have all the information needed to create all the published prestige classes so far.

What it does give you that is context. An ability alone is naked. In D&D, special abilities are character schticks that people with specific training and association use. In a skills only system, there needs be little or no justification for WHY a given character would have an odd or unique ability.

D&D isn't a skills only system, nor am I advocating that it become one. I would be interested in seeing the class system of D&D opened up to greater customization. Class abilities woud still be important, but you can cherry pick the ones that fit your concept, not just get saddled with the ones that come with your predetermined class.

This is a positive quality on two counts. One, it gives you more ideas (both the GM world ideas and the player character ideas) than an ability alone ever could. Two, it adds to the consistency of vision of the ability and minimizes the practice of picking out this or that ability because it benefits your character vice because you have a good, justified reason to take it.

I respectfully disagree with both points... to an extent. Prestige classes may give players and DMs ideas, but they also restrict the way the idea can be implemented. Abilities can present the idea better, and it can be incorporated into whatever concept the players have rather than the concept the designer has. And the second point I don't actually understand. It seems that you're saying the ability should be tied to the designers vision, which I disagree with. If the abilitiy is well designed, you don't have to worry about it breaking a game by giving it to a character.

 

[Skywalker]

Will people stop making such broad generalisations on this thread

As with many things involving RPGs there is no right or wrong only preference. Some people prefer classless systems some do not. Some as we have seen don't even agree on what a classless or class system is.

There are some very good classless systems such as Unknown Armies and Silhouette. There is also a spectrum of systems that use classes to some extent. Cthulhu uses careers. Tribe 8 uses Outlooks. Vampire uses clans. D&D uses classes.

What is importnat to discuss is that classes do perform an important role to game play. People have different views about how far this role should go.

For example I like classes but I find D&D classes too prescriptive. The classes go too far IMO and restrict player freedom. The classes make certain presumptions that make the classes difficult to apply broadly.

Now before everyone goes off at me I must say I think D&D has tackled a particularly hard task well. It is probably the most generic fantasy game around and considering it has classes this deserves recognition. However (as many now realise) the game only really supports high fantasy.

Now a good thing is that by the looks of it d20 has done a good job to apply the rules to different genres and d20 Modern and d20 Cthulhu recognise the advantage of broad classes. It will be interesting to see whether this influences further incarnations of D&D (D&D3e is far more flexible than its predecessors and the Fighter class is a good example).

What I have yet to see is the d20 rules applied to a low fantasy setting. That probably would require some of the prescriptions in the classes to be modified, like removing magic from some of the 8 (out of 11) core classes that have it.

This has been a very good thread but lets not generalise.