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

[Psion]

Except that advantages, or "features" would have a much broader utility than prestige classes.

How so? Prestige classes include new features. Many include as many as 10. But abilities exist in a vacuum. They have no regulation, no logic supporting their use. By themselves, you just have to trust that whoever uses them is going to use them right.

I respectfully disagree with both points... to an extent.

Even though you openly admit that you do not understand one of my points? It sounds like you are disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing, vice considering what I am trying to say before making a judgement.

Prestige classes may give players and DMs ideas, but they also restrict the way the idea can be implemented.

They do?

No, they give you ONE way of implementing a given set of ideas. If you have a different idea of how it can be used, then do so.

Now note that I have already owned that I wish they gave you a more concrete means to do so. However, it is also noteworthy that many point-based implementations fall short of the mark on acheiving balance and consistency, so that's not that big of a hit IMV.

But if you are asserting that there is not inherent value in the ideas conveyed in the nominally balanced package of a prestige class, I really must beg to differ. That you can assemble your own ideas is irrelevant to that matter. I write my own adventures, does that make published adventures worthless?

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 how is this not true of various prestige class abilities and feats? The difference is that they also give you a balanced pre-assembled package with some forethought put into how the abilities relate and why a character who has taken this path would have them. Laundry lists of skills don't give you that. It's not like if you like Monte's tattoos of power or Ambient's archery abilities you can't use them in your own classes.

And the second point I don't actually understand.

You don't understand it, but you disagree with it...

It seems that you're saying the ability should be tied to the designers vision,

Nope. No "should".

What I am saying is that the designer's vision has VALUE. Nothing MAKES you use prestige classes. That doesn't mean that prestige classes don't contain worthwhile character ideas and implementations.

Remember the question that I am answering was "what do prestige classes give you" not "why should Joshua use only those prestige classes presented in the book." You being just a titch reactionary.

If the abilitiy is well designed, you don't have to worry about it breaking a game by giving it to a character.

Fat chance. I've played enough point-based anything-goes type games to know better. Even relatively well meaning players gleefully over-justifiy their characters' capabilities in their heads and grab abilities that they think fit their character that are really quite irrational.

 

[Desdichado]

Psion wrote:
How so? Prestige classes include new features. Many include as many as 10. But abilities exist in a vacuum. They have no regulation, no logic supporting their use. By themselves, you just have to trust that whoever uses them is going to use them right.

Well, that's pretty common sense. Prestige classes only are useful if you want to play the concept that the designer came up with. And I still don't understand why you have a problem with ideas existing in a vacuum, or being used "right." That seems to contradict another point you make in your argument later on (see below).

Even though you openly admit that you do not understand one of my points? It sounds like you are disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing, vice considering what I am trying to say before making a judgement.

I disagreed with what I thought you meant, even though it wasn't very clear that that is indeed what you meant. I believe I said as much in my own post, although you might have snipped that part in your reply.

They do?

No, they give you ONE way of implementing a given set of ideas. If you have a different idea of how it can be used, then do so.

Now note that I have already owned that I wish they gave you a more concrete means to do so. However, it is also noteworthy that many point-based implementations fall short of the mark on acheiving balance and consistency, so that's not that big of a hit IMV.

But if you are asserting that there is not inherent value in the ideas conveyed in the nominally balanced package of a prestige class, I really must beg to differ. That you can assemble your own ideas is irrelevant to that matter. I write my own adventures, does that make published adventures worthless?

Yes, of course they do. Prestige classes give you one way of utilizing a new ability -- by multiclassing into the prestige class. And here's the apparent inconsistency in your argument as I understand it. You don't want abilities seperated from prestige classes because you are worried that they will be too easily abused and the balance of the game will be upset. Yet you advocate just changing prestige classes to fit your concept and pooh-pooh those who say that they're reluctant to really dive into the rules and change them because of balance issues. And then in the third paragraph quoted above you seem to be saying that taking abilities out of published prestige classes and writing your own take on it is no more different then taking elements out of a published module and adding it to your own adventure. I certainly don't agree with that, a class-less D&D needs to have guidelines on how to implement class abilities; what prereqs will make it balanced etc. If you are concerned about balance, then you really shouldn't mess with the prestige classes much at all, because you run the very real risk of jeopardizing the balance. If you're not, and you think the classes should be easily tinkered with, then I don't understand what your problem with class-less D&D is, as that is the next logical step from that situation.

And how is this not true of various prestige class abilities and feats? The difference is that they also give you a balanced pre-assembled package with some forethought put into how the abilities relate and why a character who has taken this path would have them. Laundry lists of skills don't give you that. It's not like if you like Monte's tattoos of power or Ambient's archery abilities you can't use them in your own classes.

Invoking the ability to tinker with and write your own classes isn't really fair to the argument; of course I can always do that. The point is, I would like a system that allowed me to do so without having to figure all of that out on my own; I would like a system that encouraged me to tinker rather than spelling out how everything should be done. Granted, part of the reason I want this isn't that the game itself doesn't allow you to tinker, but that the player base in general doesn't take too kindly to it. Therefore, if there were rules published in a future supplement that allowed this type of customization and gave solid guidelines on how to do it "properly" I'd be happy, and I'd have a good chance of getting my players, or my DM (depending on what the case may be) to adopt the changes.

You don't understand it, but you disagree with it...
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that you're saying the ability should be tied to the designers vision,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. No "should".

What I am saying is that the designer's vision has VALUE. Nothing MAKES you use prestige classes. That doesn't mean that prestige classes don't contain worthwhile character ideas and implementations.

Ah, you didn't snip it after all, there it is right there. As I said, I disagreed with what I thought you were saying, even if I wan't sure that was what you were saying. Now, that I understand you, I agree, the prestige classes have value. I never said they didn't. However, the same abilities could be presented in a way -- given a class-less system -- that they had even more value. Or rather, that they didn't have a ton of inherent waste in concepts married to the concept I like, making the prestige class need to be totally revamped for someone who likes the idea but not the implementation. Classes have a bad ratio of fat to value unless you want to play the exact concept the designer was thinking of.

Fat chance. I've played enough point-based anything-goes type games to know better. Even relatively well meaning players gleefully over-justifiy their characters' capabilities in their heads and grab abilities that they think fit their character that are really quite irrational.

Alright, that's been your experience. I've never played a point-based game that produced any combinations that are more illogical than those which are presented in the PHB in the form of classes. If that has been your experience, I can see much of your reluctance to a class-less variant of D&D. However, my experience is that the classes are just as illogical in their skill-bundling, unless you play the exact concept the class was designed for without any variation whatsoever in concept. I also submit that "illogical" is very subjective. My own list of skills, feats and whatever, if I were a character, would probably be very illogical. That doesn't make me a badly designed character.

EDIT: I may be a badly designed character, but not because my set of skills is "illogical."

 

[jfiz]

my thoughts...in question form...

Ok, if we look at this as purely a comparison of systems, and we for the sake of that don't limit ourselves to a DnD/Fantasy like setting;

Consider the following character "concepts" - basically the RolePlay background/descriptions of characters that we wish to use the system to model for game play:

A former fringe scientist who is now a government agent working to protect a secret alien race.

A salvage ship captain who wields a modicum of psionic powers.

A gallavanting swashbuckler who is equally charming, good with a blade, and religously empowered.

...think about how you would model these characters first in an existing class-based system, using core-published classes in that system.

...then think about how you would model these same characters using an established class-less system, such as GURPS, BESM2, or something similar.

...finally consider how you would model them using a more "rules-light" or abstract system such as WaRP (OTE), Risus, Amber, and their ilk.

In considering these questions, my hunch is that you may arrive at some of these same conclusions:

1) In a class-based system such as DnD, characters that are in the vein of the fantasy setting the system was designed for (i.e. the swashbuckler perhaps) are easier to model then the characters further removed from that setting.

My theory is that this stems from how we have been "shown" various settings...fantasy (DnD) literature tends to put less emphasis on skill and diversity, and more on core archetypes. Whereas science fiction literature tends to explore more deeply the quirkiness, faults, shortcommings, diversity, and contradictions of character.

2) In order to suffeciently model the less archetypal characters in a class based system, some details must be compromised, and the resulting character model (as opposed to the original concept) will be arbitarily abstract. More abstract in fact, than the same character model in a class-less systems such as GURPS et. al. Often times, this abstraction may lead to the idea that the same character could be represented (modeled) equally well by the "rules-light" systems. The in-between nature of the class-based system may have the effects of abstracting the character some, losing detail, and not necessarily gaining any benefit of the lost complexity.

3) If you are willing to accept abstraction in character modeling (leading to greater subjectiveness of action resolution), the more diversified, less archetypal characters will be much easier to model in a rules-light system while still staying true to the original concept.

4) The strongly archetypal characters will be "streched" or made needlessly complex in modeling in order to be created in the class-less sytems such as GURPS. While the original concept may be maintained, it could be buried or inadvertently alterered by the extra complexity inherent in the class-less systems.

My current theory (*theory* - something to test/think about further etc.) is that the important distinction in class vs. classless systems is a matter of abstraction. Furthermore, this degree of abstraction is a measurable quality of any given RPG setting.

Class-based systems may prove the more elegant choice for classical Fantasy-based settings, where the resulting models serve the strongly archetyped, balanced characters associated with such settings. Powerful Wizards, skulking rogues, and reverant priests are the shoulders that carry Fantasy plots.

Non-class systems seem to work best when mated to science fiction or modern-military style settings (cyberpunk, forex). In these settings, detailed skill levels and specific areas of expertise, along with precise modeling of a characters faults and shortcomings are more important in driving the detailed oriented story lines - more important than the descriptive character concept at times.

Rules-Light systems, such as WaRP (OTE), Risus, et. al should work best when mated to a very RP oriented game, where the emphasis in character modeling should be drawn strictly from the descriptive character concept. Games where a greater degree of abstraction is acceptable, and where an "Axe wielding manaic" serves a better purpose in the setting than a "12th lvl barbarian" are likely candidates. OTE is one such setting; other games tilted towards the descriptive side, such as Amber, Birthright (IMHO), and even cinematic games like HKAT can be a hoot when coupled with such an abstract system. Afterall, doesn't just feel cooler to have the trait "praying mantis lashes out" on your character sheet, instead of "Martial Arts: 18" or "improved unarmed combat BAB: +10" on your character sheet? (sorry this is a tough distinction to make heh).

...Anyway, think about these questions and see if you make your way to any of the same conclusions. For me lately, it seems like the nature of the system (class vs. non-class vs. rules-light) runs a gamut from one-end to the other, and that it's more important for the system to simply support and empower the play style appropriate to the setting. From that respect, I find DnD 3E quite well suited to fantasy gaming. GURPS, BESM, etc. are good choices for Cyberpunk, X-files, Modern Military, etc. type games, and the rules light crowd are great for games like OTE etc. Sometimes this can be a close call...i.e. GURPS vs. BESM for example...I would chose BESM for more cinematic action, and GURPS for more granular "reality" feel, and probably if I wanted to model complex ideas in greater detail...

What do you guys think?

Thanks,

 

[Psion]

Yes, of course they do. Prestige classes give you one way of utilizing a new ability -- by multiclassing into the prestige class. And here's the apparent inconsistency in your argument as I understand it. You don't want abilities seperated from prestige classes because you are worried that they will be too easily abused and the balance of the game will be upset. Yet you advocate just changing prestige classes to fit your concept and pooh-pooh those who say that they're reluctant to really dive into the rules and change them because of balance issues.

1) I don't "not want them separated from prestige classes" (that's really what feats are). Rather, I feel that prestige classes have value in that they already have a modicum of balance, logic, and conceptual integrity built it. I don't like it for what it's not. I like it for what it IS, and this converse-rephrasing of yours has led you to misquote or misinterperet me on multiple occasions.
2) I am not just concerned about balance (though that is an issue). I am as much or more concerned about the solidity and beleivability of the character concept when all is said and done.
3) I don't beleive I have EVER pooh-poohed those who are reluctant to dive into the rules, because it is a sentiment that I understand perfectly.

And then in the third paragraph quoted above you seem to be saying that taking abilities out of published prestige classes and writing your own take on it is no more different then taking elements out of a published module and adding it to your own adventure.

Again, no. For the third time (and the last time... my rule on internet debating is that once you have repeated something three times, if they still don't get it, they never will): I do beleive that they need a more solid method of tweaking or building classes.

However, that does not mean that the ability ideas are not there.

Invoking the ability to tinker with and write your own classes isn't really fair to the argument; of course I can always do that. The point is, I would like a system that allowed me to do so without having to figure all of that out on my own;

As I have said repeatedly, I agree they need a more concrete method. However, that doesn't making invoking it unfair, as the DMG advocates and provides basic guidelines for the construction of your own prestige classes classes, so it's not like I am telling you to do something the system doesn't already encourage.

Classes have a bad ratio of fat to value unless you want to play the exact concept the designer was thinking of.

Hmmm... I situationally disagree. I find that some supplements, like Sword & Fist, tend to have a large amount of classes that are "just what a player is looking for". DotF, on the other hand, has a pretty high miss-ratio.

That said, I find that players are a highly suggestable lot. The "I gotta have it just this way" type of player that skilled based systems advocates prop up are actually quite rare in reality... and even where they do exist, skill based systems often fail to meet the mark because the point total alloted the player or the mere foibles of the mecanics puts the concept out of reach. IME, most players only have a few general concepts of what they want to play, and are highly suggestable to interesting concepts inspired by game materials or even pictures, and just build on the concept from there. Which is sort of the idea. (Heck, I remember a 2e wild mage that I wrote up JUST so he could cast the Darklight's Planar Weapon spells.) I frequently see this sort of behavior.

 

[Desdichado]

Class-based systems may prove the more elegant choice for classical Fantasy-based settings, where the resulting models serve the strongly archetyped, balanced characters associated with such settings. Powerful Wizards, skulking rogues, and reverant priests are the shoulders that carry Fantasy plots.

Except that the archetypes are not necessarily the same in D&D as they are in fantasy literature. Therefore, you're not playing anything other than D&D. That may be fine for most, but I'd like a little more flexibility.

 

[Skywalker]

jfiz - Bravo I think you have said it better than any of us. There are pro's and con's and it is up to the individual to balance these depeneding on their tastes and the game presented to them.

The idea of classes necessarily involving abstraction is an important one. Sometime the abstraction is a small sacrifice compared to the advantages. Some games tend to suit classes over others but this will always depend on the person involved.

It is very noncomittal but true

 

[Desdichado]

Psion:
1) I don't "not want them separated from prestige classes" (that's really what feats are). Rather, I feel that prestige classes have value in that they already have a modicum of balance, logic, and conceptual integrity built it. I don't like it for what it's not. I like it for what it IS, and this converse-rephrasing of yours has led you to misquote or misinterperet me on multiple occasions.
2) I am not just concerned about balance (though that is an issue). I am as much or more concerned about the solidity and beleivability of the character concept when all is said and done.
3) I don't beleive I have EVER pooh-poohed those who are reluctant to dive into the rules, because it is a sentiment that I understand perfectly.

1) In that case, many of your arguments make much less sense. However, I understand that you are content to use prestige classes, modify them as needed or develop new ones as needed on an ad hoc basis and that you'd rather do this than have a class-less system which allowed you to do this within the framework of the rules. I still have yet to understand why you would want to, except that you believe the prestige classes to have an inherent and vague value to them. However, YMMV, as obviously it does.
2) OK, and the last paragraph of my last post addressed that. Obviously you and I have different opinions on how likely irrational characters are to arise without classes, but I can understand your opinion even if I don't agree with it.
3) Perhaps not, perhaps I read that into your posts without you meaning to put it there.

Again, no. For the third time (and the last time... my rule on internet debating is that once you have repeated something three times, if they still don't get it, they never will): I do beleive that they need a more solid method of tweaking or building classes.

However, that does not mean that the ability ideas are not there.

I saw that in each of your posts. However, as I pointed out at least twice as well (maybe three times with this post) there is no conceptual jump from rules for tweaking or building classes and playing a class-less game. It is the same concept. Unless you believe that class-building to be the sole province of the DM. Maybe this is what you believe, but you have not said so.

As I have said repeatedly, I agree they need a more concrete method. However, that doesn't making invoking it unfair, as the DMG advocates and provides basic guidelines for the construction of your own prestige classes classes, so it's not like I am telling you to do something the system doesn't already encourage.

To me, merely telling me to do so without providing me the tools to do so is hardly encouragement. Without some guidelines for doing so, they would have been better off not mentioning it at all.

 

[Dalamar]

D(Liberation)20 and ManaDrive are both classless d20 systems, the first concentrating on feats and the other on skills.

I read through the whole thread (not an easy task, I must say) and thought that I would share these items with you. Both systems get rid of classes, but keep levels.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I think that "justification for WHY a given character would have an odd or unique ability" should be left up to the GM or player who is creating the character. Not the game designers.

Of course, I've said this a couple times... This is the reason that, for me, classless systems work better than classed ones.

 

[SableWyvern]

jfiz - Bravo I think you have said it better than any of us. There are pro's and con's and it is up to the individual to balance these depeneding on their tastes and the game presented to them.

The idea of classes necessarily involving abstraction is an important one. Sometime the abstraction is a small sacrifice compared to the advantages. Some games tend to suit classes over others but this will always depend on the person involved.

It is very noncomittal but true

Actually, jfiz also manage to give me a perfect opportunity to drive home the point I have been monotonously maintaining for some time.

In contrast the general theory you presented, Rolemaster is a classed, leveled system in which making a modern or sci-fi character takes basically no modification to the system.

ICEs fighter, modern fighter and pulp (1920s) fighter classes differ only in that they have been very slightly modified to allow for a a few skills that are not appropriate in all settings (eg, a modern or pulp fighter has access to firearms skill categories). An equivalent change would have to me made in ANY game system moving from fantasy to modern, unless that system used only a single skill to resolve combat.

IOW, many of the arguments in this thread do not necessarily relate to class vs classless. They relate to system vs system.

(Yes, I know there is a big crowd out there longing to bad Rolemaster - however, please remember that the fact that you don't like the combat system or exhaustion points has no bearing on the topic at hand)