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

[Mortaneus]

Psion,

I have played over 20 different role playing systems. I personally own over 100. I've been GMing for more than a decade. I've written quite a few gaming systems when I couldn't find one that suited the kind of game I wanted to run. I am often regarded as one of the best GMs in my area (and believe me, that's a lot of gamers). Whenever I say I'm thinking about running something, people start lining up out the door.

D&D is one of the most limited gaming systems I've ever come across. Because of it's classes, level system, and earth-shattering magic, it is only good at running ONE kind of game. Hack and slash. All other styles of gaming have to be forced apon the system. Sure, you can run an intrigue laden game. Sure, you can run a role-playing intensive game. Does the system really support this? Not nearly as well as other skill-based games.

D&D is great if you want simplistic gaming, with lots of death, carnage, die rolling, and magic tossing.

Classless skill-based systems, however, are universally better at non-heroic and non-fantasy games. I have never ONCE seen a decent sword fight in D&D that didn't just devolve into a hit point contest. When I look at a character, I want to see a PERSON that has a story to them. I want to look at their skills, abilities, and traits and see a character that has a story built into them, not just another 10th level cleric, or 3rd level two-weapon fighter.

I want to be able to make a 13 year old street urchin, who's had to learn to survive in the gutter, but who has survived through a combination of strangely good luck, natural talent, and periodic outbursts of great arcane power, which never occur when he wants them, but only when he really needs them.

I want to be able to make a talented musician, whose coming is heralded thorughout the kingdom for his musical talent, and has a natural talent for languages, but is secretly a devotee of the thought-long-dead god of music, and for whom magic, even items, just doesn't work so well.

I want to be able to look at a character sheet and see these things reflected, not see a 2nd level rogue with spellfire, or a 5th level bard, 2nd level cleric with a really strange feat.

Currently, I'm running a Kingdoms of Kalamar game, using GURPS, and everyone is really enjoying it. I've gotten complements from previously D&D laden players, who find the style of play GURPS allows to be quite a bit more entertaining than the standard D&D fare. They like being able to see their characters get better every session. They like being able to get better at something by taking time to study it, rather than go adventuring and hope for a level. They like being able to dabble in a variety of interests, and actually possibly develop some skill in them, rather than being forced to follow some predefined class, or to multiclass and take a serious hit to their main skill advancement. The players seem to be having fun, and they've told me that part of the reason is LACK of classes and such arbitrary restrictions. And since this is a GAME we're talking about, fun is all that really matters.

Your assertion that classes make for a better game is fallacious. It's all in how it is run, and what style of game is being attempted. You're making a broad generalization by stating that classes are always good, a statement that I know form EXTENSIVE experience to be completely false. Classes are no better than any other system. If it suits the type of game you wish to run, then fine, they're good. If not, then they're a hinderance more than a help.

So quit preaching on your soapbox about the superiority of a inherently limited character creation system. It's beginning to become annoying.

 

[kenjib]

Hi all (I'm honestly not directing this at anyone in particular),

Before a spiral of slander forms, I just want to say that I believe that the best way to respond to a perceived insult is most definitely not to respond with an even worse insult. It's best to just ignore it and stick to the meat of the argument. Moral highground and all. Trust 3rd party readers to identify who is "blowing steam" and who is providing solid arguments. In the end a level headed, concise, and well informed, argument is far more powerful than any kind of insult could ever be. Insults and exhortations are meaningless filler that detract from the quality of an argument by distracting readers from the main points. They also inhibit an atmosphere of free, open, and often bring productive discussion and interesting debate to quick and premature close.

Thanks!

Okay, I get what you are saying, and as should be obvious, no I don't like that idea. Characters and "career" paths develop core competancies. Changing them willy-nilly from level to level shatters all SOD. Further, it sounds like it would bring a new anal level to character management on the order or Rolemaster, which I will happily live without.

I can see why you, yourself, don't like changing ability groupings willy-nilly. I'm suggesting, however, that while the proposed system is fundamentally classless and allows this, that it also provides a mechanism to apply more strict classing if he so chooses. In fact, the default method of play should be the classed extension, since it's quicker, simpler, and easier for new players to learn. Let me try to clarify with an example of one way in which they could have organized the books:

1. Players Handbook: This does not seem much different from the 3e player's handbook. It has classes and character advancement rules very similar to 3e. The differences in the new system are completely hidden from this book.

2. Dungeon Masters Guide: Pretty much the same.

3. Monster Manual: Pretty much the same.

4. Advanced Players Handbook (or call it something else if you want to keep it more in the DM's domain): This book reveals the underlying point based system (or another, more elegant system if one can be invented) that was used to build the classes in book 1. The mechanic for building classes does not require any arbitrary eye-balling to create a new class. It has clear and concise rules and all of the classes in book 1 were built with these rules and follow them 100%. They provide incentives for characters to adopt groups of similar abilities, rather than grabbing odd, random, and unrelated traits. Players and/or DMs can now choose to use these rules how they like. In addition, the book describes how you can use this system to build a freeform character level by level instead of using a predefined class path. It also includes variant rules for awarding character points gradually by experience gained instead of by level, so that the game can be played without level-ups. Maybe you could even have a variant rule for levelless classed play so that you can retain strong archetypes but have gradual advancement.

Now we get a choice. D&D can be played either classed or classless, as well as levelled and levelless, but either way it uses the exact same rules. In fact, characters built with and without classes can now be seamlessly integrated into the same campaign since there is no difference in the rules underlying how the characters were made. Essentially there are at least three ways to use the rules now regarding classed/classless (let's ignore the level/levelless choice for this example):

1. Ignore book 4 and play D&D pretty close to how it is now. This is how "core rules" purists and those who want to put extra work into the game, among others, would play it.
2. Use book 4 only for the DM to build new custom classes. This is how rules tinkerers, world builders, and people who, like you, want to maintain DM control and character concept consistency (please feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here - I'm trying my best ) would play it.
3. Use book 4 to allow characters to play customized classless characters. This is how fans of an organic classless system, and those who like to leave ultimate power in the players' hands and adapt to their choices, would play it.

You can still play the way you want but those people who want a classless system can play that way too. What do you lose here? I can't see why anyone would be opposed to this format since it lets people play either way and neither one is endorsed over the other. Is #2 pretty much what you want? If not, how could I revise the concept to fit your needs? As long as the rules allow and encourage you to play your way, it shouldn't hurt you that it also allows and encourages other people to play a different way. What do you think, taking this clarification into account?

Book 4 could possibly be made with the current implementation of D&D, but I'm not sure that the classes as they are now can be retrofitted in a fashion that does not compromise the quality of the classless system. I think it would be better to redesign the player's handbook after the building system was devised. I would love to be proven wrong and see a nice system for this put out by WotC. I don't see it happening though (at least not with the quality and consistency that I would like to see).

 

[Mortaneus]

Originally posted by kenjib

4. Advanced Players Handbook (or call it something else if you want to keep it more in the DM's domain): This book reveals the underlying point based system (or another, more elegant system if one can be invented) that was used to build the classes in book 1. The mechanic for building classes does not require any arbitrary eye-balling to create a new class. It has clear and concise rules and all of the classes in book 1 were built with these rules and follow them 100%. They provide incentives for characters to adopt groups of similar abilities, rather than grabbing odd, random, and unrelated traits. Players and/or DMs can now choose to use these rules how they like. In addition, the book describes how you can use this system to build a freeform character level by level instead of using a predefined class path. It also includes variant rules for awarding character points gradually by experience gained instead of by level, so that the game can be played without level-ups. Maybe you could even have a variant rule for levelless classed play so that you can retain strong archetypes but have gradual advancement.

This has to be one of the best suggestions I've heard in a while. If they made this, I WOULD buy that book. It would be the best thing that ever happened to d20.

*sigh* Unfortunately, it would immediately be dubbed the book of uber-munchkinism when the munchies got their hands on it. It's what happened to the Players Options books. Personally, I loved the PO books, and used them to great effect in a long running planescape campaign.

Psion did make a good point regarding skill based systems, especially when dealing with points, in that it requires a great deal more GM supervision of character generation than you can get away with in standard D&D.

Personally, I prefer to work with the players to generate their characters, but I can see that not all GMs operate in this fashion. I think it gives me a better feel for the characters, and makes me want to help the character's story get told. Like everything else, though, that's a matter of personal preference.

 

[kenjib]

*sigh* Unfortunately, it would immediately be dubbed the book of uber-munchkinism when the munchies got their hands on it. It's what happened to the Players Options books.

Hmmm, that's a very good point. Do you think that could be mostly alleviated through quality of execution? I think that some careful design considerations could make a tremendous difference - look at the difference between the core 2e and 3e rules as an example.

 

[Psion]

I have played over 20 different role playing systems. I personally own over 100. I've been GMing for more than a decade. I've written quite a few gaming systems when I couldn't find one that suited the kind of game I wanted to run.

Ooh! Chest-beating! Alright.

For your information, I have been GMing TWICE as long as you, have designed my own systems and house rules and I too have to reject players despite the fact that I seem to be in a player vapid area and have only lived here a short time. I am also the most highly lauded D20 reviewer on the basis of my ability to analyze a product. So do me a favor by not trying to talk down to me on this basis or pretending your experience or reputation makes you right, okay?

D&D is one of the most limited gaming systems I've ever come across. Because of it's classes, level system, and earth-shattering magic, it is only good at running ONE kind of game. Hack and slash.

Utter, unqualified BS. Would you have said that about 1e, I would have to agree. But 3e has a full blown skill system and I continually run games with intrigues and social drama in them.

Sure, you can run an intrigue laden game. Sure, you can run a role-playing intensive game.

Wait? What were you just saying. I guess it can.

Does the system really support this?

Yes.

Classless skill-based systems, however, are universally better at non-heroic and non-fantasy games. I have never ONCE seen a decent sword fight in D&D that didn't just devolve into a hit point contest.

Oooh! You are so right. Other systems give you death spirals and crap shoots. That is SOOO much better.

Please do get real. I have seen few system that can combine the same level of tension and suspense that D&D can... and those that can tend to be much more complicated.

When I look at a character, I want to see a PERSON that has a story to them. I want to look at their skills, abilities, and traits and see a character that has a story built into them, not just another 10th level cleric, or 3rd level two-weapon fighter.

And a D&D character cannot be seen for its abilities and traits? That D&D characters can be meaningfully summarized does not change that, any more than a 250-point brick in champions or a 100 point fighter in GURPS would.

That is entirely a perception.

Currently, I'm running a Kingdoms of Kalamar game, using GURPS, and everyone is really enjoying it.

Congratulations. I'm glad their enjoying it. Funny, in my homebrew world in D&D, my players always tell me that there are too many days between the games and how they don't want to stop when it is time to put up for the night. So stop acting like you are holding something over me and stop your damned chestbeating.

Your assertion that classes make for a better game is fallacious. It's all in how it is run, and what style of game is being attempted.

Excuse me?

When did I make that claim? STOP TRYING TO RESTATE MY CASE FOR ME! THIS IS A STRAWMAN!

I may have defended them against detractors, and claimed that they have positive attributes that I maintain are true. But I have also stated that peoples values and tolerances are different. It was you who came in here beating your drum about how flawed classes are.

You're making a broad generalization by stating that classes are always good, a statement that I know form EXTENSIVE experience to be completely false.

Again back to the chest beating... I know what I know from twice as much experience that my evaluations are true. So there. Nyah!

Classes are no better than any other system. If it suits the type of game you wish to run, then fine, they're good.

Waitaminute. Is are they not worse or are they worse? You seem as if you are jumping back and forth from a "systems don't matter" standpoint and a "classes suck" standpoint. What is it?

So quit preaching on your soapbox about the superiority of a inherently limited character creation system. It's beginning to become annoying.

Ah, so they are worse, then. I see.

Don't preach to me about being on a soapbox... I'm not the one who felt he had to march in here and flash his GMing resume to back up his entirely subjective statements.

 

[Psion]

Hmmm, that's a very good point. Do you think that could be mostly alleviated through quality of execution? I think that some careful design considerations could make a tremendous difference - look at the difference between the core 2e and 3e rules as an example.

Well, speaking for myself, yes and no.

I think that a little more playtesting and forethought put into the old S&P books would have made them much more viable. I made some patches myself and played under them for some time. They seemed to work fairly well, but they still seemed to suffer from some of the hobgoblins of accounting and pointmongery that such systems typically suffer.

I think even if you came up with something fairly solid, you are invariably going to face a trade of in terms of logic and exploitation.

 

[kenjib]

I think even if you came up with something fairly solid, you are invariably going to face a trade of in terms of logic and exploitation.

Does making the rules optional and letting the DM decide whether or not make the trade result in a net gain or do you think that it compromises the reputation/integrity of the system as a whole, even if you don't use the rules, too much to be a valuable addition?

Myself, I think that the gain of having the optional rules as a resource is a material gain, while the loss to someone who does not use them is mostly a perceptive loss, and so I would say that there is a net gain and such a book would be a good thing. Although I could see where a problem with constantly having to tell the players that they can't use it could be a source of irritation - but then we already have that problem with the deluge of dubious feats, spells, and prestige classes on the d20 market, no?

 

[Mortaneus]

Psion,

*sigh*

I am not chest-beating. I'm merely trying to state my opinion that classes, though good for D&D, tend to cause problems when taken into other contexts. You don't seem to agree. That's fine.

We both seem to be mis-interpreting each other's arguments. I did not intend to sound like I'm trying to talk down to you, but to merely state that I do have more than a passing knowledge of game design. I am fully aware of your credentials as well, and they are more than respectable.

I apologize for my hostile tone. I don't like being lectured, and some of your posts seemed to convey that impression. I find myself in error on that assumption, and for that I am sorry.

In any case, do agree that class based systems do have several benefits. Ease of character generation, hands-free character growth, and other inherently balancing factors.

Personally, I feel that these aren't necessary, but that is a matter of opinion. It will be interesting to see what they do with d20 modern, and how well the d20 system stands up to the rigors of a technologically oriented setting.

 

[Psion]

Does making the rules optional and letting the DM decide whether or not make the trade result in a net gain or do you think that it compromises the reputation/integrity of the system as a whole, even if you don't use the rules, too much to be a valuable addition?

I think if the system was well designed, it would be a net boon, because those who are like me could use the system as a personal toolbox and those who prefer an anything goes approach could open it up to the players.

But then, I have met many players in the course of my career who thought that more options were bad, so YMMV.

 

[Desdichado]

Okay EVERYONE, if you wish to refute my position, then don't do the incorrect rephrasing and strawman construction that first Joshua and (now) Mortaneus are doing.

If I've done so, it's only because you make posts that very strongly imply one opinion, and then when I try to pin you down on it, you back away from it. I realize that this thread seems to be primarily populated by those in favor of, at the very least, a much more open class system than we currently have, so maybe you've had to be a bit on the defensive. Still, you come across as very inconsistent as the thread has progressed.

However, I don't think anyone is making unreasonable assumptions here. Your position seems no more firm or clear than Bill Clinton's position on anything, so this "rephrasing and strawman construction" you accuse me (us) of is more related to your own apparent wishy-washyness throughout the thread than it is to my (our) inability to construct cogent arguments against your position.