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

[Skywalker]

Post retracted and apologies to buzzard.

Joshua made some good points. I also found Psion's position very difficult to understand and more difficult to pin down but with time and discussion I did.

 

[buzzard]

Buzzard, care to specify any examples of when Joshua made these accusations without example?

Joshua made some good points. I also found Psion's position very difficult to understand and more difficult to pin down but with time and discussion I did. Perhaps you should care to do the same with Joshua's posts.

Are we reading the same thread here? The very post in which he claims Psion is being weasely like Clinton contains no examples. When Psion asks for examples, the refutation is a combination of avoidance by laziness, and proof by assertion. Examples would include such things as direct quotes, not assertions.

My posts in this thread are replete with concrete examples of where I thought he was inconsistent. I'm certainly not going to go back and look for them again just because you want me to. What was that you said about laziness? That laziness is not going back to reread 11 pages of thread to see all the examples in every one of my posts where I quoted a section of his post and then commented on it, and then he came back and said "No, that's not what I meant at all?" Laziness is saying that unless I do that work for you, you have all the excuse you need to make snarky requests at me? No? That's not what you said? Oh, sorry. My bad.

Yes your bad. I have read the whole thread. I have not seen your examples. Proof by assertion does not stand up in any debate.

Not only that, your reasoning is faulty. Majority does not make an argument factual, that is true, but when the argument is specififically about the clarity of the posts, then majority opinion is the only type of evidence that can be used.

Well somehow I've managed to comprehend his arguments, and last time I checked my hair wasn't puffed up enough for me to be Einstein.
Let me sum up- he doesn't think classless games are any better because they cause uneeded complications from a GM standpoint, and can sacrifice logical consistency. Granted this is a simplistic summary, but you were having comprehension problems, or so you say.

As for the claim that comprehension can be decided by majority, well did you poll every viewer of the thread? You're taking a very biased sample to make your assertion. Only those who failed to comprehend (all 3 or 4 of you) spoke up. Given the number of viewers of this thread, that is a mighty small percentage methinks. Hardly enough to be indicative of anything.

Buzzard

 

[LostSoul]

Only those who failed to comprehend (all 3 or 4 of you) spoke up.

Is this some kind of insult, or am I just way too sensitive right now?

 

[WizarDru]

Buzzard is correct. Just because those who arguing against Psion may be more vocal, that doesn't translate into everyone who reads the thread not being able to comprehend his points.

At one point, this was a reasonable discussion concerning the merits of a classless system. It has since degenerated into an advocacy argument charged with invective, which is a pity, since it seems to have lost the focus on the core issues being discussed.

Classless systems require a great deal more GM intervention during the character creation process. Having run GURPS games for fifteen years, I can attest to this. Neither classless or classed systems are more or less prone to min/maxing, this is an issue more concerned with players than with systems. A classed system allows more fine control, but often at the cost of flexibility in character design. Whether you view that as a problem or not is a matter of taste.

A game designed for a specific setting will always outperform a Generic setting game in that setting, without question. D&D will not model the King Arthur setting better than Pendragon, IMHO. Pendragon's core rules reinforce conventions of the setting much better than either D&D or GURPS Camelot do. Does that mean you can't run an equally compelling game in each? No, it doesn't. What it does mean is that Pendragon, from a metagame rules standpoint, will have better rules representation for that setting than an adaption by another system.

The appeal of GURPS is NOT just in it's classless based system. GURPS ease of adaption to multiple settings was always the main attraction to my players. GURPS faults are many, but that's not the point of this thread. The question was raised, 'what's so great about classless systems?'

The answer, to me, is that classless systems allow you a level of flexibility that classed systems may not. There are many ups and downs to the approach, which seems to have dominated the thread and lost the central issue. Yes, purchase-based skill-systems can make it much more difficult to create adventures, particularly published ones. There's a reason there are so few GURPS adventure supplements, and so many worldbooks.

A classless system removes the certainty that both players and DMs have about their environment, and that is appealing to some. In a classed system, if you encounter a street cop, you know he will have a fixed set of abilities, regardless of what customization may have occured. In a classless system, that certainly is no longer as concrete.

The example of a member of the armed services was given. Having worked alongside former members of three of the four major branches of those organizations, my experience has been (and based on their input) that while they gain skills, basic training is NOT the same thing as a class package. They do not all come out of basic with a +1 to firearms attack, +2 to wilderness survival, etc. Over extended service, they do gain skills....but they can be fairly diverse.

None of which is to say that classes are a bad idea. They are an excellent metagame tool, and provide a large amount of benefits. Balancing is a slippery slope, but classes allow a certain estimation of abilities that classless systems cannot. For example, take the police offer example given above. In a classed campaign, I can assume that every officer has at least one skill rank in firearms, the ability to recieve backup on a radio call once per day, etc. In a classless system, that same character might be a forensic technician, with no firearm ability, and no ability to arrest criminals beyond that of a standard citizen. Writing an adventure for the later is possible, but if writing for more than the individual party, this becomes problematic. In metagame terms, both characters might be built on the same points, but that doesn't mean that they have the same abilities, and that leads to problems.

Ultimately, we come back to what I said earlier. To wit: we all benefit from having the opportunity to access both systems. Both systems have their appeal, and both have their weaknesses. Blind advocacy of either approach is just folly, IMHO.

 

[Desdichado]

I said I was done with this thread, so I'm not going to address the points raised, because I have already done so more than once. Just a point of clarification, though: I never said anything about anyone reading the thread, I said quite specifically everyone who had posted on the thread over a range of several pages.

 

[buzzard]

Is this some kind of insult, or am I just way too sensitive right now?

Nope, not an insult. I merely said that his assertion was not proved by a limited and biased sample size. I often don't get someone's point either becuase I have prior impressions clouding my views, or I'm just dense. All too often the latter.

Buzzard

 

[sword-dancer]

Does anyone else see the same problem here that I do?

You are stating what you want to do in mechanical terms... e.g. arcane spells versus divine spells. That sounds mildly like metagaming to me. If you were to express this in terms of the basic concepts, I see little or no problem with writing up this character as a cleric/sorcerer.

If that didn't satisfy you and you satisfy your DM that you are not trying to be a weasel by sneaking in arcane type spells under the divine banner, I could see the DM invoking the suggestion in the PHB that lets the DM swap abilities... swap armor ability for access to fire spells at 1 level higher than the sorcerer/wizard list.

That said, I do think that the system needs a more rigorous method for tweaking class abilities... as I have said in the past, the one main thing I miss about 2e is Skills & Powers. But even that book was rife with abuse.

Would I jump ship for a classless system and accept all of its foibles to get that? No, I will make the call and be comfortable with that. As with many things, there is a tradeoff to be had here.

But I still maintain totally classless is an empty cup.

The point is you didn´t need that work in an classless system.
And i see aproblem with dual-ccalssing because he gets abilities that didn´t fit his concept, and didn`t get abilitites who fits them

 

[sword-dancer]

I have so far failed to see anything great about a class-less system. I have done a bit of GURPS, but the system seemed rather confusing and counter-intuitive (Never did understand why a powerful magician would have to be able to lift cars with a high STR needed to be able to cast lotsa spells). It failed to impress me, though a lack of classes wasn't what distanced me most.

What's wrong with the Archetypes, especially when they're as flexible as 3e D&D classes?

You are wrong, in GURPS the cost of spells is reduced by your skill in the spell.
They are more flexible than IIed but see the barbarian as example, he fits (more or less) the northern fantasy barb, as berserker he had to much controll over his rage.

They used him to in FRCS to model the mongolian nomadic horse archer. Which he didn`t fit the last and his class abilizies are more than useless

Classes systems that really shine are Runequest and Star Wars (the West End Games version that used d6 not the WotC one).

Basically it has to do with a larger degree of customization and a finer gradient of advancement. In Runequest, if you use your sword a lot you advance in sword skill. There isn't the sudden flood of skill, saving throws, hit points, and feats that a D&D fighter might have.

Runequest a class system?
Could you please explain that.

The careers are exactly that, you could change them during character building, and act freely after that if i´m correct

I actively dislike truly classless systems. Though I have played many types of systems, I find that I strongly prefer systems with some sort of archtype or package mechanic that helps enforce a little consistency in character concepts.

The chief offender in this realm, IMO, is GURPS. It seems to be the poster boy of classless systems that skill-based fans like to prop up.

I have played GURPS and have yet to be impressed by a game run under it. IME, the "anything goes" methodology tends to produce jack-of-all trades characters with skills scattered everywhere. Of those players who DO have the wherewithal to pick out a concept and build it out of the system end up with characters that surprisingly look like they fit one of the D&D classes (when playing fantasy, natch.) That being the case, I can live without the illogic and scattered concepts of do-it-all characters, so what does that leave? Concepts that are essentially easily captured by classes.

I could see the classless arguments in the 1e days, where there were no feats or skills and little or no means to individualize your characters. These days, skills-only systems seem like an empty cup to me.

Clearly GURPS is able to abuse
See the cowardic pacifistic liar who provoke party members to kill each other?
But archetypes are essential to any background?
Okay give me please the archetype of a gray lensman,
or of an hastur lord of darkover, military/nonmilitary spacemen, space patrol, explorer corps,
How did the dnd classes fit in an true celtic, germanic, medieval background

The player is the last person I would allow that decision to. My experience is that even a fairly responsible player can make some illogical characters and generous justifications when it comes to making their characters. And I generally trust the judgement of a person with a vested interest in making their product playable over one with a vested interest in making their character competative.

I would rather the GM have the ultimate authority. Now you can really do this either way - rely on the GM to tweak the character until it is in bounds or allow the GM to make exceptions to the rules.

.

Nice compliment for your players.
I had found players making mistakes, aka barbarians with no survival skills, but he didn`t go to abuse.

You had never played DSA the black eye IIIed

 

[Synicism]

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.

Problem, Psion.

Unless your class or career path is so flexible that it ceases to be a class except in the broadest sense of the word (armsman, arcane spellcaster, divine spellcaster, and so on), it can't by definition, cater to all character types.

Case in point:

A young recruit in a medieval/fantasy army. He's a first level fighter. He's learned to ride horses, maintain his equipment, climb, jump, and so on. Pretty well represented by the fighter class.

Now let's advance his culture somewhat. Instead of being fresh into his squire-hood, he's just hooked up with a renowned school of fence. This time, he's learning etiquette (Diplomacy/Sense Motive, dancing (Perform), acrobatics (Tumble), and so on. He's every bit as good a combatant as his medieval counterpart, but he has a different education. Is he a multiclassed fighter/expert? Why does he have to study twice as hard to get the same benefits when he is simply doing something *different?*

Now let's advance the setting even further. It's World War 2, and our young warrior is now a drafted recruit on the Allied line. He's fresh out of basic training. Does he know how to wear full plate? No. He probably doesn't know how to wear armor at all. Can he use all simple and martial weapons? No. If you handed him a longbow or a glaive, he'd probably kill himself. But he can fire pistols, rifles and sub machine guns, operate basic radio equipment, and possibly do some first aid. Is he a fighter? Not by the class terms.

The point is that classes have a tendency to channel characters into a specific set of archetypes that may or may not be appropriate to all campaign types. That's why Oriental Adventures came up with a bunch of new core classes, and why Rokugan ditched a number of them for its campaign setting.
One of your most-repeated arguments seems to be that a classless system will lend itself to unrealistic or improbable skill combinations. It's certainly possible, and that's the price you pay for flexibility. Classless systems require a certain amount of cooperation between the game master and the players to avoid such a thing. This is where concept and communication come in.

It's easy to restrain players in a classless system. It's a lot more time consuming to open up a true class-based system for the flexibility that many campaigns demand, especially in modern or futuristic games where the average person is much, much more highly educated than many class based systems give them credit for.

 

[Synicism]

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.

The only way to avoid something like that is gamemaster supervision, which is something you require any time you run a game.

Even in a stock fantasy D&D game, I still want to watch the players make characters (actually, I prefer to have all the players roll at the same time). That way I can ensure (1) no cheating on die rolls, (2) that everyone makes *character* and not just a list of numbers, and (3) that I wind up with a group that can work together (and not a paladin of Heironeous in a party of half-fiend rogue/assassins or something).

So ultimately, I wind up doing the same thing - watching my players. And a lot of times, it takes me extra time with a class based system because I want to regulate some sense of game balance instead of letting people pick willy-nilly off of lists (I am really sick of gold-elf wizard-invokers with Arcane Prodigy and human sorcerers with Arcane Prodigy, Bloodline of Fire, and Greater Spell Focus - Evocation, and so forth). Skill based systems require more player thought, and when I'm sitting around watching character creation, players tend to ask questions, and my answers help make real characters, not maximized number-sheets.