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

[bret]

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.

The reason that there aren't many published adventures for GURPS include:

• SJGames has found they can't make money selling published adventures. They have tried a couple of times, and those products did not sell well enough to continue producing adventures.
• SJGames has a number of adventure ideas in the sidebars of their settings books. These are not adventure modules in the traditional sense of the word, but rather an outline of a potential adventure.
• According to their customer surveys, either the customer doesn't use the GURPS rules or they tend to design their own campaign world.

I'm not so sure that encounters are more difficult to balance because one system uses classes versus a different one which is classless. If a group is going to work together, even in a classless system, they are going to try and put together a group that has the powers and skills the group will most need. It would be a foolish group indeed that decided to base a campaign around sea travel without someone in the group who could navigate.

[Edit: Silly grammer error. ]

 

[bret]

Originally posted by Psion

That said: the idea of balance in a game is twofold:

1) So that every character have a role to play and has a comparable ability to affect the outcome of the game.
2) So that the GM can effectively challenge all characters without trouncing some of them.

Now I don't know how you think FAIR doesn't work into both of these factors, but it does. Fairness is an element of balance.

Now you don't have to be balanced down to a gnat's arse... and really, you can't be. But even D&D doesn't pretend to be... after all, it endorses random stat generation.

I would say that balance can be an element of fairness, but it is not a required element. I think that a game can be fair without being balanced.

How do you balance an encounter between an expert longbowman and someone armed with a fully loaded assault weapon who has finished military boot camp?

Just because someone is an expert in something (even if it is hard to learn), that doesn't mean that the skill is the most effective way to do something. In the case of combat, there is a reason that military and police are taught to shoot guns rather than bows.

You need some way to value the various skills and powers. Rarity and difficulty seem like pretty good measures for a system that attempts to be realistic.

That doesn't mean attepts at balance are pointless.

I never said that. Please do not imply that I did.

What I was saying is that balance is not required for a system to be fair. If all the players have the same opportunity to choose from the same resources during character creation, each player can choose how to budget those abilities.

However, in summary, I don't find your myths especially compelling, primarily because I don't think most of them are widely held.

I tried to come up with a better word than myth and couldn't. Some of them (as I noted but you didn't bother to quote) are more a difference of opinion than a myth.

In any case, a myth doesn't have to be wide spread in order to be a myth.

 

[Ace]

That's all I am trying to say. As always, YMMV, but I would like people who think classes are without value to consider the values that they do have before discarding them.

I couldn't agree with you more on this point Psion.
However I must agree with the posters who feel that the DND character generation system can be a bit limiting.

I have played GURPS steadily since well Man to man was brand new and I have found it has the most sensible and realisitic system for designing real (or seemingly real) people I have ever seen.

3e is more limited. There simply are some character types you can't easily make. I have never had that problem in GURPS if i tweak the point totals as needed. GURPS has a pair of books called Whos Who with stats for real people in them
Catherine the Great
Sir Richard Burton
Lief Erikson
Eienstien and so on.

That is impossible in 2e or earlier editions and tough in 3e. Well to get Teslas 20 skill in wierd science we needed to make him tenth level expert.

He has a BaB of 7/2 and 50 hit points, roughly the combat ability of a vetern special forces trooper. This is highly illogical.

It is fairly easy to make anyone in GURPS

Be that as it may, DND is easier to make characters for (a whole party in about twenty minutes) and easier to balance. Both are fun. Ultimately thats what really matters.

From what I have read in your posts DND simulates the kind of reality you want in you games much better than GURPS does, thats perfectly ok but is not true for everyone.

One more point, realistic skill sets. DND does not provide an adequate skill set for each class.

I really can't see why it would be difficult for a Fighter to learn hide or knowledge nobility or a bunch of other skills not on his list if he comes from an appropriate background.

Is it necessary for a fighter from a farm to pay double for spot, listen and profession farmer?
If he grew up on a farm was exposed to these skills, heck he may have been exposed to move silent and hide and wilderness lore hunting (or poaching!) with his father.
What if he is training with the party rogue? Why should he have to pay double or take rogue levels just to learn to open locks.
You leanr what you are taught.
Just because I went to computer school (or in a DND setting/ studied wizardy) doesn't mean I can't learn just as well to be be a good climber or jumper. I may not have great stats (no bonus) so it will take a little longer but what i am usually doing doesn't have that great a bearing.

IMO a better system would have a flexible method of allocating class skills.

Sure you are getting to be a better fighter this level but no you can't improve swim or climb during the desert trek.
Instead for this level wilderness lore and Knowledge/Nomads are class skills for you. This simulates real learning a tad better.

As for illogical skills sets I say PAH to that.
You wouldn't believe how many swordman, martial artist, artist, musician, sorcerer, historian, religious scholar, actor etc people I know IRL.

While I won't vouch for the sorcerey these guys are good at what they do.
And know they are not all triple or quadriple class high level types in DND terms or paying double.

People with freedom can be very versitile.

I agree that a serf in in realistic setting may have a limited skill set (Profession, Craft and a few others) but adventurer types and people in a high fantasy setting may have a broader range of skills than you would expect. Heck even the peasant will have more skills than are listed (knowledge: home area, knowledge: local law and custom, spot ,search and listen knowledge: folk tales etc etc etc)
Even intimidate or Bluff (for haggling at market, avoiding the tax nman and not getting hanged for poaching) could be easily justified in a reasonable peasant.

.The skill limits do serve a game purpose but IMO they ren't realistic in the least.

YMMV of course

 

[Psion]

SJGames has found they can't make money selling published adventures. They have tried a couple of times, and those products did not sell well enough to continue producing adventures.

Well, their sourcebooks do very well for them (and I beleive more and more that a majority of people who buy them don't actually play GURPS...), so they should stick with what works.

However:

It would probably have changed the fans' perception of the value of GURPS adventures if they weren't botched. The only actual aventure book for GURPS that I am familiar with is GURPS Fantasy Adventures, which even most GURPS fans I know seem to agree is the most aggravating group of adventures you could really ever ask for. What's worse, a sidebar in one of the adventures makes it rather plain that the author understood (or in playtesting, came to understand) that the adventure was extremely likely to piss off the players... yet they published it anyways! Not wise.

Anyways, they have a lot of good adventure ideas in the likes of products like the space atlases, so I know they had people writing for them who certainly have the capability of doing so. But yet it is always limited to adventure seeds and backdrops. Not that I mind that way of doing things (in fact, I prefer it... Faces of Sigil was one of my favorite Planescape products, and the GURPS space atlases are some of my favorite GURPS products), but one has to wonder if system considerations played into it.

 

[jasamcarl]

Ok.........

Let me just jump in here by stating that i am not making a normative argument conscerning either class/less systems. That having been said, i agree with Psion that classless systems DO come with a clear price. I doubt any would disagree that campaign cohesion is a virtue and one that is often an extranality, especially if individual players and even DMs fail to have adequate exchanges in the lead up to a campaign. Those who place a HIGH value on this type of cohesion are more likely to pay for a system that creates a common framework from the start, or to state it in more formal terms, a degree of Social Capital. That is where class-based systems come in. The genre conventions that such a system seeks to model are determined by a plurality, i.e. the market.

To quickly address classless systems, i would first qualify the term 'system', specifically a game system; such systems usually entail a degree of 'value', i.e. a level in DND or a point in Gurps. Otherwise a PC or Dm would simply be able to create a number of ad hoc abilities on the fly; balance matters. Having said that, it is much more difficult to accuratly reflect values in a classless system, especially if that system has the number of discreet options (adv disadv) that is such a systems advantage. This is because there is essentially no 'essential' formula to designing games. By creating advantages and disadvatiges or their equivilants, the designer IS making a 'quality' with a discreet in-game effect; the general lack of formal mechanical context for these perks, which make them so 'flexible', also opens the door for a clear hierarchy in their use and abuse, especially given the wildly deviant campaign conventions a DM (who has to take a greater burden in the creation of such; remember, not enforced in the published material) might have; balance within and campaign and outside is shot. This also makes the risk of wasted game time for prospective players greater, resulting in less games played. Class-based systems avoid this by tying together ingame effects around certain assumptions (genre conventions) and working out an equality of game strategy (choices).

To make use of a certain wider metaphor, the difference between a classed and classless system is like the difference between Pop and Art rock. The latter, despite its pretentions, often shows results in an undisciplined mess because the goals of the 'artist' (GM, players) is often selfish (my concept), while the latter both garners wider appeal (Alludes to similar tastes, i.e. genre conventions) and often stimulates true creativity (the lack of options creates a challenge that leads to genius) on the part of the pop star (DMs do truly amazing things when they have no recourse to house rules). Class-based systems for me are often more, how shall we say, democratic?

 

[AFGNCAAP]

In relation to the discussion of classless systems, I have a question regarding GURPS character creation:

Is there ANY sort of built-in mechanic which prevents certain degrees of "system abuse"? For example, is there any thing such as a kind of prerequisite for certain advantages or disadvantages: for example, characters who take the Pacifist disadvatage CANNOT have any combat skills (or can only have a few select defensive combat skills)---the disadvantage has to be bought off before the character can gain such skills. Essentially, some sort of mechanic to prevent any sort of contradictory character choices.

I think the thing which bothers me about GURPS, as well as some other primarily skill-based systems, is the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I think it's the degree to which these systems can go---essentially gaining points for very minor attributes which can be entirely performed in gameplay. It sort of comes off as roll-playing for role-playing, if you will. Someone who bites their nails, has a mild case of hay fever, a bit of a lisp, a foot fetish, & perhaps bad social graces, IMHO, shouldn't be a better marksman because he/she has these personality quirks. These things can merely be roleplayed & be rewarding in-game instead of being used as reasons to get a few extra points for character development.

I don't have a problem with, for example, the Hindrances system in Marvel SAGA---pretty much all of those disadvantages are quite significant, & there's no guarantee that the character will gain any benefit from taking 1 or 2 Hindrances, either.

Oh well. Just thought I'd ask.

 

[sword-dancer]

In relation to the discussion of classless systems, I have a question regarding GURPS character creation:


Oh well. Just thought I'd ask.

Is there ANY sort of built-in mechanic which prevents certain degrees of "system abuse"? For example, is there any thing such as a kind of prerequisite for certain advantages or disadvantages: for example, characters who take the Pacifist disadvatage CANNOT have any combat skills (or can only have a few select defensive combat skills)---the disadvantage has to be bought off before the character can gain such skills. Essentially, some sort of mechanic to prevent any sort of contradictory character choices.

Yes and No
First the to act against a disad you must mke a Willpower rollagainst Int with 3d6, you must stay under or equal your Int and must roll 14 at max.
2 You get for the Session No CP or EXP.
3 If you would ignore your disad conseqwuently I would chose tw
o roads first if the player come to me and say he couldn´t play this disad (any longer) I would allow him to trade off with Character points or other disad fitting the circumstances the char changed his mind.
If the player misuses this, my first GURPS Party had a pcifistic coward and liar who lies to the members that they fight each other Iwould reduce the points, fiat, or throw him out.


Anotherr point depending on the kind of pacifism, combat skills are only useful for parrying blocking, and therefore wast of points.
Full Pacuífism means exactly that, not attacking under any circumstances, maybe a stunner is okay, but not even a baton to attack
Or sport fencing modern type
Only selfdefence, this means only when you(familie and friends maybe excepzion?) when you are attacked you are allowed to fight back with equal force, and I mean´t attacked, striked, shot not drawn, hold or such.
Could not kill, you could fight but not kill, so you could go in brawls fence etc,, but not threaten another life,

A few add and disads have stats prereqs, must have at least or could have not more than.
Skills are not mentioned AFAIK
but Iwouldn`t take the trained by a master If i hadn`t an reasonable skill in Karate and Judo, and Meditation

I think the thing which bothers me about GURPS, as well as some other primarily skill-based systems, is the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I think it's the degree to which these systems can go---essentially gaining points for very minor attributes which can be entirely performed in gameplay. It sort of comes off as roll-playing for role-playing, if you will. Someone who bites their nails, has a mild case of hay fever, a bit of a lisp, a foot fetish, & perhaps bad social graces, IMHO, shouldn't be a better marksman because he/she has these personality quirks. These things can merely be roleplayed & be rewarding in-game instead of being used as reasons to get a few extra points for character development.

This goes about game balance, and having this isn`t your choice play it or get no points, or be forced to play it and how would react society to this, and a few of your example i would only accept as Quirk, one Point and you had to play it out
On the other hand i found most adds and disad baslanced and if a few are meaningless IYC than ban it or allow it only as Quirks

Excuse my bad english

 

[Synicism]

Is there ANY sort of built-in mechanic which prevents certain degrees of "system abuse"?

Yes. It's called a Gamemaster. <g> Just like in D&D, where you are perfectly within your rights to deny a sword of use-activated Energy-drain or a mighty-composite longbow of use-activated True Strike, you are perfectly within your rights to axe any character concept that you just don't like. Though with GURPS, it's easy to make modifications.