Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 62327" data-attributes="member: 151">It seems to me....That there are actually three systems in debate, here.Class/Level Systems, Class/Point Systems, and Classless Systems.  All three have individual merits, and all three are equally effective for playing a game, IMHO.D&D 3E & d20 is a Class/Level system, but much more diverse than, say 1e, the grandfather of all such systems.  The d20 system is much more flexible with regards to character classes, prestige classes, and more importantly skills and feats.  Two 10th level fighters can be very different in terms of their abilities (archer versus cavalier, for example).  Class/Point systems, such as Shadowrun, for example, start the character off with a base template or package, and then allow customization from there.  For example, taking a Street Samurai, and then putting all of your points into a particular skill or two.A Classless system, such as GURPS, makes no assumptions about the character, and forces the player to assemble the character almost from scratch.  A character concept often drives this more successfully.Fact one: None of these approaches are inherently better than the other.Fact two: All of these systems allow for a great deal of customization, and even can allow for very unique character concepts.So why are classless systems popular?  A variety of reasons.First off, as some have mentioned, a class based system is dependent on the number of archetypes available.  Fantasy has many very well-established archetypes.  The problem is that to build characters that don't adhere to these archetypes, you often need to do extensive work to make these characters a reality.  All D&D 3E rangers have two weapon-fighting, if you use the class as written.A Classless system avoids this, by allowing much more diversity in character concept.  However, a classless system can result in significantly more work for everyone with regards to creation and upkeep of characters.  Where before, a DM needed to know the abilities of his d20 party, a GURPS DM has to know all of the varied abilities of his group, and guage their effectiveness.  Also, a classless system, such as GURPS or FUDGE, requires careful balancing of all abilities.  Since every ability score, skill and advantage has a point cost, they need to be balanced against each other.  Is the GURPS Luck advantage equal to Eidetic Memory? (Trick question: EM is badly broken in GURPS <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)I prefer both approaches.  3e offers me the flexibility and variety that I prefer, while maintaining a good level of balance with the various rock-paper-scissors aspects of each class.  GURPS offers a great deal of flexibility across a large number of settings.  I can move from GURPS Traveller to GURPS Fantasy to GURPS Atomic Horror to GURPS Aztec without having to make massive changes to the ruleset.  I can't do that with D&D 3e to d20 Modern.  Is it a massive change?  Not really, but it still requires learning new classes, understanding new approaches, and generally is more work than switching between GURPS settings.d20 Pulp and ShadowChasers highlighted this difference for me.  One place where GURPS or FUDGE succeeds more than d20 is in modeling the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' cast.  What class is Xander, for example?  Yes, I can make a class for him, ("Whipping Boy"), but he's easier to model as an individual in GURPS.  I'd make the same case for Willow, as a character over time.  However, Buffy and Riley are much easier to mold as Class-based characters, as is Giles.  Spike is another story, entirely (although I'd favor GURPS, here).  I could go on, but it's not necessary.  Understand, I'm not saying you couldn't do the characters in either system....FAR FROM IT.  What I'm saying is that some would be easier using one method, and some easier using another.  Both can be modeled in either system...the question is the amount of work that can be used.What I don't understand is the animosity that 'One MUST FALL!'  They've stood side-by-side for decades.  Why can't one be better at some things and the other better at different things?  How do we, as players, lose out having more than one system?  I don't think we do.</blockquote>

Verification