Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 68374" data-attributes="member: 1251">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?</blockquote>

Verification