Stars/Worlds Without Number (General Thread)

[kenada]

Hmm. Interesting. I’ve been running an OSE/WWN hack that is focused mostly on restating WWN. I’m now working on a revision that shifts the game more strongly towards OSE. I think my eventual goal is to make it mostly OSE with the elements from WWN that I think are particularly strong. I started with classes, and it really struck me how little classes in WWN actually get. Let me explain.

My approach for classes is to treat the WWN classes as groups to which the OSE classes belongs. That means any class in the expert group gets Masterful Expertise and Quick Learner. On top of that, you get the class abilities defined in OSE. My impression of OSE classes had always been that they were pretty tepid (especially compared to newer editions). With the extra group chassis, they’re extra awesome. The part from WWN shores up their baseline competency, and then the abilities give them flavor. For example, thieves are really good at skills now, but they can also read almost any text and use scrolls.

Where I’m getting at with WWN is an expert with the thief background is basically like other classes except a bit better at skills. Even with foci (which I also plan to include in a limited form), you don’t get that kind of class distinction. I guess that’s one of the downsides of a generic class system. While you can represent a lot of concepts, they’re mechanically less distinct than a system that sets out concept-specific abilities. Is that a good or bad thing? I don’t know. I am curious however whether my players will want to convert early (rather than save this for our next campaign).

Edit: Fixed typo, not → now

 

[Thomas Shey]

Where I’m getting at with WWN is an expert with the thief background is basically like other classes except a bit better at skills. Even with foci (which I also plan to include in a limited form), you don’t get that kind of class distinction. I guess that’s one of the downsides of a generic class system. While you can represent a lot of concepts, they’re mechanically less distinct than a system that sets out concept-specific abilities. Is that a good or bad thing? I don’t know. I am curious however whether my players will want to convert early (rather than save this for our next campaign).

My own feeling in the OD&D days was having to do new classes to just represent a concept was not a virtue. Its one reason I went over to heavy duty build systems for many years.

 

[kenada]

My own feeling in the OD&D days was having to do new classes to just represent a concept was not a virtue. Its one reason I went over to heavy duty build systems for many years.

I’m not trying saying that needing different classes is a virtue or that OSE is doing it right. I was just surprised by how little you actually get in WWN (as well as how much classes in OSE got since it had been my perception they were pretty meager compared to their counterparts in newer editions). Aside from your class abilities, which are impactful, most customization is done through foci in WWN. That’s like only getting feats to customize your characters and few to no class abilities in 3e. The thief archetype character in our group is 4th level and has three foci that make him similar to traditional thief classes, but he still has fewer abilities and requires at least 2nd level to have all those foci.

Casters are a bit better in the customization department (gaining arts in addition to spells), but they’re pretty limited in what they can do. Arts aren’t a replacement for having utility spells, and your ability to cast spells per day goes up very slowly (especially if you have a partial mage class). The priest in our group is built as a healer/necromancer. The idea was that she would be good at healing and trashing undead, but killing undead competes with using her single spell slot for other things. Additionally, if the party avoids combat (which it has), her healer arts are basically useless.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, don't get me wrong: as long as you're using conventional classes, having some of that attached is a virtue. One of the things I've said is not a perfect feature of most BRP games is that they largely have no way for a character to represent anything that isn't an attribute or easily expressed as a skill. Some things just don't work that way. Which doesn't mean you can express all concepts without them. You either do something feat-like (which is the PF2e approach) or you bake it into the class.

 

[kenada]

Well, don't get me wrong: as long as you're using conventional classes, having some of that attached is a virtue. One of the things I've said is not a perfect feature of most BRP games is that they largely have no way for a character to represent anything that isn't an attribute or easily expressed as a skill. Some things just don't work that way. Which doesn't mean you can express all concepts without them. You either do something feat-like (which is the PF2e approach) or you bake it into the class.

I guess I’m a bit confused. I’m not sure we disagree? WWN has classes, but there’s not much attached to them. You have two ways to customize: foci (feats) or mage partial classes. The former is like PF2 if you got a quarter as many feat picks. The latter is like PF1 archetypes where you replace half the class with something else. Notably, the latter is only available to magic-users. If you want to make a thief or knight or whatever concept, your options are really limited. Picking a few foci just doesn’t feel like enough, especially since you make half of your picks in the first two levels.

 

[TwoSix]

I’m not trying saying that needing different classes is a virtue or that OSE is doing it right. I was just surprised by how little you actually get in WWN (as well as how much classes in OSE got since it had been my perception they were pretty meager compared to their counterparts in newer editions). Aside from your class abilities, which are impactful, most customization is done through foci in WWN. That’s like only getting feats to customize your characters and few to no class abilities in 3e. The thief archetype character in our group is 4th level and has three foci that make him similar to traditional thief classes, but he still has fewer abilities and requires at least 2nd level to have all those foci.

I'll be honest, I'm pretty OK with that. Simple classes allows more room for the character to be customized by narrative events giving custom rewards. It takes away player-facing build decisions, sure, but I think that's a feature for OSR style play.

 

[kenada]

I'll be honest, I'm pretty OK with that. Simple classes allows more room for the character to be customized by narrative events giving custom rewards. It takes away player-facing build decisions, sure, but I think that's a feature for OSR style play.

That’s not WWN though. You have skills to pick, everyone gets 5–7 foci (from a list of 35 or so), and mages have arts to pick in addition to their spells. Other than a B/X-based chassis, WWN feels a lot closer in spirit to 3e than it does other OSR games. It certainly has more player-facing build decisions than OSE (and consequently B/X).

 

[kenada]

And to clarify: I’m not saying it’s good or bad. I just found it surprising that OSE classes get more mechanical stuff than what you can build in WWN even with all its extra customization options. That’s not what I expected.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I guess I’m a bit confused. I’m not sure we disagree? WWN has classes, but there’s not much attached to them. You have two ways to customize: foci (feats) or mage partial classes. The former is like PF2 if you got a quarter as many feat picks. The latter is like PF1 archetypes where you replace half the class with something else. Notably, the latter is only available to magic-users. If you want to make a thief or knight or whatever concept, your options are really limited. Picking a few foci just doesn’t feel like enough, especially since you make half of your picks in the first two levels.

We don't, really. I have some issues with both the class ability and the feat approach, but that's back to my whole thing about exception based design. But if you're gonna do that (and after all, that's D&D derivatives all over), one or the other is the way to go.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll be honest, I'm pretty OK with that. Simple classes allows more room for the character to be customized by narrative events giving custom rewards. It takes away player-facing build decisions, sure, but I think that's a feature for OSR style play.

I'm unable to be enthused about my character definition only meaning things at the discretion of the GM.