Why Classless?!?

[Psion]

You can easily have "Characters with patently illogical skill sets" in class based systems. Look at the Ranger's TWF; why does every wilderness warrior have to have training in that style of combat?

I agree -- I disdain that design choice. That's a problem with the ranger, not a problem with classes in general.

But the deal is this. I know about the ranger. I can fix it. Indeed, I allow "alternative feats" for a ranger.

But with a la carte systems, I have to put every character under the microscope, instead of just the classes. That's a lot more work than fixing one class. As a GM, I have a game to run, and enough tasks in keeping the game flowing without having to worry about picking over PCs with a fine tooth comb.

 

[LostSoul]

But the deal is this. I know about the ranger. I can fix it. Indeed, I allow "alternative feats" for a ranger.

But with a la carte systems, I have to put every character under the microscope, instead of just the classes. That's a lot more work than fixing one class. As a GM, I have a game to run, and enough tasks in keeping the game flowing without having to worry about picking over PCs with a fine tooth comb.

You're talking about the game as a GM, not as a Player. I like to allow Players to design Characters however they please. It's just a difference of opinion. Classless works well for a guy like me, classes are cool for you.

 

[Psion]

Care to give a for instance? Also, was the illogical nature of the skillset because the player couldn't think of a reason, or because there was no reason possible that could explain the skills?

In some cases the game system pushes them towards it. For example, take the most infamous example of an a la carte system. The cost of a skill doubles at each level until you hit the plateau... where is costs 16 times the cost of a skill point at the base level. Now let me clarify that I do beleive in diminishing returns, but that is beyond the pale. Why buy one more point to specialize a little more when you can by 16 low level skills? And when those low level skills are so cheap, they justifications come easy (after all, it's only a low level skill, right?)

In some cases it's just human nature, and it becomes very easy to justify buying a skill that seems reasonable to you, but the GM rolls his eyes at.

If its the former, the fault is with the player, not the system used.

Bogus. It is the job of the game to serve the players, and not vice-versa, IMSHO. I have seen perfectly normal, non-abusive players make some bad choices by over-justifying. I think it is wrong to blame it on the player.

The game designers usually have "what makes sense" in mind when building structures, and have the benefit of some forethought. Players, on the other hand, often are operating from a biased perspective (e.g., "what is going to help my character") without as much forethought and perspective.

Not that I am saying that game designers are flawless. I am saying that players aren't either, and the forethought inherent in design can help overcome that.

 

[Psion]

You're talking about the game as a GM, not as a Player.

Of course I am. It is the GMs responsibility to see that all the character's make sense and work together, and that task is a lot easier in classed.

I like to allow Players to design Characters however they please.

So does that mean you never question the choice of skills and abilities in a point based system?

It's just a difference of opinion.

Of course it is. Like most other aspects of games, it is just a matter of what you are willing to put up with.

 

[James McMurray]

I disagree partially. It is the responsibility of the player to create a character that makes sense. If he wants to get several low-level skills instead of on higher one, he should have an in-game reason. If he can't find a good enough reason, then you as the GM should not allow it.

In classed systems you can have a player with a Bard / Babarian / Monk / Paladin. That is just as illogical, and can just as easily stem from an idea of "what is best for my character". And again, it becomes the player's responsibility to figure out a reason for such a skill set, and the GM's responsibility to veto it if one can't be found.

In neither case is the system itself at fault.

 

[Psion]

In classed systems you can have a player with a Bard / Babarian / Monk / Paladin. That is just as illogical, and can just as easily stem from an idea of "what is best for my character".

True... but the system discourages such characters. First off, by putting the more attractive class abilities at a higher levels. Second, but punishing characters with split levels (which puts them even further away from those class abilities.) Third, by the fact all of those classes have alignment restrictions of some sort that will prevent the character from advancing (which will aggravate the 20% xp rule) or from using the abilities of some classes at all.

Further, it is easy to eyeball such a character than a character with 2 dozen different skills and advantages, and a lot harder for a player to justify entire new classes than saying that his parapsychologist takes marksman classes on the weekend.

 

[Ace]

What are you talking about? Nebulous characters are PRIMARILY a problem of classless systems.

Nebulous? I suppose it depends on what type of society you have in your game world.

In a fuedal society (like Harn) classes make sense because your opportunities are limited. If you are a peasent, unless you break with the mold, ie change classes, you stay a peasent.

In societies wth more opportunities Classes are a lot harder to swallow

have a friend who real world skill list looks like this

Magick theory
Iado
Swordsmanship (SCA and Adrian Empire style)
Truck Driver
Cooking
Bowling
Roller Dancing
Model Train Lore
Basic Firearms
Basic Computer Ops
Historical Lore specialist in Elizabethan Era
Retail clerk
Aikido
Manufacturing
Singing
Acting
Auto Driving (Professional)

and others I can't think of. If Magick worked I suppose I could shoehorn him into a multi class Druid (thats his style of magick) Monk, Fighter but the extra baggage doen't fit

I have another friend, much younger who is also an occultist and has similarly ecletic skills list

Magick Lore (Hermetic Necromacy)
Hand to hand Combat
Katana
Video game Lore
Gaming Lore
Anime Lore
Reigion Lore
Sing
Play Trumpet
Spansh Language (fluent)
Japanese Culture and History (real version not Anime fanboy version)
Japanese Language (some)

He is a little easier to fit into a class, He might be a Fighter/Specialist Wizard or maybe a Monk/Wizard but again the problem of baggage


With a point based system and a little GM guideance you can build more types of charcters and you don't have to fight the system

The real problem is that some DM's have with point based systems is not so much wierd skill lists but the lack of a group role.

In D&D a party usually consists of some combination of Fighting Guy, Trap/Stealth Guy, Zapping Guy, and Healing Guy. There are always exceptions but in general each player has a defined role.

In GURPS or other point based systems a charcter equivilant to 8th level may be rather good at a number of different things and no one will have a nitche in the group

Frankly I don't find this a problem, If you warn your players what skills wil be needed in the campaign they will take them and surprise you with the rest of the choices

IMO point based systems are better because they empower players.

As for GM's, well yeah class based is easier for them, but they have templates to fill in so there is less trouble than you would think..

 

[Ace]

I agree -- I disdain that design choice. That's a problem with the ranger, not a problem with classes in general.

But the deal is this. I know about the ranger. I can fix it. Indeed, I allow "alternative feats" for a ranger.

But with a la carte systems, I have to put every character under the microscope, instead of just the classes. That's a lot more work than fixing one class. As a GM, I have a game to run, and enough tasks in keeping the game flowing without having to worry about picking over PCs with a fine tooth comb.

It sounds like you want a lot of control over charcter choices?

Why?

All you need to do to maintain cohesion is do two things

Mention what skills will be needed

Mention what are verboten

The players will do the rest

And as far as background, its no big deal to require justification for something out of place. Or better, don't sweat it. Most of the "little wierdness' bits don't hurt versimilitude except in the most nit picky games

 

[Darkness]

It all boils down to this for you, Psion, doesn't it:

Simplicity.
You don't want to invest more work in reviewing PCs and you don't want your players to be confused (or tempted or whatever) by too many options. Instead, you want a few clearly-defined roles (i.e., classes) that they can choose from. Just add water and stir - voila, character ready.

Cool if this works for you.

For me, though, it just can't in most cases.

 

[James McMurray]

Well Psion, I guess we'll just agree to disagree then.