The Gaming Den

*Turns on the Frank signal.*

We like classes, for whatever reason. They restrict characters, force weaknesses onto them, and create balance issues. They also discourage organic characters (by making it difficult to go outside your niche). In a broader sense, this stems from a level-based vs. level-less system paradigm. For the life of me, I can't come up with a good reason that anyone would want to play a levels system over a level-less system.

So, folks. Tell me: "Why are level/class-based systems mechanically sound?"

That's really two questions: what are the advantages of a level-based system, and what are the advantages of a class-based system. It's not a 'common case' and a 'broader sense'. For example, Alternity and Shadowrun have both had level less class systems.

Class-based and level-based systems don't inherently encourage or discourage "organic" characters. Classless and level less systems can often seriously discourage random ability investment. For example, choosing your abilities at random in Shadowrun 4e is probably much worse than choosing your abilities randomly as a D&D barbarian. Classed systems that allow no multiclassing are probably the safest for organic characters, but at the cost of real choice. In other words, the more organic you can make a character, the greater the likelihood that you'll fuck yourself over.

Levels make it easier to keep everyone at the same table at the same power level. The same goes for opponents. Levels also trivially handle any kind of "you must be this powerful to use this effect" restriction.

In short, levels judge power much better than a skill system. It is also much easier to create a system where you can not make any wrong choices. Multiclassing kind of foils this of course, but if you go with single classes only it is very easy to balance them against each other.

Murtak wrote:Levels make it easier to keep everyone at the same table at the same power level. The same goes for opponents.

Er. No. That's something classes do. Levels exist to allow differentiation of power level so characters (usually PCs) can progress in power and rather intentionally not stay at the same power level compared to other (usually NPC) characters.

Psychic Robot wrote:For the life of me, I can't come up with a good reason that anyone would want to play a levels system over a level-less system.

So, folks. Tell me: "Why are level/class-based systems mechanically sound?"

Not saying this is the case, but it's possible they're actually not mechanically sound at all. Maybe they give other benefits, like being easy to intuitively grasp in some way (again, not saying this is the case, merely coming up with ideas), easy to modify, make it easier to write "Knight" or "Mage" on your character sheet and know that you'll have all the appropriate abilities, and the like.

That makes a good deal of sense.

PhoneLobster wrote:

Murtak wrote:Levels make it easier to keep everyone at the same table at the same power level. The same goes for opponents.

Er. No. That's something classes do. Levels exist to allow differentiation of power level so characters (usually PCs) can progress in power and rather intentionally not stay at the same power level compared to other (usually NPC) characters.

In theory (if not always in practise), levels allow a GM to judge challenges and opponents more easily. If the party is composed of level 5 characters, the GM supposedly knows how tough a fight against a level 5 encounter will be.
That's what the rules claim often, in any case - in my experience, it never turned out that way.

Murtak wrote:Levels make it easier to keep everyone at the same table at the same power level. The same goes for opponents.

They can also be very good for creating the illusion that everyone at the same table is at the same power level.

Limited choices speed character creation process for both player and DM.

Beyond that, I fail to see any inherent superiority of class over classless; I am wholly for classless in (most) other regards.

Catharz wrote:That's really two questions: what are the advantages of a level-based system, and what are the advantages of a class-based system.

Absolutely.

PL wrote:Levels exist to allow differentiation of power level so characters (usually PCs) can progress in power and rather intentionally not stay at the same power level compared to other (usually NPC) characters.

True. But...

Murtak wrote:Levels make it easier to keep everyone at the same table at the same power level. The same goes for opponents.

This is also true.

The idea behind levels is that you can take two people of level N and have them face the same opposition. And it is also so that you can have a good idea whether a character of Level Y will win, lose, or draw against a character of Level N. These are two distinct goals, and Levels attempt to do both.

Levels give people power in areas that they are not specializing in such that two characters of Level N do not leave each other in the dust. Ideally of course, we all know what happens when you take levels of Swashbuckler or Paladin. Levels put high and low end caps on the attacks and defenses of characters such that characters of the same level are playing the same game. They likewise allow the game to set up handicap fights, where a more powerful character has pushed a weaker enemy down on the RNG.

Classes, as alluded to be Catharz are an entirely different kettle of fish. And the idea is to distribute contribution by different characters. The concept is to distinguish skill sets so that different characters aren't competing against each other.

That is, if one character has a necessary skill and another character has a different necessary skill, then both characters are necessary. Even if one player is much more skilled or proactive than another, both characters still are needed for the team. When each character is essential to the team, discouragement caused by one character or another being more needed is easier to head off.

Indeed, when characters have non-overlapping skill sets, DMs can artificially ramp up the need for one character or another by putting in additional "needs" for one character type or another. All characters in Quake are the same, and because of the fairness of that game, the value of each team member is inherently unfair. The better players always contribute more.

-Username17

One thing in favour of class-based systems that isn't really an inherent benefit is balance: the fewer choices there are, the easier it is to balance. I think 4th edition is a pretty good example of this, where most things are equal due to them actually being equal - the same fucking thing.

In a class-based game, it's easier to put down the list of abilities and what the class does, and know how this will interact with the rest of the game. Yes, multiclassing, choices-within-classes (or prestige classes, if you will), side-advantages (feats) and shitty game design (I'm looking at YOU, Collins) will all have an impact on this. After all, if your Witchalok class grants you +10 to Wizarding people with icefire, and you pick up the feats/benefits "Magical Teeth" (you gain a +5 Witchalok bonus, it stacks if you ARE a Witchalok) and "Fiery Ice" (+3 to wizard people with icefire. Yes, I turned wizard into a verb), and the race "Half-Baked Pandaman" (which gives a +5 bonus to any icefire abilities) then you have just kicked the RNG in the groin.

But it's already easy to point out where that can go wrong, and in theory, can be avoided (this is easier the less material there is, the less choices players have, and the less other people working on it making stuff you don't know about).

With classless games, I have yet to see balance that is as good as D&D 3.5, and that's a trainwreck. No really: BESM is a joke for balance and doesn't even have a working combat/resisted opposed action system. White Wolf is HAHAHAHAHAHA OH WOW. I haven't looked at Gurps but I've been told that, for all the complexity, it's not actually very balanced and two people at the same table could be Mr. Awesome and the Amazing Suck.

Wouldn't it be best if it were possible to create a classless system but have examples written out of archetypes?

That way you have the easy to put down list of abilities for those who are learning the system but you also gain the flexiblity for those who wish to be more creative with their character.

Besides it made no sense to me why every fighter in the world knew how to wear heavy armor from day 1.

Naszir wrote:Wouldn't it be best if it were possible to create a classless system but have examples written out of archetypes?

Shadowrun does this. It is a skill based system but there are many archetypes and people describe themselves as deckers, mages, riggers, etc. Unfortunately, the in book example characters are terrible. I don't know why that is.

Personally, I don't like classless systems because I am too much of a powergamer. Whenever I get an option to invest in anything I want, I find myself investing in the skills that win the game. I end up with a guy who can do cool stuff in game but is ultimately a flavorless collection of things chosen for no reason beyond the fact they happened to have awesome effects. In a skill based system, you have very severe problems as soon as skills like profession:bartender are offered because it becomes possible for new players to quite literally piss away every power they have on that stuff.

Naszir wrote:Besides it made no sense to me why every fighter in the world knew how to wear heavy armor from day 1.

For that matter, why did they make the armor feats step up from each other? Why would a fighter waste time learning how to wear padded and leather armor if it was simply assumed that they'd leap at plate at the first opportunity?

I can think of a major disadvantage of classless and level-less systems. Take the White wolf games as an example. Its easy (way to easy in fact) for your attack abilities and defensive abilities to diverge, radically. As in glass cannon and gunless tank. Trying to keep up both aspects of a character (let alone the noncombat aspects) is more or less impossible.

A leveled system, at least in theory, has a progression for all aspects of your character. You don't fall behind in absolutely necessary aspects of your character just because the system forces you to choose between power, defense and utility. (Some leveled systems may do that, but thats because they are badly written or designed).

I have yet to see a classless or level-less system thats actually well designed and functional. You just have to accept the fact that a werewolf can jump out of the bushes and gank you in one shot, or that you'll be shooting blanks at a bad guy that can't harm you either.

I have yet to see a classless or level-less system thats actually well designed and functional. You just have to accept the fact that a werewolf can jump out of the bushes and gank you in one shot, or that you'll be shooting blanks at a bad guy that can't harm you either.

I don't see how those two statements fit together meaningfully. Just because one person can brutally ultrakill another in a fight doesn't mean that the two aren't balanced characters. Characters are balanced if they contribute equally to the team effort, not if they can draw in a particular arbitrary form of confrontation.

If you don't fight that often, or if you do some other specific thing about as often as you get into combat, then pulling up the rear in an actual battle isn't necessarily a game killer for a character. In my life I have only gotten into 3 fights where life was potentially on the line - and no one died in any of them. I couldn't even tel you who "won" except in one case. On the other hand, I have been in numerous situations where my medical knowledge, driving ability, and even logistical knowledge has saved lives. Clearly, the fact that I can hold my own in a fist fight is a pretty minor note on my character sheet nd should be costed accordingly.

In a game emulating Ocean's Eleven, I think it's pretty clear that several of the characters can't pull their weight in mortal kombat. Indeed, while I think that Danny, Basher, Ryan, and Yen could all kick the crap out of me, all the other characters are substantially below the combat effectiveness level of "some guy with a baseball bat." And none of them appear to be unbalanced characters because of that fact (except probably Virgil and Turk, who are played by the same player).

The idea that everyone needs to be able to hold their own in a small skirmish in addition to whatever else they do is a uniquely D&D notion, and its infection into other games should be fought at all cost.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:All characters in Quake are the same, and because of the fairness of that game, the value of each team member is inherently unfair. The better players always contribute more.

Heavens forbid a game should reward skilled players, yeah.

Conversely, it is a decent move to have identical characters when there is a wide variety of skill levels since such a setup gives players a reward
As opposed to RPGs one isn't simply rewarded for being a bullheaded rules lawyer; you have to show people that you're better with, well, frags.

I prefer some degree of specialization in otherwise homogenous-avatar games, as shown elegantly in StarCraft, Team Fortress, Timesplitters, Smash Brothers series, and similar.
Character choice and player skill must then mesh well or else you end up with a good player using a poor matchup, or a poor player getting lucky with an inherently good character (which sometimes happens due to bad game design and lack of playtest, but otherwise because they found a good match for their own style)

In an RPG wherein everyone has the same character, you'll still have different results because players will most likely attempt to express themselves through their RPG 'avatar' even though the system might not support it.
This is because, naturally, we're not clones and certainly not robots.
Or at least most of us aren't. Some here in TGD suggest otherwise for the robot part (you freaking math geniuses)

Psychic Robot wrote: We like classes, for whatever reason.

Classes are handy if you don't have a clear idea what you want to do, or are new to the game and/or system, and in 3.X they also are handy for creating NPCs. Generally, I don't use classes for PCs, as writing a "class" that is the name of the character is easy enough for me not to care.

Levels, on the other hand, are used for 3 reasons I can think of:

1) It's (theoretically) easier to gauge power levels.

2) It allows changes to character to happen in one big clump, so it's easier to have it happen between games.

3) Levels give a sense of accomplishment when achieved, as well as something to work towards.

Heh. Scion.

Seriously. That game was completely broken. My starting character had combat imperceptibility. That means invisible, inaudible, and everything. No smell, no touch, nothing. It was awesome.

But yeah. Class/level based systems can be balanced. It's tough, but it's possible. Classless systems are too easy to break, though I play a LARP that's classless, and it's fine. But that's a LARP.

Voss wrote:I can think of a major disadvantage of classless and level-less systems. Take the White wolf games as an example. Its easy (way to easy in fact) for your attack abilities and defensive abilities to diverge, radically. As in glass cannon and gunless tank. Trying to keep up both aspects of a character (let alone the noncombat aspects) is more or less impossible.

That seems easy to fix. Instead of having 100 points to spend globally, you have 40 points to spend on offence, 40 points on defence, and 20 points on non-combat stuff. Adjust categories appropriately for the genre of the game in question.

That is my thought too. Compartmentalize the spending of points in a classless system.

Koumei wrote:I haven't looked at GURPS but I've been told that, for all the complexity, it's not actually very balanced and two people at the same table could be Mr. Awesome and the Amazing Suck.

True - the reason why I might actually suggest it is that its rules start from actually trying to simulate reality, so people wanting less fantastical or more detailed stuff do better starting from there than D&D. Though, as pointed by Frank, GURPS does better at balance than lots of games in a specific aspect: since it doesn't dictate that a given set of activities dominates the game, you can invest your points into weird stuff and actually expect it to be rewarded (in D&D, for example, whatever weird skill you pick tends to be outdone by some spell that wasn't content with "merely" winning D&D's main activity, combat).

Naszir wrote:Wouldn't it be best if it were possible to create a classless system but have examples written out of archetypes?

What TNE would/will do.

Naszir wrote:Besides it made no sense to me why every fighter in the world knew how to wear heavy armor from day 1.

Heh, if the game had enough classes that you could have one with the explicit assumption of using each type of armor by default, no problem.

violence in the media wrote:For that matter, why did they make the armor feats step up from each other? Why would a fighter waste time learning how to wear padded and leather armor if it was simply assumed that they'd leap at plate at the first opportunity?

It was probably decided that wearing armor's ultimately a single thing and you have to learn the easier parts first. Also, it does help with not getting screwed by capture (at low levels).

sigma999 wrote:Heavens forbid a game should reward skilled players, yeah.

If that was irony: yeah - people playing RPG together have no guarantees of similar skill. And lots of people seem to actually want to keep playing with others whose skill doesn't rise even with time. So, yeah, higher skill faces (perhaps higher) challenge less often, to not contribute more.

Neeeek wrote:Generally, I don't use classes for PCs, as writing a "class" that is the name of the character is easy enough for me not to care.

May I ask what share of those doesn't involve "casts like a sorcerer/wizard"/sneak attack +10d6/"being worthless but having thralls who aren't, inexplicably not being a telepath/summoner"?

Neeeek wrote:2) It allows changes to character to happen in one big clump, so it's easier to have it happen between games.

That one seems actually false - AFAICT, leveled games tend not to expect rising every session, and hand out big clumps when you do, while most level-less games tend to hand out smaller piles of points every session, which still leaves you free to decide between sessions, and having to make less choices.

Bigode wrote:

Neeeek wrote:Generally, I don't use classes for PCs, as writing a "class" that is the name of the character is easy enough for me not to care.

May I ask what share of those doesn't involve "casts like a sorcerer/wizard"/sneak attack +10d6/"being worthless but having thralls who aren't, inexplicably not being a telepath/summoner"?

I dunno. I usually just ask the player what they want their character to be, then come up with whatever will make that happen. How much it varies from existing classes would depend heavily on what the player's concept is. It's also handy when dealing with players who don't know the system, as I can just take care of all the math and they don't have to go dumpster diving into a ridiculous number of books in an attempt to do what the character is supposed to do.

Neeeek wrote:2) It allows changes to character to happen in one big clump, so it's easier to have it happen between games.

That one seems actually false - AFAICT, leveled games tend not to expect rising every session, and hand out big clumps when you do, while most level-less games tend to hand out smaller piles of points every session, which still leaves you free to decide between sessions, and having to make less choices.

Really? Most games I play in have level ups either at the end of the game or at a break in the action (like, say, when we eat lunch). Not that they happen in every session, but those are the places they happen when they do. And by "big clump" I meant a level is a "big clump" of character advancement. [/i]

Neeeek wrote:Really? Most games I play in have level ups either at the end of the game or at a break in the action (like, say, when we eat lunch). Not that they happen in every session, but those are the places they happen when they do. And by "big clump" I meant a level is a "big clump" of character advancement.

Heh, sure it happens in downtime regardless of system. But the clumps handed out by level-less systems tend to be even smaller - BTW, level-less systems also tend to have less trickle-down adjustment AFAICT.

One problem with level systems is it can be harder for the GM to hand out under the table bonuses to underperforms.