The Gaming Den

So I was going through old threats like I am wont to do and I noticed this gem:

Orion wrote: No one likes boring and stereotypical PCs. Experienced roleplayers across systems have long tried to help novices spice their character concepts up. In Dungeons and Dragons this generally means telling them "your class is a package of mechanical abilities. It doesn't define your identity. Your Rogue can be a burglar, a diplomat, or a Knight of the Realm who happens to fight dirty. Your Wizard isn't jut a fount of magic, he's a teacher, a politico, or a military man." Etc.

But the fact is people are lazy or people are uncreative and they look to their character class as a starting point in designing their characters. Young players often start AND stop with the character class, leading to the "Cleric who is about compassionate healing and evangelism," "wizard who doesn't understand real life and cares only about magical secrets" and "fighter on a tireless quest to become the NUMBER ONE BLADE CHAMPION."

He has a surprisingly good point there. Do you think that there would be any benefit in D&D to renaming the classes to something different? Fighter becomes Warlord or Conqueror, Thief becomes Agent, etc..

That doesn't change the basic nature of the problem. If you name a class anything, it'll bring certain conceptual ground to it. Just because that ground is there, it'll mean people will build certain characters based around it. This effect is much worse with the typical DnD class names because those are such loaded concepts, and contain so much stuff people already know, that they have become totally tropish.

If you meant 'can we make this effect less obvious or less stale by naming stuff differently?', sure we can. I just don't really see the point. Why not just state, up and out, 'your class is a package of abilities, and if you wanna reflavour them and do something different, do so'?

Broader names for classes makes great sense. This can be taken farther by removing a large amount of fluff from classes. A great example is that old Psionic Naruto thread from from 339. Simply by refluffing psionic classes they were all turned into ninjas doing chakra magic. A player who reads EPH's Psion section isn't going to think, "damn that's a ninja!"

Barbarian is one of the worst offenders and most deserving of a name change or removal as a class. Fighter deserves a name change depending on what is being made of the class. Warlord-esque names only make sense if it gains Leadership-esque abilities. Rogue is a good name. Because it's a character trait not a profession or role. A burglarer, diplomat and dirty fighting knight are all roguish.

Some classes have names which are so similar to other classes in meaning that the straightjacket gets confusing. Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock, Cleric/Paladin/Favored Soul, Fighter/Knight/Barbarian are all examples. It becomes stranger with casting classes with nebulous names like Wizard/Warlock/Necromancer. Unlike a Rogue or a Fighter these terms have no meaning outside of context of the fluff.

Instead of renaming classes, or in addition, a greater emphasis can be placed on Character Themes as written in 3.5e's PHBII in Chapter 2. If classes came with a list of themes and no default fluff the problem would be diminished. These would not need to be long, each reaching three sentences and a fluffy quote would do. This does prevent classes with fluff like 3.5e's Dragonfire Adept/Dragon Shaman/Warlock and other way to specific classes from being written. And nothing of value would be lost.

the biggest problem is precedent. it's pretty much assumed at this point by people on both sides that names are needed just to let people 'grok' the system easily, because that's the way it's always been done.

which is part of why D&D has been popular; it's pretty much always followed the stereotypes that it helped establish. people know a Fighter is going to smack things with bigass weapons, they know a Wizard will throw spells, they know a Rogue is going to sneak around and place stabby implements into people's favorite organs.

the onus is basically on the players, though, since those terms are ideally almost completely out-of-character labels that shouldn't have a bearing in the game. they're just there to distinguish the various flavors of casters from each other and the various flavors of martials from each other; there's nothing keeping you from making a Fighter who takes rank in Nature and Stealth and calling him a Woodsman but people will mock you because in their minds that's a Ranger, even in-character.

Strictly limiting the discussion to DnD, yes I believe that changing class names would be a good idea.

It'd be a start, but not the solution.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:He has a surprisingly good point there. Do you think that there would be any benefit in D&D to renaming the classes to something different? Fighter becomes Warlord or Conqueror, Thief becomes Agent, etc..

In general, not really. The Elder Scrolls video game series has a bunch of different names for slightly different "rogue-like", "fighter-like" and "wizard-like" classes, but I couldn't care less whether I'm playing a Pilgrim or a Witchhunter or a Bard -- only the actual list of class abilities matters.

On the other hand, D&D has some astoundingly poor names (e.g. Fighter, Monk, Cleric) that I wouldn't shed too many tears for. At least "Magic-User" is dead and gone now.

I think the best model is the Shadowrun model where you have a freeform character creation system, but there is a whole section with builds. That way a person knows how to make a "street sam" or a "hacker," but they can personalize if they want.

3e DnD taught us all one lesson: people want to multi-class and PrC and use feats to get more things off other people's lists.

Classes are why I bailed on D&D. In 1981. Which is when I was introduced to RQ. None of this "fighters can't climb trees!!" crap.

SR has the problem that magic isn't nearly as common or as well balanced as it was in RQ, which is why a crazy high percentage of player characters are awakened.

K wrote:I think the best model is the Shadowrun model where you have a freeform character creation system, but there is a whole section with builds. That way a person knows how to make a "street sam" or a "hacker," but they can personalize if they want.

3e DnD taught us all one lesson: people want to multi-class and PrC and use feats to get more things off other people's lists.

Shadowrun's a great example but then you ruin it with the 3e quote. you know why people wanted to multiclass and PrC and stuff in 3e? because otherwise you were useless. 3e was full-on system mastery in the trap choices and PrCs and whatnot, it really does help destroy any flavor of a lot of classes by making it required to take X PrC and Y feats just to be competitive to the guy who's just pure Wizard

Plebian wrote:

K wrote:I think the best model is the Shadowrun model where you have a freeform character creation system, but there is a whole section with builds. That way a person knows how to make a "street sam" or a "hacker," but they can personalize if they want.

3e DnD taught us all one lesson: people want to multi-class and PrC and use feats to get more things off other people's lists.

Shadowrun's a great example but then you ruin it with the 3e quote. you know why people wanted to multiclass and PrC and stuff in 3e? because otherwise you were useless. 3e was full-on system mastery in the trap choices and PrCs and whatnot, it really does help destroy any flavor of a lot of classes by making it required to take X PrC and Y feats just to be competitive to the guy who's just pure Wizard

Stop being a retard; everyone PrCed, even the spellcasters.

Roles change according to the progress of a campaign. The stableboy becoming king is a fantasy trope.

PrC''s acknowledged this in part, as did the name levels of previous editions. 4e has backgrounds, paragon paths and destinies, but all these rarely effect the way in which the character can interact with the campaign world at large.

Storyteller systems have various backgrounds that efect the way a character interact with the campaign, as well as the whole concept/nature/demeanor thing, but these mechanics are usually static.

A method I could get behind would be a system that recognised the achievements of characters and had the skeleton of a system in place for dealing with these achievements. Whether it came down to a leadership, status or wealth effect. That way a guild thief could call on a network of contacts or the veteran soldier would be better at motivating people than a conscript.

Such a system would be terrible to balance or adjudicate. Finding a point between the extremes of a gamer tag with an achievement list and a Monty Hall prize grab would be the key. I can dream at least...

Only Druids really don't PrC, but even Clerics and Wizards want to jump out and into a real character after level 5-6.

Personally, I'd prefer for characters to be defined by abilities they have, resources the possess or their form. The fact that you're a Rapier, Soup Cup or Plasma Rifle user is potentially a fraction of what a specific Adventurer is going to use, or bring to a mortal/heroic/legendary/epic Venture.

I'm sort of glad that playing Rifts broke me of the habit of only aligning things that "seem" alike; and instead creating elements, and ordering them based on much more abstract points of view.

I want to break down everything that exists within "arms", "work" and "energy" to fit within one of three sub-categories of each (possibly with sub-sub-categories, but most likely those will be specialities).

So, people don't care if you use daggers or rifles; but rather if you focus on your physical mass/strength or your dexterity/speed; or if you take a holistic martial arts approach [ex. Arms = Physique, Unarmed, Technique]. A strong character can use tiny weapons, or ranged weapons, and that's fine. A fast character can still use a spear, or a rifle or hand-eye co-ordination based attacks. Martial Artists use a lot of everything, and use "anything" (improvised) as a weapon (since technically, most physical objects are possible weapons); but loses out on actual firearms and modern weaponry (grenades fit in fine though, since they're part of "thrown").

Workers, tend to either Craft, Nurse or Pray; very often characters are either Crafters + Other things (Warriors or Wizards that can Smith or Craft objects) or are some combination of Nurse and Pray + Other Powers (Clerics and Druids can be these, as can Monks, Rangers, Doctors, Apothecaries).

The three energies are a lot wilder and woolier to label; but I've gone a long way over the last few months in how I want to separate them, and what goes where.

Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Wizard....but these simple class groups were a part of 2nd edition and still nobody was happy.

The problem is nobody is happy with a name unless it is the exact name they want.

People want assassins because the sound of the name, but then the expectations for MANY other people when assassin is heard, jsut doesn't fit with what a class should be.

The problem is that so many little niches are trying to be filled within a certain "class group" and name them all with specific rules.

The thing needed to be done, and I have said this in MANY places, is stop trying to create a rule or list of options for every little thing and give this collection of mechanical bonus a name.

4th tried with "roles", aka tactical positions, and that doesn't work. Class is more than a name but a status. A class of people, upper lower, commoner, nobility, liken to these classes are the classes of old. Caste system exists in most of the D&D in some form, and these are the types of classes that used to represent within and for those castes.

There should be no name between fighter and ranger, other than simple choice what the character is called. They are both "warriors". The rules should make it so that a warrior is built, and one can then call their bow/ranged-fighter a ranger, and melee fighter a fighter, and be done with it.

The problem of names comes most form the fact that names already have a meaning to many people before it is used within the game. 4th edition obviously fails understanding that words have meanings outside of the game, but likewise previous editions tried to redefine them as well.

the priest works form a religious background and system, the wizard from "wresting arcane energies from the universe", and the rogue using tactics of stealth and deception.

This isnt just for combat, but for social interactions as well.

to stop taking a name of something and trying to assemble a lsit of mechanical bonuses for each possible name, would be the first step. Let the names be as they were....NAme level came and offered Lord, Lady, etc...and these had a meaning, so pick something for a class, and build a small number and give those little things in to differentiate one warrior from the next based on the player choices to make it, not the game choices.

Fighter, ranger, myrmidon, brawler, monk...let them all chose from a set of warrior class abilities and name it whatever for flavor, but leave it simple the class is a warrior...the style is ranger, fighter, monk, etc...

K wrote:

Plebian wrote:

K wrote:I think the best model is the Shadowrun model where you have a freeform character creation system, but there is a whole section with builds. That way a person knows how to make a "street sam" or a "hacker," but they can personalize if they want.

3e DnD taught us all one lesson: people want to multi-class and PrC and use feats to get more things off other people's lists.

Shadowrun's a great example but then you ruin it with the 3e quote. you know why people wanted to multiclass and PrC and stuff in 3e? because otherwise you were useless. 3e was full-on system mastery in the trap choices and PrCs and whatnot, it really does help destroy any flavor of a lot of classes by making it required to take X PrC and Y feats just to be competitive to the guy who's just pure Wizard

Stop being a retard; everyone PrCed, even the spellcasters.

of course casters PrCed; they could choose a full progression caster PrC and just get even more ridiculous. which only led to martials trying out even more esoteric combinations of PrCs and feats to keep up. this is not good game design, this is system mastery at its worst.

the idea of prestige classes isn't bad, per se, but the execution was absolutely terrible because, like feats, almost none were given more than a cursory attempt at balance. I'd love a system where an Arcane Trickster is every bit as balanced as an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil but that never actually happened.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So I was going through old threats like I am wont to do and I noticed this gem...

Um, I don't get it. The voices in my head granted me some new ones the other day, I hope you like them.

"I'm throwing a 9mm retirement party -- in your face. I got 15 guests right here." *Points at the magazine in his pistol*

"You can try [to kill me]. But you better pack a lunch, it might take you a while."

"As I wring your worthless neck with my bare, well, okay, gloved hands, I want you to understand that I do this not as the actions of an oppressive military invader -- it's not about my nation or your nation -- but as a fellow citizen of planet Earth. Get off. It's past time for you to leave our shared world and go to hell, so that's where I'll put you. When I join you later, I hope you've learned better manners."

It gets weirder when you add in how some groups do naming nomenclature.

For example in my gaming circles:

Warrior: tribal, trained, but with no fighting Tradition/Education.
Fighter: Trained Fighter, Cultural Traditions (Musketeers, Knights, Samurai)
Soldier: Rigidly trained fighters with focus on group tactics/fighting

Wizard: Uses the magic of items/others/ambient to produce magical effects. (Excels at Channeling, usually 0 personal power)
Mage: Uses his own personal magic to produce Magical effects. (Terrible at Channeling)

Cleric: Channels Divine Power. (We actually had a system where Clerics did not get spells per day, but instead had a "Favor pool" Everytime they did something Pious for their religion they received Favor Points. They used Favor Points to cast Clerical spells. When you ran out, you ran out, no refresh every morning) This allowed us to mimic the Hieorphant who saved up /years/ worth of Favor with his god, and unleashed it to do some serious shit.

Every group has different visions/nomenclatures.
The problem with Assassin, is that people associate Assassin with Bad-Ass. Able to fight well, sneak well, kill with a single blow, etc. This does not make for a fun game for the other 4 people in the party.

K wrote:
Stop being a retard; everyone PrCed, even the spellcasters.

The problem is that Mage PRCs tended to be about getting a benefit without losing any of their casting progression (weren't there also ways to effectively gain progression in both Wizard and Cleric at the same time). Melee PRCs tended to be about making a one trick pony. I was never a huge fan of them in practice.

(weren't there also ways to effectively gain progression in both Wizard and Cleric at the same time).

Most of those were a trap though. Giving up three caster levels on one side wasn't really worth it (Mystic Theurge). Granted, you could sometimes cheese your way around the problem and there were some exceptions. Even then, some of these required that you suck for a prolonged period of time, or just started at higher levels.

Some were OK if you used them right. Greensinger (give up 1 caster level of bard for a level of druid then progress Greensinger for a few more spell levels in Druid). Fochlucan lyrist could be good if you started at a higher level (and used it to advance something like sublime chord and/or ur-priest) or pulled some serious cheese. Ultimate Magus is actually workable because all you need to reduce lost spell levels on your primary casting side was practiced spellcaster on the other side of the progression.

Novembermike wrote:

K wrote:
Stop being a retard; everyone PrCed, even the spellcasters.

The problem is that Mage PRCs tended to be about getting a benefit without losing any of their casting progression (weren't there also ways to effectively gain progression in both Wizard and Cleric at the same time). Melee PRCs tended to be about making a one trick pony. I was never a huge fan of them in practice.

Everyone wanted to PrC, even the spellcasters. I mean, I can't tell you the number of times I tried to explain to to people how True Necromancers were actually objectively worse necromancers than single-class Wizards or Clerics and they just shouted at me.

Or Gish characters. People loved flushing caster levels down the toilet for the chance to stab people.

People love PrCs and multclassing. The Op Boards would crap themselves every time someone lost a BAB or a casting level, but people still kept posting builds that lost either or both to get the character they wanted.

I wonder if D&D would really be served by broadening the definitions of a class beyond it's traditional flavor and adding infinite points of articulation in character building?

D&D is the gateway by which most gamers enter into the hobby, it stand to reason that the game should be accessible and user friendly. Easily recognizable archetypes and clear decision points during character creation helps achieve this. Your average newbie gamer probably isn't terribly interested in building characters to their exact specs...they just want to play and see what it's like.

Picture this...you have a roommate and they've been watching you and your group gaming for the last month...it looks interesting so they ask to give it a try. You tell them, "sure...the first step is to make your character". Your roommate asks what they can make, and you say "oh...anything...anything you could possibly want. Just look in the book for something interesting" before plopping a copy of the HERO 6th edition book in front of them.

Of course, games should exist that scratch the itch of highly detailed and granular character progression...gamers get their nut off that shit. I'm just not convinced that D&D is the right game for it.

K wrote: Everyone wanted to PrC, even the spellcasters. I mean, I can't tell you the number of times I tried to explain to to people how True Necromancers were actually objectively worse necromancers than single-class Wizards or Clerics and they just shouted at me.

Or Gish characters. People loved flushing caster levels down the toilet for the chance to stab people.

People love PrCs and multclassing. The Op Boards would crap themselves every time someone lost a BAB or a casting level, but people still kept posting builds that lost either or both to get the character they wanted.

a lot of people used PrCs and such because it was a way to get powers they liked the thought of, even more used them for idiotic CharOp builds to try and approach a caster level of utility in a very narrow way, and casters used them to add extra abilities to their already incredibly versatile list.

honestly, the best way I could think to do PrCs is by coming up with some kind of build-your-own system where you picked an ability from X list, one from Y list, and so on to build your own actually personalized PrC instead of picking up 3 levels of Murderer of People and 4 of Killer of Persons and 2 of Stabber of Living Things to get what you like.

I know for a fact that some folks can't think past the class names. Over on that Old Wiki, some guy argued against the Races of War Fighter claiming it was getting beyond a 'fighter' concept. Which is fair enough, as soon as someone can tell me what a fighter concept it.

In a similar vein, Agrinja (posted here a few times) was in a 4e game and playing a half-orc assassin who used a greatsword. Some of the players though he was joking. "Greatswords just fell a long way away from their conceived notion of what an assassin ought to kill people with. "

Then the assassin spent several rounds lurking back during a fight with a black dragon and, right when the players were looking askance, jumped forward and basically kicked the dragon in the balls for half its health, dumping all the buffs/bonus damage it'd been patiently building up.

I think 2.0 style kits would solve a lot of the "Label" problems a Class system has. Instead of having two or three dozen full or mini classes that are just glorified permutations of a fighter (warrior, samurai, knight, kensai, ronin, monk, warlord, mercenary, swashbuckler, ad nauseum) have a "kit-splosion", each with their own one or two paragraphs detailing their differentiating fluff abilities and mandatory label synonymous with their function. That way Joe Player can be happy and write "Favored of Pelor" on his character sheet instead of "Cleric", and Joe Designer doesn't have to balance out how a Fighter 1/Ranger 2/Barbarian 3/Master of Black Fire 4/ Cloud Jumper 5 interacts with a .Fighter 2/Ranger 3/Barbarian 1/Master of Black Fire 5/ Cloud Jumper 4.

Maxus wrote:I know for a fact that some folks can't think past the class names.

The thing is, why give something a name, if that name is unrelated to it, or unimportant to what it is?

Some things just dont seem suited for adventuring, and the court vizer may have been a wonderful diplomat, but do you need a diplomat class? The war minister could easily be a seasoned fighter, but after years inside giving out order to others, his skills may have atrophied, and a war minister class wouldnt work as well as just a fighter for adventuring.