Benefits of Classed vs. Classless Systems

[ludomastro]

My two cents/nuyen/GP/currency of your choice:

Class-less systems give the player a greater sense of control over their character and his development. The problem is that they give that same player actual control over the development of his character. This can (and often does) lead to munchkin or suck characters.

Class systems give the player a much reduced sense of control over the character. This, in turn, breed things like multi-classing (not necessarily bad) and prestige classes (not bad, in theory at least). Effectively you either suck it up and play the fighter the books says or you run the risk of screwing up your character in discrete jumps rather than slowly over more, smaller increases in the reward system of choice.

Personally, I prefer class-less systems. However, that stems from my desire to play a role rather than a game. (Yes, I tend toward dice-light games but I'm not afraid of crunchy ones either.)

Ultimately, the differences lie in speed of character creation and that nebulous concept of "feel." (e.g. D&D 4.0 "feels" like an MMORPG to me.)

As with all things, YMMV.

[Voss]

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.

In other words, give them classes- even if its a singular class defined by the game's genre


Frank-
it applies equally well to non-combat abilities as well. Your vampire can't sneak unless he goes Ultra on Dex, stealth and obfuscate. Otherwise someone flashes him with Auspex and he is found. The whole system is based around either mastery or suckage. And to get mastery in something, you must let everything else slide. Once you master it, you can pull something else out of shit level. But its damn hard to have an effective character by being mediocre at several things.
Nor is this solely confined to WoD systems. Most classes systems highly favor absurd levels of specialization over broad competence.


But I have to say that suddenly throwing out the most common aspect of *all* RPGs (fighting); and saying its marginal and unimportant is both sudden and surprising.

So is trying to justify rpg design with movie structures, despite serious differences in mediums.

[Username17]

But I have to say that suddenly throwing out the most common aspect of *all* RPGs (fighting); and saying its marginal and unimportant is both sudden and surprising.

This isn't remotely true. Combat doesn't exist in the vast majority of role playing games. The most common aspect in all RPGs is eating, probably followed by sex. Remember that Role Playing Games include House and Domination/Submission, both of which are ludicrously popular in terms of total numbers of players.

We look at it from the standpoint of playing games that happen to be derived ultimately from war games, but that's a contingent fact. The amount of combat in our games has gone steadily down over the years, and there's no reason that trend won't continue.

-Username17

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I have this theory that classless systems have one major advantage: the consequences of isolated bad design decisions are less earth-shattering. For example, let's take a look at the 3.0 ranger (or the no-archery-TWF-only-Final-Destination ranger). If a major part of the design of an archetypal class is an inferior feature (like free TWF feats in 3.x D&D), the archetype is gimped in the game. However, if 3.0 D&D was a classless system, people who wanted to be outdoorsy warrior-scouts could take their stealth and outdoor skills and their favored enemy and pick another fighting style.

Levels, OTOH, have certain potential advantages for game balance, for reasons others have alluded to. It's easy to put caps on the kinds of bonuses people have at a given point in their careers in a leveled system. It also gives you another way to keep powerful special abilities out of the hands of characters who should be low-powered. You can just require that, in addition to score X in a particular skill, the character also needs to be level Y.

So I guess my ideal game system would be classless but still level-based.

[violence in the media]

So I guess my ideal game system would be classless but still level-based.

Have you thought about porting the Fallout video game system to pen and paper? That sounds almost exactly what you're looking for.

[ludomastro]

Any similarities between Arcanum and Fallout?

[violence in the media]

I don't know anything about Arcanum. Fallout has you gaining levels by doing typical RPG things like defeating enemies, completing quests, hacking computers, and generally using your skills successfully. Levels give you hit points, more skill points, and a perk.

You have your S.P.E.C.I.A.L. (Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility, and Luck) attributes, rated from 1-10, and a bunch of secondary stats, percentage based, I believe, based on those. Things like Damage, Radiation, and Poison Resistance, as well as carry capacity and baseline values for all skills.

Your skills are all percentage, and they include all of your combat skills. It is possible to become high level without sinking any points into combat, but it's annoying. You get 11-23 skill points per level, depending on Intelligence and Perk choices. You can also learn skill points between levels by finding training manuals. Each manual gives +1 point to a specific skill (+2 with a certain Perk).

Perks are pretty much like feats, and range from must-have to useless.

[Draco_Argentum]

Fallout is actually a terrible system. The massive variation in skill points per level being the most glaring problem. Close behind is the fact that its a level based game where you abilities haven't got much to do with your level.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

So I guess my ideal game system would be classless but still level-based.

Have you thought about porting the Fallout video game system to pen and paper? That sounds almost exactly what you're looking for.

I'm not a video gamer, so I don't know the first thing about the system.

[Naszir]

Fallout is actually a terrible system. The massive variation in skill points per level being the most glaring problem. Close behind is the fact that its a level based game where you abilities haven't got much to do with your level.

Classless but level based would also be my prefered way to go. I have come to really dislike skill points and the extreme variation you can get with them just like Draco pointed out. And sometimes it makes character creation and advancement a pain.

I like that 3.0 introduced feats but they just didn't seem defined enough. Some feats required an action and some were just permanent bonuses tacked on to things. Some weren't even bonuses or didn't required an action but instead just gave you access to extra stuff. In these cases you could have a great disparity in the power of even basic feats (which Frank and others have pointed out time and again).

I even wish things went further by eliminating skills. Turn everything into feats. I'd even suggest that you have feats (powers that require actions) and enhancements (permanent bonuses that don't require actions or powers that are triggered when the right conditions are met).

[violence in the media]

Fallout is actually a terrible system. The massive variation in skill points per level being the most glaring problem. Close behind is the fact that its a level based game where you abilities haven't got much to do with your level.

It's also designed from a single-player perspective with a semi-static world. While you'll progress along the storyline quests, and things will change as a result of that, no one will ever come along and unlock a safe you left behind because your lockpick skill wasn't high enough at the time you encountered it.

Also, even the worst shot in the game has a 90-95% chance to plug someone at point-blank range.

[MartinHarper]

In other words, give them classes- even if its a singular class defined by the game's genre

I don't see how that is any more class-based than giving people 100 points to spend any way they like. You might as well say that GURPS is class-based, and the "class" is "GURPS character".

[Tequila Sunrise]

We look at it from the standpoint of playing games that happen to be derived ultimately from war games, but that's a contingent fact. The amount of combat in our games has gone steadily down over the years, and there's no reason that trend won't continue.

If this statement is a continuation of your joke about sexual role play, please ignore the following.

I don't think it's any accident that most rpgs 'happen' to contain combat rules, or that the best selling rpg (D&D) 'happens' to have rules which are largely focussed on combat. I'm not a historian, so I won't argue over whether "the amount of combat in our games has gone steadily down over the years", but I will opine that the amount of combat in most rpgs is unlikely to decline from its current level.

Why? The same reason there have been nine Resident Evil games, seventeen Rocky films, and 666 Super Bowl Sundays: violence sells. Think what you want about killing monsters and then taking their stuff, but I think it's pretty naive to think that any population's desire for violence in entertainment will change until we start genetically modifying our instincts.

TS

[Crissa]

Heavens forbid a game should reward skilled players, yeah.

Why would or should a co-op game 'reward' one player or penalize another?

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.

I'm all for there being other minigames. However, I'd rather all players be able to participate. It's much more difficult to manage a game where some subset of players are involved at one time... Not impossible, but detracting from the cooperative play.

I don't see how that is any more class-based than giving people 100 points to spend any way they like. You might as well say that GURPS is class-based, and the "class" is "GURPS character".

A class in GURPS is a template. It says to do a job, here are the skills you need. Here are some skills that are optional. And here's how much each of those cost in this setting.

I like classless games and I like levelless systems. However, you really do need to have a node that action will be focused around, which gives players a range to exist in.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Heavens forbid a game should reward skilled players, yeah.

Why would or should a co-op game 'reward' one player or penalize another?

Ah, you saw the sarcasm, thank you.
No reward means no incentive to get better. Likewise it doesn't need to be a big or impressive reward or accumulate without end, but it does need to mean something.

[Username17]

I'm not a historian, so I won't argue over whether "the amount of combat in our games has gone steadily down over the years", but I will opine that the amount of combat in most rpgs is unlikely to decline from its current level.

Of course it will. White Wolf is currently on the ebb, but something similar to that will rise and take its place. D&D is weak again - like it was in the 90s. And that means other games with less focus on combat. As it always has ever since Traveler.

I don't necessarily mean that combat will vanish from games altogether, but there's a lot to be said for games where everybody sneaks or talks and only some people fight. Consider how much talking there is in Rocky compared to how much fighting - and consider how many of the characters actually fight anyone. But that's a series with one main character. What you're really looking for is ensemble casts. Stuff like Star Trek, M*A*S*H, and Lost. And yeah, fighting happens. But not often or continuously enough to invalidate a character who straight up doesn't fight.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

Combat is generally a common focus for many RPGs simply because it's an area where it's easy for everyone contribute and it's a system that often takes a lot of time to resolve.

And when you put down rules for a game combat tends to be the main area where people want rules.

[Bigode]

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.

It's not "uniquely D&D" as much as it is "required for stories with near-constant combat", which isn't only D&D-compatible settings by any means.

This isn't remotely true. Combat doesn't exist in the vast majority of role playing games. The most common aspect in all RPGs is eating, probably followed by sex. Remember that Role Playing Games include House and Domination/Submission, both of which are ludicrously popular in terms of total numbers of players.

I think it was pretty clear to everyone else what the subject was - besides, any quotes backing that?

Ah, you saw the sarcasm, thank you.
No reward means no incentive to get better. Likewise it doesn't need to be a big or impressive reward or accumulate without end, but it does need to mean something.

Essentially, there's people who'd be insulted by the suggestion that they need to become "better" at their pastimes (along with those who don't even acknowledge such a thing exists), and games happen to be made with those in mind ...

---

I think combat's also a common focus for RPG rules because a lot of RPGs expect a lot of other character tasks to have heavy player involvement, but don't want players to knife each other when their characters fight. And I'm not saying they should.

[Crissa]

Essentially, there's people who'd be insulted by the suggestion that they need to become "better" at their pastimes (along with those who don't even acknowledge such a thing exists), and games happen to be made with those in mind

Many professionals don't get better, either.

But a point of a game is to entertain a group, yes? And a game that does not balance between various skill levels becomes unentertaining to some segment of the audience.

People don't want to play games which they know someone else is going to totally school them, or take away all the screen time from them - it's unfair. A game is different from reality in that it can actually be fair within its limited terms.

-Crissa

[Bigode]

Many professionals don't get better, either.

But a point of a game is to entertain a group, yes? And a game that does not balance between various skill levels becomes unentertaining to some segment of the audience.

People don't want to play games which they know someone else is going to totally school them, or take away all the screen time from them - it's unfair. A game is different from reality in that it can actually be fair within its limited terms.

Just to make sure: despite hating those people (especially the professionals), I was agreeing.

[JonSetanta]

Street Fighter's Akuma.

Dynasty Warrior's Lubu.

SSB's Fox McCloud (all 3 incarnations).

Many games have (rather unplaytested. Japaaaan!) imbalances between supposedly equal characters; it's traditionally up to the honor of gamers NOT to play said characters in order to uphold 'fairness', but one could also go the opposite direction and play nothing but broken characters.
Rocket tag and combo juggling ensues, but at least everyone has the same character.

[Crissa]

Yes, but you're told ahead of time 'Lubu is broken, game is ez mode with him'. And he isn't doled out unless you specifically select him.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Yes, but you're told ahead of time 'Lubu is broken, game is ez mode with him'. And he isn't doled out unless you specifically select him.

PC Full Spellcasters, etc.

The old tradition of giving noob players warriors and the 'pros' get spellcasters has almost always held true.
Unless, well, you don't specifically select a mage.

[Bigode]

PC Full Spellcasters, etc.

The old tradition of giving noob players warriors and the 'pros' get spellcasters has almost always held true.
Unless, well, you don't specifically select a mage.

You do have to consider that, druids and beguilers excepted, real noobs do manage to do worse with spellcasters (of any level, IME) than they would with fighters, so there is some logic. But it's still sign of questionable system quality, fo course.