Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1004019If we are going to be logical, I think there should be a slot for someone who had fighter training, in a militia, as a conscript, in a bandit gang, etc. but whose life had room for a way to make a living or even for another minor set of useful adventuring skills and a different slot for those who trained from their youth to be a knight, samurai, Lakota or Cheyenne Dog soldier, longbowman or whatever fits the scenario and that the latter would have no other career but would have an advantage in combat.

Quote from: Spike;1004021Or... and this is a CRAZY IDEA... we could just design a game that didn't define every character as some restrictive, all encompassing class!

Ha, I kid. That would NEVER work.

That's sort of the problem.  I'm against a game with classes putting out character options that end up with results that are basically the same as the character in the point buy game who puts absolutely all their points into combat skills and has absolutely no other functional abilities whatsoever.  A class based system should be able to avoid this kind of optimisation arms race.

Quote from: TJS;1004136That's sort of the problem.  I'm against a game with classes putting out character options that end up with results that are basically the same as the character in the point buy game who puts absolutely all their points into combat skills and has absolutely no other functional abilities whatsoever.  A class based system should be able to avoid this kind of optimisation arms race.

Or, you know, you could just let players play the characters they want to play instead of worrying about if they're enjoying being bloodthirsty killers just a little too much.  Just a thought.





Its funny because I was just having this conversation about Solos in Cyberpunk. If you are having an issue with everyone playing Solos to I-Win combat, maybe stop making combat the only solution to problems, and stop trying to make 'bad guys' be such awesome threats that combat optimization is the only way to survive?

I generally don't have an issue in my game groups with too much combat optimization... not after the first few sessions... as players start to realize that being able to... I dunno... fly a starship, say, is much more important than being able to shoot an NPC in the face.  Face shooting isn't so much a bad way to play (in my games, but it does tend to be optional), but I long ago gave up the idea of trying to 'arms race' my NPCs, so they tend to be realistic rather than 'anti-PC' level threats.  As a GM I can always WIN escalation conflicts, but if I DO win escalation conflicts, I don't have any more players... so why even start?

Quote from: Spike;1004140I generally don't have an issue in my game groups with too much combat optimization... not after the first few sessions... as players start to realize that being able to... I dunno... fly a starship, say, is much more important than being able to shoot an NPC in the face.  Face shooting isn't so much a bad way to play (in my games, but it does tend to be optional), but I long ago gave up the idea of trying to 'arms race' my NPCs, so they tend to be realistic rather than 'anti-PC' level threats.  As a GM I can always WIN escalation conflicts, but if I DO win escalation conflicts, I don't have any more players... so why even start?

It starts, like so many bad things in life, with someone having a profound insecurity about penis size.

Quote from: Bren;1004143It starts, like so many bad things in life, with someone having a profound insecurity about penis size.

Look... I'm sorry.... I do try not to blot out the sun when I pee... its just so embarrassing!

In June I hurt my right shoulder.  I couldn't lift more than 5 pounds with my right hand.

It was hard to learn to pee left-handed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004148In June I hurt my right shoulder.  I couldn't lift more than 5 pounds with my right hand.

It was hard to learn to pee left-handed.

Ouch, if that happened to me I'd be screwed.  I need both hands.

Quote from: Spike;1004021Or... and this is a CRAZY IDEA... we could just design a game that didn't define every character as some restrictive, all encompassing class!

Ha, I kid. That would NEVER work.

Of course that works. I've played lots of games without classes and some of them were quite good. However, the subject at hand was "classes that." So, I thought I'd talk about the subject at hand. Games with classes work too.

I remember an early RuneQuest campaign that I was playing in and we were talking about the game and the rules, etc. and my friend Simon pointed at the character sheets in front of the players and said "fighter with some spells,"  "Cleric who uses a spear," "fighter with some spells" and then "fighter without any spells" and "wilderness scout with some spells, a Ranger," which was his character. And, you know, he was right. He loved that campaign but he was pointing out that if you are running adventurers in a pre-gunpowder fantasy setting and you don't have classes, the characters you create are going to resemble characters in a class-based system because you need people to fill those roles.

Games with classes work fine as long as you accept classes and go along for the ride. If I sign up for D&D, I don't moan about how my fighter can't cast spells. If I want a fighter who can cast spells, I just don't play D&D then.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1004185Ouch, if that happened to me I'd be screwed.  I need both hands.

* Orson Welles slow clap *

Quote from: Dumarest;1004197Games with classes work fine as long as you accept classes and go along for the ride. If I sign up for D&D, I don't moan about how my fighter can't cast spells. If I want a fighter who can cast spells, I just don't play D&D then.

Hush, you and your "being reasonable."

Quote from: Spike;1004140Or, you know, you could just let players play the characters they want to play instead of worrying about if they're enjoying being bloodthirsty killers just a little too much.  Just a thought.

Or you could ask questions if you don't understand a point and not make stupid fucking assumptions.

Just a thought.

Quote from: TJS;1004211Or you could ask questions if you don't understand a point and not make stupid fucking assumptions.

Just a thought.

Where is the fun in that?

I applaud Dungeon Masters who limit the classes and races for their campaign.

I much prefer a focused campaign. I find the play-anything-hodge-podge to be too often overly generic.

Back in 2e, I played a terrific Dwarf-Only AD&D campaign that was tremendously fun, clearly enhanced by the limitations on chargen.

Quote from: Spike;1004140Its funny because I was just having this conversation about Solos in Cyberpunk. If you are having an issue with everyone playing Solos to I-Win combat, maybe stop making combat the only solution to problems, and stop trying to make 'bad guys' be such awesome threats that combat optimization is the only way to survive?

I generally don't have an issue in my game groups with too much combat optimization... not after the first few sessions... as players start to realize that being able to... I dunno... fly a starship, say, is much more important than being able to shoot an NPC in the face.  Face shooting isn't so much a bad way to play (in my games, but it does tend to be optional), but I long ago gave up the idea of trying to 'arms race' my NPCs, so they tend to be realistic rather than 'anti-PC' level threats.  As a GM I can always WIN escalation conflicts, but if I DO win escalation conflicts, I don't have any more players... so why even start?

I remember when my players realized that all attributes in my Fates Worse Than Death game were almost equally important to survival in combat. They started calling 10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10 "the optimized spread".
And yes, the point about "realistic skills, not anti-PC skills" also was part of it.
 

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1004193Of course that works. I've played lots of games without classes and some of them were quite good. However, the subject at hand was "classes that." So, I thought I'd talk about the subject at hand. Games with classes work too.

I remember an early RuneQuest campaign that I was playing in and we were talking about the game and the rules, etc. and my friend Simon pointed at the character sheets in front of the players and said "fighter with some spells,"  "Cleric who uses a spear," "fighter with some spells" and then "fighter without any spells" and "wilderness scout with some spells, a Ranger," which was his character. And, you know, he was right. He loved that campaign but he was pointing out that if you are running adventurers in a pre-gunpowder fantasy setting and you don't have classes, the characters you create are going to resemble characters in a class-based system because you need people to fill those roles.

Resemble, yes, if you mix and match the classes. Many if not most class games don't allow that;).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1004231I applaud Dungeon Masters who limit the classes and races for their campaign.

I much prefer a focused campaign. I find the play-anything-hodge-podge to be too often overly generic.

Back in 2e, I played a terrific Dwarf-Only AD&D campaign that was tremendously fun, clearly enhanced by the limitations on chargen.

I agree on the "races" and I think limiting the classes might be a good idea. The fact that games like the various versions of D&D (and my own Glory Road Roleplay)  give us this menu of non-Human species we can include in our games does not mean we must include all of them. I have run a campaign with only Human PCs in a world with most of the other types around but not as PCs and a campaign in a setting with only Humans. I also ran a campaign focused on a Hobbit street-gang in a Human city.

As for classes, if I were running 5e, I would not use the Barbarian class. Tribal fighters are fighters.