I also don't see the point in trying to make class systems more flexible when you can just play classless RPGs.

I can see a point to making class systems broader rather than more flexible.

There's an argument to made for just falling back onto the more basic archetypes eg. Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, and keeping everything else as just are way of customising within those classes.

Quote from: nDervish;1087925Of course, that's a purely subjective benefit.  Personally, I consider it a huge drawback when you can say "this character is a 5th level Thothian Mage" and that's sufficient to tell me everything there is to know about the character in terms of game mechanics.

Does it however? Does it tell you about the character's selection of spells? What magic item he or she possesses? Motivations, tactics, allies? RPGs are not about moving defined game pieces around.

Quote from: nDervish;1087925comparison to using a non-class-based system from the start.

What people forget about non class based system that characters are not random hodge-podges of abilities. That there are logical patterns arising out of how the system works or how it relates to a genre or setting. Patterns that in terms of mechanics make the freeform character creation system as predictable as a class based system.

Something that I learned when I played RPGs like the Hero System since the mid 80s and GURPS since the late 80s.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1087936I also don't see the point in trying to make class systems more flexible when you can just play classless RPGs.

Because character creation options are not the only factor that govern the appeal of an RPG system. There the combat system and other elements that players may want to want to retain.

One reason D&D 3.0 worked so well is that its team of authors figured how to inject character customization that was consistent with the older class system and still retained much of how combat and the rest of D&D worked.

What I wish most class based systems did better was allow for more natural evolution of characters based on experience in game (rather than mechanical development based on the pure fact of experience - rather than it's specific nature).

Even 3.0 which introduce ways to mechanically represent this ran into scaling problems and then buried it under the immense need for forward planning in order to qualify for prestige classes and keep "builds" functional.

Quote from: nDervish;1087925You may be able to get some useful ideas from ACKS (the Adventurer, Conqueror, King System) and, specifically, the ACKS Player's Companion, which includes a system for designing custom classes for a B/X-D&D-style game.  The resulting classes, in general, seem reasonably balanced and the class design rules were used to create all of the "official" classes in published products.

However, I doubt you'd want to use the ACKS rules directly, as they're based in the B/X D&D mindset rather than the 4e/5e D&D mindset, which means no lists of quasi-magical abilities for fighter types, so I suspect you would view non-caster classes as "arbitrarily gimp[ed] compared to magic-users" by default.  (Never mind that it's actually designed to make the various types balanced relative to each other without depending on every class having "no, really, it's not a spell" spell lists.)

Without getting into a full discussion on the "linear warriors quadratic wizards" thing, I think the desire to limit martial characters to real physics is both arbitrary and hypocritical.

It is arbitrary because in a magical world it makes sense that everything could be magical, including mundane martial arts and thus characters could train themselves so hard they become comic book superheroes. This sort of thing commonly happens in myths, legends and fairy tales. Although commonly derided as being Asian-derived, Asian mythology only differs in that it codified the feats of heroes into martial arts that others could learn as opposed to leaving those feats undefined as in European mythology. (We discussed this in a martial arts thread a ways back.)

It is hypocritical because by the rules as written martial characters become one-man armies as they level up due to how leveling systems work. It makes no sense to claim that weaboo fighting magic is unrealistic but being able to tank armies is realistic. The character is superhuman either way, and this is an argument used by E6 advocates.

Quote from: TJS;1087935I think classes have to mean something simple and archetypal and setting oriented.

I'm not sure having classes just represent role within the part or combat role really works.  And mix and matching these things feels just two complicated.

3.0 D&D really bears the legacy of being written at a time when class level systems were generally perceived as backward and it took a lot from point buy design.  As a result some of its class design lacks a good clear sense of identity (Fighters and Rogues especially) and this still haunts 5E to some extent.

I think it's interesting that we see what are basically class systems without levels, but not the opposite, levels without classes.  I think this is probably because a clear sense of classes helps make a game more immediately marketable.  But I think it's a shame because I think a lot of the benefits of levels, such as in particular being able tier character abilities, guard against the tendency toward over-extreme specialisation and incommensurate niches, and have some clear sense of character power and ability to handle threats over the long run, would be really beneficial even for systems that don't wont to encode classes in their systems.

While leveling systems may have advantages in particular areas, they also introduce their own problems. Like the mechanics for epic levels and mythic ranks, which were generally bad and quickly discarded by the creators. 5e engages in a bit of this with its "legendary" monsters, whose shtick is that they break the Challenge Rating system.

A problem I find with the the CR/leveling system is that it arbitrarily places monsters behind a level-based paywall, for lack of better terminology. As a side effect, this results in designers creating variations of the same monster for different CRs because it is difficult to keep monsters relevant outside of their CR bracket.

Another problem with leveling systems is that they affect a character's combat ability regardless of their backstory. This is particularly prevalent in Pathfinder's NPC compendiums, where the kings of countries are 10th level aristocrats and as such have CR ~9 durability even though in real life any king could die of a simple stab wound or poisoned chalice. The only way around this is to design NPCs differently than PCs, so that they can have high skills in their desired area of competence while still having low CR (called the 0th-level NPC in pre-3e editions).

A leveling system works for abstraction purposes, but it breaks down when you start trying to simulate a world that isn't a comedy where the D&D rules are literally the laws of physics (like the Order of the Stick comic) or a satire that explores how leveling systems aren't realistic (like the Overlord anime).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1087936I also don't see the point in trying to make class systems more flexible when you can just play classless RPGs.

I did check out Mythras Classic Fantasy. By default, it is intended to replicate an OSR D&D experience, so rules for spherecasters and martial artists need to be homebrewed if an analogue doesn't already exist under the BRP/d100 umbrella.

Quote from: TJS;1087937I can see a point to making class systems broader rather than more flexible.

There's an argument to made for just falling back onto the more basic archetypes eg. Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, and keeping everything else as just are way of customising within those classes.

That's essentially what the "roles" I mentioned are for. Say what you will about the execution of 4e, but the concept of roles and power sources as a way to inform class design isn't a bad idea.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1087859Sounds like you should be using this Spheres of Power system for your RPGs.

That is exactly what I want to do. Well, not exactly. The basic idea, sure, but the not the exact implementation.

Quote from: TJS;1087937I can see a point to making class systems broader rather than more flexible.

There's an argument to made for just falling back onto the more basic archetypes eg. Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, and keeping everything else as just are way of customising within those classes.

It preference with it roots in what one likes and does it work well with how one things about a genre a setting.

The best example of this in operation is Adventures in Middle Earth versus The One Ring. AiME is derived from D&D 5th edition, and ToR it is own system. Yet they both have the same presentation of Middle Earth, describe the same elements with different mechanics, and use the same supplements and adventures.

The only thing different are the mechanics. For me AiME work great, I get where they are going with it and have used it successfully. ToR I never got. But I know people who don't get AiME but really like ToR.

So which is "better"? I say both and it depends on the individual. For me AiME is better, while for 'A' ToR is better. Because the Cubicle7 team did a hell of a job in doing their homework on both the two of us enjoy the same supplements in the same way.

Quote from: TJS;1087941What I wish most class based systems did better was allow for more natural evolution of characters based on experience in game (rather than mechanical development based on the pure fact of experience - rather than it's specific nature).

So what do you mean by "Natural Evolution".

Quote from: estar;1087946So what do you mean by "Natural Evolution".

Not feeling like you needed a character build to do cool things.

Or you know, play GURPS and get exactly that. Especially in campaigns where advancement is skill improvement.

Ars Magica is another one.

Etc.

I feel like if you want classes, you want the thematic strength and niche protection that comes with it. 3.5 did well because people want flexibility but refuse to play not-D&D. As soon as you get over "not-D&D", you have no reason to cling to both classes and flexible character builds.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1087948Not feeling like you needed a character build to do cool things.

 I view that as a referee or setting design issue. Mechanics are there when a procedure or dice roll are needed to resolve an element of the setting. Like caster successfully completing a ritual or a warrior attacking with a weapon.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1087948Or you know, play GURPS and get exactly that. Especially in campaigns where advancement is skill improvement.

Having refereed GURPS for two decades, it well designed and has the detail and flexibility but there are consequences it has that classic D&D doesn't. And vice versa.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1087948Ars Magica is another one.

Well a little known detail is that the whole magic section of my Majestic Wilderlands is started with a GURPS campaign where everybody played a Thothian Mage and much of the detail was adapted from Ars Magica. That campaign in the early 90s laid the foundation for how magic worked in the Majestic Wilderlands ever since due to all the extra details I came up with as result. There is also a side of Harn's Shek P'var as well predates Ars Magica.

Prior to the fall Mage campaign, I had a Guild of Arcane Lore in the City State of the Invincible Overlord inspired by the Harn's Shek P'var. Then came along Ars Magic in the late 80s which I mined for adventure ideas. The all Mage campaign needed to have the culture of mages fleshed out so I liberally borrowed many of the concepts from Ars Magica. The main difference is that mages are more of a part of the Majestic Wilderlands than they are in Mythic Europe or Harn. My level of fantasy is set a notch higher than those two settings.

The whole section on magic and magic user a class in the Majestic Wilderlands supplement is a conversion of the templates and notes I made from above using D&D spell system as a foundation rather than the list of spells in GURPS Magic.

So I am familiar with the issues and trade off involved. The key is to not end with a design but further develop the concept through multiple campaigns and see where actual play takes you. What I started with from GURPS was not just my ideas but my ideas afters they been mangled, beaten, and mutilated by the hands of players.


 

Etc.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1087948I feel like if you want classes, you want the thematic strength and niche protection that comes with it.

Yeah that logic doesn't track.  The point I been trying to get across is that niche protection and thematic strength are not a consequences of class. It a choice by the author to write them that way. Another author, like myself, may and can choose to present classes differently. Both, as well as other approaches, work equally well.

To put it plainly D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, D&D 5e, opted to designed their classes for niche protection and thematic strength. My Majestic Wilderlands and Adventures in Middle Earth did not. Instead we both opted to use classes as packages to represent common character types in our respective settings.

AiME has skills, class options, and virtues to further mechanically differentiate characters even when they are the same class, and culture. All of these have background that are ties them to Middle Earth.

I have abilities and stress the use of natural English descriptions for everything else. For example I don't have a "rank" feat/virtue/advantage. I just explain what the rank are, and how one achieves them. And if the players obtains the rank then they note it on their character sheet that they are a captain, guildmaster or a baron.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1087825One of the more annoying parts of elf-games in my opinion is that they tend to be fairly limited in their class options. After reading the Spheres of X books I can't imagine playing vanilla elf-games.

There are so many topics I could discuss: the Christmas tree effect, linear warriors quadratic wizards, weaboo fighting magic, yadda yadda. But I'll limit myself.

There are about four aspects of class design that I think could be used to inform customization options for games in the future: roles, spheres, traditions and power sources. I've synthesized these concepts from a variety of sources like D&D, PF, and the Spheres of X books (mostly the latter).

A role is the basic role that a character serves in a party. In early editions this was something like fighting-man, thief, magic-user and priest. In 4e it was called striker, defender, leader and controller. In Spheres of X these are called spherecasters and practioners classes.

A sphere is the capabilities that a character specializes in. In other words this is your spell list/school, martial maneuver list, class feature list, talent trees, etc. For example: healing, conjuring, fencing, beastmastery, etc. (The Spheres of X mechanics divide spheres into magic and martial. In contrast to traditional magic-user classes, spherecasters have to specialize in order to develop competence. Martial spheres include physics-defying effects, but these are segregated with a "legendary" tag in case the DM wants to arbitrarily gimp them compared to magic-users.)

A tradition is a layer of customization that gives the character additional flavor. For example: traditional classes/kits/archetypes/etc like wizard, barbarian, cavalier, etc would be examples of traditions. Traditions may be placed under the umbrella of power sources (see below).

A power source (or maybe "essence") is more fluff than crunch, but essentially explains where a character's capabilities come from. For example: martial arts, arcane magic, divine magic, psionics, primal spirits, phantasmal/shadow magic, etc. While the other aspects are more or less mandatory, this one is optional and arbitrarily defined.

I welcome any questions, criticism or advice.

I use templates instead of classes myself.

Quote from: SavageSchemer;1087856I think the class-as-template metaphor is a reasonably good one. While systems that use templates ostensibly are more open with regard to development, my experience is that people will min-max the crap out of that to the point where they might as well be playing a class and level game anyway.

Your experience is different from mine. I find my players do a little focusing at first, but they quickly branch out into other skill sets that have little to nothing to do with the original character 'template'.

Quote from: estar;1087858I argue that is solely about preference. My response is about how Class & level can work just as well a GURPS style toolkit RPG in representing a setting or genre.

I would argue that is also a matter of preference. Or rather, a sort of lack thereof.

To me system matters. Different systems give a different feel at the table and one plays characters differently, because the mechanics do tend to enforce certain styles of play. Certain genre's can have an effect on this.

But most importantly: For system to matter, first you have to actually care about the game system.

And the reality is that most players don't. They just need 'good enough' to play in their favorite genre.

That's why you can jump from GURPS to OSR D&D and only a few players may actually care. (although the genre effect helps in this case.)

I have found that the majority of player want to stick to something familiar or "Just tell me what I need to roll to hit him." So we get the proliferation of d20 (due to D&D's market dominance), and the guy who will happily play the Majectic Wilderlands in Gurps, Hero, or D&D etc. So long as the system switch isn't too jarring, and they can be told what to roll easily - they just don't care.

Me, I would care. Although I wouldn't willingly inflict Gurps or Hero on anyone...

In theory, there is a happy medium between typical D&D-style classes and GURPS/Hero-style individual ability customization, that doesn't go the template route.  Something like Dragon Quest, where it has some abilities that are stand-alone (e.g. "Stealth", weapons), some that are gated behind sub systems that a character has to qualify for (e.g. "Spell Colleges") and then some that are packages of related skills (e.g. "Ranger", "Astrologer").  In DQ, "Ranger" is a "skill" that provides several related sub skills that can "level" only as a package, and are all about core "Ranger" stuff, but add nothing about spells or weapons.  

In practice, such a middle ground solution is extremely difficult to do well, and DQ is certainly not an example of it being done coherently (however well one thinks DQ works otherwise).  Whatever is wrong with DQ, it does support characters that start with some direction, and then evolve as the character gains experience.  But the various "gates" and costs of the packages tends to get a character to focus on a few things to do well, and then branch out slightly for rounding the character out.  

I have very slowly come around to the position that a class-based game can either do archetypes well or it can do multi-classing well, but not both.  The system needs to be designed for one or the other, and radically favor it.  Otherwise, you start throwing away much of the richness of the archetypes or the flexibility of the multi-classing.  To square that circle in a game similar to D&D (but probably not D&D, where I think it would be too confusing compared to the traditions of the game), it might work to:

1. Design the base classes more narrowly.  Something like "Magic User" gives wizard spells, but no combat ability, no skills, etc.  
2. Design the system to have clean multi-classing, with the expectation that every character will have a handful of classes.  Working out the kinks in the leveling system would be key.
3. Then build optional archetypes as templates.  For example, "Wizard" has a plan very similar to a typical D&D class that shows how a character can combine levels of "Magic User" with other classes that give lore and some minimal fighting ability.

In such a game, classes are about rules, and the archetype templates are about setting.  You'll note that this still doesn't get you something like AiME 5E without writing new classes, though.  Like I said, in practice, it's about difficult compromises.

Quote from: estar;1087946So what do you mean by "Natural Evolution".

Some way to mechanically reflect the specific things that have happened to a character.

At a simple level: the party has been spending a lot of time trekking through the wilderness so I feel my character should learn survival and navigation.

But also character development, such as when my Deadlands gunslinger decided he had found god and became preacher.

Quote from: Jaeger;1088030Your experience is different from mine. I find my players do a little focusing at first, but they quickly branch out into other skill sets that have little to nothing to do with the original character 'template'.
.

The big issue is when some do one and others do the other.