So I've been looking over Worlds Without Number, and I'm curious about the implementation of broad classes in practice. I'm familiar with the generic class concept from Call of Cthulhu D20, D20 Modern and True20.
- Call of Cthulhu D20: two classes = Offensive and Defensive
- D20 Modern: six classes = Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
- True20: three classes = Expert, Adept, Warrior
In all of these systems, I saw the class system as a holdover getting in the way. It seemed more straightforward to just go with a skill-based system like Savage Worlds or OpenD6. In Savage Worlds, you have skills and edges. In True20, you have skills and feats - and the class mechanics are another mechanical layer in addition. To me, it didn't seem to be adding anything.
Are the broad generic classes in Worlds Without Number different in practice? Or do people who like WWN's broad generic classes also like them in these earlier systems?
I can't speak to the specifics of any of those games. I only played d20 Modern once, a long time ago. In general, I prefer games that are more specific than generic, though I don't at all mind generic widgets in the mechanical toolkit. That said, generic classes ought to provide something important to the game. For me, it's usually niche protection.
If a Strong Hero and Tough Hero can gain about half the possible levels, and by that time be identical, then the classes probably haven't added anything to the system that can't be done another way. If there is still clear differences, then the generic class is adding something, however slight. Otherwise, they are just templates, and might as well be called out as such.
There's also some value in guiding the player to an ideal, but the devil is in the details when assessing that.
I'm not familiar with WWN myself, but I guess GURPS and Traveller both attempt to get rid of classes as we understand them in D&D specifically.
The thing is, I don't think you can ever really get away playing any of these games without classes as a concept.
Traveller allows you to determine most of your character features by reacting to results against random tables, but the career framework is largely a collection of ungrouped sub-classes. Much of the homebrew stuff for that system will have a Journalist career, yet this is a further variation on the Citizen career that's already core to the game. There are also more risks in taking more than one career over the character's life, but there are narrative justifications for having more than one. However, you can't normally just look at a Marine and then immediately understand that he could also be a Scientist or Merchant without other identifiers like chosen gear or other mannerisms.
GURPS grants you nigh-entire customizability--even more so than Traveller--but having an attribute system at all, even at the minimalist that GURPS enforces, will largely create an "emergent class" simply because you will want to choose character features that play to the strengths of the attributes that you have scored. More importantly, when you describe your character to another hobbyist, you might list some of the features that imply your character's unique combination of combat or social tactics, but you will ultimate summarize this character as a "soldier" or "engineer" regardless of derivations, because that makes the character you've built easier to understand by the other hobbyist regarding your overall strategy for play. This will also be true with Traveller to a very important extent, as combinations of careers still requires one to be prioritized over others in accordance with the strength of your attribute scores, and in a manner of speaking, your skill set still demonstrates a plumber from an electrician from a carpenter from a stonemason.
"Classes" are an inevitable feature of a roleplaying game due to this combination of role (i.e. strategy), features (i.e. tactics) attribute statistics (i.e. raw aptitudes) because they help translate and convey what you even intend to do with the dice during the encounters that you may participate in. Trying to purge classes as hard as possible from these games is to lack consideration for human psychology and communication.
The discussion is valid as to how rigid or flexible, how ornate or minimalist, even how reserved or expressive that you want your classes to be, but I think the game largely becomes unintelligible without them, like trying to demonstrate the extremely subtle personalities between two gelatinous cubes. I doubt that intelligent non-humanoids could play such a game without them, either.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:54:59 PM
So I've been looking over Worlds Without Number, and I'm curious about the implementation of broad classes in practice. I'm familiar with the generic class concept from Call of Cthulhu D20, D20 Modern and True20.
- Call of Cthulhu D20: two classes = Offensive and Defensive
- D20 Modern: six classes = Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
- True20: three classes = Expert, Adept, Warrior
In all of these systems, I saw the class system as a holdover getting in the way. It seemed more straightforward to just go with a skill-based system like Savage Worlds or OpenD6. In Savage Worlds, you have skills and edges. In True20, you have skills and feats - and the class mechanics are another mechanical layer in addition. To me, it didn't seem to be adding anything.
Are the broad generic classes in Worlds Without Number different in practice? Or do people who like WWN's broad generic classes also like them in these earlier systems?
Of those 3 True20 comes closest to WWN IMHO but not enough.
Modernd20 doesn't have 6 classes, it has 6 BASIC classes and then you multiclass.
Personally I preferr a game that gives me the classes for it over build your own class stuff like GURPS/Hero/OpenD6, for one it's way faster to start playing, and then you have the omnipresent prebuilt classes/templates in those systems too because it's not intuitive how to build the class you want to play.
WWN SWN & CWN? not only have the "generic" classes they also have the backgrounds to customize them and some skills on top.
If I HAD TO choose among all of the above I would go for SWN/WWN/CWN 100% of the time. IMHO GURPS/Hero are great for source materials and nothing more.
Also consider that while Savage Worlds is skill-based, in Savage Worlds Pathfinder, they created "Class Edges" which pulled in the tropes of D&D Classes *and* their traditional assumptions as well.
So the Fighter Class Edge mimics the Pathfinder fighter ability to "use any Feat" as an ability to use and "Combat Edge", etc. It's still a Skill-based game, but it emulates what the traditional class does as well as leaving you to your own skill-progression.
Ironically it's also optional. You don't have to pick a Class Edge at all. Which, to me, only underscores the arbitrariness of Classes in general. In Core Savage Worlds, I could make a D&D Wizard that can still wear armor, and swing Battle Axes, and grapple like an anaconda, as long as I put my points into those skills and abilities.
In general I prefer skill-based to class-based systems. But while I can deal okay with most class-based stuff, there's a special place in hell for class-based systems with indistinct, mediocre classes.
In Cities without number they go downright classless. So there is some truth to that.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:54:59 PM
So I've been looking over Worlds Without Number, and I'm curious about the implementation of broad classes in practice. I'm familiar with the generic class concept from Call of Cthulhu D20, D20 Modern and True20.
- Call of Cthulhu D20: two classes = Offensive and Defensive
- D20 Modern: six classes = Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
- True20: three classes = Expert, Adept, Warrior
In all of these systems, I saw the class system as a holdover getting in the way. It seemed more straightforward to just go with a skill-based system like Savage Worlds or OpenD6. In Savage Worlds, you have skills and edges. In True20, you have skills and feats - and the class mechanics are another mechanical layer in addition. To me, it didn't seem to be adding anything.
Are the broad generic classes in Worlds Without Number different in practice? Or do people who like WWN's broad generic classes also like them in these earlier systems?
I'm a big fan of the class system (a.k.a. "skill bundles") but as you phrased your question I have to agree with you. Classes like "Fast Hero" gives me zero motivation to play that character. What I like most about classes that you get a general feel for the character type based on the class. "I am a wizard" tells me a lot and starts my creative juices, and I like knowing generally what wizards can do.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
I'm not familiar with WWN myself, but I guess GURPS and Traveller both attempt to get rid of classes as we understand them in D&D specifically.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
This will also be true with Traveller to a very important extent, as combinations of careers still requires one to be prioritized over others in accordance with the strength of your attribute scores, and in a manner of speaking, your skill set still demonstrates a plumber from an electrician from a carpenter from a stonemason.
"Classes" are an inevitable feature of a roleplaying game due to this combination of role (i.e. strategy), features (i.e. tactics) attribute statistics (i.e. raw aptitudes) because they help translate and convey what you even intend to do with the dice during the encounters that you may participate in. Trying to purge classes as hard as possible from these games is to lack consideration for human psychology and communication.
I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Are you saying:
1) GURPS and Traveller are failures because they attempt to get rid of classes, and doing that is a bad idea?
or
2) Traveller and GURPS are fine as systems, but they still have groupings of characters that could be called classes?
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
I'm not familiar with WWN myself, but I guess GURPS and Traveller both attempt to get rid of classes as we understand them in D&D specifically.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
This will also be true with Traveller to a very important extent, as combinations of careers still requires one to be prioritized over others in accordance with the strength of your attribute scores, and in a manner of speaking, your skill set still demonstrates a plumber from an electrician from a carpenter from a stonemason.
"Classes" are an inevitable feature of a roleplaying game due to this combination of role (i.e. strategy), features (i.e. tactics) attribute statistics (i.e. raw aptitudes) because they help translate and convey what you even intend to do with the dice during the encounters that you may participate in. Trying to purge classes as hard as possible from these games is to lack consideration for human psychology and communication.
I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Are you saying:
1) GURPS and Traveller are failures because they attempt to get rid of classes, and doing that is a bad idea?
or
2) Traveller and GURPS are fine as systems, but they still have groupings of characters that could be called classes?
Second one, sorry about that. Just went haywire, finarvyn winds up saying what I was trying to say in four lines:
Quote from: finarvyn on February 03, 2023, 04:16:33 PM
I'm a big fan of the class system (a.k.a. "skill bundles") but as you phrased your question I have to agree with you. Classes like "Fast Hero" gives me zero motivation to play that character. What I like most about classes that you get a general feel for the character type based on the class. "I am a wizard" tells me a lot and starts my creative juices, and I like knowing generally what wizards can do.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 03, 2023, 07:58:29 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 04:24:24 PM
I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Are you saying:
1) GURPS and Traveller are failures because they attempt to get rid of classes, and doing that is a bad idea?
or
2) Traveller and GURPS are fine as systems, but they still have groupings of characters that could be called classes?
Second one, sorry about that. Just went haywire, finarvyn winds up saying what I was trying to say in four lines:
Quote from: finarvyn on February 03, 2023, 04:16:33 PM
I'm a big fan of the class system (a.k.a. "skill bundles") but as you phrased your question I have to agree with you. Classes like "Fast Hero" gives me zero motivation to play that character. What I like most about classes that you get a general feel for the character type based on the class. "I am a wizard" tells me a lot and starts my creative juices, and I like knowing generally what wizards can do.
No problem. Yeah, that sums up my current take on it. I've warmed up to class-based systems more over the past decade. Previously I've mostly tended towards skill-based like Call of Cthulhu, but I've had fun with some D&D 5E and PbtA games like Monster of the Week. But the strength of the class-based systems is getting a quick hook into character concept. It's intentionally limiting, but the classes give strong flavor that fits the genre.
Broad generic classes haven't done anything for me.
EDITED TO ADD: Clarified phrasing.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 08:39:31 PM
...
No problem. I've warmed up to class-based systems more over the past decade. Previously I've mostly tended towards skill-based like Call of Cthulhu, but I've had fun with some PbtA games like Monster of the Week and D&D 5E. But the strength of the class-based systems is getting a quick hook into character concept. It's intentionally limiting, but the classes give strong flavor that fits the genre.
Broad generic classes haven't done anything for me.
I do see what you mean, "Tough" or "Fast" heroes seem kind of flavourless unless you can overlay a robust background system to them, at the very least, but not all that heroic sounding.
Traveller and Call of Cthulhu look really interesting as far as skill-focused systems go, I'd like to play them someday.
If 5thE D&D is PbtA that has gone far above and over my head... The 5thE background system is cool and all but nothing close to what PbtA does with their bonds system as a gameplay mechanic.
I'll take (and prefer) the third option: classes that are absolutely tropes, with a bit of wiggle room for customization and interpretation, and there being a whole ton of them.
To be more specific, in my 5e homebrew nonsense, I've got over 60 classes (and I don't use anything core). Every class is meant to be iconic of some trope or image from folklore or whatever. No, we don't have fighters and rogues. We have PALADINS and WITCHES and DETECTIVES (and no small number that are a bit more "out there" in concept). And sure, there's a ton and sometimes the balance gets a bit off or maybe the flavor is a bit wonky on a few and some maybe don't quite embody the concept I have in my brainpan, but I've found it tremendously helpful for players to have these archetypes to work with, and they really help sell the notion that each class is unique and feels legitimately different, even if there is (intentional) overlap in the roles they can play in a group.
Quote from: GnomeWorks on February 03, 2023, 10:03:08 PM
I'll take (and prefer) the third option: classes that are absolutely tropes, with a bit of wiggle room for customization and interpretation, and there being a whole ton of them.
To be more specific, in my 5e homebrew nonsense, I've got over 60 classes (and I don't use anything core). ... but I've found it tremendously helpful for players to have these archetypes to work with, and they really help sell the notion that each class is unique and feels legitimately different, even if there is (intentional) overlap in the roles they can play in a group.
People do complain when there's no cleric or rogue in the party...
I am really torn on this issue, and flip flop periodically. Personally, I slightly prefer skills-based over classes and especially if character creation involves those skills being the result of a prior career (ala Traveller). On the other hand, in practice, I have been very frustrated with many of my players as a DM when using skill- based game systems, because players will too often tend to play the character sheet rather than the character, and will waste time scouring their sheet for the best number and which skills they can use. This is annoying both regarding the verisimilitude as well as just concerning the efficiency of play. Using classes arguably can get you around this, as you can just tie a difficulty success roll against whether their class helps and very simple modifiers—the players are forced to argue that their class means they can do something, rather than reading their sheet. (It doesn't HAVE to be this way, but it just seems it turns into this situation with too many players.)
Frankly, a class based system that then uses skills, like D&D 3e-5e, I find annoying as it is the worst of both worlds. Enough skills that you need to decide between them, but not enough such that you need to fall back on the class distinctions. I prefer using something like Traveller or CoC, on the one hand, or a more OSR-style class system, on the other, and not mix the two.
Quote from: GamerforHire on February 04, 2023, 07:24:32 AM
Frankly, a class based system that then uses skills, like D&D 3e-5e, I find annoying as it is the worst of both worlds.
^^^ This.
I was put off by 3E by how rules heavy it is (and how silly I find a lot of the rules). I think 5E is a really good system. But it left me wondering why it didn't just go full-on skill-based.
For me, doing classes well means hitting four key points:
1. There are enough classes that they provide a satisfying variety of choice in character, but few enough that you can have encyclopedic knowledge of all their features. Mileage will vary when it comes to the magic number or magic range. BECMI's 7 classes seems fine. I really like 1.0E's 10 classes and subclasses. I don't like the classes added in UA, but I don't think the total number of classes was overwhelming at all. Once you get 20+, I think you have to start asking why isn't this just a skill-based game.
2. There are no, or minimal in-class variations such that you know what it means when a character is a "Cleric." The class acts as an effective short-hand. There can still be a lot of variation in individuals. There's a real difference between a fighter in AD&D with 18 DEX and 12 STR compared to the other way around. But the class features themselves remain identical.
3. The classes are not simply game abstractions but tie to the game world. You can imagine an army of fighters, a guild of thieves, a school of magic-users, and a church of clerics. A fleet of tanks or a book of strikers make a lot less sense to me. Without this tie, you run the danger of classes being nothing but abstract gobbledygook. With the connection, you always have an explanation for why so many individuals would have so many identical skills and abilities in common.
4. It should go without saying, but the classes should be interesting and fun to play. It's not automatically bad for there to be something like a sage class or a merchant class. "NPC" classes can be a fine short-hand for GM use. I just don't regard them as part of the game's proper class system. Those proper classes should make for good PCs.
If a game's class system isn't hitting those points, it should probably just be a skill-based system.
Quote from: GamerforHire on February 04, 2023, 07:24:32 AM
I am really torn on this issue, and flip flop periodically. Personally, I slightly prefer skills-based over classes and especially if character creation involves those skills being the result of a prior career (ala Traveller). On the other hand, in practice, I have been very frustrated with many of my players as a DM when using skill- based game systems, because players will too often tend to play the character sheet rather than the character, and will waste time scouring their sheet for the best number and which skills they can use. ...
Frankly, a class based system that then uses skills, like D&D 3e-5e, I find annoying as it is the worst of both worlds. Enough skills that you need to decide between them, but not enough such that you need to fall back on the class distinctions. I prefer using something like Traveller or CoC, on the one hand, or a more OSR-style class system, on the other, and not mix the two.
I know the Grognard's round here ain't altogether keen on yon vidja-game-fiddlers...
But I would offer that ES: Skyrim could offer a path forward on this issue.
Just after escaping from your execution due to an abrupt dragon attack, you run off with the first friend you meet; he's going to the nearest town. Of course, Skyrim is a kind of sandbox game, so you don't really have to follow the road with this other guy at all; if you do, you will encounter a set of three standing stones tied to each in-game skill tree: Warrior, Mage, and Thief. Should you touch any one stone, it channels astrological powers into your character's soul, mechanically resulting as experience bonuses for using the skills associated with that archetype.
For the Core D&D game, you might add a Priest standing stone in like manner to your own game--but it doesn't have to be exactly a standing stone as such, maybe each player finds a unique shrine altogether or is even visited by supernatural forces during dreams or hallucinations--as long as the player chooses a destiny for that character to be a great hero in that vein. Nothing otherwise stops you from learning and improving on new skills from other destinies, you just don't get experience bonuses towards using them since they count as cross-class skills. Everything else can be varied by your region (equipment) and background (sub-class), with skill sets being a combination of those two starting points.
Going the opposite direction, given the overreliance on the sheet because skills have a gravitational pull about them, you just nerf skills altogether, relying strictly on attributes as Gygax intended, but you can still get bonuses to doing things congruous to that destiny; this is a very Sword & Sorcery take on game design, however. If you added the occupation/background tables as found in 1E & 2E, you could try to negotiate for narrative reasons why your character can do X,Y, or Z, but they are typically not related to adventuring (e.g. baker) and would be more frequently used in settings that are "in town" to leverage their strengths there.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 04, 2023, 08:55:43 AM
I was put off by 3E by how rules heavy it is (and how silly I find a lot of the rules). I think 5E is a really good system. But it left me wondering why it didn't just go full-on skill-based.
It would be an artform to learn what to ignore and approximate from 3E in particular.
Quote
For me, doing classes well means hitting four key points:
1. There are enough classes that they provide a satisfying variety of choice in character, ...
2. There are no, or minimal in-class variations ...
3. The classes are not simply game abstractions but tie to the game world. ...
4. It should go without saying, but the classes should be interesting and fun to play. It's not automatically bad for there to be something like a sage class or a merchant class. ...
If a game's class system isn't hitting those points, it should probably just be a skill-based system.
1. Mostly why I like hierarchies of forms like class & subclass & background, archetypes included (warrior, mage, priest, rogue). I don't think people who rely on archetypes really understand the concept as promoted by Campbell in his works on the monomyth, its mostly just a catch all word for every fantasy hero ever published for them, e.g. "Fighter" is too restrictive but "cc'ed Drizzt Do'Urden or Elric" isn't.
2. Of course we absolutely need new abilities at every level for every sub-class, dead-levels are scary!
3. Deconstruction is so fun though!
4. Agreed.
Probably since I started with B/X in 1981, I'm a strong advocate for simple class-based systems. I think every class should have a few, preferably unique class abilities or features, but I can't stand the bloat of feats and stacking you get in later versions of D&D. The only really mixing I've done is with MERP, which is fine once you gronk it, but it still gets cumbersome in character creation and level advancement. My preferences are also why I still like games with race as class like OSE and DCC.
Classes are (or should be) good shortcuts for PC creation.
Skill systems are more flexible and are ideal for situations where niche is not clearly defined: e.g., all PCs are knights, they do not need distinct classes but different skills.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 04, 2023, 10:38:15 AM
Classes are (or should be) good shortcuts for PC creation.
Skill systems are more flexible and are ideal for situations where niche is not clearly defined: e.g., all PCs are knights, they do not need distinct classes but different skills.
That's brilliant
I don't get why they call them skill based when its really point buy.
Point buy has its own flaws in the form of min-maxing and complicated points structures.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 04, 2023, 09:53:12 AM
1. Mostly why I like hierarchies of forms like class & subclass & background, archetypes included (warrior, mage, priest, rogue). I don't think people who rely on archetypes really understand the concept as promoted by Campbell in his works on the monomyth, its mostly just a catch all word for every fantasy hero ever published for them, e.g. "Fighter" is too restrictive but "cc'ed Drizzt Do'Urden or Elric" isn't.
Yeah, the term archetype as used in D&D just isn't the same as how it's used in Monomyth. And there's a story of the early days of the game, I think I heard it from Tim Kask, that I think really illustrates it.
So the story goes that Gary originally thought no one would ever want to play a magic-user. And obviously in hindsight Gary was in fact wrong about that. But in trying to guess what his thought process was, why he'd say such a thing, I think he was maybe initially conflating the D&D archetypes with the monomyth archetypes.
I think he had a valid point in that players will want to play the role of the hero, not the wizard/advisor/mentor role. To use the original Star Wars trilogy as an example, you want to play Luke who's running around doing all these things. Not Yoda, who's just hanging around in a swamp and dying under a blanket. Yoda is the wizard in this. But Luke is not. Even though he is able to go around waving his hand and making things happen like magic, he is the hero, not the wizard.
Similarly, the PC mage in D&D is really just a hero archetype. The mage goes on adventures just like the fighter, fights bad guys just like the fighter. The difference is we replace the swinging of a sword with the slinging of the spell.
Here's the thing, though. In the older versions of the magic-user, they had fewer hit points, were pretty bad fighters, and had very limited uses on their spells which were counterbalanced by the spells being very powerful. It's like the fighter was useful 80% of the time where the magic-user was useful 20% of the time. The magic-user was more participatory than Yoda, but a far cry from the fighter.
So this changed over the years. Their hit points increased in later editions. They were allowed to cast more spells. But the potency of their spells decreased. We aren't quite there yet. We still have a ways to go. But the trajectory it's on is that they're converging to be identical to the fighter, just re-skinned so that we describe the things they do differently from how we describe the fighter.
But to me, this is supporting evidence that the original conception of the magic-user was to be the archetypal wizard, that's why we can see artifacts of that archetype more dramatically in the older versions of the game. And they're disappearing over time because, Gary was sort of right. No player actually wants to play that shit. They want to play a hero.
Of course sooner or later I have to circle back to making the case that RPGs peaked at early 1E and it's been all downhill since. I will grant, with the proviso that preferences will always vary and not even my own preferences necessarily agree with this, but I will grant that magic-users have been made more fun to play over time. Because they are better and better fitting for the role of hero. Because Gary was kind of sort of right. It really is the case that nobody wants to play the wizard archetype.
However, I think we have lost something in trying to make all classes "fun." And that is by having one foot in the unfun wizard archetype, the old school magic-user offers a completely different play experience from the fighter. That you're not going to be the steady-and-consistent guy with your class abilities. Rather you get your one moment, but in that moment you get to turn the entire game on its head. That 90% of the game, it entirely comes down to your wits. And it's going to be the most challenging test of wits as having the fewest hit points of all the classes, you are afforded the fewest mistakes. But you have the power to blackball a challenge entirely. For example, a 1st level magic-user cannot even make a single mistake. One hit and you're pretty much a goner. But a single sleep spell you can be like, "Fuck this room full of orcs," and just like that, 4d4 of them are dropped. No hit roll needed. No saving throw allowed. The entire encounter vetoed just like that.
Hey. I'm not claiming it's fun to be mostly useless. And I'm not claiming it's fun to delete the climactic battle at the end. I'm just saying that it's something different. It's an option if you felt up for something a little different than the standard fare. And there's gotta be some balance to it, sure, it's gotta be at least a little fun, and for me the right balance was struck in 1E. This post is of course all tangential to the main topic and is intended for the sole purpose of disentangling the concept of classes in RPGs from the monomyth archetypes.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 04, 2023, 11:34:53 AM
Yeah, the term archetype as used in D&D just isn't the same as how it's used in Monomyth. And there's a story of the early days of the game, I think I heard it from Tim Kask, that I think really illustrates it.
So the story goes ...
I swear I've recognized your voice in my head as I've read that, and your Star Wars reference gave it away.
If it's your podcast that you co-manage I might be thinking of, I've definitely realized just now how much I've missed it.
If not--HEY LOOK OVER THERE! *hides*
Regardless, this was masterfully done, and a good refresher for the fighter/wizard balance fight. I agree that the answer leans in favour of the older editions concerning a balance of specialized teamwork, and not that of parallel individual capabilities. I've bought OSE (and other OSR systems over the years, including just recently), but without having had a chance to play them I've had to rely on just such second-hand experiences from over the decades before my time--posted by grognards on stacks, forums, and blogs, or published in primers like the Principia Apocrypha. They turned out to be great marketeers, incidentally.
Granted, most people would be frustrated with waiting away most of their game night for their big opportunity (I sure would be), but the solution should be to figure out how to expand the scope of opportunities for just such a mage to impact the encounter, without flattening the unique talents of the other classes or dispelling his own risks entirely. I'd introduced the idea of first level spells functioning as thief skills on Reddit up to ten years ago to some interest, but in hindsight, perhaps that doesn't quite accomplish this end, and likely leaves others wanting.
The thing is, the thief managed to sneak off without getting any criticisms of his own risks and weaknesses pointed at him!
How did he get away with that?!
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 04, 2023, 11:34:53 AM...
Hey. I'm not claiming it's fun to be mostly useless. And I'm not claiming it's fun to delete the climactic battle at the end. I'm just saying that it's something different. It's an option if you felt up for something a little different than the standard fare. And there's gotta be some balance to it, sure, it's gotta be at least a little fun, and for me the right balance was struck in 1E. This post is of course all tangential to the main topic and is intended for the sole purpose of disentangling the concept of classes in RPGs from the monomyth archetypes.
I think the issue is that what's fun for the player in the moment versus what is satisfying for the player in the long run, are not the same thing. Partly, of course, that comes down to those preferences you mentioned. It's akin to the difference between a cakewalk, being challenged, or a blood bath in the way the environment of the game is set up. Everyone says they want the challenge, but they don't all mean it the same way, or to the same degree. (And some of them are lying when they say it. And some of them really do prefer the cakewalk or the bloodbath, and will tell you so if you push.)
So with characters, when you can't find a class to do what you want, that could be good or bad or both. Ideally, the classes are limited enough that the limits matter, and the player can get long term enjoyment out of working around those limits however they need to do it. The classes are open enough that the player gets to do some of what he wants right now. And the game runs long enough for the long term to matter. All a skills-based game does is take the responsibility and authority for accomplishing this off the game designer and put it onto the players, or at least the GM (which is why games like GURPS and Hero System have advice on the GM putting limits.) In capable hands, that's amazing. In less capable hands, it's anywhere from drudgery to a train wreck.
Normally, I'm entirely in agreement that classes and skills don't mix. Yet, my class/skill game is working a whole lot better than my all skill game. When thinking about why, I realized that it's because my classes aren't really classes. Instead, they are character frameworks, which is too much of a mouthful--so I say classes despite it not being entirely accurate. Anyway, my classes supply mostly limits and long term decisions. If you play class A you get clear feature X that no one else has and you don't get the other class things, and critically, there's nothing in the skills and other abilities you can do to change that. You have to commit, then live or die with it. Whereas the skills are other abilities are more open--easier or harder to get, or more or less useful depending on what you already have, but there's room for you to play. You can make your character the way you want. You can screw it up. However, you can only screw it up so far. My classes are acting as a break on bad decisions, but not a fail safe. You can screw your character up, but you have to work at it.
I'd rather police that kind of thing with the game system than do it on a case by case with the players and the campaign. Plus, I'm sick of telling players "No" for their own long term good when it comes to character building. I don't mind it in the game, but for character concepts, it gets old. A huge list of classes is one way to accomplish what I want, but I find it aesthetically displeasing and annoying to manage/communicate, too.
Mileage not only may vary, but has and does and will until the end of time. :D
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 04, 2023, 01:41:57 PM
I think the issue is ...
The ideas you've presented are very familiar as well, though with significantly less censored cussing and the lack of an overwrought sense of self-importance for dramatic effect...
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 04, 2023, 10:42:04 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 04, 2023, 10:38:15 AM
Classes are (or should be) good shortcuts for PC creation.
Skill systems are more flexible and are ideal for situations where niche is not clearly defined: e.g., all PCs are knights, they do not need distinct classes but different skills.
That's brilliant
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 04, 2023, 11:34:53 AM
Thanks!
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 04, 2023, 09:53:12 AM
1. Mostly why I like hierarchies of forms like class & subclass & background, archetypes included (warrior, mage, priest, rogue). I don't think people who rely on archetypes really understand the concept as promoted by Campbell in his works on the monomyth, its mostly just a catch all word for every fantasy hero ever published for them, e.g. "Fighter" is too restrictive but "cc'ed Drizzt Do'Urden or Elric" isn't.
Yeah, the term archetype as used in D&D just isn't the same as how it's used in Monomyth. And there's a story of the early days of the game, I think I heard it from Tim Kask, that I think really illustrates it.
So the story goes that Gary originally thought no one would ever want to play a magic-user. And obviously in hindsight Gary was in fact wrong about that. But in trying to guess what his thought process was, why he'd say such a thing, I think he was maybe initially conflating the D&D archetypes with the monomyth archetypes.
I think he had a valid point in that players will want to play the role of the hero, not the wizard/advisor/mentor role. To use the original Star Wars trilogy as an example, you want to play Luke who's running around doing all these things. Not Yoda, who's just hanging around in a swamp and dying under a blanket. Yoda is the wizard in this. But Luke is not. Even though he is able to go around waving his hand and making things happen like magic, he is the hero, not the wizard.
Similarly, the PC mage in D&D is really just a hero archetype. The mage goes on adventures just like the fighter, fights bad guys just like the fighter. The difference is we replace the swinging of a sword with the slinging of the spell.
Here's the thing, though. In the older versions of the magic-user, they had fewer hit points, were pretty bad fighters, and had very limited uses on their spells which were counterbalanced by the spells being very powerful. It's like the fighter was useful 80% of the time where the magic-user was useful 20% of the time. The magic-user was more participatory than Yoda, but a far cry from the fighter.
So this changed over the years. Their hit points increased in later editions. They were allowed to cast more spells. But the potency of their spells decreased. We aren't quite there yet. We still have a ways to go. But the trajectory it's on is that they're converging to be identical to the fighter, just re-skinned so that we describe the things they do differently from how we describe the fighter.
But to me, this is supporting evidence that the original conception of the magic-user was to be the archetypal wizard, that's why we can see artifacts of that archetype more dramatically in the older versions of the game. And they're disappearing over time because, Gary was sort of right. No player actually wants to play that shit. They want to play a hero.
Of course sooner or later I have to circle back to making the case that RPGs peaked at early 1E and it's been all downhill since. I will grant, with the proviso that preferences will always vary and not even my own preferences necessarily agree with this, but I will grant that magic-users have been made more fun to play over time. Because they are better and better fitting for the role of hero. Because Gary was kind of sort of right. It really is the case that nobody wants to play the wizard archetype.
However, I think we have lost something in trying to make all classes "fun." And that is by having one foot in the unfun wizard archetype, the old school magic-user offers a completely different play experience from the fighter. That you're not going to be the steady-and-consistent guy with your class abilities. Rather you get your one moment, but in that moment you get to turn the entire game on its head. That 90% of the game, it entirely comes down to your wits. And it's going to be the most challenging test of wits as having the fewest hit points of all the classes, you are afforded the fewest mistakes. But you have the power to blackball a challenge entirely. For example, a 1st level magic-user cannot even make a single mistake. One hit and you're pretty much a goner. But a single sleep spell you can be like, "Fuck this room full of orcs," and just like that, 4d4 of them are dropped. No hit roll needed. No saving throw allowed. The entire encounter vetoed just like that.
Hey. I'm not claiming it's fun to be mostly useless. And I'm not claiming it's fun to delete the climactic battle at the end. I'm just saying that it's something different. It's an option if you felt up for something a little different than the standard fare. And there's gotta be some balance to it, sure, it's gotta be at least a little fun, and for me the right balance was struck in 1E. This post is of course all tangential to the main topic and is intended for the sole purpose of disentangling the concept of classes in RPGs from the monomyth archetypes.
Awesome post!
Elaborating it a bit further:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/02/class-x-skill-some-quick-thoughts.html
It is a discussion almost as old as RPGs: is it better to have distinct classes (fighter, mage, thief, etc.) or different skills (combat, magic, stealth, nature, etc.) that everyone can access?
There are also hybrid approaches - my Dark Fantasy Basic, for example, uses classes as a "shortcut" for certain skills and feats. Elthos has classes that allow you to become better with certain skills. D&D 5e has skills that basically anyone can pick with the right feat, but certain classes get more/better skills.
It is a matter of taste, of course, but each method has its pros and cons.
Class-based games are great when your group is a "Fellowship of the Ring", where everyone has different abilities that are clearly defined by their archetypes: the warrior, the mage, the ranger, and even the elf, the hobbit, etc.
Skill-based games excel in a "Knights of the Round Table"* scenario. Everyone has similar abilities**, but some are more skilled than others. It is also perfect for teams of detectives, soldiers, criminals ***, etc.
* I've found a similar comparison reading "Of Dice and Men", which inspired this post.
** Notice that Arthurian knights are also archetypes - but maybe these archetypes are less obvious, and also maybe not as strong as the "knight" archetype that includes all of them.
*** And elves! If you have an "elf" class, a band of elves can become too uniform; it would be better if they had different classes or skills. If you have a single elf in the party, however, it can be an archetype in itself.
Skill-based games seem suited for realistic games - because in real life, archetypes are vague and abstract, while in myth they are much stronger. In any case, archetypes are incredibly useful to create characters - even in skill-based games, it is good to have some archetypes to play with (which justifies hybrid approaches).
In theory, you could use professions or specialties instead of archetypes to create a team: say, a quarterback, a running back, a receiver, a kicker, a punter, etc. However, this cannot be "classes" in most games because a profession or job is insufficient to describe a real person - unlike archetypes, that are much broader. In other words, even games that have "profession" as an important part of PC creation usually include skills.
On the other hand, one should be careful to avoid creating a boring/weak class system by adopting classes do not represent strong archetypes. For example, archetypes such as "Strong Guy" or "Half-caster" might make sense within the rules, but are not by themselves strong enough to represent a class. A "Witcher" class, on the other hand, is only a strong archetype because it has been drilled into our mind through books, games and the TV series. Likewise for paladins (D&D), Night's Watch (ASOIAF), etc. They are familair enough to represent archetypes of their own. If you do not have specific in-universe archetypes, considering falling back into more recognizable ones: "Arcane Warrior", Holy Knight, Ranger, etc.
My preference? As suggested above, I like the hybrid approach. Start with an archetype that suggests some skills (and feats, etc.) and then add as you go. This allows quickly PC (and NPC) creation while also leaving room for customization. This is the approach I used with "Old School Feats".
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 04, 2023, 10:38:15 AM
Classes are (or should be) good shortcuts for PC creation.
Skill systems are more flexible and are ideal for situations where niche is not clearly defined: e.g., all PCs are knights, they do not need distinct classes but different skills.
Agree with that, and I would add that "build with skills" works well if everyone knows the genre's archetypes (Star Wars, LOTR, etc.) but classes really help with original or obscure settings.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 04, 2023, 12:48:37 PM
I swear I've recognized your voice in my head as I've read that, and your Star Wars reference gave it away.
If it's your podcast that you co-manage I might be thinking of, I've definitely realized just now how much I've missed it.
If not--HEY LOOK OVER THERE! *hides*
Sorry to disappoint you. I've never been involved in a podcast. I'm open to doing one. I just wouldn't want to do it alone. I don't think I'd like the end product where it's just me talking. And all the cats I game with are the types who just don't like to put themselves out there. They don't even have social media accounts. So I haven't been able to recruit a cohost.
QuoteRegardless, this was masterfully done, and a good refresher for the fighter/wizard balance fight. I agree that the answer leans in favour of the older editions concerning a balance of specialized teamwork, and not that of parallel individual capabilities.
Glad it was well-received. Though again my intent was to illustrate the differences between classes and monomyth archetypes. As for Fighter/Wizard balance, there's a lot more to discuss than what I wrote there.
QuoteI've bought OSE (and other OSR systems over the years, including just recently), but without having had a chance to play them I've had to rely on just such second-hand experiences from over the decades before my time--posted by grognards on stacks, forums, and blogs, or published in primers like the Principia Apocrypha. They turned out to be great marketeers, incidentally.
One thing I like to throw out there that you usually don't learn in old-school school is one huge difference back in the day is we couldn't just hop on line and order whatever books we wanted. And mail ordering when possible was often expensive and took a long time. We were mostly at the mercy of whatever was stocked on the shelf of the local game store. That made it a lot harder to put together complete collections of given edition.
To this day, I still literally use the exact same copies of the 1E Dungeon Masters Guide and Fiend Folio that my grandmother got me 35 years ago. Those original run books really are that durable. At the time I got those, I also had a falling apart second cover 1E PHB that I bought from my cousin for $20 along with 27 modules and a copy of the 1E Lankhmar supplement. It's important to note, I did not own a Monster Manual. So most of the monsters in my game world came from Fiend Folio and were not the classic D&D monsters at all. The only reason I had classic monsters at all in my world was because I also owned the 1983 Red and Blue boxes.
And this is really the point. That mixing editions was part of the old school experience. In fact, when 2E came out, that became my main PHB with the 1E PHB as a backup. I bring this up because if you read a lot of commentary or analysis comparing and contrasting the various editions, even though it may be technically correct and well-cited, it also tends to be false and inauthentic because in the real old days, the lines weren't so sharply drawn for all the reasons I mentioned here.
The other thing that's true even if we weren't mixing and matching editions is, in the days of 1E, for example, 2E didn't exist yet. We had no idea that one would exist or what would even be in it. And so nothing about authentic 1E is deliberately distinct or a reaction to 2E. Only after 2E exists is it possible to analyze and compare and contrast the two editions and declare the ways in which they are different from one another. Obviously at least some of the stuff that ended up in 2E was drawn from the wish list of 1E gamers. So it stands to reason a lot of that stuff was already being done in actual 1E play even if it doesn't appear in any of the 1E books, belying the differences between the two editions as found in the actual texts.
It's enough that sometimes I wonder how much serious history in much more important subjects is completely botched because academic standards demand documentary evidence when it can be specifically misleading when you think through some of the inherent truisms of chronology I'm highlighting here.
QuoteGranted, most people would be frustrated with waiting away most of their game night for their big opportunity (I sure would be), but the solution should be to figure out how to expand the scope of opportunities for just such a mage to impact the encounter, without flattening the unique talents of the other classes or dispelling his own risks entirely. I'd introduced the idea of first level spells functioning as thief skills on Reddit up to ten years ago to some interest, but in hindsight, perhaps that doesn't quite accomplish this end, and likely leaves others wanting.
Yeah, when I hear the stories of Tenser the mage, starting out as a first level magic user, doing dungeon crawls, often in very small parties, sometimes even solo, starting knowing only Read Magic, it makes me wonder what must have been true of how the game was DMed back then that such a thing would even be viable. It really inspired me to think deeply on the subject, and maybe challenge my own approach to DMing. And I think I figured it out.
The key is to view all class abilities as icing. The cake, the core of the game, is it's about pitting players against the fantasy world armed only with their imagination. Sure. Sometimes you're going to have brain farts. And that's when your class abilities come into play to save your bacon. But it's your wits, not the game functions, that should be your first go-to.
So most of it is going to fall on the players' shoulders. But this means a couple of things for DMing style. It may require the DM to ere on the side of permissiveness. And it's probably going to mean being called upon to adjudicate more often. Now I'm a rules-as-written guy, and even I can manage to pull these things off. So it's definitely totally doable by any DM out there. It's just a matter of being comfortable with it.
Once you view it this way, you realize there's always plenty for the magic-user to do throughout the adventure. Plenty of ways to participate an d contribute. As a baseline, all characters are identical as far as that go. Where they differ is how they handle when things go bad.
QuoteThe thing is, the thief managed to sneak off without getting any criticisms of his own risks and weaknesses pointed at him!
How did he get away with that?!
Pretty sure you're just goofing around here, but I'll give my take where the thief fits in. I know some people have created this cute triangle where fighter, magic-user, and thief make up the corners and everything else is in between. But I think of it more like the thief is co-linear between the fighter and magic-user. Closer to the fighter end because you get the repeated uncertain use.
That's the thing. Both magic-user and thief have class functions that can solve "miscellaneous" challenges. It's just that the magic-user gets limited uses that always work, where the thief has no limit but theirs only sometimes works. Kind of like how a magic user's attack spell compares with a fighter's weapon attack.
Even when looking strictly at combat, the thief has the backstab. Now there's not a literal limit in daily use. But you're usually only going to get to do it once per combat. So compared to ordinary combat, it is more of limited use bomb drop. It's not as powerful or as certain as fireball. But it's definitely more than a few steps down that road between fighter and mage.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 04, 2023, 09:08:16 PM
Class-based games are great when your group is a "Fellowship of the Ring", where everyone has different abilities that are clearly defined by their archetypes: the warrior, the mage, the ranger, and even the elf, the hobbit, etc.
Skill-based games excel in a "Knights of the Round Table"* scenario. Everyone has similar abilities**, but some are more skilled than others. It is also perfect for teams of detectives, soldiers, criminals ***, etc.
* I've found a similar comparison reading "Of Dice and Men", which inspired this post.
** Notice that Arthurian knights are also archetypes - but maybe these archetypes are less obvious, and also maybe not as strong as the "knight" archetype that includes all of them.
*** And elves! If you have an "elf" class, a band of elves can become too uniform; it would be better if they had different classes or skills. If you have a single elf in the party, however, it can be an archetype in itself.
Skill-based games seem suited for realistic games - because in real life, archetypes are vague and abstract, while in myth they are much stronger. In any case, archetypes are incredibly useful to create characters - even in skill-based games, it is good to have some archetypes to play with (which justifies hybrid approaches).
I feel like the outward similarity of characters isn't so obvious a division, as you underscore with your exceptions about a team of elves, as well as how Arthurian knights are archetypes. I'd add to these exceptions how Blades in the Dark handles teams of criminals. I haven't seen class-based Arthurian knights, but then there aren't many Arthurian RPGs in general. Sagas of the Icelanders does a similar genre where many of the playbooks are outwardly viking warriors.
Conversely, there are many cases where the characters have very different abilities - but class-based games haven't been very successful. Superhero games are a classic case of this - where there are class-based superhero RPGs, but many of the most successful superhero RPGs are skill-based. Space opera like Star Wars and Star Trek also often have a lot of differentiation, but class-based isn't clearly more successful.
To my mind, a vital point is how unique individual instantiations of the archetypes are. I think classes have worked better in fantasy because it has been an older, more repeated and structured genre. I've also been partial to the classes in Monster of the Week -- as I think long television series are more apt to have repetitive structures for classes, though not always.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 04, 2023, 11:04:19 AM
I don't get why they call them skill based when its really point buy.
Point buy has its own flaws in the form of min-maxing and complicated points structures.
It's not clear to me from you message who you're responding to here, but I don't see this for most skill-based games I'm familiar with that aren't explicitly point-buy.
Traveller + derivatives? Random generation of your stats & skills.
Harnmaster? Random generation of stats & skills.
Mythras/Runequest? You have some choice of skills, and depending on the edition/GM you might have choice of culture & background, have to roll for them, or have them dictated by the initial premise, but it doesn't feel like point buy to me.
I'd say Rolemaster is a hybrid class/skill system, and can get incredibly points-based (particularly if you're doing custom class design), but I'm not sure where min-maxing happens.
So, yes, GURPS & Champions are skill-based point-buy games that can run into min-maxing issues.
What skill-based non point-buy games were you thinking of in this conversation?
Quote from: Naburimannu on February 05, 2023, 06:32:42 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 04, 2023, 11:04:19 AM
I don't get why they call them skill based when its really point buy.
Point buy has its own flaws in the form of min-maxing and complicated points structures.
It's not clear to me from you message who you're responding to here, but I don't see this for most skill-based games I'm familiar with that aren't explicitly point-buy.
Traveller + derivatives? Random generation of your stats & skills.
Harnmaster? Random generation of stats & skills.
Mythras/Runequest? You have some choice of skills, and depending on the edition/GM you might have choice of culture & background, have to roll for them, or have them dictated by the initial premise, but it doesn't feel like point buy to me.
I'd say Rolemaster is a hybrid class/skill system, and can get incredibly points-based (particularly if you're doing custom class design), but I'm not sure where min-maxing happens.
So, yes, GURPS & Champions are skill-based point-buy games that can run into min-maxing issues.
What skill-based non point-buy games were you thinking of in this conversation?
One obvious example would be the World of Darkness catalogue where you have various pools of points you assign as you will (13 points across a category of 9 skills, up to 3 from that and then later in creation you can spend points from another pool to get them up to max of 5 right out of creation).
XP gained is spent directly on various skills and abilities (magic powers) to improve them as the player dictates.
WEG Star Wars/the d6 system is similar. You assign dice to your skills and spend your XP as desired to improve them.
Savage Worlds also lets you pick exactly where your skill points go.
Let's throw in Shadowrun, Mekton, Mutants & Masterminds and, as mentioned, GURPS and HERO.
That's eight not exactly obscure games right off the top of my head.
Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2023, 03:24:00 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 04, 2023, 09:08:16 PM
Class-based games are great when your group is a "Fellowship of the Ring", where everyone has different abilities that are clearly defined by their archetypes: the warrior, the mage, the ranger, and even the elf, the hobbit, etc.
Skill-based games excel in a "Knights of the Round Table"* scenario. Everyone has similar abilities**, but some are more skilled than others. It is also perfect for teams of detectives, soldiers, criminals ***, etc.
* I've found a similar comparison reading "Of Dice and Men", which inspired this post.
** Notice that Arthurian knights are also archetypes - but maybe these archetypes are less obvious, and also maybe not as strong as the "knight" archetype that includes all of them.
*** And elves! If you have an "elf" class, a band of elves can become too uniform; it would be better if they had different classes or skills. If you have a single elf in the party, however, it can be an archetype in itself.
Skill-based games seem suited for realistic games - because in real life, archetypes are vague and abstract, while in myth they are much stronger. In any case, archetypes are incredibly useful to create characters - even in skill-based games, it is good to have some archetypes to play with (which justifies hybrid approaches).
I feel like the outward similarity of characters isn't so obvious a division, as you underscore with your exceptions about a team of elves, as well as how Arthurian knights are archetypes. I'd add to these exceptions how Blades in the Dark handles teams of criminals. I haven't seen class-based Arthurian knights, but then there aren't many Arthurian RPGs in general. Sagas of the Icelanders does a similar genre where many of the playbooks are outwardly viking warriors.
Conversely, there are many cases where the characters have very different abilities - but class-based games haven't been very successful. Superhero games are a classic case of this - where there are class-based superhero RPGs, but many of the most successful superhero RPGs are skill-based. Space opera like Star Wars and Star Trek also often have a lot of differentiation, but class-based isn't clearly more successful.
To my mind, a vital point is how unique individual instantiations of the archetypes are. I think classes have worked better in fantasy because it has been an older, more repeated and structured genre. I've also been partial to the classes in Monster of the Week -- as I think long television series are more apt to have repetitive structures for classes, though not always.
Good points. I certainly think "nerd", "jock", "cheerleader", etc. to be strong archetypes for monster movies. And most RPGs about superheroes I've played use skills and "build your powers", although I certainly think classes would make it easier to see the archetypes behing the heroes... M&M, for example, has archetypes you can customize IIRC.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 04, 2023, 11:04:19 AM
I don't get why they call them skill based when its really point buy.
Point buy has its own flaws in the form of min-maxing and complicated points structures.
You could have skill-based without point buy - not only in theory but that is how my own game works, although I call it an "hybrid approach" - classes are mostly collections of skills, and anyone can take any skills, but skills aren't bought with points (instead, the bonus is equal to level, or a fraction of level in some cases). You can create a PC without a class (or, as I call it, the "hopeless" class - which has no special feats or skills at all), but not without skills.
What do you call it when you play a skills-based game and everyone builds archetypes so tight that they might as well be classes? ;D
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 05, 2023, 01:20:41 AM
Sorry to disappoint you. I've never been involved in a podcast. I'm open to doing one. ...
Well shucks, I guess you just have one of those styles...
Quote
Pretty sure you're just goofing around here, ...
I'm pretty sure you're talking out loud to the walls of this alleyway all by your lonesome!
Quote
... mixing editions was part of the old school experience. In fact, when 2E came out, that became my main PHB with the 1E PHB as a backup. ...
... in the days of 1E, for example, 2E didn't exist yet. We had no idea that one would exist or what would even be in it. ... Obviously at least some of the stuff that ended up in 2E was drawn from the wish list of 1E gamers. So it stands to reason a lot of that stuff was already being done in actual 1E play even if it doesn't appear in any of the 1E books, belying the differences between the two editions as found in the actual texts.
In hindsight, that habit of mixing things up makes a lot of sense: the B/X and BECMI lines really were advertised as introductory sets to the main AD&D game. These beginner sets should have given that away with their rules light structures—and, *ahem* the character sheet conversion guides....
But when some newer editions happen to come along with interesting concepts that don't always rely on any inter-editional statistical fiddling, you might find it *bloody* difficult to resist breaking that *fourth wall,* pilfering them for your own use with your favourite edition. Steal just the right ideas, and you can make a party of characters and quick backdrop setting in far less than 30 minutes!
Quote
... the core of the game, is it's about pitting players against the fantasy world armed only with their imagination.
... it's your wits, not the game functions, that should be your first go-to.
Lots of referee's are frustrated with their players trying as hard as possible to game the system rather than play the game, and I reckon you can see that from miles away just by their choices of alternative systems altogether; at least Neo was trying to break out of the Matrix, these guys just want all that gold just to have it but let the machinery of the game do all of the thinking for them... Seems like a lot of work to get somewhere with a fancy rule's lawryn' certificate, just to ignore all of the interesting shortcuts where the real fun is, and most of those don't seem much at all that secret.
Quote
... But this means a couple of things for DMing style. It may require the DM to ere on the side of permissiveness. And it's probably going to mean being called upon to adjudicate more often. ... It's just a matter of being comfortable with it.
Wait--you're saying these books (even, er, Original-AD&D), are... more like guidelines, than actual rules?
Shiver me timbers, that sounds all too human! I can get on board with that!
Quote
[Once you view it this way, you realize there's always plenty for the magic-user to do throughout the adventure.
... As a baseline, all characters are identical as far as that goes. Where they differ is how they handle when things go bad.]
I'm listening carefully now...
Quote
[Though again my intent was to illustrate the differences between classes and monomyth archetypes. As for Fighter/Wizard balance, there's a lot more to discuss than what I wrote there.] ...
... Both magic-user and thief have class functions that can solve "miscellaneous" challenges. It's just that the magic-user gets limited uses that always work, where the thief has no limit but theirs only sometimes works. Kind of like how a magic user's attack spell compares with a fighter's weapon attack.
Even when looking strictly at combat, the thief has the backstab. Now there's not a literal limit in daily use. But you're usually only going to get to do it once per combat. So compared to ordinary combat, it is more of limited use bomb drop. It's not as powerful or as certain as fireball. But it's definitely more than a few steps down that road between fighter and mage.
Indeed, it can be a rather *slippery slope* to be all too confident with your thief skills... you might need some *sheer* luck to get out of some sticky situations! But, I think I'm starting to see how much of this problem can be resolved by unshackling yourself and your players from the monomyth framework:
Lots of parties think you need just one of EACH of the core classes, and find it "problematic" to be the same class as somebody else. Although, it would be much easier for one thief to go for a backstab against a goblin shaman, after another thief has drawn the attention that nearby goblin gaggle held in reserve, all while the three fighters take on the two bugbear mercenaries trying to guard the goblin's stolen treasure.
When the time is right, the wizard finishes his casting time, sings a quick lullaby, and they all join the first bugbear that was felled when the wizard snapped everyone awake with a magic missile aimed straight for his noggin'.
(There definitely is NOT a third thief making his way silently to the chest, looking to get first pick of the magic items with the excuse of looking for cover to attack with his bow...)
Honestly, the monomyth doesn't quite serve much of the same purpose as the class system, anyway...
We're all just in it for the gold and glory!
... Right?
Quote
... I know some people have created this cute triangle where fighter, magic-user, and thief make up the corners and everything else is in between. But I think of it more like the thief is co-linear between the fighter and magic-user. Closer to the fighter end because you get the repeated uncertain use.
There's another class who's colinear with the fighter and magic user, and I'd be tempted to appraise him as leaning towards the wizard with the intent of his design. He isn't exactly the center point of the triangle, given that his purpose is also as specific as the fighter, so he doesn't quite approach the miscellaneous functions that the wizard and the thief, for the most part.
Everyone desperately wants this cleric in their party, but for all of the thanks he gets for putting himself in the hotspot for all of them, some want to kick him out of the game altogether!
I mean, don't get me wrong, he's a little stiff, but what gives? Why do people want to excommunicate such an all-around nice guy? But, if they are right, why wasn't he the optional class in the Greyhawk supplement, and the thief placed gloriously amongst the Men & Monsters of the original game?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 05, 2023, 04:39:33 PM
What do you call it when you play a skills-based game and everyone builds archetypes so tight that they might as well be classes? ;D
Tome skewed?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 04, 2023, 01:41:57 PM
Normally, I'm entirely in agreement that classes and skills don't mix. Yet, my class/skill game is working a whole lot better than my all skill game.
Well, I would say you're not in bad company. The most popular RPG ever that wasn't D&D or a D&D knock-off was Vampire: the Masquerade which I would describe as a class/skill hybrid system. Yeah, you can play games with definitions, saying the clans are really more like races or backgrounds. They feel like classes to me. If you go down the list of things I think makes a class system work, V:tM checks all the boxes.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 05, 2023, 05:39:38 PM
In hindsight, that habit of mixing things up makes a lot of sense: the B/X and BECMI lines really were advertised as introductory sets to the main AD&D game.
Yes, exactly. That's a great point.
I know when I was a kid, I didn't read the entire books first, play second. I read just enough so that I could play first, fully read the book second. Some gamers, probably most, never assimilate every last rule of an RPG. So what we bring to the table matters. That's just about any RPG. With AD&D in particular, you have a primer in B/X, so in this case you can expect a great degree of commonality in what players and DMs are bringing to the table. And, yeah, that needs to be accounted for when you're trying to get an authentic picture of how a 1E game went in the old school days.
QuoteBut when some newer editions happen to come along with interesting concepts that don't always rely on any inter-editional statistical fiddling, you might find it *bloody* difficult to resist breaking that *fourth wall,* pilfering them for your own use with your favourite edition. Steal just the right ideas, and you can make a party of characters and quick backdrop setting in far less than 30 minutes!
Sure. But my main point was that the play pre-dates the print. The mission statement of 2E in particular aims to refine and streamline and present how people were already playing. Now I don't believe that 100%. And that might just be because before the world wide web gamers were less connected, and how we played here in the Northeast probably varied a lot more from how they played in the Midwest compared to the differences today. So a lot of 2E didn't reflect how I was actually playing, and I personally reject a lot of it. But if you take the authors at their word, there is virtually no original material in the 2E core books. It's all stuff that was out there in 1E regardless of whether or not you can find it in print prior to 1989.
QuoteLots of referee's are frustrated with their players trying as hard as possible to game the system rather than play the game, and I reckon you can see that from miles away just by their choices of alternative systems altogether; at least Neo was trying to break out of the Matrix, these guys just want all that gold just to have it but let the machinery of the game do all of the thinking for them... Seems like a lot of work to get somewhere with a fancy rule's lawryn' certificate, just to ignore all of the interesting shortcuts where the real fun is, and most of those don't seem much at all that secret.
You've definitely said a mouthful there, and there are three separate points on how I address a lot of this stuff.
1) My way of handling rules lawyers is to out rules-lawyer them. I'm not saying that's for everyone. I'm a specialist. I'll give almost any RPG a shot as a player, but as a GM, I run a very small number of systems and make sure I know them better than anyone else. That's how I handle rules lawyers. It's definitely not the best way of handling them, but it's my way.
2) Players who want to game the system rather than play the game has a lot to do with why in that other thread I responded to you in, I raised the point of why the person who decides how the world works cannot be separated from the referee function. It's because I prioritize fidelity to the game world over the rules themselves. And that means if a player is out there trying to "win" at RPGs, the way I run them, your best strategy is going to be to get in character and pay attention. If your primary focus is the rules and min-maxing, you're actually not going to attain optimal results in my games.
3) I think players who don't want to break free from the matrix is just an example of a broader problem. It's bigger than just rules-playing. It's bigger than the matrix itself. To put it in monomyth terms, players too often refuse to take up the hero's journey. In decades of running RPGs, I can also say it's a relatively new problem. You barely even needed a plot hook in the old days. Players had more of a thirst for adventure. I can only speculate why this has changed. I don't know that I have any good answers.
QuoteWait--you're saying these books (even, er, Original-AD&D), are... more like guidelines, than actual rules?
Shiver me timbers, that sounds all too human! I can get on board with that!
I look at it like this: There's rules. Then there's rules. And then there's rulings.
The rules establish the language and basic procedures of the game. Imagine having to explain what it means every time you say, "Make a hit roll," "Roll for damage," "Make a save," "Roll initiative," etc. The game would grind to a halt. It would be impractical and unplayable. So my feeling is that these are things that should never be changed. Unfortunately some DMs do tinker with this stuff. Even more unfortunate is some of this stuff has changed from edition to edition. These things don't tell you how to play, how to rule, how to have fun, etc. There's no good reason they ever need to be changed, and a lot of reasons why it's bad to change them.
Then there's rules refer to rules of thumb. These are the guidelines. Things like magic-users can't wear armor. It's a suggested weakness for the magic-user class, one that reinforces the visual of the wizard in robes, one that's gotten a lot of mileage and works fairly well. These are the rules of game that tie to the setting, makes possible a lot of the strategic elements of the game, and quantifies things. If you have a specific vision for your rules that would require this to be different in your world, go for it. You'd be advised to do so carefully. Make sure you think it through, maybe test it out.
And then there's rulings. If you've ever flipped through the 1E DMG, you might notice it kind of looks like an assortment of oddly specific things. That's a tell-tale sign that the majority of what's in there are not rules at all, not even guidelines. They are solutions to tricky situations that have arisen in games. The rulings in this book I find to be very insightful and work well, and so I tend to use them all. But it's important to point out that the real rules of the game explicitly assigns the duty of adjudicator to the DM. You're not actually running a BtB game if you're derelict in that duty, even if you're abandoning that duty for the sake of executing the rulings exactly as written. The DM is expected to make sensible rulings.
QuoteLots of parties think you need just one of EACH of the core classes, and find it "problematic" to be the same class as somebody else. Although, it would be much easier for one thief to go for a backstab against a goblin shaman, after another thief has drawn the attention that nearby goblin gaggle held in reserve, all while the three fighters take on the two bugbear mercenaries trying to guard the goblin's stolen treasure.
One cool thing I give props for in the 2E splat books is that they propose doing things like all-fighters campaigns, all-thieves campaigns and so on.
In old-school, magic-users could be rendered useless in close quarters. You get in striking distance, you can interrupt their spells. So having a front line blocking enemies from getting to the magic-user was absolutely essential. Before WotC went with standard 5' squares, it was generally 3 abreast that could operate in the standard 10' wide corridor. So you needed a front line of 3. If you didn't have at least that, you didn't have a functional mage in a fight.
And that's fine. If you can look at your party makeup and realize it's going to be difficult for wizards to drop bombs in fights, then you memorize more of the miscellaneous spells rather than the combat spells. And then understand as a party you have to operate in such a way that you avoid most fights. Fighters should leave their heavy armor at home, because movement rate is going to be more useful.
It can be a problem if the game has different feats or subclasses for light armor fighters vs heavy armor fighters. Or magic-users that specialize in individual spells and to a lesser extent a school of spells. Anytime the mechanics get in the way of individuals being flexible enough to adapt to the situation and party makeup. If the game mechanics over-step that boundary, then yeah, then I can see the case for these idealized party makeups.
A lot of skill-based systems do have this problem. Defining the character more precisely than broad-based classes is exactly one of those things that can potentially be a barrier to flexibility. A lot of it hinges on just how good the game's skill list is.
QuoteHonestly, the monomyth doesn't quite serve much of the same purpose as the class system, anyway...
We're all just in it for the gold and glory!
... Right?
I'm fine with gold and glory as the motive and find it works with the monomyth.
In some sense, I view an adventuring party as entrepreneurs. They operate in realms of radical uncertainty with no guarantees of gain but the potential to out-earn whatever salary might have otherwise been justified by their abilities and experience.
Radical uncertainty fits the bill of the extraordinary world, the chaos, the underworld. Gold, or profit, is a fine fit for the ultimate goal, the treasure, the reward, the magical elixir.
A lot of "gamers these days" including the oldies who just feel themselves to have outgrown their former munchkin selves, poo poo money as a motive. I think they're wrong. Like objectively wrong. One of my all time favorite movie quotes puts this in perspective. The late great James Caan as Joe Sarno in The Way of the Gun:
"Fifteen million dollars is not money. It's a motive with a universal adaptor on it."
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the way Sarno puts it is exactly what the goal, the gold, the elixir, the treasure in the hero's journey is supposed to be. It's supposed to be the ultimate goal. The thing everyone wants. The holy grail. It needs to be something with a universal adapter, indifferent to however you designed your specific character. And if your character is unmoved by it, you're not actually joining in the playing of the game. Sure. It's possible the GM can choose too weak an elixir. GMs aren't perfect. But if they're putting in an effort and trying, so should the players. And if it still just doesn't work for your character, you should make a new one.
QuoteThere's another class who's colinear with the fighter and magic user, and I'd be tempted to appraise him as leaning towards the wizard with the intent of his design. He isn't exactly the center point of the triangle, given that his purpose is also as specific as the fighter, so he doesn't quite approach the miscellaneous functions that the wizard and the thief, for the most part.
Everyone desperately wants this cleric in their party, but for all of the thanks he gets for putting himself in the hotspot for all of them, some want to kick him out of the game altogether!
I think the core problem with the cleric can be summed up as: Too many players view the cleric as nothing more than a heal bitch. And perhaps this problem is exacerbated by attempting to ignore the religions connotations of the class in favor of it's function as a healer. Part of the problem is also the "meat shield" archetype. You get these barbarians with massive numbers of hit points. And they value each one of those hit points far less than, say, the magic-user who cherishes every last one of their hit points. So they blow through them more quickly, and that is really taxing for the cleric's healing ability.
One thing I really like about Jordan Peterson's take on the monomyth (and let's be clear, I don't really care for a lot of JP's politics, but his academic lectures are excellent), is he's got this evolutionary psychology element to it. Evolution being the key word here. Meat shield as a strategy is worthy of winning a Darwin Award. It's dumb and should not be an acceptable archetype. Conan was fast as a jungle cat and wore armor when it was available. He was tough, but tough isn't a first line of defense. And I don't know there was any expectation that berserkers would be healed. They kind of charged in with reckless abandon without thought as to how they were going to live, like kamikaze Vikings. None of the inspirations of the Barbarian had get sliced up then healed as a strategy. It's just goofy game design to do a barbarian this way.
For me, the worst part of the cleric is not having a clear archetype. "Healer" is not strong enough for an adventurer, "healer with a mace" even less so. "Religious warrior" or "monster hunter" is better but not what the cleric is about.
As Delta notices, clerics are barely present in the appendix N.
https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/05/giants-in-earth-index.html
I have considered replacing it for a leader; it feels stronger as an archetype.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/06/replacing-cleric-for-leader.html
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 06, 2023, 03:19:35 PM
For me, the worst part of the cleric is not having a clear archetype. "Healer" is not strong enough for an adventurer, "healer with a mace" even less so. "Religious warrior" or "monster hunter" is better but not what the cleric is about.
As Delta notices, clerics are barely present in the appendix N.
https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/05/giants-in-earth-index.html
I have considered replacing it for a leader; it feels stronger as an archetype.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/06/replacing-cleric-for-leader.html
Yeah, Clerics are a Gary Gygax thing. I remember on the Lejendary Adventure boards way back, people were talking about fantasy fiction, and Gary came out hard against Tolkien, deriding it as "humanist garbage." In case there was any doubt on how much inspiration Gary drew from Tolkien in the creation of D&D. Incidentally, the person fired back correcting Gary that Tolkien was actually deeply religious personally. The fact that Gary didn't know that I think seals it that Gary was definitely not a Tolkien fan, contrary to the theory that he was only denying being a fan to uphold the story that he wasn't ripping off Tolkien for D&D.
Anyway, obviously historically religious figures have always been vital to society, and yet it is often missing from fantasy. I think the cleric as a front and center hero was his way on correcting an awful error of modern fantasy.
It's been said the cleric is something of a vampire hunter out of hammer horror. There's also this early conception of clerics as crusading knights. Though they were kind of bumped out of that role when the Paladin came along.
I think there's some good insight into their weapon restrictions. People who have geeked out on this may be familiar with something about Bishop Odo not wanting to shed blood. And there are a couple of limp-wristed retorts that call bunk on this. One of them is basically, giggle, snort, you cave someone's skull in with a mace, they're going to bleed. The other is that it's too literal a reading. Obviously when one talks about not wanting to shed blood, it's violence in general they're speaking out against. And obviously D&D clerics are intended to fight. Ergo the two have nothing to do with one another.
And that's not quite right. It is correct that clerics are not supposed to be engaging in violence. But it's also true that using this doctrine was never intended to be an excuse for a cleric to abdicate their duty to defend their flock. So during war time, you can imagine how clerics faced contradictory demands. On the one hand, it would look bad to see a cleric openly carrying weapons. On the other hand, you kind of needed to openly carry weapons. So what's the solution? Weapons like the mace, staff, and morning star were considered symbols of the cleric's office. And so a cleric could openly carry these without raising any eyebrows. Thus the weapon restriction. Later on, when you get into Clerics of specific gods, they are sometimes allowed a weapon outside that list per their deities choice. Because that would likewise be a symbol of their office.
As a player character, clerics fit the hero archetype just perfectly. They're really well-rounded and really well-suited for the role.
As an NPC, they could be argued as the positive feminine (healer), positive masculine (defender), and also the negative positive and feminine for evil clerics. Although one thing Gary did change his mind on over the years was the idea of evil clerics. In his research, he found that all religions were based on a foundation that the followers at least believed the religion was benign and beneficial, never malign. What evil cults did exist never gained widespread traction. And so in later years, he kind of abandoned the idea of evil clerics. You could have necromancers and sorcerers and the like. It just wasn't the same thing. In his Lejendary Adventure RPG, he divided ecclesiastics into two orders: Glorification & Hallowing, and Service & Care. Which again would correspond to positive masculine and positive feminine respectively in terms of monomyth archetypes.
So take from that what you will.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 06, 2023, 03:19:35 PM
For me, the worst part of the cleric is not having a clear archetype. "Healer" is not strong enough for an adventurer, "healer with a mace" even less so. "Religious warrior" or "monster hunter" is better but not what the cleric is about.
As Delta notices, clerics are barely present in the appendix N.
https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/05/giants-in-earth-index.html
I have considered replacing it for a leader; it feels stronger as an archetype.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/06/replacing-cleric-for-leader.html
Change it to a Templar Knight, remove the weapon limitations and you have a Paladin.
War Priests wer a thing, the church did set such weapon limitations and they could only fight to protect themselves and the defenseless IIRC,
My problem with it is that it's a Christian thing that just doesn't translate to polytheism.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 06, 2023, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 06, 2023, 03:19:35 PM
For me, the worst part of the cleric is not having a clear archetype. "Healer" is not strong enough for an adventurer, "healer with a mace" even less so. "Religious warrior" or "monster hunter" is better but not what the cleric is about.
As Delta notices, clerics are barely present in the appendix N.
https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/05/giants-in-earth-index.html
I have considered replacing it for a leader; it feels stronger as an archetype.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/06/replacing-cleric-for-leader.html
Change it to a Templar Knight, remove the weapon limitations and you have a Paladin.
War Priests wer a thing, the church did set such weapon limitations and they could only fight to protect themselves and the defenseless IIRC,
My problem with it is that it's a Christian thing that just doesn't translate to polytheism.
To Eric Diaz - I'm skeptical about "Leader" as a class, because leader is a social role among the players. Who the leader is varies tremendously in fiction and in RPGs. Even within a single story like the Hobbit -- Gandalf (wizard) was the leader for a while, until it passed to Thorin (fighter) and then to Bilbo (thief).
As far as war priests - Archetypes are useful only if they are still in the minds of modern players. D&D clerics correspond mostly to European Christian images. That's the archetype they are filling, even if they are technically polytheist. I think the most recognizable example of the archetype is Friar Tuck from Robin Hood. He's not very spiritual and not a healer, but I don't think that's the core of the archetype. He's a traditionalist of a sort, and has a similar archetype to Dr. McCoy in Star Trek.
On the other hand, I'm doubtful about Lunamancer's explanation of weapons:
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 06, 2023, 04:13:40 PM
It is correct that clerics are not supposed to be engaging in violence. But it's also true that using this doctrine was never intended to be an excuse for a cleric to abdicate their duty to defend their flock. So during war time, you can imagine how clerics faced contradictory demands. On the one hand, it would look bad to see a cleric openly carrying weapons. On the other hand, you kind of needed to openly carry weapons. So what's the solution? Weapons like the mace, staff, and morning star were considered symbols of the cleric's office. And so a cleric could openly carry these without raising any eyebrows. Thus the weapon restriction.
I think this is *a* solution that some historical clerics may have used. So it's plausible, but it doesn't seem to have been a widespread historical rule. There's lots of evidence that when priests wanted to fight, they just used regular weapons of war, which includes the mace but also the spear, sword, and axe. Friar Tuck used an axe and a staff at points, but he was also fine with a sword. Here's from the Ballad of Durham Field, say,
QuoteFive hundred priests said mass that day
In Durham in the field,
And afterwards, as I hard say,
They bare both spear and shield.
The Bishop orders himselfe to fight,
With his battell-axe in his hand;
He said, 'This day now I will fight
As long as I can stand!'
Source: https://www.bartleby.com/243/126.html
That's not to say that there wasn't some restriction on clerics fighting or shedding blood, just that it was inconsistent. If they did fight, it wasn't typically with ceremonial weapons. There might be some bias towards preferring ceremonial and/or blunt weapons, but it wasn't a general rule.
Besides Aquinas' restriction on warfare, there was a specific restriction on the shedding of blood in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 - which also forbid the practice of surgery within sight of a cleric. So there's some justification for a cleric to use blunt weapons regardless of whether it is ceremonial. I'd note that lots of secular leaders used the mace and club, and had ceremonial maces as badges of office. In the same tapestry where Bishop Odo of Bayeux is shown wielding a mace -- his half-brother William the Conqueror is also shown wielding a mace.
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2023, 05:29:27 PM
To Eric Diaz - I'm skeptical about "Leader" as a class, because leader is a social role among the players. Who the leader is varies tremendously in fiction and in RPGs. Even within a single story like the Hobbit -- Gandalf (wizard) was the leader for a while, until it passed to Thorin (fighter) and then to Bilbo (thief).
I've wrestled with this issue over the years. Your analysis is valid, but there are other examples where the leader is objectively defined. Often this person even has "Captain" in front of their name. Spycraft was one game that hardwired the leadership role with mechanics (Pointman) and some of the Green Ronin D20 games have feats that do it as well.
As for the leader being a social role outside the game mechanics, isn't this a subset of the classic debate about social skills? By now the general agreement is that a character can be adept at seducing barmaids even if the player is not a smooth talker. Often times players will say "Joe's the face guy, because he's playing a bard" even if Joe isn't the most eloquent guy in real life.
Why not have a "leader" class that follows the same concept?
A character class in AD&D1e is properly-understood as a very broad skill. The fighter is someone who can lay out ambushes, has tactical sense, can lead men-at-arms and so on; the magic-user cannot do these things, but is more likely to be able to recognise an obscure written language (if not read it), know geography beyond his personal experience, and so on.
From this it follows that a skill is a very narrow character class, but almost everyone is multi-classed.
There have been many games combining these. As an example Rolemaster had character classes, but still had skills. Anyone could choose to acquire or increase any skill, but the choice of class gave the skills different costs. Fighters could learn weapon skills at 1/2 (1 point for the first rank giving +5% initially, 2 points for the second) while magic-users had to spend 10, or something. Magic-users could spend 1* (1 point for each 5% chance) to learn a spell list, fighters had to spend 20 points. Given finite points each level, this meant that character class influenced but did not determine skills. The point cost, or the character class, could be understood as the character's inherent talents - some people found X easy and Y difficult to learn, others vice versa.
There's an argument that this is actually the more realistic approach, compared to the "blank slate" of something like RuneQuest or Cthulhu, where if you use a skill you get a chance to improve it, and the difficulty only changes as the skill gets better. But while perhaps realistic, it's really clunky and involves a lot of charts.
Quote from: Aglondir on February 06, 2023, 06:20:20 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2023, 05:29:27 PM
To Eric Diaz - I'm skeptical about "Leader" as a class, because leader is a social role among the players. Who the leader is varies tremendously in fiction and in RPGs. Even within a single story like the Hobbit -- Gandalf (wizard) was the leader for a while, until it passed to Thorin (fighter) and then to Bilbo (thief).
I've wrestled with this issue over the years. Your analysis is valid, but there are other examples where the leader is objectively defined. Often this person even has "Captain" in front of their name. Spycraft was one game that hardwired the leadership role with mechanics (Pointman) and some of the Green Ronin D20 games have feats that do it as well.
As for the leader being a social role outside the game mechanics, isn't this a subset of the classic debate about social skills? By now the general agreement is that a character can be adept at seducing barmaids even if the player is not a smooth talker. Often times players will say "Joe's the face guy, because he's playing a bard" even if Joe isn't the most eloquent guy in real life.
Why not have a "leader" class that follows the same concept?
True. I was thinking more of the high fantasy genre specifically, and how D&D classes work under existing mechanics. There are a lot of interesting leadership mechanics in other genres and/or games. I like some mechanics similar to the Rogue Mastermind in D&D5E or Leadership/Command in FATE -- where a character can give mechanical benefit to others by organizing a plan.
In the high fantasy genre, I think leadership would be more of a feat or skill rather than an archetype. But, for example, in the heist genre, the planner/mastermind is definitely an archetype.
Quote
Sure. But my main point was that the play pre-dates the print. ...
Now that you've mentioned it, the only obvious difference is that the Weapon Proficiency mechanics were added to Player's Handbook from the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide; what an expansion!
Quote
You've definitely said a mouthful there, and there are three separate points on how I address a lot of this stuff.
1) My way of handling rules lawyers ...
2) Players who want to game the system rather than play the game ...
3) I think players who don't want to break free from the matrix ...
Well, it can be a *crunchy* subject to digest!
On that last point, the superhero gig is probably to blame, and there's a huge disconnect between comic heroes like Spiderman and mythological heroes like Beowulf.
Most players now largely play games where their characters are already kitted out for a grand and epic adventure, but start off acting like nothing uncanny could possibly happen to them. The entire story is just hopping from place to place, looking for clues as to what the bad guy has been doing in the area just recently, then they fight something or someone that just happened to get in their way.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat... Doesn't seem like any growth happens to these characters at all beyond the numbers on their sheets.
(psst... By the way, what's "fidelity" mean?)
Quote
I look at it like this: There's rules. Then there's rules. And then there's rulings.
The rules establish the language and basic procedures of the game. ...
Then there's rules refer to rules of thumb. These are the guidelines. ...
And then there's rulings. ... The DM is expected to make sensible rulings.
Yeah! I've never been all too fond of the "Guess the Monster's AC" rigamarole, it's not exactly metagaming to tell your players that info ahead of time if they're going to find out through trial and error anyway. Wouldn't be metagaming to tell the DM how much hit points your character has left?
"NO, you HAVE to guess my hit points when I tell you that I'm not too fatigued but somewhat tired!"
UGH...
Now that you've mentioned it, historical armour was way less cumbersome and rigid than people assumed just by looking at the pieces on those stands. They were even far lighter than the replicas made today, because we can shape a much thicker gauge of steel now. In fact, you can do cartwheels in authentic sets of full plate fairly easily... just don't expect to sneak up on anyone while you're out on patrol!
Quote
In old-school, magic-users could be rendered useless in close quarters. ...
... If you can look at your party makeup and realize it's going to be difficult for wizards to drop bombs in fights, then you memorize more of the miscellaneous spells rather than the combat spells. ...
It can be a problem if the game has different feats or subclasses for light armor fighters vs heavy armor fighters. Or magic-users that specialize in individual spells and to a lesser extent a school of spells. ...
It seems like most of these considerations are easily accounted for during the Great Session Zero proposed by The AngryGM (great guy, if a bit high in blood pressure...)
All you can do is roll with the dice and see what they come up with for your attributes, but that is also another big old-school feature as far as I understand it: the dice choose your class for you, which means that not every party was ever going to be "balanced" with all the roles filled right away.
Quote
I'm fine with gold and glory as the motive and find it works with the monomyth. ...
Radical uncertainty fits the bill of the extraordinary world, the chaos, the underworld. Gold, or profit, is a fine fit for the ultimate goal, the treasure, the reward, the magical elixir.
... It's supposed to be the ultimate goal. The thing everyone wants. The holy grail. It needs to be something with a universal adapter, indifferent to however you designed your specific character. And if your character is unmoved by it, you're not actually joining in the playing of the game. Sure. It's possible the GM can choose too weak an elixir. GMs aren't perfect. But if they're putting in an effort and trying, so should the players. And if it still just doesn't work for your character, you should make a new one.
Speaking of which, it's funny that people think that a cleric couldn't possibly get a little bit excited about the *prospects* of coins by the pound, and chests by the pallet. After all, they do want to put their money where their mouths are and put their share to a good cause.
Plus, ornate vestments to tend to make an impression on potential converts, don't they?
Quote
I think the core problem with the cleric can be summed up as: Too many players view the cleric as nothing more than a heal bitch. And perhaps this problem is exacerbated by attempting to ignore the religions connotations of the class in favor of it's function as a healer. Part of the problem is also the "meat shield" archetype. You get these barbarians with massive numbers of hit points. And they value each one of those hit points far less than, say, the magic-user who cherishes every last one of their hit points. So they blow through them more quickly, and that is really taxing for the cleric's healing ability.
... Meat shield as a strategy is worthy of winning a Darwin Award. ... Conan was fast as a jungle cat and wore armor when it was available. He was tough, but tough isn't a first line of defense. ... None of the inspirations of the Barbarian had "get sliced up then healed" as a strategy. It's just goofy game design to do a barbarian this way.
Indeed, Conan was never scared—of course he'd never run out of an ancient, subterranean crypt with his tail between his legs at the first sight of a magically intelligent triage of undead assassins!
You know, I think I can see how those "e-sports" games wound up with such deconstructed character roles when you put it such a way that lines up better than the stars bearing some dire news... I can't bring myself to call those things "archetypes" or even classes when they feel more like stat machines with pixel skins for a more coordinated, button mashing drool-fest, to hear the way the younger kin talk about them.
Maybe a little bit of realism goes a long way to help player's make good choices, and not just for the verisimilitude.
You're correct though, it seems like the cleric and the barbarian were made for two completely different goals for campaign play, almost like you can't really have both in one party at the same time... Of course, we should be more fair, the cleric has also doubled as the "corpse spooker.".
On the other hand, such a warrior understands that he won't always be prepared for a fight, and if you get caught with your brigandine off more often than you'd like, you'd better make the enemy believe that was their mistake, like when Conan was freed from the dungeon by his bride-to-be, Zenobia.
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2023, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 06, 2023, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 06, 2023, 03:19:35 PM
For me, the worst part of the cleric is not having a clear archetype. "Healer" is not strong enough for an adventurer, "healer with a mace" even less so. "Religious warrior" or "monster hunter" is better but not what the cleric is about.
As Delta notices, clerics are barely present in the appendix N.
https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/05/giants-in-earth-index.html
I have considered replacing it for a leader; it feels stronger as an archetype.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/06/replacing-cleric-for-leader.html
Change it to a Templar Knight, remove the weapon limitations and you have a Paladin.
War Priests wer a thing, the church did set such weapon limitations and they could only fight to protect themselves and the defenseless IIRC,
My problem with it is that it's a Christian thing that just doesn't translate to polytheism.
To Eric Diaz - I'm skeptical about "Leader" as a class, because leader is a social role among the players. Who the leader is varies tremendously in fiction and in RPGs. Even within a single story like the Hobbit -- Gandalf (wizard) was the leader for a while, until it passed to Thorin (fighter) and then to Bilbo (thief).
As far as war priests - Archetypes are useful only if they are still in the minds of modern players. D&D clerics correspond mostly to European Christian images. That's the archetype they are filling, even if they are technically polytheist. I think the most recognizable example of the archetype is Friar Tuck from Robin Hood. He's not very spiritual and not a healer, but I don't think that's the core of the archetype. He's a traditionalist of a sort, and has a similar archetype to Dr. McCoy in Star Trek.
I'll agree that "leader" is not a strong and distinct archetype like "fighter". Still, there are some leader "powers" that I could see working: heal allies of wounds and, especially, low morale. Lead others into action. I'm thinking not only Gandalf but especially Aragorn (as opposed to Boromir- who had an hereditary role but not much leadership). Not sure how Bilbo fits the "leader" part.
This goes double for monsters - a monster boss and its minions is a very recognizable trope, and in AD&D IIRC stronger undead could protect lesser ones from being turned, which I find interesting.
You could argue that his is part of the "fighter" archetype - Conan certainly has leadership qualities, but other warriors do not.
Friar Tuck is a good example, but only one guy in hundreds of Appendix N characters. The trope is more common in modern fantasy (already influenced by D&D), I reckon. Also, maybe in modern
settings they would be some kind of doctor or scientist? Think Van Helsing, who originated the cleric...
In short... warrior/mage/thief are still the strongest IMO. But I still think there is a place for a defender/leader/maybe healer type.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 07, 2023, 08:39:51 AM
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2023, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 06, 2023, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 06, 2023, 03:19:35 PM
For me, the worst part of the cleric is not having a clear archetype. "Healer" is not strong enough for an adventurer, "healer with a mace" even less so. "Religious warrior" or "monster hunter" is better but not what the cleric is about.
As Delta notices, clerics are barely present in the appendix N.
https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/05/giants-in-earth-index.html
I have considered replacing it for a leader; it feels stronger as an archetype.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/06/replacing-cleric-for-leader.html
Change it to a Templar Knight, remove the weapon limitations and you have a Paladin.
War Priests wer a thing, the church did set such weapon limitations and they could only fight to protect themselves and the defenseless IIRC,
My problem with it is that it's a Christian thing that just doesn't translate to polytheism.
To Eric Diaz - I'm skeptical about "Leader" as a class, because leader is a social role among the players. Who the leader is varies tremendously in fiction and in RPGs. Even within a single story like the Hobbit -- Gandalf (wizard) was the leader for a while, until it passed to Thorin (fighter) and then to Bilbo (thief).
As far as war priests - Archetypes are useful only if they are still in the minds of modern players. D&D clerics correspond mostly to European Christian images. That's the archetype they are filling, even if they are technically polytheist. I think the most recognizable example of the archetype is Friar Tuck from Robin Hood. He's not very spiritual and not a healer, but I don't think that's the core of the archetype. He's a traditionalist of a sort, and has a similar archetype to Dr. McCoy in Star Trek.
I'll agree that "leader" is not a strong and distinct archetype like "fighter". Still, there are some leader "powers" that I could see working: heal allies of wounds and, especially, low morale. Lead others into action. I'm thinking not only Gandalf but especially Aragorn (as opposed to Boromir- who had an hereditary role but not much leadership). Not sure how Bilbo fits the "leader" part.
This goes double for monsters - a monster boss and its minions is a very recognizable trope, and in AD&D IIRC stronger undead could protect lesser ones from being turned, which I find interesting.
You could argue that his is part of the "fighter" archetype - Conan certainly has leadership qualities, but other warriors do not.
Friar Tuck is a good example, but only one guy in hundreds of Appendix N characters. The trope is more common in modern fantasy (already influenced by D&D), I reckon. Also, maybe in modern settings they would be some kind of doctor or scientist? Think Van Helsing, who originated the cleric...
In short... warrior/mage/thief are still the strongest IMO. But I still think there is a place for a defender/leader/maybe healer type.
One could also just split the cleric's stuff up and give it to the main three. Buff the warrior's protective ability, give the buff/debuff via clever tricks/exploits to the thief and magic healing to the mage.
Allow half-classing; fighter/thief, fighter/mage and thief/mage; and maybe a jack-of-all-stats (red mage; fighter/mage/thief) and you've got more than enough combos for an average table to not need duplicates.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 07, 2023, 08:39:51 AM
I'll agree that "leader" is not a strong and distinct archetype like "fighter". Still, there are some leader "powers" that I could see working: heal allies of wounds and, especially, low morale. Lead others into action. I'm thinking not only Gandalf but especially Aragorn (as opposed to Boromir- who had an hereditary role but not much leadership). Not sure how Bilbo fits the "leader" part.
This goes double for monsters - a monster boss and its minions is a very recognizable trope, and in AD&D IIRC stronger undead could protect lesser ones from being turned, which I find interesting.
You could argue that his is part of the "fighter" archetype - Conan certainly has leadership qualities, but other warriors do not.
Friar Tuck is a good example, but only one guy in hundreds of Appendix N characters. The trope is more common in modern fantasy (already influenced by D&D), I reckon. Also, maybe in modern settings they would be some kind of doctor or scientist? Think Van Helsing, who originated the cleric...
In short... warrior/mage/thief are still the strongest IMO. But I still think there is a place for a defender/leader/maybe healer type.
I need to say: if we must always defer the rigidity of the rules to DM rulings, then we shouldn't be so constrained by Appendix N. As mentioned previously, war priests were common at least during the Early Middle Ages, and I believe that role is a carry over from pre-Christian traditions in Europe. The paladin, however, should be a NPC class when applying this criteria, as the job description concerns that of palace bouncers, drawn away from military ranks where favourable, who've sworn an (additional) holy oath to the king he serves. You can't typically adventure when your job is to stand by the throne-gates all day, whereas the cleric has a more robust set of inspirations to draw from for his journeys.
"Leader" as a role sounds a lot like the deconstructed roles of striker, tank, and buffer, but I don't think you would settle for that.
Bilbo is not a leader at all, he's been thrust into his circumstances reluctantly, and his instincts and tactics are unheroic (hence Gandalf looking for one among the Tooks' line of expert thieves). I'd consider Bilbo more of a Fool, and for this he provides a foil, and perhaps also a semi-unreliable (i.e. cheeky) narrator, for the exploits of the expeditious Thorin Oakenshield seeking to reclaim his throne from the abyssal Smaug.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 07, 2023, 09:38:55 AM
One could also just split the cleric's stuff up and give it to the main three. Buff the warrior's protective ability, give the buff/debuff via clever tricks/exploits to the thief and magic healing to the mage.
Allow half-classing; fighter/thief, fighter/mage and thief/mage; and maybe a jack-of-all-stats (red mage; fighter/mage/thief) and you've got more than enough combos for an average table to not need duplicates.
This could just be the Bard, drawing his power from an inner duality as a jack-of-classes, whose subclassing options round out the party ranks:
Scout (f/t),
Skald (f/m; i.e. pagan war-priest), and
Shaman (t/m).
You wouldn't need the three-in-one option at all, spreads his features too thin anyway.
This thread is weird to me.
While everyone is talking about what a "class is" or "should be" - you're all dancing around what's already been said in meta-context of the thread. It's TROPES. So why not use a game that is skill-based, and you don't have to worry about defining a "class" since you're defining your trope based on the skills you choose. You can call yourself whatever the fuck your setting has allotted in-world.
Otherwise you're just playing the system-as-the-game. If by Class you need it defined to express a certain kind of play - that flies in the face of having skills at all. And I get some people like that. OSR exists after all.
But this doesn't mean a finer grain of play isn't achievable with skills defining what your PC does and giving it a shiny label to describe it as a profession. There is no functional difference unless the system you're playing expressly doesn't allow for it because the system takes more precedence AS the game vs. a closer granular (however meaningful) view of the PC's in the game.
And yes there are degrees to this. OSR games are *not* 4e. But the systems are still more removed from roleplay than skill-based games due to the construction of the systems.
Quote from: tenbones on February 07, 2023, 10:52:58 AM
This thread is weird to me.
While everyone is talking about what a "class is" or "should be" - you're all dancing around what's already been said in meta-context of the thread. It's TROPES. So why not use a game that is skill-based, and you don't have to worry about defining a "class" since you're defining your trope based on the skills you choose. You can call yourself whatever the fuck your setting has allotted in-world.
Otherwise you're just playing the system-as-the-game. If by Class you need it defined to express a certain kind of play - that flies in the face of having skills at all. And I get some people like that. OSR exists after all.
But this doesn't mean a finer grain of play isn't achievable with skills defining what your PC does and giving it a shiny label to describe it as a profession. There is no functional difference unless the system you're playing expressly doesn't allow for it because the system takes more precedence AS the game vs. a closer granular (however meaningful) view of the PC's in the game.
And yes there are degrees to this. OSR games are *not* 4e. But the systems are still more removed from roleplay than skill-based games due to the construction of the systems.
I think I get where you are going with this. I've thought about it a lot, and this is my current thinking:
- Classes are too broad.
- Skills are too narrow.
- Professions are about right as far as the level of abstraction, but have other problems.
Specifically, I mean in the overall sense of where game meets setting, where simulation meets ease of use, etc. Basically, the level of abstraction and what that abstraction is trying to accomplish as cleanly as possible while also having concrete details that invoke the experience you are trying to convey. All, of course, in a shared, imaginative space.
Humans are pretty darn adaptable. We get around the problems in the abstractions all kinds of way. Which is why approached in the right spirit, all kinds of things can work. We say in a D&D B/X game (played as intended) that "fighter" has a whole lot of implied skills that go with that. Which means that as an abstraction we are already halfway to "profession". He's not a "fighter". He's lord of the castle or head of the guard or Sergeant Jones of the ship's marines or whatever. Where as, if we made those same characters with GURPS (played as intended), we'd package up whatever was appropriate. We'd expect the player to stick to the ballpark of a concept. We'd end up in about the same space, only from another direction.
Naturally, people prefer one or the other depending on which way they'd rather edge, which drawbacks they don't mind, and how easy or hard it is to get the group to approach the game as intended.
I don't pretend to having a lot of experience with systems that go the overt Profession as game widget route. But my experience with the ones that do, and what I've gleaned from what others have said about them, is that when the designer thinks in terms of "profession" what usually happens is we just get a weird mix of too broad and too narrow all at once, that doesn't necessarily play all that well. Or the professions are merely templates tacked on top of a skill system. About the only exception I can think of is Dragon Quest professions--which nail the abstraction perfectly--only to then immediately bury it in overly complicated mechanics.
For me, the sweet spot is something that is orthogonal to profession, still partially mechanical and partially embedded in the world, more narrow than class but broader than skills. The hard part, is what you call these things and how they fit into the game/setting cannot be generic, because of that "partially embedded in the world" aspect. In theory, you can divorce them (and a lot of people like it that way), but I find this the line where any system becomes too generic for me to enjoy (for a variety of reasons).
Quote from: tenbones on February 07, 2023, 10:52:58 AM
This thread is weird to me.
While everyone is talking about what a "class is" or "should be" - you're all dancing around what's already been said in meta-context of the thread. It's TROPES. So why not use a game that is skill-based, and you don't have to worry about defining a "class" since you're defining your trope based on the skills you choose. You can call yourself whatever the fuck your setting has allotted in-world.
Otherwise you're just playing the system-as-the-game. If by Class you need it defined to express a certain kind of play - that flies in the face of having skills at all. And I get some people like that. OSR exists after all.
But this doesn't mean a finer grain of play isn't achievable with skills defining what your PC does and giving it a shiny label to describe it as a profession. There is no functional difference unless the system you're playing expressly doesn't allow for it because the system takes more precedence AS the game vs. a closer granular (however meaningful) view of the PC's in the game.
And yes there are degrees to this. OSR games are *not* 4e. But the systems are still more removed from roleplay than skill-based games due to the construction of the systems.
One issue worth noting in favor of classes is "niche protection."
One issue I've always seen with skill-based system is a tendency for anything cool to be knicked by others in short order so your character loses their uniqueness relative to the others. This is particularly true in games with caps on performance. Once you've established that 10 levels is the max for a skill you're going to hit a point where everyone can fight equally well, cast equally well and skill monkey equally well. It gets especially notable in specific genres where a few key skills/attributes are just so much more important than the others... ex. Mecha piloting in a mecha game.
The only way to maintain those distinctions is essentially skill bloat and keeping the number of skill points low enough that you have to specialize. So you can't just have Piloting and Gunnery, you need Pilot:Humanoid, Pilot:Beast Mech, Pilot:Aircraft, Gunnnery:Ballistic, Gunnery:Energy, Gunnery:Missiles ... and to provide enough ways for those to be different that the specialization can be meaningful instead of just arbitrary (ie. if ballistics and energy weapons don't have real differences then its just an illusion of difference... the guy in the ballistic mecha and the energy mecha do the same thing with the same mods... they just have arbitrarily different skills.
Classes, when properly designed, mean no one will ever outfight the dedicated fighter, or outsneak the dedicated thief, or outcast the dedicated caster. Any hybridization becomes a tradeoff. If a fighter dips into mage they're not going to be as good a fighter as the one who didn't.
The only issue is when a poorly designed system makes dipping into other classes superior to the dedicated classes.
Quote from: tenbones on February 07, 2023, 10:52:58 AM
This thread is weird to me.
While everyone is talking about what a "class is" or "should be" - you're all dancing around what's already been said in meta-context of the thread. It's TROPES. So why not use a game that is skill-based, and you don't have to worry about defining a "class" since you're defining your trope based on the skills you choose. You can call yourself whatever the fuck your setting has allotted in-world.
Otherwise you're just playing the system-as-the-game. If by Class you need it defined to express a certain kind of play - that flies in the face of having skills at all. And I get some people like that. OSR exists after all.
But this doesn't mean a finer grain of play isn't achievable with skills defining what your PC does and giving it a shiny label to describe it as a profession. There is no functional difference unless the system you're playing expressly doesn't allow for it because the system takes more precedence AS the game vs. a closer granular (however meaningful) view of the PC's in the game.
And yes there are degrees to this. OSR games are *not* 4e. But the systems are still more removed from roleplay than skill-based games due to the construction of the systems.
Let me put it this way: it is certainly achievable to create a archetypal thief in GURPS or Runequest, but it is certainly EASIER to do that with B/X.
I used to play only skills systems because of this reason: they can do ANYTHING!
Nowadays I play an hybrid because it does THIS thing I want, and does it FAST, while ALSO allowing enough customization as you advance in levels.
To avoid mentioning my own game again, I'd suggest Shadow of The Demon Lord. Entirely class-based but you can do most fantasy tropes with it.
so my response to "niche protection" is the same as inverse of "niche protection" which is for lack of a better term, I'll toss this out there - "skill overload".
That response is: the system is demanding to be played "as the game", and it's up to you as the GM to buy into it or not.
OR...
You find a system that allows for mechanical options to tune up/down as a *feature* of the mechanics in service of the actual game. Niche-protection is very real. But it's very real because there is a set of optimizations to guide players to a specific kind of play that exists outside of the actual game. When you're a Fighter, before you even hit the ground running, your role is locked for *reasons* that exist outside of any context. Sure you have some variables you can toy with in game - types of weapons, how you go about being the "tank" in terms of your engagement with weapons.
But the goal of the system is to maintain those niches as *almost* indispensable from gameplay regardless of the setting conceits.
On the inverse side of this - a skill based system that wants to go full-bananas with microscopic resolution in trying to squeeze every possible skill into greater resolution for their setting... makes it a goddamn chore trying to make a character if the system is so spread out in terms of priority that a hundred skills is required to engage with it.
I suspect everyone already knows the middle-path is the best path. if that weren't the case multi-classing in D&D would never have been a thing. But again, we all know the truth - it's never been done well to the universal opinions of its players. Likewise we've seen people moan and groan about games that call themselves skill based systems - but people hyperspecialize into what they presume to be niches that will be prioritized in their skill-based gaming campaign, into what effectively *are* "Classes".
The only way to look at this is to engage in TTRPGs that are literally in the middle-path between the paradigms to see how they do it well. And until I thought it about it in responding to this very thread... it might explain a long ponderous path I've taken personally to end up playing the systems that I routinely engage in with my group, not only out of personal interest, but by their express desire and demand.
MSH - Are their "classes" - no. But there are roles that players "feel" should be filled. They want "tanks" to take the big hits. They want ranged blasters. They want skill-monkeys to do all the fiddly-technical shit. The reality is *none* of them are required. Unless you have a very focused game along a very narrow set of parameters. Supers gaming in general allows for the most diverse cast of potential PC types limited only by the bandwidth of the GM. The "skills" in MSH (and DCU) are only modifiers to the same task-resolution for everything else in the game. And they're very general. You don't need to outline every computer language known to allow Reed Richards or Tony Stark to riff any kind of code they need to break into a system or program a robot. There is no "multiclassing" because in supers, your powers can often fill in the blank as needed.
Savage Worlds - No classes (yet you can have them if you want). Generalized skills "Fighting", "Shooting" - and if you want more granularity, you got mechanics to cover it. Multi-classing isn't necessary because the "niche" is cultivated, not assumed. The Tank is going to buy the abilities that fill the trope he's after in the exact manner of his choosing. If he wants to learn magic too - he *can*. And it doesn't take away from dedicated spellcasters since you're all on the same track of advancement, once you deviate, you're not ever going to be "as good" as the guy that stayed the course. HOWEVER... the mechanics of Savage Worlds is so tightly modular that you're never really disadvantaging yourself by hybridzing because the "tropes" all work arm in arm. Unless you're actively trying to make a stupid character that is ineffectual... but that would be disingenuous to the point of this post.
Talislanta - Niches? Sure. But the game is intentionally built around "the setting is the reality" so there are imbalances between the stats of the races, based on culture. There are skills - arguably too many, but easily managed. There are even editions where you have "levels" and "mini-class archetypes" which enforces niche-protection. But they're not necessary.
The larger point being is that I feel classes in the D&D sense are vestigial. I get people like the OSR aesthetic of simplicity. I suspect it's those that want a little more granularity that fall off that cliff into the Skill-based ocean, looking for that island of mechanical perfection that drives this conversation. I don't think anyone finds it until they understand the Niche protection/Skill-overload illusion dynamic. I don't think it's an either/or situation (but we all know we can come up with egregious examples where examples are plenty)
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 07, 2023, 09:38:55 AM
One could also just split the cleric's stuff up and give it to the main three. Buff the warrior's protective ability, give the buff/debuff via clever tricks/exploits to the thief and magic healing to the mage.
Allow half-classing; fighter/thief, fighter/mage and thief/mage; and maybe a jack-of-all-stats (red mage; fighter/mage/thief) and you've got more than enough combos for an average table to not need duplicates.
Or take a lesson from RuneQuest and have the religion being something you join:
If you follow the very strict restrictions of the Cult/Religion (don't eat meat on Wed during a full moon, donate 90% of your cash get the appropriate tattoos on your left hand) and you can Turn Dead, Cure Light Wounds, a few others cleric abilities. Slip in any obligation and not only do you lose the abilities but you lose the left hand or something else properly biblically harsh.
Quote
... mixing editions was part of the old school experience. In fact, when 2E came out, that became my main PHB with the 1E PHB as a backup. ...
... in the days of 1E, for example, 2E didn't exist yet. We had no idea that one would exist or what would even be in it. ... Obviously at least some of the stuff that ended up in 2E was drawn from the wish list of 1E gamers. So it stands to reason a lot of that stuff was already being done in actual 1E play even if it doesn't appear in any of the 1E books, belying the differences between the two editions as found in the actual texts.
I never played 2E but I do think a 2.5E that blended some of the kits into the core game would have been nice.
Broad classes with multiclassing turn into a effectively level based point buy anyways. When classes are part of a system, I like them to be exclusionary to represent competences that cannot be garnered during play. Does that mean a fighter shouldn't be able to take a level of wizard? If starting as a wizard represents years of apprenticeship and study, then no, a couple months campaigning and hanging out with a wizard is not same, and should not provide the same benefit. Overall, I prefer skill bases to assemble a set of skills representing my character concept and have it functional at start. The setting can always add exclusionary development tracks and quick builds can be accomplished by curating the options into a multi coarse menu. Randomization can be handled by randomizing a character concept and then stating it out.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 06, 2023, 10:30:52 PM
Most players now largely play games where their characters are already kitted out for a grand and epic adventure, but start off acting like nothing uncanny could possibly happen to them.
Could be. There was a time where "I only kill a PC if they do something stupid," was a near-universal mantra. Which of course really meant, "I won't let a PC die unless they do something stupid." And I always thought the problem with that is, once this sinks in, how else could you expect players to take it anytime something bad happens to their PC other than "Hey, are you calling me stupid?"
Quote(psst... By the way, what's "fidelity" mean?)
Fidelity: Faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances. When I say fidelity to the world as a GM, I mean I care more about the world making sense than the rules of the game. Look, we (science) hasn't even figured out what the rules are for the real world. And even if we did, the mechanics would be too complicated for a game. So I've always rejected the idea of RPG rules representing the game "physics." They're a rough model at best, and sometimes when it matters the model misses the mark. I don't fudge to force the story or to save PCs asses. I do fudge in those instances when I think the rules are not matching the feel or reality of the game world.
QuoteYeah! I've never been all too fond of the "Guess the Monster's AC" rigamarole, it's not exactly metagaming to tell your players that info ahead of time if they're going to find out through trial and error anyway.
I'm not a stickler for keeping monster ACs secret. I am a stickler, though, for acknowledging the differences between risk and uncertainty as economist Frank Knight used the terms. Risk, you don't know the outcome, but you know (or at least can figure out) the odds. Uncertainty, you don't know the odds. You may not even know all the possible outcomes. One of the key consequences of the distinction is you can in theory do math on risk to formulate optimal decisions. Under conditions of uncertainty, that's not possible. You have to go with your gut.
I think most situations in real life resemble uncertainty rather than risk. In RPGs, because we use specific rules and dice and randomizers, it's skewed heavily towards risk over uncertainty. So I do feel some need to try and undo that when I can. And keeping AC's secret certainly moves the needle in the right direction. It's just not something I personally can get passionate about. Technically, you never know when or if the DM has a secret modifier in play, so you don't actually know the odds just because you know your opponent's AC. You only think you do.
QuoteNow that you've mentioned it, historical armour was way less cumbersome and rigid than people assumed just by looking at the pieces on those stands. They were even far lighter than the replicas made today, because we can shape a much thicker gauge of steel now. In fact, you can do cartwheels in authentic sets of full plate fairly easily... just don't expect to sneak up on anyone while you're out on patrol!
I've often heard gamers bring up D&D's wargaming roots as support for whatever opinion they held bashing the game. In this case, the wargaming roots actually are relevant. The movement rates I believe had their roots in the overland movement of armies. Yeah. You can have a dude do cartwheel in plate armor. But have him march in that armor for 12 hours. And a few hundred other guys, too. And measure by the slowest of them. Then compare that to the same people marching unarmored. There's more than enough evidence for knowing how equipment and the weight of packs and gear slows down troop movements.
When you get to the individual PC level, it's a lot harder to reconcile cartwheels with AD&D movement rates. But at the same time I don't see Usain Bolt winning races in full battle armor. Cartwheels in armor is a good demonstration why weirdo combat penalties, like limiting Dex bonuses for heavier armors in 3E, are kind of silly. It stands to reason that armor made for battle should allow you to remain functional in battle. But there's definitely some movement hindrance in both march-scale movement and short scale sprints.
In Gary's Lejendary Adventure RPG, the movement speed penalties are roughly half as harsh as they are in AD&D. But also Speed in LA is a stat that can vary, often times the speed penalty can be offset just by having a higher stat. I don't have any particular proposed houserule for doing something similar in AD&D.
I will say fast guy is a valuable role in a party. Although terrain is also a major factor, in a sufficiently open area, the faster party is able to set the range at which combat will occur. If they are also able to out-range their slower adversaries, they will be able to take out enemies much more powerful than themselves. For this reason, Beholders are basically useless outside of their dungeon habitat. The last thing you want as a PC is to be this powerful badass that can be punked by 0th level longbowmen or horseman archers. So it helps to have a fast ranged fighter in the party.
QuoteIt seems like most of these considerations are easily accounted for during the Great Session Zero proposed by The AngryGM (great guy, if a bit high in blood pressure...)
I'm pretty meh on session zero. Mike Tyson said it best, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
QuoteAll you can do is roll with the dice and see what they come up with for your attributes, but that is also another big old-school feature as far as I understand it: the dice choose your class for you, which means that not every party was ever going to be "balanced" with all the roles filled right away.
Eh. The dice determine the attributes. But you still get to choose the class. You only need a 9 to qualify for the four basic classes. And if you're using 3d6, the vast majority of scores fit sufficiently in the middle where there's no obvious best choice of class to lay. When you are blessed with higher scores, it's often the case that you create interesting and highly effective characters by not choosing the obvious class.
Got a super high Dex? Consider playing a fighter. There's the AC bonus. But also a high Dex can mitigate the two-weapon fighting penalties. Having that extra attack will go a long way towards making you a better fighter. Or consider the illusionist. A very high Dex is a class requirement. You don't get to play the class otherwise.
Think high Int is wasted on a fighter? Two things to consider. First, a high Int lets you know additional languages. If you also have a high Chr and plan on using it to raise an army, consider that the additional languages opens up the field as to who you can recruit. Second, a 17 INT is required if you ever plan on switching classes to a magic-user. Why not just play a magic-user in the first place? A few levels of fighter will give you a nice hit point buffer to get past those low MU levels, and you can still swing a mean sword when your spells run out.
QuoteSpeaking of which, it's funny that people think that a cleric couldn't possibly get a little bit excited about the *prospects* of coins by the pound, and chests by the pallet. After all, they do want to put their money where their mouths are and put their share to a good cause.
Plus, ornate vestments to tend to make an impression on potential converts, don't they?
Well, also clerics can start their own church. It's an explicit cleric ability. You even get discount prices on labor and materials, presumably due to all the true believers out there. But you still gotta pay for those things somehow.
Paladins are more restricted in terms of keeping personal wealth. But one thing that's almost entirely overlooked about Paladins. Hella clout. All of those restrictions a Paladin must abide by actually set the paladin up for stacking loyalty bonuses. It gets to the point where you can very quickly get rando mercenaries you hire to become so loyal that they remain "fanatic" even after witnessing your PC die. Their morale never breaks. So when Paladins get tons of gold and even more magic items than they're allowed to keep from adventuring, they start giving them away and generate even more loyalty further and broader. Yeah. It doesn't hurt to have excess to give away in your mission to convert the world.
QuoteYou know, I think I can see how those "e-sports" games wound up with such deconstructed character roles when you put it such a way that lines up better than the stars bearing some dire news... I can't bring myself to call those things "archetypes" or even classes when they feel more like stat machines with pixel skins for a more coordinated, button mashing drool-fest, to hear the way the younger kin talk about them.
Maybe a little bit of realism goes a long way to help player's make good choices, and not just for the verisimilitude.
Bad AI comes to mind. A couple of my brothers, total amateurs, were making custom content for Neverwinter Nights and the Unreal Engine. And all they did was set some very basic tactics using tools that were
already available in the engine that completely changed which strategies work.
There were other things. Already built in, you can alter eye level, so that you could give a different play experience when playing characters of one of the short races. Already built in. Not used in commercial projects. There are tools for messing with the visual and audio to reflect different hearing and vision capabilities of different races. Not used in commercial projects. These, we can kind of see, okay, if you have to play test the game and have, say, 4 different races with 4 completely different experiences, that's 4 times the playtesting you have to do. We can understand those costs. But that doesn't explain why they don't do more with monster tactics.
I'm struggling to find a reason other than they're playing to their audience. And then you have to ask who is corrupting who? is the bad AI the result or cause of the bad gamer habits?
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:54:59 PMIn all of these systems, I saw the class system as a holdover getting in the way. It seemed more straightforward to just go with a skill-based system like Savage Worlds or OpenD6."
I tend to agree with this sentiment, but when it comes to class-based systems I tend to prefer broad generic classes with customization sprinkled on top regardless. Because specialized classes tend to be overly specific variations of generic classes anyways that never seem to quite live up to their role, pigeonhole you along a predetermined path, and add to bookkeeping, particularly if you want to/have to express every single possible role in the game world as its own overly specialized class. Then you end up with dozens of variations of what are essentially Warriors, Mystics and Skill Monkeys that never seem to encompass every possible role or cover everything that those roles could potentially do.
That being said, I think that so-called "skill-based", or perhaps more accurately "Freeform" systems are superior when it comes to customization and defining specific roles or "class" types than classes themselves, because they can cover every possible variation (at least as far as what's mechanically defined within the system is concerned) in ways that specialized classes cannot. Even when the oft repeated criticism that players in freeform systems tend to end up recreating classes is taken into account, the reality still remains those recreated classes are never 100% the same as any specific class, and you're still allowed to branch out from that class-like starting point in ways that class-based systems would never effectively cover or allow, even with multi-classing—which tends to be clunky, inefficient and unbalanced as hell, and never seems to quite produce the type of role that you're aiming for. Just a weird amalgamation of different classes that other players then complain about, particularly if there are perceived elements of so-called "power gaming", min-maxing or mismatched classes involved. Then the bitching and whining about what other people dare to play knows no end.
But get rid of classes and turn everything into a skill or special ability (Feat, Perk, Edge, Advantage, whatever) that players need to spend enough points or whatever, and need to qualify for to get, and that bitching and looking at other player's character sheet largely ends.
As far as niche protection is concerned, I honestly don't give a crap—at least in terms of affirming any particular class roles. And I have never played a game where characters were able to max out every skill and attribute, outside of a few video games with RPG elements. And that's only if the player has enough time on their hands and the game has enough stuff to do, with enough XP awards (or whatever the game uses), to actually allow that to happen in the first place. But no actual TTRPG I have ever read realistically allows that, outside of pure whiteroom speculation scenarios, cuz the costs are almost invariably too prohibitive to get there. And if you've ever run into that, I call shenanigans on the GM or how that game group handles character progression, cuz maxing out every single ability in actual tabletop play is next to impossible in basically every major "skill-based" systems out there as far as I know.
Even to the degree that this is a valid concern (which I don't entirely dispute, just find it VERY unlikely to actually happen in practice) the way I'm handling that in the system I'm currently working on is to assign fixed Priority Ratings for core abilities (called Disciplines in my game, which are somewhere between an attribute and a broad skill) that limit how high each ability can get. The PR you've assigned to a Discipline grants a bonus to its level based on its rating (Primary +4, Secondary +2 or Tertiary +0), which can go above the max level allowed in the game through ability progression. So that the absolute only way to reach the highest possible level in any discipline is to have Primary rating on it. Another way to do it could be to have different level/score caps based on PR, but I opted for the more positive approach of treating PR like a bonus instead. That way you can have relatively freeform development while enforcing a certain degree of specialization and distinction between characters in the game.
Quote from: VisionStorm on February 08, 2023, 07:02:22 AM
As far as niche protection is concerned, I honestly don't give a crap—at least in terms of affirming any particular class roles. And I have never played a game where characters were able to max out every skill and attribute, outside of a few video games with RPG elements. And that's only if the player has enough time on their hands and the game has enough stuff to do, with enough XP awards (or whatever the game uses), to actually allow that to happen in the first place. But no actual TTRPG I have ever read realistically allows that, outside of pure whiteroom speculation scenarios, cuz the costs are almost invariably too prohibitive to get there. And if you've ever run into that, I call shenanigans on the GM or how that game group handles character progression, cuz maxing out every single ability in actual tabletop play is next to impossible in basically every major "skill-based" systems out there as far as I know.
You don't need to max out every ability to see the problem emerge. You only need to push a handful of abilities too far. This is why Hero System 4E has an essay on setting Active Power limits. That was in no way a theoretical thing. I saw the exact problem it was addressing crop up over and over again in multiple campaigns, multiple genres, as player and GM. As a GM, I had to tinker with it a lot to get it fixed properly in any new campaign. Because the fact is, when you have abilities that scale like mad, there is no exact fix that will satisfy everyone. The GM has to decide just how crazy effective blinding a group of opponents is going to be, for example.
GURPS largely gets around this by capping off the upper end in 3E, though I can't say if 4E handled it, since I only know by reputation that it provided more options. That is, GURPS 3E had pretty severe limits built into the base system. The hard cap as its own problem in that it cuts out some harmless things that would be appropriate to some settings. (Even with flexible Active Point limits, Hero still has a touch of that, too. Small scale transforms are almost worthless, and then there is narrow setting appropriate window, followed by over-powered. )
Ascendant addresses this problem by using careful math and some thought in how it compartmentalizes its abilities. I can't say if it works or not, because it's style is not aimed at what my group would play.
I don't think there is any such a thing as niche protection. There's niche specialization.
Niches can't be "protected" by a system because niches are not fixed or preset things. They're things that emerge from a particular group dynamic. The same character might serve a different niche if transplanted into a different party. In Idiocracy, Joe goes from being the most average man in the world in the present to the most intelligent man in the world in the future.
Once a niche is discovered, if the game then allows you to develop and advance your character according to that niche, then you have niche specialization. When presented with the options of lead, follow, or get out of the way, Joe's new niche in the future caused him to grow from someone who gets out of the way to someone who leads.
This distinction in terms is important. If you think niches are something that can be protected, it's only natural to think then a class-based game is the one that does that. But if you understand that it can only be specialized in, then it's the skill-based game that are more supportive of niches.
As a demonstration of the point, an actual experience myself and a lot of gamers had was, back in the day, if you were playing a fighter, you were the best at fighting. But then along comes barbarian and cavalier, and then it kind of felt fighters were overshadowed. That you had fighter as a class was completely incapable of protecting your niche. Because when you got transported to a world with a different set of character types, your niche changed.
There's this ever-present thing sometimes called "comparative advantage." You could have Joe the Fighter and Fred the Fighter. And Fred's player is a min-maxer and figured out a way to make Fred better than Joe at melee attacks, better than Joe at ranged fighting, and be tougher than Joe to boot. Sounds like a lot of trampling on toes.
Until you get into an actual play.
Joe, it turns out, has a comparative advantage as the party's archer. Why? If Fred is better? And it's because Fred's toughness becomes of less value when he's not up front blocking. The cost of giving up that value is a lot higher for Fred than it is for Joe. Joe doesn't lose that much value because he doesn't have a crazy high toughness. So the opportunity cost for Joe is lower to take up the role of ranged fighter. Fred just can't be in two places at once.
Now once play begins, Fred's player continues to min max as his character advances. "Hey, If I'm not going to be firing my bow anyway, why waste slots specializing in it? I should just put everything into melee." Meanwhile, Joe does the opposite and does specialize in ranged fighting since that's what Joe does. Before long Joe is actually better than Fred at ranged combat in an absolute sense. When they divy up loot, Fred takes the magic sword while Joe takes the magic bow. Fred raises Strength while Joe raises Dex.
Even class-based games are totally capable of supporting niche specialization. It's just skill-based games usually let you specialize a lot quicker. Which is not necessarily good or bad. Maybe it should be a struggle to adapt to a new niche.
QuoteOne issue I've always seen with skill-based system is a tendency for anything cool to be knicked by others in short order so your character loses their uniqueness relative to the others. This is particularly true in games with caps on performance. Once you've established that 10 levels is the max for a skill you're going to hit a point where everyone can fight equally well, cast equally well and skill monkey equally well. It gets especially notable in specific genres where a few key skills/attributes are just so much more important than the others... ex. Mecha piloting in a mecha game.
Well yes, but it is example of game with strong genre theme, and narrow profession focus.
If you instead run game without specific focus - where you can play anyone in the world - Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer, then such exploit is not really possible, unless campaign itself will push players to work in the same profession, and you'd have to play really impossibly long time to acquire characters good in everything everywhere all at once.
Otherwise - your dedicated thief will always outthief your priest, unless for some weird reason your thief cease to practice thievery, and priest priestly duties.
Quote from: VisionStorm on February 08, 2023, 07:02:22 AM
But get rid of classes and turn everything into a skill or special ability (Feat, Perk, Edge, Advantage, whatever) that players need to spend enough points or whatever, and need to qualify for to get, and that bitching and looking at other player's character sheet largely ends.
When you put it that way, it seems like you're just bending over backwards for a few people that will never be happy.
I'd just let those guys kick themselves out of my games.
That being said, I wouldn't mind borrowing from a system like Traveller, where much of a skill set is determined by a background package drawing from homeworld, class trades, education and training, and the necessity of life events. Skills should provide some degree of granularity in a setting or party that might call for it--like that all-knight party that was brought up. The class just might give a proficiency bonus only to synergistic skills.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 07, 2023, 11:24:38 PM
"Hey, are you calling me stupid?"
"No, but your mother still loves you."
Ha! Quite the insecure gaggle.
Quote
When I say fidelity to the world as a GM, I mean I care more about the world making sense than the rules of the game.
So I've always rejected the idea of RPG rules representing the game "physics."
The Rule of Spool: Keep that yarn yardin'!
Yeah fair, it kind of asks the game a lot to accomplish something in explicit units when all it really deals with is a percentage of happenstance. This issue of micromanaged laws of nature even extends to damage as well: Try as you might, it would be far easier to just say "Your character dies" when falling from a certifiably fatal height, rather than try to painstakingly scale the falling damage to the micron of the final splat. For non-magical fire, I mean, you could have multipliers of heat damage for every ten cubic feet of burning room, or as the DM you could just say, "It's too hot, you die."
Thankfully, no one makes dice that randomly determines cubic-kilometers of dragon's breath, or blood-drained-in-one-night by the gallon. You could never figure out how much aether you need to pull from the cosmos if you had to actually measure it by the cup to cast any spells, since as far as Science can tell, there isn't any aether to measure, so we have no baseline to make decimalized dice rolls for that anyway.
Quote
I am a stickler, though, for acknowledging the differences between risk and uncertainty as economist Frank Knight used the terms. Risk, you don't know the outcome, but you know (or at least can figure out) the odds. Uncertainty, you don't know the odds. You may not even know all the possible outcomes. One of the key consequences of the distinction is you can in theory do math on risk to formulate optimal decisions. Under conditions of uncertainty, that's not possible. You have to go with your gut.
I think most situations in real life resemble uncertainty rather than risk. In RPGs, because we use specific rules and dice and randomizers, it's skewed heavily towards risk over uncertainty. So I do feel some need to try and undo that when I can. And keeping AC's secret certainly moves the needle in the right direction. It's just not something I personally can get passionate about. Technically, you never know when or if the DM has a secret modifier in play, so you don't actually know the odds just because you know your opponent's AC. You only think you do.
I'm guessing this is what you really mean when you say that few players take up the monomyth mantle at all? Much of the emergent story that happens in the game simply will not boil down to some clattering dice. Either your in, or your out, and the world moves on without you... Or, it doesn't, depending on the call to adventure. The hero might find reasons to refuse that call, but in the end there is no other road to take, and as a player you should only be doing so to fish for the right hook, not reject your fortunes entirely...
I just realized that many people would tragically refer to that as "railroading" the story, except that it's such a basic pattern of human storytelling that you might as well be trying to racially identify as an alien, or a djinni (or a stubborn mule, more like!) So what if some uncouth braggart happens to dangle a damsel in distress along your way to the Grail?
You're just going to leave her hanging like that?!
Quote
Yeah. You can have a dude do cartwheel in plate armor. But have him march in that armor for 12 hours. And a few hundred other guys, too. And measure by the slowest of them. Then compare that to the same people marching unarmored. There's more than enough evidence for knowing how equipment and the weight of packs and gear slows down troop movements.
Cartwheels in armor is a good demonstration why weirdo combat penalties, like limiting Dex bonuses for heavier armors in 3E, are kind of silly. It stands to reason that armor made for battle should allow you to remain functional in battle. But there's definitely some movement hindrance in both march-scale movement and short scale sprints.
I will say fast guy is a valuable role in a party. Although terrain is also a major factor, in a sufficiently open area, the faster party is able to set the range at which combat will occur. If they are also able to out-range their slower adversaries, they will be able to take out enemies much more powerful than themselves. For this reason, Beholders are basically useless outside of their dungeon habitat. The last thing you want as a PC is to be this powerful badass that can be punked by 0th level longbowmen or horseman archers. So it helps to have a fast ranged fighter in the party.
This really explains the follower and henchmen rules then! A warrior out adventurin' needs to save up the cold gold in order to afford the kinds of beasts of burden and attendants that (respectively--watch that loyalty score!) carry and maintain his full plate for him. That means the rules for playing a knight have always been part of the game for that class, it's just that you start off from coin-o uno! All you'd need to do to add the paladin class at all would be to write out a set of oaths that your warrior can choose from—there was never a need for some of these hardcoded classes at all!
To be fair, the rules do explicitly mention that all characters are assumed to be sneaking about as quietly as they possibly can, which would be much more exhausting to do in full plate during the equivalent numbers of hours spent marching would imply, even if you can manage not to clink and scrape and clatter with each step somehow. Imagine being hunched over, searching thirty square feet for a few hours, before needing to move on the next room to do the exact same thing... forget healing potions, the game would need stamina potions, and a way for the characters to juggle them all silently, along with the rest of their encumbrances.
So as a warrior, you'd want to save your plate mail for those instances that you can convince an outpost of solders to raid an orc camp with you, rather than the six or so of you as a party trying to take on (*rolls dice, checks tables*) 27 orcs with their own chieftain all at the same time! Now that's what I call *cavalier!* No wonder people were asking for more and more powers, and a reliable way to balance the monster encounters against these new abilities!
Quote
I'm pretty meh on session zero. Mike Tyson said it best, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
Whoa! Is there still a way that you can take some *evasive action*?!
Quote
Eh. The dice determine the attributes. But you still get to choose the class. You only need a 9 to qualify for the four basic classes. And if you're using 3d6, the vast majority of scores fit sufficiently in the middle where there's no obvious best choice of class to lay. When you are blessed with higher scores, it's often the case that you create interesting and highly effective characters by not choosing the obvious class.
Got a super high Dex? Consider playing a fighter. There's the AC bonus. But also a high Dex can mitigate the two-weapon fighting penalties. Having that extra attack will go a long way towards making you a better fighter. Or consider the illusionist. A very high Dex is a class requirement. You don't get to play the class otherwise.
Think high Int is wasted on a fighter? Two things to consider. First, a high Int lets you know additional languages. If you also have a high Chr and plan on using it to raise an army, consider that the additional languages opens up the field as to who you can recruit. Second, a 17 INT is required if you ever plan on switching classes to a magic-user. Why not just play a magic-user in the first place? A few levels of fighter will give you a nice hit point buffer to get past those low MU levels, and you can still swing a mean sword when your spells run out.
Hey, you're right! It's sort of like a lateral optimization, a min-maxing without the enslavement to false stereotypes. "There is no dump stat," in the sense that "there is no spoon" (as long as you *play your cards*--er, dice--well.)
In fact, you can go the opposite direction: Conan began his life as a thief on the streets of a slummy city, before moving on to be a pirate for much of his years long before taking the Aquilonian Throne as its King--and knowing this, the Screen Rant makes sense in making the case for Conan really being a Rogue instead of a Berserker with a magical rage ability. In the all-human world of Howards' Hyperborea, "barbarian" is really Conan's background, even his "race" altogether! Of course, he became a man far removed from his home culture, and for this, we don't truly know what powers the Cimmerian warriors ever had.
Quote
Well, also clerics can start their own church. It's an explicit cleric ability. You even get discount prices on labor and materials, presumably due to all the true believers out there. But you still gotta pay for those things somehow.
Of course! Each class had a means to spend oodles of gold beyond divvying up what they owed to their sidekicks and helpers, and these lairs powered the idea of an epic level campaign that was already baked into the game mechanics.
Then again, Gygax at the time still thought of D&D only as a means to introduce more players to wargaming, rather than being an end unto itself. You'd have adjust your ideas of what an "epic level campaign" is to understand this thinking, otherwise you get into the issues presented by third edition, wherein you try to roleplay demi-gods that never die--unlike Achilles.
Quote
Paladins are more restricted in terms of keeping personal wealth--
*AUUUUGH!!*
(Isn't there some cute and helpless princess shopping in a royal market somewhere that you should be babysitting?!)
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:54:59 PM
So I've been looking over Worlds Without Number, and I'm curious about the implementation of broad classes in practice. I'm familiar with the generic class concept from Call of Cthulhu D20, D20 Modern and True20.
- Call of Cthulhu D20: two classes = Offensive and Defensive
- D20 Modern: six classes = Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
- True20: three classes = Expert, Adept, Warrior
In all of these systems, I saw the class system as a holdover getting in the way. It seemed more straightforward to just go with a skill-based system like Savage Worlds or OpenD6. In Savage Worlds, you have skills and edges. In True20, you have skills and feats - and the class mechanics are another mechanical layer in addition. To me, it didn't seem to be adding anything.
Are the broad generic classes in Worlds Without Number different in practice? Or do people who like WWN's broad generic classes also like them in these earlier systems?
As mentioned elsewhere, Crawfords latest kickstarter, Cities Without Number is fully skill based. It IS compatable with SWN/WWN.
Kevin is also freely sharing the betas of the kickstarter, and will have a free edition of the game when completed.
From the kickstarter update:
Munificent patrons,
The race has begun. How far will Cities Without Number get? With your generous support, you've pushed it further along, and I'm grateful for your consideration.
As promised, the Google Docs link below will take you to the folder where the CWN betas are being kept. You are welcome to share these betas with other people who are interested in them, whether potential players or interested forums.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12HH1k-ZTV_TnoQmJqXQre9jGak-9pq1d?usp=sharing
Now, onward. There are many pieces of the rough draft yet to fit in place, and much art to be arranged, and all the other thousand tasks that come from making a book. With the help of your support, you may be confident that their fruits will come to you as promised.
With regards,
Kevin Crawford
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12HH1k-ZTV_TnoQmJqXQre9jGak-9pq1d?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12HH1k-ZTV_TnoQmJqXQre9jGak-9pq1d?usp=sharing)
Personally I don't like class based systems, so the idea of the CWN "operator" appeals to me.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 08, 2023, 10:49:07 PM
I'm guessing this is what you really mean when you say that few players take up the monomyth mantle at all? Much of the emergent story that happens in the game simply will not boil down to some clattering dice. Either your in, or your out, and the world moves on without you... Or, it doesn't, depending on the call to adventure. The hero might find reasons to refuse that call, but in the end there is no other road to take, and as a player you should only be doing so to fish for the right hook, not reject your fortunes entirely...
I just realized that many people would tragically refer to that as "railroading" the story, except that it's such a basic pattern of human storytelling that you might as well be trying to racially identify as an alien, or a djinni (or a stubborn mule, more like!) So what if some uncouth braggart happens to dangle a damsel in distress along your way to the Grail?
You're just going to leave her hanging like that?!
I think the reason you see monomyth come up so universally across cultures is because the anatomy of the Campbell's monomyth correlates to the anatomy of human action as broken down by Ludwig von Mises. The stories are universal because they dramatize just about every little thing we do. So if it doesn't fit the bill of railroading, it fits the bill of illusionism. Unfortunately that's just how reality works, though. So even if the use of terms like railroading or illusionism can be justified, it's not a helpful way of distinguishing good from bad.
It's actually a common element in the monomyth that the hero is reluctant to take on the journey. You want to make it a habit as a player to always refuse the first hook and take the second, that's fine. It builds a little drama. It also tests the GM. The GM should have a backup plan. It gets to be a problem if you continue to refuse. By the third hook, it's hard not to notice a pattern of all these odd events all pointing you in the same direction. That's the point at which the GM gets accused of railroading.
But you could also think of it like this. You've got a neckbeard living in his mom's basement. His parents keep nagging him to get a job. He goes on line to chat with babes, and they ghost him when they find out he's unemployed. He feels depressed and goes to see a therapist. The therapist asks him if he has a job. He goes to escape into his favorite video game. He's excited about the new DLC. He goes to buy it, but his payment is rejected. His account balance is negative. If only he had a job, he'd have some income.
Here there's also a pattern of all these odd events pointing all in the same direction. But there's no conspiracy. No invisible GM in the sky trying to railroad him into getting a job. It's only natural that the thing that most needs doing is key to solving a multitude of problems. That's exactly what makes it the thing that most needs doing. The monomyth is just a dramatized version of that.
QuoteWhoa! Is there still a way that you can take some *evasive action*?!
Possibly. If you train and prepare for it. That's the point. I don't need a session zero to discuss expectations, just always expect a punch in the face.
A real easy example. Some GMs fudge so PCs don't die. Others let the dice fall where they may. And you can discuss that in advance, sure. Is your PC going to die? If you have the first GM, the answer is no. If you have the second GM, the answer isn't quite yes. It's maybe. So what if you don't know which DM you have? What's the answer? It's maybe. Same as if you know it's the second type of GM. So the second type doesn't need a session zero.
I think RPGers often get way too hopped up in thinking they can just set all the dials and that it's all just a matter of muh preference. As if getting punched in the face is a preference rather than just a thing that sometimes happens. I prefer to just be a Type II GM and let all that noise just roll off my back.
QuoteHey, you're right! It's sort of like a lateral optimization, a min-maxing without the enslavement to false stereotypes. "There is no dump stat," in the sense that "there is no spoon" (as long as you *play your cards*--er, dice--well.)
I don't think it's strictly impossible for dump stats to exist. Imagine two different approaches to game design. One says, "Strength is for Fighters, Dex is for Thieves, Intelligence for Mages, and Charisma to please. Con is for dwarfs, and Wisdom for divine grace, a place for everything, and everything in its place." The other says, "Okay, here's a bunch of classes and stats that fit my world. Oh jeez, now what use would Int be to a fighter? Let me think of something to make that make sense."
In the first approach, I think it would take a miracle of coincidences to be completely free of dump stats. In the second type, where it's well thought-out, I think there are going to be a wider range of viable ways to play.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 08, 2023, 05:31:28 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on February 08, 2023, 07:02:22 AM
But get rid of classes and turn everything into a skill or special ability (Feat, Perk, Edge, Advantage, whatever) that players need to spend enough points or whatever, and need to qualify for to get, and that bitching and looking at other player's character sheet largely ends.
When you put it that way, it seems like you're just bending over backwards for a few people that will never be happy.
I'd just let those guys kick themselves out of my games.
That take kinda misses the point I was trying to make, which is that classes suck at handling this kind of stuff, not that I love them so much I can't stand people whining about multiclass combos. A lot of these issues are valid concerns that get solved by focusing the system on skills and special abilities, rather than classes. I just hate the way that people blame it on "min-maxers", like other people dealing with the hand they're dealt and making the best of it (ie. "min-maxing" class combos when all you have are classes) are the real problem, instead of the system being trash.
That's fair, maybe Reckall somewhat addressed what you're getting at from the
D&D 3.5 fans? thread:
Quote from: Reckall on February 10, 2023, 06:19:22 AM
The two best things this edition offered were the incredible amount of "tool-boxy" material and the quality of the writing (I'm strictly talking about WotC's products). [...]
There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding this edition. Some "players" tried to show that it was "broken" by creating Thanos-level characters. They always forgot how:
A) 20th level Characters don't spring in existence fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. They evolve organically. [...] All of sudden, the characters' "builds" makes them unprepared for the new situation. This is how a real campaign works.
B) A corollary of the above: no one ever said that [Gary Oldman]EEEEEEEEVERYTHIIIINGG!!![/Gary Oldman] in the books is available. [...] When the players scream foul, the DM can simply point out how every official world has specific rules. Dragonlance starts with no clerics. The Forgotten Realms have Regional Feats. The list goes on.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/dd-3-5-fans/45/ (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/dd-3-5-fans/45/)
Min-maxers seem not to care about the
consistency of the game's story elements, regardless of what character options are available. Gonzo campaign material probably exists because of them, but in that sense it allows you to keep the peace and still play a game with a plot without a coherent genre/theme to accompany it. It fits as an eclectic, pulp/weird fiction aesthetic dialed to a hallucinatory 11.
A system that comes "out of the box" with that level of customization and granularity just smooths that process over, especially but not limited to those circumstances of setting. Sci-fi/cyberpunk games probably need far more customization than what I'm guessing has to be the Sword & Sorcery style of gameplay that the OD&D system began with (Gygax was clearly a fan of Lovecraft and Howard, so it fits). It's a matter of distinct design philosophies of resourceful and pragmatic vs mythic and heroic characters. Not saying that you couldn't have a medieval game that accounts for these things, and Star Wars is essentially S&S in hyperspace.
What i've never liked about classes is that a ranger gets better at wilderness things after going into a dungeon and accumulating treasure and deathcount. Same with a thief and other classes. In a skill system typically you advance in the things you actually do which makes more sense. This is particularly bad in 5E when you get a bunch of little class related goodies every level. I guess this is a small sacrifice to realism but still its odd.
That might be more of a problem with the ranger class existing at all.
Or, the inverse: Only ever adventuring in dungeons.
The GM just has to restrict classes for the sake of the setting.
Or, "ranger" should just be a background.
QuoteWhat i've never liked about classes is that a ranger gets better at wilderness things after going into a dungeon and accumulating treasure and deathcount. Same with a thief and other classes. In a skill system typically you advance in the things you actually do which makes more sense. This is particularly bad in 5E when you get a bunch of little class related goodies every level. I guess this is a small sacrifice to realism but still its odd.
Well in old editions you advanced in class by paying professional trainers during downtime.
So you could advance more without relation to your dungeon crawl.
I think generally D&D is too much gamist game to really ache about such anti-simulation elements. It was like... never part of the promise.
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 11, 2023, 07:30:18 PM
Well in old editions you advanced in class by paying professional trainers during downtime.
So you could advance more without relation to your dungeon crawl.
And also the PHB ranger did NOT improve in "wilderness" skills by dungeon crawling.
And also also, all of the quantified "wilderness"--ambush and tracking abilities--were also usable in a dungeon.
I mean basically none of the gripes sensible people agree on are actually true.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 09, 2023, 01:18:52 PM
It's actually a common element in the monomyth that the hero is reluctant to take on the journey. You want to make it a habit as a player to always refuse the first hook and take the second, that's fine. It builds a little drama. It also tests the GM. The GM should have a backup plan. It gets to be a problem if you continue to refuse. By the third hook, it's hard not to notice a pattern of all these odd events all pointing you in the same direction. That's the point at which the GM gets accused of railroading.
Why wouldn't anyone want to be hooked by gold and glory?! Oh wait, I forgot that it doesn't gel with their precious *character motivations,* if not their sense of aGeNcY!
Quote
But you could also think of it like this. You've got a neckbeard living in his mom's basement. His parents keep nagging him to get a job. He goes on line to chat with babes, and they ghost him when they find out he's unemployed. He feels depressed and goes to see a therapist. The therapist asks him if he has a job. He goes to escape into his favorite video game. He's excited about the new DLC. He goes to buy it, but his payment is rejected. His account balance is negative. If only he had a job, he'd have some income.
Here there's also a pattern of all these odd events pointing all in the same direction. But there's no conspiracy. No invisible GM in the sky trying to railroad him into getting a job. It's only natural that the thing that most needs doing is key to solving a multitude of problems. That's exactly what makes it the thing that most needs doing. The monomyth is just a dramatized version of that.
Sounds like a real winner... Whatever he stockpiles, it won't be glittering gold!
Quote
I don't think it's strictly impossible for dump stats to exist. Imagine two different approaches to game design. One says, "Strength is for Fighters, Dex is for Thieves, Intelligence for Mages, and Charisma to please. Con is for dwarfs, and Wisdom for divine grace, a place for everything, and everything in its place." The other says, "Okay, here's a bunch of classes and stats that fit my world. Oh jeez, now what use would Int be to a fighter? Let me think of something to make that make sense."
In the first approach, I think it would take a miracle of coincidences to be completely free of dump stats. In the second type, where it's well thought-out, I think there are going to be a wider range of viable ways to play.
*Ahem* I do think you mean: "...Con is for dwarves, Wisdom for grace, a place for them all, and all in their place."
What do you think about the idea of ability score improvements? I don't think they were ever part of the core rules for the old-school games.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 13, 2023, 04:51:51 PM
Why wouldn't anyone want to be hooked by gold and glory?! Oh wait, I forgot that it doesn't jive with their precious *character motivations,* if not their sense of aGeNcY!
A lot of players are also hesitant to have close relationships with NPCs, be it in the background or during play, because there's always some suspicion that the GM will exploit it as a plot hook. And I'm sure some GMs do abuse that. But the bottom line is the same as it is with players who thumb their noses at gold as being too materialistic for their characters. An excuse for inaction. Even when it's not gold, even when it's something deeply personal to the character, even when it's consistent with the character's motivations. There's just a resistance to being pushed into action.
And "muh agency" is as much a red herring as "materialism bad." Muh agency is always approached with the baseless assumption that we're talking about some power struggle between the underdog player and the tyrannical GM. But quite frankly that's just stupid. The GM has an infinite number of characters. They don't lose if one of their characters is unfairly undermined. And also the GM is always there. Your loner character goes off to be alone, the GM is still participating in that scene, telling you what happens next. It's the other players that are iced out. And it's the other players that suffer when one player does something that is monumentally unfun for the rest of the group. If anything, players compete with one another for their agency. Not the GM. It's not a negative thing for a GM that pecker slap down a player who is stepping on the other players toes.
By the way, the monomyth DOES account for the "hero" who does not take on the adventure. Joseph Campbell's prime example of that being King Minos who takes on the "anti-adventure" by refusing every call to action. And the consequence is losing everything one by one. I just don't think that sounds like a whole lot of fun. So I'm going to go ahead and veto that and say, sorry, not a valid way to play. Not at this table. I could be wrong. Maybe with the right players and the right story it COULD be fun. Everyone is free to run their own game and prove it can work. But I don't think there's even a single example floating around that even claims to make wallowing in misery a howling good time. I haven't seen it, anyway.
QuoteWhat do you think about the idea of ability score improvements? I don't think they were ever part of the core rules for the old-school games.
I'm not especially fond of it being tied to level advancement. I prefer it be tied to circumstance so that even your character statistics are unique to your PC's unique experiences playing through adventures, and that PC, once lost, can never be replicated by any legal "character build" except by chances so extreme that you won't live long enough to see it.
Obviously plenty of RPGs allow you raise attributes in lieu of spending those points on something else. No reason to call fowl there.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 13, 2023, 04:51:51 PM
What do you think about the idea of ability score improvements? I don't think they were ever part of the core rules for the old-school games.
Tékumel's original ruleset (1975) had attributes rolled on 1d100, and at every level up you had IIRC a 4% chance to increase a randomly selected attribute by 5 and a 1% chance to increase it by 10.