Are classes and levels necessary for a D&D "feel" game?
Is there another way to handle their strong archetype and focused power gain which would work for a D&D style "inspired" game?
I'm not a big fan of classes myself or levels. I prefer custom built characters not only built with the rules but built to fit an individual campaign. Hence why High Valor is completely free of that--sure people get professions, which they can call upon for doing that professions tasks, but it isn't any better or worse than any other trait the PC picks to utilize for rolls (so long as thematically they fit the roll the character is attempting?)
Quote from: Silverlion;526059Are classes and levels necessary for a D&D "feel" game?
Yes. Without classes and levels, it's not D&D (to me).
D&D without classes and levels would probably feel more like Runequest.
Quote from: Benoist;526060Yes. Without classes and levels, it's not D&D (to me).
Exactly!
Quote from: Silverlion;526059Are classes and levels necessary for a D&D "feel" game?
Classes and Levels are so integral to D&D, that the original draft of OD&D by Gygax was called "Classes & Levels".
Quote from: Rum Cove;526069Classes and Levels are so integral to D&D, that the original draft of OD&D by Gygax was called "Classes & Levels".
+1 :)
While you could probably make a D&D-ish game without classes and levels, they really are integral to the concept of what D&D is and what it does. D&D may not have the best implementation of classes and levels, but classes and levels are certainly the best implementation of D&D.
Quote from: Silverlion;526059Are classes and levels necessary for a D&D "feel" game?
They definitely are required for a game to feel like D&D to me.
Me too.
Have to go with the crowd.
You could however make a game where a player can either choose to have a class & level, or not.
e.g. Rolemaster had "No Profession" characters; Synnibarr had "Non Classed Adventurers" who used points instead of getting set class features; I had a go at building a game awhile back where characters could take a "class" by buying a sets of skills of the same level as a bundle with a cost discount, or just buy skills individually.
I don't like them, but I think they are the prominent frame around the experience... at least the first that comes to mind for me.
The rest of the stuff, the bits I like about D&D, I can pretty much pull off with other (non-C&L) systems.
The Classic Fantasy books for BRP seem to have garnered a good bit of popularity for capturing that residual flavor.
Quote from: Silverlion;526059Are classes and levels necessary for a D&D "feel" game?
Yes. No question.
(And I'd even say that grafting on some sort of skill system starts making it feel less like D&D, to me.)
Yes. No classes and no levels = no D&D.
Quote from: B.T.;526099No classes and no levels = no D&D.
No classes and no levels = no D&D = a really crappy version of Runequest using a d20 (instead of d100).
:banghead:
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;526090I had a go at building a game awhile back where characters could take a "class" by buying a sets of skills of the same level as a bundle with a cost discount, or just buy skills individually.
That is the same idea I had when pondering game design. Getting the costs, or specifically the discounts, so it wasn't punishing to choose one option over the other is a bit of a sticky wicket.
Quote from: StormBringer;526121That is the same idea I had when pondering game design. Getting the costs, or specifically the discounts, so it wasn't punishing to choose one option over the other is a bit of a sticky wicket.
Yeah true...
With the system I was doing I had a number of disadvantages characters could choose, any of which gave a 50% cost discount. So a classed PC and a Non Classed Adventurer (NCA) could in practice have the same amount of skill ranks, except the NCAs would have various other problems with their skills instead. (they hadn't been apprenticed/belonged to a guild that would give them proper training, so they would have problems like combat skills being limited to only a few weapons, spell misfires from dodgy magic training, randomly-determined skills, etc.).
The classed characters technically had the [Linked] disadvantage on their skills, meaning they just had the problem that all their skills had to be raised at the same time.
Quote from: Silverlion;526059Are classes and levels necessary for a D&D "feel" game?
Classes and levels are necessary for AD&D. I don't know what is necessary to make a game that isn't D&D into D&D. The closest thing to AD&D I have played that isn't AD&D is Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. But WHFRP has very clearly delineated classes, Exits and Entries notwithstanding.
However, the goal of WHFRP from the trigger end is to keep the players down in the shit, and if they think they have "it", take it away from them and knock them down again.
Quote from: Silverlion;526059Are classes and levels necessary for a D&D "feel" game?
Yes, absolutely. They are necessary not only for D&D; there is a certain kind of fantasy I cannot imagine without classes and levels. For example, I wouldn't want a Rolemaster without classes and levels.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;526150Yeah true...
With the system I was doing I had a number of disadvantages characters could choose, any of which gave a 50% cost discount. So a classed PC and a Non Classed Adventurer (NCA) could in practice have the same amount of skill ranks, except the NCAs would have various other problems with their skills instead. (they hadn't been apprenticed/belonged to a guild that would give them proper training, so they would have problems like combat skills being limited to only a few weapons, spell misfires from dodgy magic training, randomly-determined skills, etc.).
The classed characters technically had the [Linked] disadvantage on their skills, meaning they just had the problem that all their skills had to be raised at the same time.
I am not such a big fan of ads/disads, but I can see making the skills linked as a condition of the skills package discount.
But it all depends on the ads/disads in question, too. :)
Anything that notably deviates from OD&D doesn't feel like D&D to me. Just having classes & levels doesn't make either 3e or Rifts feel like D&D to me.
But that would never stop me from trying a cool new fantasy game. I don't need anything other than OD&D to feel like D&D to me.
Quote from: Silverlion;526059Are classes and levels necessary for a D&D "feel" game?
I would say, yes.
Quote from: Silverlion;526059Is there another way to handle their strong archetype and focused power gain which would work for a D&D style "inspired" game?
I think the character archetype templates of the d6 system would work in a pinch. It is one of the strengths of the d6
Star Wars system - when you say your character is a smuggler, brash pilot, gambler, or young senatorial then anyone who has seen the movies has a good idea of who you are and what your character is capable of.
Quote from: ggroy;526062D&D without classes and levels would probably feel more like Runequest.
You say that like it is a bad thing?
Quote from: Darran;526232You say that like it is a bad thing?
I like Runequest. However, when I want to play D&D, using the RQ rules and calling it D&D would not satisfy my D&D itch.
Quote from: Spinachcat;526188Anything that notably deviates from OD&D doesn't feel like D&D to me. Just having classes & levels doesn't make either 3e or Rifts feel like D&D to me.
But that would never stop me from trying a cool new fantasy game. I don't need anything other than OD&D to feel like D&D to me.
I agree, there's more to fantasy RPGs than D&D, and that's cool but I'll say it. D&D is not D&D without classes and levels, you'd clearly be playing something else.
Pretty much the results I expected. I'm just musing on the general Sacred Cows of D&D and which ones need to be kept for D&D relatives. Mostly because there is a new one I saw for review lacking true classes and making me think "Man, what?"
Don't worry I wouldn't drop classes from a D&Dlike game. Just wondering what other people thought on the general concept. (I'm not writing one anyway--at least not any time in the next two years.)
Quote from: Darran;526232You say that like it is a bad thing?
No.
I would be playing Runequest more, if I had a regular local group interested in it.
Quote from: Simlasa;526092I don't like them, but I think they are the prominent frame around the experience... at least the first that comes to mind for me.
The rest of the stuff, the bits I like about D&D, I can pretty much pull off with other (non-C&L) systems.
The Classic Fantasy books for BRP seem to have garnered a good bit of popularity for capturing that residual flavor.
yep, my feelings too. no experience with rolemaster (i own a copy of MERP, but never ran it) but that seemed like a combination of d&d and brp--classes & levels, but with lotsa skills.
hells, rifts is just gonzo d&d, really. classes & levels, xp and lotsa loot.
Quote from: RandallS;526234I like Runequest. However, when I want to play D&D, using the RQ rules and calling it D&D would not satisfy my D&D itch.
This 100%. I'm a big fan of RuneQuest and BRP, but from time to time I feel the classes and levels itch, and RuneQuest cannot soothe it. The problem is, I haven't found yet my perfect class and levels game, although Dragon Age comes very close. Something with skills and feat-like special abilities, but simple.
I generally prefer skill based systems, but when I want D&D, I want classes and levels.
I guess you could sum up my feelings as thus: Remove anything that Dave Arneson came up with, and it's no longer D&D.
Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;526346I guess you could sum up my feelings as thus: Remove anything that Dave Arneson came up with, and it's no longer D&D.
what's the differences betw. his and EGG's material?
honest question, i came into the hobby w/ moldvay basic. . . .
Quote from: beeber;526350what's the differences betw. his and EGG's material?
honest question, i came into the hobby w/ moldvay basic. . . .
Dave was the one who introduced a lot of the core concepts of the game, from dungeon exploring, classes, a neutral referee (DM), hit points, assuming the role of one character (talking as the character would talk), etc.
Too bad Gary tends to get all the credit for inventing RPGs, when it was actually Dave who brought it from "mini-wargaming" to "role-playing"
Quote from: ggroy;526113No classes and no levels = no D&D = a really crappy version of Runequest using a d20 (instead of d100).
:banghead:
Pretty much.
Quote from: Marleycat;526353Pretty much.
Unexamined assumptions etc...
Sometimes you've got to take a look at what people really think, and that means asking questions.
Quote from: Silverlion;526432Unexamined assumptions etc...
Sometimes you've got to take a look at what people really think, and that means asking questions.
I am just in agreement that without classes and levels it is not Dnd to me it where I draw the line. No vancian magic fine, other stuff fine. But without classes and levels it just doesn't feel right to me. It's part of Dnd to talk about your 45th level Paladin/Wizard to some person that has not one clue what an rpg is, it's part of the fun.:D
Classes and levels are absolutely needed for the game to be definable even in the most general sense as "D&D".
RPGPundit
Quote from: Silverlion;526266I'm just musing on the general Sacred Cows of D&D and which ones need to be kept for D&D relatives.
What I find interesting is what is "sacred cow" in the reading of a D&D edition versus the playing of a D&D edition.
Classes & Levels may be sacred cows, but in actual play during a game session you are neither focused on either your character's class or their level. It simply exists to define the parameters of what powers / skills / martial might you can bring to the encounters.
The class of "Magic-User" was special when it was the only one who could cast arcane spells. By 3e, there were a plethora of classes who invaded this niche.
And "low level" has its own conundrums. In OD&D, a 4th level character was mid-level, but in 2e he was low-level and in 4e he was a noob.
Quote from: Spinachcat;526640What I find interesting is what is "sacred cow" in the reading of a D&D edition versus the playing of a D&D edition.
And "low level" has its own conundrums. In OD&D, a 4th level character was mid-level, but in 2e he was low-level and in 4e he was a noob.
Indeed. I find it interesting as well--especially the points you make about level differences. The frame of the game is not the same as actual play of the game. I've always known that from playing as long as I have.
Quote from: Spinachcat;526640What I find interesting is what is "sacred cow" in the reading of a D&D edition versus the playing of a D&D edition.
Classes & Levels may be sacred cows, but in actual play during a game session you are neither focused on either your character's class or their level. It simply exists to define the parameters of what powers / skills / martial might you can bring to the encounters.
The class of "Magic-User" was special when it was the only one who could cast arcane spells. By 3e, there were a plethora of classes who invaded this niche.
And "low level" has its own conundrums. In OD&D, a 4th level character was mid-level, but in 2e he was low-level and in 4e he was a noob.
This is spot on but I'm defining both class and level in a general sense for this discussion.