When you use #OSR rules to modify #dnd for modern-setting play in a world resembling ours, do character classes even make sense?
#ttrpg
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 19, 2021, 02:06:08 AM
When you use #OSR rules to modify #dnd for modern-setting play in a world resembling ours, do character classes even make sense?
#ttrpg
Your solution sounds like a nice balance between traditional OSR concepts and skill based games like Call of Cthulhu.
The concept of gaining combat bonuses based on the number of combats you've survived is interesting, and does make sense. I mean what better way to learn than by not dying?
Quote from: Godsmonkey on October 19, 2021, 09:37:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 19, 2021, 02:06:08 AM
When you use #OSR rules to modify #dnd for modern-setting play in a world resembling ours, do character classes even make sense?
#ttrpg
Your solution sounds like a nice balance between traditional OSR concepts and skill based games like Call of Cthulhu.
The concept of gaining combat bonuses based on the number of combats you've survived is interesting, and does make sense. I mean what better way to learn than by not dying?
Yes. I'll note I was somewhat inspired by this after playing Aces & Eights.
A modern setting game with classes under OSR rules?
Not sure. I'd say have a starting kit of abilities ala Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead and just let the players develop as they go. Your "Class" is just who you were before it all went to shit, and it determines your equipment and starting skills. You might be just some guy who came to the shelter, maybe you're a meth-head in withdrawal, maybe you're a scientist who caused this mess, or maybe you're an expert martial artist.
But is that still OSR?
I'm too tired to come up with an answer.
Quote from: PsyXypher on November 11, 2021, 12:38:49 AM
A modern setting game with classes under OSR rules?
Not sure. I'd say have a starting kit of abilities ala Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead and just let the players develop as they go. Your "Class" is just who you were before it all went to shit, and it determines your equipment and starting skills. You might be just some guy who came to the shelter, maybe you're a meth-head in withdrawal, maybe you're a scientist who caused this mess, or maybe you're an expert martial artist.
But is that still OSR?
I'm too tired to come up with an answer.
Isn't that what classes are? The only difference I see is allowing everybody access to the same skills. So AD&D2e but removing the class skill restrictions.
So you learn new skills by trying to do stuff/studying/practice. "I try to ride the horse (Insert die roll here)", "okay you ride it, you have to go slower than everybody else so you find yourself often last in the group."
After this you have zero in your modifier for riding horses, making it easier next time (or maybe +1?)
After enough times of you riding a horse you rise your modifier to +2 (or take into account critical success).
Apply this for any skill you allowed in the game.
Of course in a modern setting some skills can't be learned by just trying: "Hacking" a computer, I would argue can't be learned unless you have spent some time studying how to do so or have some previous "computer skill".
So you change the class restricctions to attribute restrictions + type of skill restrictions.
This isn't really that different from RAW AD&D2e
Just started so I may say more, but...the Silk Road Crusades game sounds awesome. I'm sold on it already. For as much shit as the lefties give you, you make fun games.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 19, 2021, 02:06:08 AM
When you use #OSR rules to modify #dnd for modern-setting play in a world resembling ours, do character classes even make sense?
#ttrpg
Answering the text instead of the video, 'cause I don't have time to sit through a video, the answer is yes. Classes are good analogues to profession. Being a doctor, engineer, soldier, detective, athlete, martial artist, professional driver, and so on give a pretty consistent skill set for each and each requires a time investment that precludes extensive crosstraining. Sounds like a good fit to classes to me.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 11, 2021, 12:15:54 PMIsn't that what classes are? The only difference I see is allowing everybody access to the same skills. So AD&D2e but removing the class skill restrictions.
Classes are just skill bundles. Instead of micromanaging each individual skill, a class/level system allows you to buy skills in groups.
Quote from: finarvyn on November 11, 2021, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 11, 2021, 12:15:54 PMIsn't that what classes are? The only difference I see is allowing everybody access to the same skills. So AD&D2e but removing the class skill restrictions.
Classes are just skill bundles. Instead of micromanaging each individual skill, a class/level system allows you to buy skills in groups.
They're a bit more than that. They also bake in some limitations. Frex, in basic D&D if you're a cleric you just can't use a sword
Quote from: Mishihari on November 11, 2021, 04:53:23 PM
Quote from: finarvyn on November 11, 2021, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 11, 2021, 12:15:54 PMIsn't that what classes are? The only difference I see is allowing everybody access to the same skills. So AD&D2e but removing the class skill restrictions.
Classes are just skill bundles. Instead of micromanaging each individual skill, a class/level system allows you to buy skills in groups.
They're a bit more than that. They also bake in some limitations. Frex, in basic D&D if you're a cleric you just can't use a sword
Something I never understood.
In my "modern" game my "totally not a Cleric" can use the exact same type of weapons as my "totally not a Warrior" only restricted to the heavy ones, because of training (and such restriction is really a -1 (or thereabouts) mod to the to hit roll.
But you can totally buy the training to remove the -1 or even get a possitive mod.
Untrained -1, Trained 0, Expert +1, Especialist +2
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 11, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on November 11, 2021, 04:53:23 PM
Quote from: finarvyn on November 11, 2021, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 11, 2021, 12:15:54 PMIsn't that what classes are? The only difference I see is allowing everybody access to the same skills. So AD&D2e but removing the class skill restrictions.
Classes are just skill bundles. Instead of micromanaging each individual skill, a class/level system allows you to buy skills in groups.
They're a bit more than that. They also bake in some limitations. Frex, in basic D&D if you're a cleric you just can't use a sword
Something I never understood.
In my "modern" game my "totally not a Cleric" can use the exact same type of weapons as my "totally not a Warrior" only restricted to the heavy ones, because of training (and such restriction is really a -1 (or thereabouts) mod to the to hit roll.
But you can totally buy the training to remove the -1 or even get a possitive mod.
Untrained -1, Trained 0, Expert +1, Especialist +2
With respect to the design process, it lets you put disadvantages in classes as well as advantages. This makes classes a bit more interesting and gives another tool to balance the strength of the classes.
With respect to this particular limitation, the most entertaining rationale I've heard is that it is intended to illustrate the hypocrisy of certain groups. They're forbidden to "shed blood" so they take it literally and kill with blunt weapons instead.
That's not to say that I particularly care for that specific limitation, but there are reasons.
Quote from: Jason Coplen on November 11, 2021, 12:17:57 PM
Just started so I may say more, but...the Silk Road Crusades game sounds awesome. I'm sold on it already. For as much shit as the lefties give you, you make fun games.
Thank you!
Quote from: Mishihari on November 11, 2021, 04:53:23 PM
Quote from: finarvyn on November 11, 2021, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 11, 2021, 12:15:54 PMIsn't that what classes are? The only difference I see is allowing everybody access to the same skills. So AD&D2e but removing the class skill restrictions.
Classes are just skill bundles. Instead of micromanaging each individual skill, a class/level system allows you to buy skills in groups.
They're a bit more than that. They also bake in some limitations. Frex, in basic D&D if you're a cleric you just can't use a sword
Which is where your argument that "doctor, lawyer, etc" are a good equivalent to D&D classes falls apart. But you'd know that if you'd had time to watch the video.
I think this sounds like a better approach to classes in general. I'd be inclined to carry it back to the sword and sorcery systems. I've never really liked the traditional D&D style class framework.
I am thinking of the modern games I have played that used classes.
Top Secret(1e) had three classes: assassin, confiscator, and investigator. Gangbusters had classes based on profession as well, Criminal, cop, reporter, etc. cyberpunk did also, though that wasn't modern when it came out. Other "modern" type settings had classes based on what type of person you were. Star Frontiers had people who were good at tech, good at fighting, and good at interpersonal stuff. Gangbusters B/X has Brutish, Educated, Connected, and Street Smart, all denoting more of a personality or background that shaped a character, than actual skillset.
Finally, there was D20 Modern (not Old School I know, but worth a mention strictly for analysis sake) which had a class based on each attribute: Strong hero (good at fighting), Smart Hero (thinker), Wise hero (basically a healer), Fast hero (dexterous guy), Tough hero (can take a beating but not as good a fighter as Strong hero), and Charismatic hero (the leader/face). D20M had skills that were easier to buy if it fit your archetype, but you could basically have any skill. Other than that, the system was a hot mess.
So let's look at what the Classes are supposed to do. They help each player determine what role they would play on a team.
It would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
A more complex game would allow players to choose "whatever they want" or have some die rolls assign weird skillsets to simulate their previous lives prior to becoming adventurers. This would increase character creation time and facillitate more investment into a character. It might detract from a game with a high turnover (death) rate.
QuoteSomething I never understood.
Result of Western Europeans in medieval period trying to twist rules against clergy taking part in warfare. As specific canon speak about spilling the blood, some barbaric pseudo-bishops turned to maces to avoid legal problem based on such technicality. It lead to some of medieval poems showing warrior-priest with absolutely no-blood-spilling maces and quarterstaffs.
Now of course this rule become extra stupid as fast as clerics evolved from holy undead hunters to actual warrior-priests of various pagan D&D cults.
QuoteIt would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
But tbh skills are doing the same. They are then on character sheet and players knows forte and failure of each of the team. You don't need specific class for it. You can have brawler who is also dunno educated historian, and explosives guys who is also occult expert or face of a team.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 13, 2021, 01:15:02 AM
I am thinking of the modern games I have played that used classes.
Top Secret(1e) had three classes: assassin, confiscator, and investigator. Gangbusters had classes based on profession as well, Criminal, cop, reporter, etc. cyberpunk did also, though that wasn't modern when it came out. Other "modern" type settings had classes based on what type of person you were. Star Frontiers had people who were good at tech, good at fighting, and good at interpersonal stuff. Gangbusters B/X has Brutish, Educated, Connected, and Street Smart, all denoting more of a personality or background that shaped a character, than actual skillset.
Finally, there was D20 Modern (not Old School I know, but worth a mention strictly for analysis sake) which had a class based on each attribute: Strong hero (good at fighting), Smart Hero (thinker), Wise hero (basically a healer), Fast hero (dexterous guy), Tough hero (can take a beating but not as good a fighter as Strong hero), and Charismatic hero (the leader/face). D20M had skills that were easier to buy if it fit your archetype, but you could basically have any skill. Other than that, the system was a hot mess.
So let's look at what the Classes are supposed to do. They help each player determine what role they would play on a team.
It would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
A more complex game would allow players to choose "whatever they want" or have some die rolls assign weird skillsets to simulate their previous lives prior to becoming adventurers. This would increase character creation time and facillitate more investment into a character. It might detract from a game with a high turnover (death) rate.
I think the important part is that modern games shouldn't have "class = a set of new abilities you get when you go up a level." There shouldn't even be levels. Just a "my character spent a lot of time on that last mission doing x" = you gain a skill point (or more). Having rough bundles of skills that are common to a profession or activity makes sense. But there is no "US Marine" or "Computer Scientist" as a "class" with a defined set of skills and abilities. You could say "everyone who goes through a US or Western European army boot camp gain skills in rifle, navigation, hand to hand combat, etc." And then you can say "if you spend 4 years in the army in the support branch, you gain skills in driving, rifle, observation, persuasion, computer science, etc."
I think for a modern game, we're know enough about real world equivalents that suspension of disbelief is difficult if you use standard class/level tropes.
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 09:16:06 AM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 13, 2021, 01:15:02 AM
I am thinking of the modern games I have played that used classes.
Top Secret(1e) had three classes: assassin, confiscator, and investigator. Gangbusters had classes based on profession as well, Criminal, cop, reporter, etc. cyberpunk did also, though that wasn't modern when it came out. Other "modern" type settings had classes based on what type of person you were. Star Frontiers had people who were good at tech, good at fighting, and good at interpersonal stuff. Gangbusters B/X has Brutish, Educated, Connected, and Street Smart, all denoting more of a personality or background that shaped a character, than actual skillset.
Finally, there was D20 Modern (not Old School I know, but worth a mention strictly for analysis sake) which had a class based on each attribute: Strong hero (good at fighting), Smart Hero (thinker), Wise hero (basically a healer), Fast hero (dexterous guy), Tough hero (can take a beating but not as good a fighter as Strong hero), and Charismatic hero (the leader/face). D20M had skills that were easier to buy if it fit your archetype, but you could basically have any skill. Other than that, the system was a hot mess.
So let's look at what the Classes are supposed to do. They help each player determine what role they would play on a team.
It would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
A more complex game would allow players to choose "whatever they want" or have some die rolls assign weird skillsets to simulate their previous lives prior to becoming adventurers. This would increase character creation time and facillitate more investment into a character. It might detract from a game with a high turnover (death) rate.
I think the important part is that modern games shouldn't have "class = a set of new abilities you get when you go up a level." There shouldn't even be levels. Just a "my character spent a lot of time on that last mission doing x" = you gain a skill point (or more). Having rough bundles of skills that are common to a profession or activity makes sense. But there is no "US Marine" or "Computer Scientist" as a "class" with a defined set of skills and abilities. You could say "everyone who goes through a US or Western European army boot camp gain skills in rifle, navigation, hand to hand combat, etc." And then you can say "if you spend 4 years in the army in the support branch, you gain skills in driving, rifle, observation, persuasion, computer science, etc."
I think for a modern game, we're know enough about real world equivalents that suspension of disbelief is difficult if you use standard class/level tropes.
Except US Marines & Computer Scientists do have a different set of skills and abilities than the rest of the population.
You're correct about boot camp but I doubt you are about the army support branch, since I do believe there's a great degree of specialization there: You're not the General's chafeur one week and trained in computer science the next. But lets say you are... So a person that got limited training about a big variety of subjects is just as proficcient in say computer science as someone who took a 4 year course especializing on that? Or someone that after boot camp went to the regular armed forces and applied to one of the more demanding branches of said armed forces, completing successfuly the training for it?
And the generalist from the support branch is just as good at everything as those who especialized on a few of those skills. For instance someone trained as a body guard that got specialized driving courses has no advantage over the generalist.
How about a doctor? Is the generalist trained in some medicine? Is he just as good as a field doctor? Are any of them as good as a trained neurosurgeon for a brain surgery?
Since you choose the armed forces for yopur example, a work place where there's a definite especialization, not everybody gets trained in everything: Demolitions, infiltration, sniper, etc.
How does your way not totally break suspension of disbelief?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 11:40:52 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 09:16:06 AM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 13, 2021, 01:15:02 AM
I am thinking of the modern games I have played that used classes.
Top Secret(1e) had three classes: assassin, confiscator, and investigator. Gangbusters had classes based on profession as well, Criminal, cop, reporter, etc. cyberpunk did also, though that wasn't modern when it came out. Other "modern" type settings had classes based on what type of person you were. Star Frontiers had people who were good at tech, good at fighting, and good at interpersonal stuff. Gangbusters B/X has Brutish, Educated, Connected, and Street Smart, all denoting more of a personality or background that shaped a character, than actual skillset.
Finally, there was D20 Modern (not Old School I know, but worth a mention strictly for analysis sake) which had a class based on each attribute: Strong hero (good at fighting), Smart Hero (thinker), Wise hero (basically a healer), Fast hero (dexterous guy), Tough hero (can take a beating but not as good a fighter as Strong hero), and Charismatic hero (the leader/face). D20M had skills that were easier to buy if it fit your archetype, but you could basically have any skill. Other than that, the system was a hot mess.
So let's look at what the Classes are supposed to do. They help each player determine what role they would play on a team.
It would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
A more complex game would allow players to choose "whatever they want" or have some die rolls assign weird skillsets to simulate their previous lives prior to becoming adventurers. This would increase character creation time and facillitate more investment into a character. It might detract from a game with a high turnover (death) rate.
I think the important part is that modern games shouldn't have "class = a set of new abilities you get when you go up a level." There shouldn't even be levels. Just a "my character spent a lot of time on that last mission doing x" = you gain a skill point (or more). Having rough bundles of skills that are common to a profession or activity makes sense. But there is no "US Marine" or "Computer Scientist" as a "class" with a defined set of skills and abilities. You could say "everyone who goes through a US or Western European army boot camp gain skills in rifle, navigation, hand to hand combat, etc." And then you can say "if you spend 4 years in the army in the support branch, you gain skills in driving, rifle, observation, persuasion, computer science, etc."
I think for a modern game, we're know enough about real world equivalents that suspension of disbelief is difficult if you use standard class/level tropes.
Except US Marines & Computer Scientists do have a different set of skills and abilities than the rest of the population.
You're correct about boot camp but I doubt you are about the army support branch, since I do believe there's a great degree of specialization there: You're not the General's chafeur one week and trained in computer science the next. But lets say you are... So a person that got limited training about a big variety of subjects is just as proficcient in say computer science as someone who took a 4 year course especializing on that? Or someone that after boot camp went to the regular armed forces and applied to one of the more demanding branches of said armed forces, completing successfuly the training for it?
And the generalist from the support branch is just as good at everything as those who especialized on a few of those skills. For instance someone trained as a body guard that got specialized driving courses has no advantage over the generalist.
How about a doctor? Is the generalist trained in some medicine? Is he just as good as a field doctor? Are any of them as good as a trained neurosurgeon for a brain surgery?
Since you choose the armed forces for yopur example, a work place where there's a definite especialization, not everybody gets trained in everything: Demolitions, infiltration, sniper, etc.
How does your way not totally break suspension of disbelief?
I'm not suggesting a one size fits all approach; rather, that different "careers" would have access to certain skills. Perhaps a "for this 4-year term, pick x skills levels from the following skills." Different careers would have different term lengths - obviously a 4-yr undergrad term will be different than a 4-yr term as a construction worker. I'm taking my cue from, yet again, Twilight:2013. Each branch of service has different skills they get for each term. Likewise journalists, dilettantes, sportsmen, homemakers, etc. And each term's length varies by career. I'm using the term "career" loosely since options include criminal, prison term, slacker, etc.
The key point being that a classless/level-less system gives you flexibility when dealing with modern stuff.
As an example (from looking at my TW2013 book), if someone chooses to enlist in the USMC in the support branch as a mechanic, the first term is 1 year, representing boot camp and initial schooling. You get Aquatics 2, Climbing 2, Fieldcraft 1, Hand to Hand 2, Hand Weapons 1, Longarm 3, Medicine 1, Sidearm 1, Support Weapons 2, and you increase your lowest physical attribute by 1. You then pick 3 skill points in either electronics, driving, or mechanics. You then look in the Support Branch - Mechanics section. It's a 4 year term where you get 12 points to spread amongst computing, driving (tracked or wheeled), electronics, instruction, mechanics (aviation, industrial, machinist, or nautical), persuasion, seamanship, and any Special Equipment - with no more than 8 points in any one skill. Alternatively, if you were going for a USMC mechanic assigned to Motor T, you might pick Transportation instead of Mechanics.
A civilian doctor (besides requiring the undergraduate term) had the Med School term which gives Medicine 5, and x number of skill points based upon your intelligence in command, computing, instruction, persuasion (psychiatry), or medicine (surgery or veterinary). Then, you can take a term(s) in Medical Practice which gives you 14 points amongst a similar set of skills as Med School.
It's actually quite complete yet open-ended enough to allow you to build exactly the type of character you want. A similar (but poorly-executed) presentation is in Mythus/Dangerous Journeys for fantasy rather than modern.
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 11:40:52 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 09:16:06 AM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 13, 2021, 01:15:02 AM
I am thinking of the modern games I have played that used classes.
Top Secret(1e) had three classes: assassin, confiscator, and investigator. Gangbusters had classes based on profession as well, Criminal, cop, reporter, etc. cyberpunk did also, though that wasn't modern when it came out. Other "modern" type settings had classes based on what type of person you were. Star Frontiers had people who were good at tech, good at fighting, and good at interpersonal stuff. Gangbusters B/X has Brutish, Educated, Connected, and Street Smart, all denoting more of a personality or background that shaped a character, than actual skillset.
Finally, there was D20 Modern (not Old School I know, but worth a mention strictly for analysis sake) which had a class based on each attribute: Strong hero (good at fighting), Smart Hero (thinker), Wise hero (basically a healer), Fast hero (dexterous guy), Tough hero (can take a beating but not as good a fighter as Strong hero), and Charismatic hero (the leader/face). D20M had skills that were easier to buy if it fit your archetype, but you could basically have any skill. Other than that, the system was a hot mess.
So let's look at what the Classes are supposed to do. They help each player determine what role they would play on a team.
It would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
A more complex game would allow players to choose "whatever they want" or have some die rolls assign weird skillsets to simulate their previous lives prior to becoming adventurers. This would increase character creation time and facillitate more investment into a character. It might detract from a game with a high turnover (death) rate.
I think the important part is that modern games shouldn't have "class = a set of new abilities you get when you go up a level." There shouldn't even be levels. Just a "my character spent a lot of time on that last mission doing x" = you gain a skill point (or more). Having rough bundles of skills that are common to a profession or activity makes sense. But there is no "US Marine" or "Computer Scientist" as a "class" with a defined set of skills and abilities. You could say "everyone who goes through a US or Western European army boot camp gain skills in rifle, navigation, hand to hand combat, etc." And then you can say "if you spend 4 years in the army in the support branch, you gain skills in driving, rifle, observation, persuasion, computer science, etc."
I think for a modern game, we're know enough about real world equivalents that suspension of disbelief is difficult if you use standard class/level tropes.
Except US Marines & Computer Scientists do have a different set of skills and abilities than the rest of the population.
You're correct about boot camp but I doubt you are about the army support branch, since I do believe there's a great degree of specialization there: You're not the General's chafeur one week and trained in computer science the next. But lets say you are... So a person that got limited training about a big variety of subjects is just as proficcient in say computer science as someone who took a 4 year course especializing on that? Or someone that after boot camp went to the regular armed forces and applied to one of the more demanding branches of said armed forces, completing successfuly the training for it?
And the generalist from the support branch is just as good at everything as those who especialized on a few of those skills. For instance someone trained as a body guard that got specialized driving courses has no advantage over the generalist.
How about a doctor? Is the generalist trained in some medicine? Is he just as good as a field doctor? Are any of them as good as a trained neurosurgeon for a brain surgery?
Since you choose the armed forces for yopur example, a work place where there's a definite especialization, not everybody gets trained in everything: Demolitions, infiltration, sniper, etc.
How does your way not totally break suspension of disbelief?
I'm not suggesting a one size fits all approach; rather, that different "careers" would have access to certain skills. Perhaps a "for this 4-year term, pick x skills levels from the following skills." Different careers would have different term lengths - obviously a 4-yr undergrad term will be different than a 4-yr term as a construction worker. I'm taking my cue from, yet again, Twilight:2013. Each branch of service has different skills they get for each term. Likewise journalists, dilettantes, sportsmen, homemakers, etc. And each term's length varies by career. I'm using the term "career" loosely since options include criminal, prison term, slacker, etc.
The key point being that a classless/level-less system gives you flexibility when dealing with modern stuff.
As an example (from looking at my TW2013 book), if someone chooses to enlist in the USMC in the support branch as a mechanic, the first term is 1 year, representing boot camp and initial schooling. You get Aquatics 2, Climbing 2, Fieldcraft 1, Hand to Hand 2, Hand Weapons 1, Longarm 3, Medicine 1, Sidearm 1, Support Weapons 2, and you increase your lowest physical attribute by 1. You then pick 3 skill points in either electronics, driving, or mechanics. You then look in the Support Branch - Mechanics section. It's a 4 year term where you get 12 points to spread amongst computing, driving (tracked or wheeled), electronics, instruction, mechanics (aviation, industrial, machinist, or nautical), persuasion, seamanship, and any Special Equipment - with no more than 8 points in any one skill. Alternatively, if you were going for a USMC mechanic assigned to Motor T, you might pick Transportation instead of Mechanics.
A civilian doctor (besides requiring the undergraduate term) had the Med School term which gives Medicine 5, and x number of skill points based upon your intelligence in command, computing, instruction, persuasion (psychiatry), or medicine (surgery or veterinary). Then, you can take a term(s) in Medical Practice which gives you 14 points amongst a similar set of skills as Med School.
It's actually quite complete yet open-ended enough to allow you to build exactly the type of character you want. A similar (but poorly-executed) presentation is in Mythus/Dangerous Journeys for fantasy rather than modern.
Okay, now I get you, it's still not OSR in any way shape or form but yes that would work for a classles/leveles system.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 11:40:52 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 09:16:06 AM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 13, 2021, 01:15:02 AM
I am thinking of the modern games I have played that used classes.
Top Secret(1e) had three classes: assassin, confiscator, and investigator. Gangbusters had classes based on profession as well, Criminal, cop, reporter, etc. cyberpunk did also, though that wasn't modern when it came out. Other "modern" type settings had classes based on what type of person you were. Star Frontiers had people who were good at tech, good at fighting, and good at interpersonal stuff. Gangbusters B/X has Brutish, Educated, Connected, and Street Smart, all denoting more of a personality or background that shaped a character, than actual skillset.
Finally, there was D20 Modern (not Old School I know, but worth a mention strictly for analysis sake) which had a class based on each attribute: Strong hero (good at fighting), Smart Hero (thinker), Wise hero (basically a healer), Fast hero (dexterous guy), Tough hero (can take a beating but not as good a fighter as Strong hero), and Charismatic hero (the leader/face). D20M had skills that were easier to buy if it fit your archetype, but you could basically have any skill. Other than that, the system was a hot mess.
So let's look at what the Classes are supposed to do. They help each player determine what role they would play on a team.
It would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
A more complex game would allow players to choose "whatever they want" or have some die rolls assign weird skillsets to simulate their previous lives prior to becoming adventurers. This would increase character creation time and facillitate more investment into a character. It might detract from a game with a high turnover (death) rate.
I think the important part is that modern games shouldn't have "class = a set of new abilities you get when you go up a level." There shouldn't even be levels. Just a "my character spent a lot of time on that last mission doing x" = you gain a skill point (or more). Having rough bundles of skills that are common to a profession or activity makes sense. But there is no "US Marine" or "Computer Scientist" as a "class" with a defined set of skills and abilities. You could say "everyone who goes through a US or Western European army boot camp gain skills in rifle, navigation, hand to hand combat, etc." And then you can say "if you spend 4 years in the army in the support branch, you gain skills in driving, rifle, observation, persuasion, computer science, etc."
I think for a modern game, we're know enough about real world equivalents that suspension of disbelief is difficult if you use standard class/level tropes.
Except US Marines & Computer Scientists do have a different set of skills and abilities than the rest of the population.
You're correct about boot camp but I doubt you are about the army support branch, since I do believe there's a great degree of specialization there: You're not the General's chafeur one week and trained in computer science the next. But lets say you are... So a person that got limited training about a big variety of subjects is just as proficcient in say computer science as someone who took a 4 year course especializing on that? Or someone that after boot camp went to the regular armed forces and applied to one of the more demanding branches of said armed forces, completing successfuly the training for it?
And the generalist from the support branch is just as good at everything as those who especialized on a few of those skills. For instance someone trained as a body guard that got specialized driving courses has no advantage over the generalist.
How about a doctor? Is the generalist trained in some medicine? Is he just as good as a field doctor? Are any of them as good as a trained neurosurgeon for a brain surgery?
Since you choose the armed forces for yopur example, a work place where there's a definite especialization, not everybody gets trained in everything: Demolitions, infiltration, sniper, etc.
How does your way not totally break suspension of disbelief?
I'm not suggesting a one size fits all approach; rather, that different "careers" would have access to certain skills. Perhaps a "for this 4-year term, pick x skills levels from the following skills." Different careers would have different term lengths - obviously a 4-yr undergrad term will be different than a 4-yr term as a construction worker. I'm taking my cue from, yet again, Twilight:2013. Each branch of service has different skills they get for each term. Likewise journalists, dilettantes, sportsmen, homemakers, etc. And each term's length varies by career. I'm using the term "career" loosely since options include criminal, prison term, slacker, etc.
The key point being that a classless/level-less system gives you flexibility when dealing with modern stuff.
As an example (from looking at my TW2013 book), if someone chooses to enlist in the USMC in the support branch as a mechanic, the first term is 1 year, representing boot camp and initial schooling. You get Aquatics 2, Climbing 2, Fieldcraft 1, Hand to Hand 2, Hand Weapons 1, Longarm 3, Medicine 1, Sidearm 1, Support Weapons 2, and you increase your lowest physical attribute by 1. You then pick 3 skill points in either electronics, driving, or mechanics. You then look in the Support Branch - Mechanics section. It's a 4 year term where you get 12 points to spread amongst computing, driving (tracked or wheeled), electronics, instruction, mechanics (aviation, industrial, machinist, or nautical), persuasion, seamanship, and any Special Equipment - with no more than 8 points in any one skill. Alternatively, if you were going for a USMC mechanic assigned to Motor T, you might pick Transportation instead of Mechanics.
A civilian doctor (besides requiring the undergraduate term) had the Med School term which gives Medicine 5, and x number of skill points based upon your intelligence in command, computing, instruction, persuasion (psychiatry), or medicine (surgery or veterinary). Then, you can take a term(s) in Medical Practice which gives you 14 points amongst a similar set of skills as Med School.
It's actually quite complete yet open-ended enough to allow you to build exactly the type of character you want. A similar (but poorly-executed) presentation is in Mythus/Dangerous Journeys for fantasy rather than modern.
Okay, now I get you, it's still not OSR in any way shape or form but yes that would work for a classles/leveles system.
Yep, but if you approach OSR with the "adventurer" class as the only class, it'd probably be ready to adapt a skill system for use. I might just look at the AD&D NWP list as a start for how to adapt, but I think it's really wide-open at what you can do with an OSR framework
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 12:54:49 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 11:40:52 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 09:16:06 AM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 13, 2021, 01:15:02 AM
I am thinking of the modern games I have played that used classes.
Top Secret(1e) had three classes: assassin, confiscator, and investigator. Gangbusters had classes based on profession as well, Criminal, cop, reporter, etc. cyberpunk did also, though that wasn't modern when it came out. Other "modern" type settings had classes based on what type of person you were. Star Frontiers had people who were good at tech, good at fighting, and good at interpersonal stuff. Gangbusters B/X has Brutish, Educated, Connected, and Street Smart, all denoting more of a personality or background that shaped a character, than actual skillset.
Finally, there was D20 Modern (not Old School I know, but worth a mention strictly for analysis sake) which had a class based on each attribute: Strong hero (good at fighting), Smart Hero (thinker), Wise hero (basically a healer), Fast hero (dexterous guy), Tough hero (can take a beating but not as good a fighter as Strong hero), and Charismatic hero (the leader/face). D20M had skills that were easier to buy if it fit your archetype, but you could basically have any skill. Other than that, the system was a hot mess.
So let's look at what the Classes are supposed to do. They help each player determine what role they would play on a team.
It would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
A more complex game would allow players to choose "whatever they want" or have some die rolls assign weird skillsets to simulate their previous lives prior to becoming adventurers. This would increase character creation time and facillitate more investment into a character. It might detract from a game with a high turnover (death) rate.
I think the important part is that modern games shouldn't have "class = a set of new abilities you get when you go up a level." There shouldn't even be levels. Just a "my character spent a lot of time on that last mission doing x" = you gain a skill point (or more). Having rough bundles of skills that are common to a profession or activity makes sense. But there is no "US Marine" or "Computer Scientist" as a "class" with a defined set of skills and abilities. You could say "everyone who goes through a US or Western European army boot camp gain skills in rifle, navigation, hand to hand combat, etc." And then you can say "if you spend 4 years in the army in the support branch, you gain skills in driving, rifle, observation, persuasion, computer science, etc."
I think for a modern game, we're know enough about real world equivalents that suspension of disbelief is difficult if you use standard class/level tropes.
Except US Marines & Computer Scientists do have a different set of skills and abilities than the rest of the population.
You're correct about boot camp but I doubt you are about the army support branch, since I do believe there's a great degree of specialization there: You're not the General's chafeur one week and trained in computer science the next. But lets say you are... So a person that got limited training about a big variety of subjects is just as proficcient in say computer science as someone who took a 4 year course especializing on that? Or someone that after boot camp went to the regular armed forces and applied to one of the more demanding branches of said armed forces, completing successfuly the training for it?
And the generalist from the support branch is just as good at everything as those who especialized on a few of those skills. For instance someone trained as a body guard that got specialized driving courses has no advantage over the generalist.
How about a doctor? Is the generalist trained in some medicine? Is he just as good as a field doctor? Are any of them as good as a trained neurosurgeon for a brain surgery?
Since you choose the armed forces for yopur example, a work place where there's a definite especialization, not everybody gets trained in everything: Demolitions, infiltration, sniper, etc.
How does your way not totally break suspension of disbelief?
I'm not suggesting a one size fits all approach; rather, that different "careers" would have access to certain skills. Perhaps a "for this 4-year term, pick x skills levels from the following skills." Different careers would have different term lengths - obviously a 4-yr undergrad term will be different than a 4-yr term as a construction worker. I'm taking my cue from, yet again, Twilight:2013. Each branch of service has different skills they get for each term. Likewise journalists, dilettantes, sportsmen, homemakers, etc. And each term's length varies by career. I'm using the term "career" loosely since options include criminal, prison term, slacker, etc.
The key point being that a classless/level-less system gives you flexibility when dealing with modern stuff.
As an example (from looking at my TW2013 book), if someone chooses to enlist in the USMC in the support branch as a mechanic, the first term is 1 year, representing boot camp and initial schooling. You get Aquatics 2, Climbing 2, Fieldcraft 1, Hand to Hand 2, Hand Weapons 1, Longarm 3, Medicine 1, Sidearm 1, Support Weapons 2, and you increase your lowest physical attribute by 1. You then pick 3 skill points in either electronics, driving, or mechanics. You then look in the Support Branch - Mechanics section. It's a 4 year term where you get 12 points to spread amongst computing, driving (tracked or wheeled), electronics, instruction, mechanics (aviation, industrial, machinist, or nautical), persuasion, seamanship, and any Special Equipment - with no more than 8 points in any one skill. Alternatively, if you were going for a USMC mechanic assigned to Motor T, you might pick Transportation instead of Mechanics.
A civilian doctor (besides requiring the undergraduate term) had the Med School term which gives Medicine 5, and x number of skill points based upon your intelligence in command, computing, instruction, persuasion (psychiatry), or medicine (surgery or veterinary). Then, you can take a term(s) in Medical Practice which gives you 14 points amongst a similar set of skills as Med School.
It's actually quite complete yet open-ended enough to allow you to build exactly the type of character you want. A similar (but poorly-executed) presentation is in Mythus/Dangerous Journeys for fantasy rather than modern.
Okay, now I get you, it's still not OSR in any way shape or form but yes that would work for a classles/leveles system.
Yep, but if you approach OSR with the "adventurer" class as the only class, it'd probably be ready to adapt a skill system for use. I might just look at the AD&D NWP list as a start for how to adapt, but I think it's really wide-open at what you can do with an OSR framework
I'm "working" on a modern-ish OSR game, it still has classes and levels but I'm incorporating some skills and backgrounds (what you did/where you come from before becoming and "adventurer").
Background examples:
Upper Class (access to money/contacts among the same class, etiquete, education, more languages)
Blue collar (choose profession, etiquete, contacts...)
I'm not sure I'll keep both systems tho, but I think it could work.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 01:05:46 PM
I'm "working" on a modern-ish OSR game, it still has classes and levels but I'm incorporating some skills and backgrounds (what you did/where you come from before becoming and "adventurer").
Background examples:
Upper Class (access to money/contacts among the same class, etiquete, education, more languages)
Blue collar (choose profession, etiquete, contacts...)
I'm not sure I'll keep both systems tho, but I think it could work.
Aw man I feel that. Hopefully you have more success with your game than I do with mine!
Anyway, a good chunk if not all Palladium games have backgrounds. Heroes Unlimited and TMNT are my personal favorites.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 01:05:46 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 12:54:49 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 11:40:52 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 14, 2021, 09:16:06 AM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 13, 2021, 01:15:02 AM
I am thinking of the modern games I have played that used classes.
Top Secret(1e) had three classes: assassin, confiscator, and investigator. Gangbusters had classes based on profession as well, Criminal, cop, reporter, etc. cyberpunk did also, though that wasn't modern when it came out. Other "modern" type settings had classes based on what type of person you were. Star Frontiers had people who were good at tech, good at fighting, and good at interpersonal stuff. Gangbusters B/X has Brutish, Educated, Connected, and Street Smart, all denoting more of a personality or background that shaped a character, than actual skillset.
Finally, there was D20 Modern (not Old School I know, but worth a mention strictly for analysis sake) which had a class based on each attribute: Strong hero (good at fighting), Smart Hero (thinker), Wise hero (basically a healer), Fast hero (dexterous guy), Tough hero (can take a beating but not as good a fighter as Strong hero), and Charismatic hero (the leader/face). D20M had skills that were easier to buy if it fit your archetype, but you could basically have any skill. Other than that, the system was a hot mess.
So let's look at what the Classes are supposed to do. They help each player determine what role they would play on a team.
It would be easier for everyone involved to have classes associated with role in the group or profession as that would help a player fill that role and act in ways that played to their strengths, this way you don't have the skinny smart guy with mo martial skills trying to go toe-to-toe with thugs while the big hairy stevedore who competes in prize fights, tries to disarm a bomb.
A more complex game would allow players to choose "whatever they want" or have some die rolls assign weird skillsets to simulate their previous lives prior to becoming adventurers. This would increase character creation time and facillitate more investment into a character. It might detract from a game with a high turnover (death) rate.
I think the important part is that modern games shouldn't have "class = a set of new abilities you get when you go up a level." There shouldn't even be levels. Just a "my character spent a lot of time on that last mission doing x" = you gain a skill point (or more). Having rough bundles of skills that are common to a profession or activity makes sense. But there is no "US Marine" or "Computer Scientist" as a "class" with a defined set of skills and abilities. You could say "everyone who goes through a US or Western European army boot camp gain skills in rifle, navigation, hand to hand combat, etc." And then you can say "if you spend 4 years in the army in the support branch, you gain skills in driving, rifle, observation, persuasion, computer science, etc."
I think for a modern game, we're know enough about real world equivalents that suspension of disbelief is difficult if you use standard class/level tropes.
Except US Marines & Computer Scientists do have a different set of skills and abilities than the rest of the population.
You're correct about boot camp but I doubt you are about the army support branch, since I do believe there's a great degree of specialization there: You're not the General's chafeur one week and trained in computer science the next. But lets say you are... So a person that got limited training about a big variety of subjects is just as proficcient in say computer science as someone who took a 4 year course especializing on that? Or someone that after boot camp went to the regular armed forces and applied to one of the more demanding branches of said armed forces, completing successfuly the training for it?
And the generalist from the support branch is just as good at everything as those who especialized on a few of those skills. For instance someone trained as a body guard that got specialized driving courses has no advantage over the generalist.
How about a doctor? Is the generalist trained in some medicine? Is he just as good as a field doctor? Are any of them as good as a trained neurosurgeon for a brain surgery?
Since you choose the armed forces for yopur example, a work place where there's a definite especialization, not everybody gets trained in everything: Demolitions, infiltration, sniper, etc.
How does your way not totally break suspension of disbelief?
I'm not suggesting a one size fits all approach; rather, that different "careers" would have access to certain skills. Perhaps a "for this 4-year term, pick x skills levels from the following skills." Different careers would have different term lengths - obviously a 4-yr undergrad term will be different than a 4-yr term as a construction worker. I'm taking my cue from, yet again, Twilight:2013. Each branch of service has different skills they get for each term. Likewise journalists, dilettantes, sportsmen, homemakers, etc. And each term's length varies by career. I'm using the term "career" loosely since options include criminal, prison term, slacker, etc.
The key point being that a classless/level-less system gives you flexibility when dealing with modern stuff.
As an example (from looking at my TW2013 book), if someone chooses to enlist in the USMC in the support branch as a mechanic, the first term is 1 year, representing boot camp and initial schooling. You get Aquatics 2, Climbing 2, Fieldcraft 1, Hand to Hand 2, Hand Weapons 1, Longarm 3, Medicine 1, Sidearm 1, Support Weapons 2, and you increase your lowest physical attribute by 1. You then pick 3 skill points in either electronics, driving, or mechanics. You then look in the Support Branch - Mechanics section. It's a 4 year term where you get 12 points to spread amongst computing, driving (tracked or wheeled), electronics, instruction, mechanics (aviation, industrial, machinist, or nautical), persuasion, seamanship, and any Special Equipment - with no more than 8 points in any one skill. Alternatively, if you were going for a USMC mechanic assigned to Motor T, you might pick Transportation instead of Mechanics.
A civilian doctor (besides requiring the undergraduate term) had the Med School term which gives Medicine 5, and x number of skill points based upon your intelligence in command, computing, instruction, persuasion (psychiatry), or medicine (surgery or veterinary). Then, you can take a term(s) in Medical Practice which gives you 14 points amongst a similar set of skills as Med School.
It's actually quite complete yet open-ended enough to allow you to build exactly the type of character you want. A similar (but poorly-executed) presentation is in Mythus/Dangerous Journeys for fantasy rather than modern.
Okay, now I get you, it's still not OSR in any way shape or form but yes that would work for a classles/leveles system.
Yep, but if you approach OSR with the "adventurer" class as the only class, it'd probably be ready to adapt a skill system for use. I might just look at the AD&D NWP list as a start for how to adapt, but I think it's really wide-open at what you can do with an OSR framework
I'm "working" on a modern-ish OSR game, it still has classes and levels but I'm incorporating some skills and backgrounds (what you did/where you come from before becoming and "adventurer").
Background examples:
Upper Class (access to money/contacts among the same class, etiquete, education, more languages)
Blue collar (choose profession, etiquete, contacts...)
I'm not sure I'll keep both systems tho, but I think it could work.
It might be a good idea to have "background" skills and then later on "personal" skills - hobbies and what-not that aren't directly trusted to your profession - such as a private eye who takes a cooking class or goes skiing might pick up a point or two in the relevant skills.
Quote from: PsyXypher on November 14, 2021, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2021, 01:05:46 PM
I'm "working" on a modern-ish OSR game, it still has classes and levels but I'm incorporating some skills and backgrounds (what you did/where you come from before becoming and "adventurer").
Background examples:
Upper Class (access to money/contacts among the same class, etiquete, education, more languages)
Blue collar (choose profession, etiquete, contacts...)
I'm not sure I'll keep both systems tho, but I think it could work.
Aw man I feel that. Hopefully you have more success with your game than I do with mine!
Anyway, a good chunk if not all Palladium games have backgrounds. Heroes Unlimited and TMNT are my personal favorites.
The thing is that one is in the backburner, along several others, which is why the quotes. But most share the same systems, so if it works okay in one it should (in theory) work in the others.