Me, I like classes on occasion.

When?  Glad you asked, when they are clearly archetypal.  When they are clearly core concepts I see in the source fiction.

A warrior, a wizard, a rogue (and not a thief, I mean rogue specifically), I recognise all of these as fairly fundamental fantasy archetypes.  Tunnels and Trolls really got this right, you had Warriors, Wizards and Rogues.  Fahfrd or Conan, Gandalf, the Grey Mouser.

Classic, simple, resonant with powerful imagery.

Cyberpunk 2020 didn't do this too badly IMO, hackers, killers, cops, rockers, all fairly simple archetypes that could easily be described in a word.

So, I like classes when they evoke a clear and powerful archetype of the source fiction.  A good class should be summarisable in a word.  Simple as that.

However, over time games have trended away from this.  A desire for flexibility has led not to simply not using classes where they're not appropriate but instead to a plethora of classes, few of which are archetypal.

A paladin is just a type of warrior.  I don't know what the fuck the dual sword wielding spell casting DnD ranger is supposed to represent.  Rolemaster with every supplement introduced new classes, as did DnD to an extent, many so specific that a good couple of paragraphs are needed to get across what the hell they are.  A moon mage is not an archetype.

Classes work because of their simple power, if Bob is playing a warrior, Rita a wizard and Sue a rogue we know pretty much what kinds of characters they are playing.  If Bob is playing an Elemental Swordsmith, Rita a Star Mage and Sue a Dreaming Blade Dancer prestige class who knows what the hell they're playing.

Classes are great when they're kept simple.  A plethora of classes gives you all the analysis paralysis of Gurps with none of the freedom.

Cool.  I like classes in much the same situations, for much the same reasons.

I think sometimes game systems go too far in trying to differentiate classes by color.  Feng Shui, for instance, much as I love it ... too many templates.  There should be "Gun-guy," "Kung-Fu-guy" and "Wacky sorceror shit" ... and then the fun tech-from-other-eras stuff that they made up.  But in terms of the source movies, there's basically Chow Yun Fat, Jackie Chan and ... whoever is famous in the sorcery movies I don't watch.

Making classes like "Martial Artist," "Kung Fu Cop," "Ninja" and the like ... that's just clutter.  They're all kung-fu guys.

"Old Master" ... okay, maybe that's a whole different archetype.  I can buy that.  But the others?  All the same thing.

I actually like classes most of the time. For me it's the tried and true manner of role protection within a group. If everyone is a fighting-wizard, which can happen more than you'd think, then situations can be dominated by the folks who think and talk fastest. When people have a well defined role, you have to work as a team.

Quote from: JamesVI actually like classes most of the time. For me it's the tried and true manner of role protection within a group. If everyone is a fighting-wizard, which can happen more than you'd think, then situations can be dominated by the folks who think and talk fastest. When people have a well defined role, you have to work as a team.

I think even that is helped though by simple and clearly defined classes.

In current DnD, most classes have spells, I don't think that helps clear niche protection.

Back in the day, when a party had two fighters, a cleric, a magic-user and a thief the niche protection was far more clearly present.

Quote from: BalbinusI think even that is helped though by simple and clearly defined classes.

I agree with your point, though I do think that time has helped give a greater level of customization while still maintaining clear roles. I think a great example of this is in True20, where there are three main roles that are well separated by the game's mechanics, yet there is a great level of customization involved through the use of feats. A PC can adopt distinct and conceptually unique roles within the class structure.

Quote from: JamesVI agree with your point, though I do think that time has helped give a greater level of customization while still maintaining clear roles. I think a great example of this is in True20, where there are three main roles that are well separated by the game's mechanics, yet there is a great level of customization involved through the use of feats. A PC can adopt distinct and conceptually unique roles within the class structure.

I have only limited familiarity with True 20, but it does sound like it has done some clever things.

I like classes too, and prefer things to be more streamlined.  That's how I'm approaching it in my game, and how it tend to prefer it in other games.

Making the classes either generic enough of flexible enough to let you be all those other cool concepts, is a nice goal -- but so many classes in games like D&D seem like they're differently weighted Fighter/Wizard/Rogue classes.

I like the archetype of the Friar, or Warrior Priest -- but I'm not really sold on the Cleric as Battlefield Medic combination.  I never felt you could make "Friar Tuck" using the D&D Cleric.

Quote from: StuartI like classes too, and prefer things to be more streamlined.  That's how I'm approaching it in my game, and how it tend to prefer it in other games.

Making the classes either generic enough of flexible enough to let you be all those other cool concepts, is a nice goal -- but so many classes in games like D&D seem like they're differently weighted Fighter/Wizard/Rogue classes.

I like the archetype of the Friar, or Warrior Priest -- but I'm not really sold on the Cleric as Battlefield Medic combination.  I never felt you could make "Friar Tuck" using the D&D Cleric.

The cleric class is about as archetypal for general fantasy as an acrobat-warrior class would be.  It's a thing of the game, not of the source fiction.

I ran OD&D/AD&D for twenty years, so don't think I have a thing against classes per se, but I've never agreed with niche protection. It's an artificial restraint, not an evolutionary result. Specialization should be it's own reward. If you are a thief and stick to thief things, you'll be a better thief than someone who dabbles in spells and fights a bit better. If you want to do everything, then fine - just realize you will be mediocre at everything, all things being equal, and deal. I also agree with Balbinus - yeah, this is getting to be a habit - that too many classes pretty much screws up the concept. A few core classes - 3-5 or so - and fairly free access to other classes skills - paying a penalty is fine, but no real restraints on what you have access to - would be the best possible combination for me.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's an artificial restraint, not an evolutionary result.

But it's an artificial restraint that works to help people play together, so what's the problem?

An idea doesn't have to be inevitable to be good.

Quote from: TonyLBBut it's an artificial restraint that works to help people play together, so what's the problem?

An idea doesn't have to be inevitable to be good.

I agree. Sometimes your group can evolve into a well-defined team, and other times it becomes a hydra - six copies of the same head. Personally, I like to rely on the rules to help each player get a piece of the game's action.

Taking Flyingmice's point, I think if you have more than 3 to 5 classes you really should be asking if your game is best suited to being a class based system.

Trad fantasy, we have warrior, wizard, rogue, maybe priest I guess though wizard would often cover it I think, frankly after that I'm struggling.

There's a reason most early fantasy games followed those archetypes.  More than that and you have wastage IMO.

I tend to think a group is forced to work together more if the party consists of:
Priest + Warrior + Wizard + Rogue

Instead of:
Priest/Warrior/Wizard + Warrior/Wizard/Rogue + Priest/Warrior/Rogue + Priest/Wizard/Rogue

I guess it depends on what you want the play-style and gameplay to be like.

A lot of the Rolemaster (2nd) classes were just tweaks to the development costs of skills (plus sometimes a handful of spell lists). I think a large number of D&D 3 classes are something similar, dicking around with class feats - generally it's the feats (and items, which is another kettle of fish) that differentiate D&D 3 characters.

Obviously, a more flexible approach to assigning development costs/feats would obviate the need for so many individual classes, but then it's nice to be able to quickly grab the handful of wotsits that you need. Which is kind the bright side of what Stuart is saying here:

Quote from: Stuart... but so many classes in games like D&D seem like they're differently weighted Fighter/Wizard/Rogue classes.

See, that can be a feature as well as a bug.

If you're going to go all elemental, I always rather like the RM classification: non-spell user, pure spell user and semi-spell user. If you combine that with the fighter, rogue and wizard archetypes, then maybe you're getting somewhere. But then what the hell is a non-spell using wizard? Maybe an academic or a montebank? Maybe "Brawn, wits and brains" are a better breakdown? I dunno, I'm winging it here.

Ned

QuoteBut then what the hell is a non-spell using wizard? Maybe an academic or a montebank? Maybe "Brawn, wits and brains" are a better breakdown? I dunno, I'm winging it here.

Maybe an Inventor or Apothecary?