When I like classes, and when I don't

JamesV · November 17, 2006, 09:21:01 AM

Quote from: BalbinusTaking 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.

Which leads nicely to when I don't like classes. It may be all in my head, but I don't think that modern settings are amenable to classes. After The Fighting Man, most roles can be summed up in a mulitude of skilled specialists, I have problems thinking of strong archetypes for this setting, so I'd rather settle on flexibility.

Balbinus · November 17, 2006, 09:26:02 AM

Quote from: JamesVWhich leads nicely to when I don't like classes. It may be all in my head, but I don't think that modern settings are amenable to classes. After The Fighting Man, most roles can be summed up in a mulitude of skilled specialists, I have problems thinking of strong archetypes for this setting, so I'd rather settle on flexibility.

It works much better for fantasy, I agree. One of my issues with D20 Modern was that the classes just didn't particularly relate to anything evocative for me.

Basically I see classes as best suited to fantasy games, in other genres I think they tend to look rather odd. The question is whether the genre contains clear archetypes, fantasy generally does, other genres sometimes do but it's less common.

TonyLB · November 17, 2006, 09:30:06 AM

Quote from: BalbinusBasically I see classes as best suited to fantasy games, in other genres I think they tend to look rather odd. The question is whether the genre contains clear archetypes, fantasy generally does, other genres sometimes do but it's less common.

I think that it's possible to ... construct? discover? ... anyway, you can perceive archetypes on things by paying attention to them, even when they don't immediately slap you in the face.

For instance, this is reminding me of Margaret Cho's commentary of Charlie's Angels: "There's the smart one, the sweet one ... and then there's the ho." How's that for niche protection?

Ned the Lonely Donkey · November 17, 2006, 09:35:33 AM

There's pulp - two-fisted types, inventors, mentalists &etc.

Do you think that niche protection is necessary part of class-based systems? I mean a class is defined as much as by what it can't do as by what it can.

Ned

flyingmice · November 17, 2006, 09:36:17 AM

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 don't see it helping people to play together. All I saw it doing - before I removed it in houserules long ago - was making my players frustrated and angry. After I removed it, there was a brief period where everyone wanted to do everything, then it quickly settled down to where the PCs were mostly in agreement with the original classes, with a couple of quirks. The niches worked because the original class concepts were solid, real archetypes. They didn't need artificial protection.

-clash

Balbinus · November 17, 2006, 09:37:35 AM

Quote from: TonyLBI think that it's possible to ... construct? discover? ... anyway, you can perceive archetypes on things by paying attention to them, even when they don't immediately slap you in the face.

You can, but I doubt it's worth it. The power of classes lies in their instant recognisability and their evocative power. It's the way they draw on obvious archetypes that lends them their strength.

If you have to dig for the archetype, it may be there, but the immediate power is lost I think.

That said, it's not impossible in a modern setting as the A-Team shows us.

Tech guy, face, muscle guy, fourth guy I don't remember, Boy George.

Dr Rotwang! · November 17, 2006, 09:38:09 AM

I like classes when they summarize a character's role, not when they dictate the character's development.

Balbinus · November 17, 2006, 09:39:03 AM

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyThere's pulp - two-fisted types, inventors, mentalists &etc.

Do you think that niche protection is necessary part of class-based systems? I mean a class is defined as much as by what it can't do as by what it can.

Ned

No, I think the power of classes is in their being shorthand. A way of granting depth with minimal work. Niche protection is a side benefit really.

If I say I'm playing a warrior that instantly gives you some idea of my character without my yet having to sink much work in, that's useful given the abbreviated descriptive form of our hobby as compared to novels or film.

Balbinus · November 17, 2006, 09:39:58 AM

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I like classes when they summarize a character's role, not when they dictate the character's development.

That's the essence of my point, just put better and more succinctly.

flyingmice · November 17, 2006, 09:40:06 AM

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I like classes when they summarize a character's role, not when they dictate the character's development.

Bingo.

-clash

JamesV · November 17, 2006, 09:40:12 AM

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyDo you think that niche protection is necessary part of class-based systems? I mean a class is defined as much as by what it can't do as by what it can.

Ned

I think niche protection is the best use for classes, though there is one game I forgive for its overload on classes and the ridiculous overlap it creates, RIFTS. Since RIFTS is a crazy catch-all powergame, I can forgive the hundreds of OCC/RCCs that are the summation of over three dozen books.

Ned the Lonely Donkey · November 17, 2006, 09:40:42 AM

Oh, Star Children - drummer, guitarist, bass player, keyboards and vocalist. Was there a manager class, too? As a variation, howzabout an opera-based RPG - Soprano, Tenor, Bass and Contralto?

Ned

JamesV · November 17, 2006, 09:42:57 AM

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I like classes when they summarize a character's role, not when they dictate the character's development.

Could you explain yourself further? I mean what's the point of picking, for example, a fighter class, if the class has no bearing on further devolping the concept?

Edit: Are you thinking of cross-classing and the like?

TonyLB · November 17, 2006, 09:45:07 AM

Quote from: BalbinusYou can, but I doubt it's worth it. The power of classes lies in their instant recognisability and their evocative power. It's the way they draw on obvious archetypes that lends them their strength.

But that's not objective, right?

Like, if I play a sentai game, and you tell me "You can be one of the following classes: Paragon, Loner, Big Guy, Kid, Girl" then I am good to go. I immediately recognize all of those archetypes.

But I imagine that for lots of people, those classes wouldn't really work. They aren't recognizable.

So when I, personally, have put in the effort to construct a set of archetypes around something ... well then, they become useful to me, right?

Or am I misreading you?

flyingmice · November 17, 2006, 09:45:20 AM

Quote from: StuartI 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.

But I've tried it and - after a short period of experimentation - people always settle back into the standard classes, but with a couple of quirks. True jack of all trades types become woefully underpowered very quickly compared to those who stayed with their class roles. What I saw were fighters who had a few thieving skills, thiefs who could cast a couple of spells in a pinch, and wizards who could use a weapon if they really needed it. All these are found in the source fiction.

-clash