Quote from: C.W.RichesonI can totally dig that.  Modern characters don't translate as well into archetypes as fantasy characters do.  It's worth pointing out, though, that modern incarnations of d20 are less class based.  M&M has no classes and d20 Modern is designed with extensive multi-classing in mind.

But Spycraft... which is better than either IMNSHO... embraces classes.

M&M I can buy. Unlike other genres, I actually agree that classes are a poor fit for supers because superpowers often have nothing to do with training or life experience, and often stand alone.

But I think it's pretty telling that in most modern and even futuristic action shows and movies, I have little problem pegging most characters with a spycraft class (or fairly simple combination thereof).

I dismiss the notion that archetypes only apply to fantasy. I think that springs from the fact that's what you might be used to playing class based systems with.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI dismiss the notion that archetypes only apply to fantasy. I think that springs from the fact that's what you might be used to playing class based systems with.

I agree with you.  I haven't, and wouldn't, argue that archetypes can't work for everything.  I do think that 'modern' is more broad than 'fantasy' and that Spycraft succeeds so well by being narrowly focused on the sorts of games it wants to work with.  I also think that class systems work better with more focused goals and genre in mind, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is J's point that the classes themselves communicate something about the setting.  When I sit down to play Spycraft my mind goes in totally different directions than it does when I sit down for d20 Modern.

The class systems that seem able to handle any genre well - True 20 and D20 Modern - are very general with the meaning and purpose of the classes.  Multiclassing in both games is common and encouraged in order to obtain the desired character.  I think this is because it's more difficult to peg things as archetypes when you start talking about all of possibility (or even all of modern game concepts).

QuoteI dismiss the notion that archetypes only apply to fantasy.

That's an inaccurate interpretation of what I'm saying.  I think those sorts of archetypes as represented in D&D's class system only work well in D&D.  

Real people don't fit into neat molds like that, and I find that while that is easily dismissed in D&D, it becomes less so when moved to a setting that is closer to home, like the modern day, because I can just look around me at the people I meet and be able to say, "But that's not right!"

It's really not a fantasy vs. modern vs. scifi thing or anything like that, excepting that in further removal from real day-to-day life, those sorts of straightjacketed archetypes are more acceptable shortcuts.

By and large, I don't care for class systems most times, and I'm on the fence over levels depending on how they're implemented.  I make an exception for D&D because in D&D, they do prove to be rather fun as a game mechanic, and also because the world of D&D is essentially defined by those classes.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's really not a fantasy vs. modern vs. scifi thing or anything like that, excepting that in further removal from real day-to-day life, those sorts of straightjacketed archetypes are more acceptable shortcuts.

Okay, as much as I can see this, it seems to me that most D20 variants for which this applies make the archetypes much less straightjacketed. D&D, for example, seems to be the only remaining D20 variant these days that levies multiclass restrictions. Most better d20 variants insert a lot more room for variance (like feats and talent tree choices in D20 modern; origins and the intermittent class ability choices in Spycraft). But not so much, mind you, that you end up with the scattershot type characters you find in many free-build point systems, and with the added benefit of guiding you towards cohesive concepts that are in line with the settings.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadOkay, as much as I can see this, it seems to me that most D20 variants for which this applies make the archetypes much less straightjacketed. D&D, for example, seems to be the only remaining D20 variant these days that levies multiclass restrictions. Most better d20 variants insert a lot more room for variance (like feats and talent tree choices in D20 modern; origins and the intermittent class ability choices in Spycraft). But not so much, mind you, that you end up with the scattershot type characters you find in many free-build point systems, and with the added benefit of guiding you towards cohesive concepts that are in line with the settings.

I find that the basic structure of how classes in D&D work, and how certain key abilities are directly tied to class level (not absolute level, but class), creates it's own multiclass penalty.  

The scattershot approach of take one or two levels in a dozen different classes is kludgy at best, and ultimately because of the nature of how classes work in D&D wind up crippling a character more than benefiting it.

Ultimately, I'd rather just have the freedom of a more flexible system from the get go, and by and large I've been very unsatisfied with the end result of the attempts to create such in D&D.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI also think that class systems work better with more focused goals and genre in mind, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is J's point that the classes themselves communicate something about the setting.

Absolutely.

When I first got Spycraft 2.0, I was bewildered at the number of base classes they provided. I was put off that they threw so many at you.

Then I read the genres section in the GM chapter, where they described a handful of appropriate classes for each genre, and all of a sudden I got it. :cool: The subset of classes defined for each genre does, exactly as you say, help define the genre, what the game is about.

And fantasy is not, by a long shot, the only genre eligible for this treatment.

QuoteThe class systems that seem able to handle any genre well - True 20 and D20 Modern - are very general with the meaning and purpose of the classes.  

I consider True20 a fairly weak take on a class based system because it's too general. The classes fail to design roles or aid you in assembling a cohesive genre-appropriate concept. As such, I see little point in uses classes at all. I'd just as soon use a classless system for anything one might consider True20 for.

D20 Modern is a horse of a different color. Whereas I'd consider Spycraft first for most modern action genres, it seems to me that D20 modern plays a slightly different roles. Namely, the classes seem to be based more on personality than role or profession. As such, I think it would be more appropriate for games where the pcs might be the same or similar professions but you wish to make strong mechanics based distinctions between characters. Something like where the entire party is something like the crew of a mining rig (like The Abyss).

Quote from: J ArcaneI find that the basic structure of how classes in D&D work, and how certain key abilities are directly tied to class level (not absolute level, but class), creates it's own multiclass penalty.

Sure. However, this is a quality of D&D, not necessarily shared by other D20 games, so the notion that D20 is D&D and cannot vary therefrom is given the lie. This is one of a number of ways that many other D20 games don't latch on to that strongly.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI consider True20 a fairly weak take on a class based system because it's too general. The classes fail to design roles or aid you in assembling a cohesive genre-appropriate concept. As such, I see little point in uses classes at all. I'd just as soon use a classless system for anything one might consider True20 for.

Yes and no. As writtin in the core book, sure. Although, we haven;t had any real problems as a result of the vaugeness. That said, the companion gives role creation rules, so you can tailor roles to your setting; IMO these rules should have been in the core book, actually.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSure. However, this is a quality of D&D, not necessarily shared by other D20 games, so the notion that D20 is D&D and cannot vary therefrom is given the lie. This is one of a number of ways that many other D20 games don't latch on to that strongly.

Class abilities alone introduce this problem.

Lets say we have a class that gets Cool Power 1 at level 1, Cool Power 2 at level 3, and Cool Power 3 at level 6.  Each Cool Power is progressively more powerful than the last.

The end result is that unless I take all those 6 levels, I don't get all those cool powers.  And this design quality is carried to all the other classes in the game.

So a character that goes all the way up to level 6 will wind up with inherently more powerful abilities than someone who takes, say, 2 levels each in three different classes.  

I've yet to see a class system that doesn't do this to some regard, D20 or no.

Quote from: J ArcaneClass abilities alone introduce this problem.

Lets say we have a class that gets Cool Power 1 at level 1, Cool Power 2 at level 3, and Cool Power 3 at level 6.  Each Cool Power is progressively more powerful than the last.

The end result is that unless I take all those 6 levels, I don't get all those cool powers.  And this design quality is carried to all the other classes in the game.

So a character that goes all the way up to level 6 will wind up with inherently more powerful abilities than someone who takes, say, 2 levels each in three different classes.  

I've yet to see a class system that doesn't do this to some regard, D20 or no.

I thinks that's
1) greatly oversimplifying
2) again, pegging something that many games don't do to the extent that D&D does, and ignores different approaches some other games have.
3) underplaying the potential effects of synergies between abilities of different classes that work together
4) neglect the role of versatility in determining character spotlight time (a primal measure of "balance" AFAIAC.) I think that the way spellcasters work in D&D really hinders versatility as a measure of multiclass character power, but for many other games that feature no magic or different approaches to magic, versatility can be a big factor in character power.

Of course, you can't really expect every class to work together well, but I think that in a well designed d20 variant, some logically cohesive concepts can work well together, and some systems specifically work this into their design.

In games like traveller D20 and true20, a great majority or all of the class abilities are simply bonus feats. T20 doesn't feature many long feat chains, so rarely does multiclassing hurt you if you are going after a specific feat chain unless you consciously choose a class that doesn't feature feats in that chain as a bonus feat.

In spycraft, many "class ability" chains are common between different classes; these class abilities are given names with a roman numerals. If you get the same ability from a different class, you just add the numbers together. So if you get Uncanny Dodge I and Uncanny Dodge II from progressing to level 8 in explorer, then switch over to Intruder and take 4 levels and get Uncanny Dodge I from that class, you actually get Uncanny Dodge III.

So in conclusion, there are lots of games out there that don't share the same limitations D&D does, just because they feature classes, levels, and use a d20.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo a character that goes all the way up to level 6 will wind up with inherently more powerful abilities than someone who takes, say, 2 levels each in three different classes.

One of the major reasons I don't like class based systems generally.

The answer to this is simple if not easy to implement. Create new classes. Most times I multiclass because I'd like to do a little cherry picking of class features.

Actually is there something out there for this? Something specific as a class construction kit of some kind?

I actually thought I would like the kind of class treatments in games like true20. But in the end I actually didn't like the watered down class approach as much.

Quote from: 1717 FusilThis is an offshoot of my other thread. As I have been looking over all my games and scaling back, I keep having this thought. Why not just go completely d20 and be done with it. Now on one had I am not a huge fan of  d20 but find it easy to set up and run and for the most part find players. On the otherhand I like other systems better than d20.

For fantasy, right now I am debating either using Arrowflight, RC D&D, C&C or D&D 3.5 to start a campaign. 3 of the 4 are all essentially versions of d20.

I would like to use something like d6 maybe but don't feel like converting a setting or have time to create my own again. I would rather spend time playing though I love to create setting and even rule systems but love playing a game more. I just don't have time to do everything these days. Hence I am starting to see why some people just play d20 games and nothing else.

For me there are two reasons:

1) System Matters- for me I want a system that is buit specific for the setting

2) I don't like D20- I have no problem that people enjoy the system but it's just not a system I enjoy nor will play.

Lucky for me I have people who will play systems other then D20.  I guess if it comes to a point where D20 is the only system I can play I will put my game stuff on Ebay and walk away from the hobby

Quote from: darOne of the major reasons I don't like class based systems generally.

The answer to this is simple if not easy to implement. Create new classes. Most times I multiclass because I'd like to do a little cherry picking of class features.

Actually is there something out there for this? Something specific as a class construction kit of some kind?

True20 has this in the "True20 Campanion." But, really as Slaad said, there aren't really any really long feat chains in True 20 to begin with. Three feats is maybe the longest one I can think of.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonDifferent systems provide different play experiences and, on top of that, variety for those of us that want it.  If I run a fantasy game with GURPS, D&D 3.5, and Artesia then I'm going to have substantially different play experiences.  Even within a given system, such as d20 or GURPS, house rules and variations will notably change the experience.  Max HP every level?  The characters probably take more risks or fight tougher opponents than they otherwise would.  15th level characters rather than 2nd?  The entire scope of the game changes.

Even the core resolution mechanic is significant.  d20 provides a flat line of probability - you're as likely to roll a 10 as a 20 or a 3.  Other games provide a bell curve of differing amounts, such that results are more predictable.  A d20 roll adds more suspense to the die rolls, but it also sometimes leads to ridiculous inconsistency in character capabilities.

So, I play different game systems for different roleplaying experiences and because I find learning and understanding game systems to be part of the fun.

The thing is that the systems you mentioned (along with HERO, Unisystem, Rolemaster, Traveller, Cyberpunk, Tri-Stat, BRP, D6, and the like) are all essentially the same straight roll "attempt to achieve objective using ability" style systems, and most of these also separate the 'to hit' and 'damage' rolls as well. This means that as far as I'm concerned, they're effectively identical. The only differences are in the details, and quite frankly I can as easily add those to D20 as I can to any of the above.

Lets say I don't like the d20. I just replace it with the sum of a roll of 4d6-4 (or just count the 6's as 0's). Let's say I want PCs to all start with the same amount of HP. I just say characters have a straight 5X Level points. Let's say that I want to avoid focusing on combat, and more on the mental well being of the characters. I just rename HP to Sanity.

And suddenly I have a D20 version of "call of Cthulhu" that works better than the commercial one (and if you don't believe me, I'll run you a game ).

I can do similar things to the other systems to present the kind of experience I want, but if any of these systems will do, then why not start with D20?

That said, there are things none of these systems can do, and there are things all of these systems do that I hate, but that's a discussion for another time.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonThe class systems that seem able to handle any genre well - True 20 and D20 Modern - are very general with the meaning and purpose of the classes.  Multiclassing in both games is common and encouraged in order to obtain the desired character.  I think this is because it's more difficult to peg things as archetypes when you start talking about all of possibility (or even all of modern game concepts).

The whole point of a class is to give the player some idea of WHO the character is, not necessarily WHAT the character is capable of (though that may be a direct result of who the character is). The problem is that most class based systems tie mechanical effectiveness so closely to classes that a player has no choice but to game the 'archetypes' when they game the system, which leads to the creation of perhaps more effective, but far less meaningful and identifiable characters.

And then there are the systems (such as True20 and D20 Modern) that dispense with characterization entirely and do nothing BUT tie mechanical effectiveness to classes. I mean come on, 'Strong Hero'?!? They're just naming the classes after the attributes! You don't need classes to buy attribute related skills and feats, you need them to help give your character depth and direction.