The Forge Archives

QuoteI pronounce this thread closed.

Seriously? Cause I was gonna say somethin' and all...

Here goes anyway.

Classes, to my mind, work in settings/games where different characters will have significantly differentiated roles and where those roles can be easily classified. To go back to ol' D&D, a Wizard and a Fighter are pretty easily differentiated- their abilities are significantly different, they fulfill different functions in the group, etc. By contrast, in something like, say, CALL OF CTHULHU the characters may have professions, but there's a huge amount of overlap in their skills and abilities and so classes aren't as useful. In a game I'm working on, the iconic characters are more differentiated by personality and style than actual ability, so I'm eschewing any sort of class structure.

The advantage, as someone pointed out, is that in a class system it's easy to choose something and customise it, instead of building from the ground up. The advantage of a non-class system is that you can build from the ground up.

Hi Evan,

Yes, seriously. When I say the thread is closed, it's closed.

However, that's not to say that the topic is off-limits or anything like that. You raise some points and they deserve attention. Therefore I've split your post into a thread of its own.

For those who want the background, the thread Evan posted to is here (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2205).

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Evan,

Yes, seriously. When I say the thread is closed, it's closed.

Ron

Might that not be a good time to use the lock feature?

Hi Ralph,

No. If I did that, then every friggin' thread on the Forge would have to be locked at, say, two-three months expiration (ie no new posts). Although I confess that I find that appealing, the fact is that most people perceive locked threads in a negative way - as if it were a failed or punished thread of some kind.

So everyone simply has to be nice and help new posters see that (a) old threads should be let lie, (b) when I say it's closed that it is, and (c) their comments are not being marginalized just because my/our standards for old/new threads are a little strange here.

In the spirit of (c), could someone please address Evan's point in this thread?

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Evan Waters

QuoteThe advantage, as someone pointed out, is that in a class system it's easy to choose something and customise it, instead of building from the ground up. The advantage of a non-class system is that you can build from the ground up.

Why not take the concept of an "iconic" character to the extreme and make a set of pre-generated characters that ARE the characters to be used in every game of "New Game X"? Forget character creation. Just say, okay...choose one: A, B, C, D or E.

In some ways, "god RPG's" are like this. You choose a God as your character (and this is either slightly-defined in the pre-game stage like the God of Death or strictly defined like Thor, the Norse God of Thunder).

- J

I find it's harder to write a reply when I wholeheartedly agree - I don't have a lot to say besides, "Right on."

Evan's correct: in a game where the characters all fill very different societal roles, classes often make sense, especially when the game explores the difference between those roles. In addition, classes make it much easier to create a character, have a good understanding of that character, and start a game quickly. I have found class or template-based games to be much more accessible to the casual gamer, and usually try to start a beginning gamer with one.

Ron's mentioned before that all games have a degree of class-base in them, even games like GURPS, which I find to be true. I'm not sure if this is because classes are an intrinsic concept to humans or if the idea of classes has just been ingrained in games, but I think you can easily chart the "rigidity" of classes and the amount of customization possible with all games.

I was recently GMing a game in which players can choose any background they desire (so long as they're living in America in the present day).  Three of the players were complete novices (they had absolutely no concept of what role-playing games are like until we sat down to create characters).

The other two had some experience, and sat down to create characters.  The three novices were stunned.  Now, I'd created a series of archetypes, templates that the novices could use as a guide.  I needn't have bothered.  They asked several pointed questions, then got to work.  Frankly, I was a little surprised.  One, a woman I've known for some years (and a fairly gentle person, at that), created a sadistic ex-con with a fondness for piano wire.  Not what I would have expected at all.  The other two presented me with equally disparate (and surprising) characters.


Since then, I've wondered if classes, or templates, would have inhibited the character generation process.  They've discussed the possibility of trying other games, and I've explained some core concepts with them, such as character class.  They seem to find the idea confusing.

But Willow can fight and use spells, they say.  If she were in this game, she'd have to choose one or the other?

I must say, I was taken aback.  I'd have thought that the prospect of limitless possibility might be a bit daunting, but they've taken to it very naturally.  It's the idea of class, or archetype, that frustrates them.

Not what I'd have expected at all.  But my old-school gamers feel the exact opposite.

So, Evan, I agree with you, but I'm also wondering if it might not be ideal to start novices out with a classless game system?  In this instance, it worked well, but it's also the first time I've GMed novices in about a decade.

Anyone else?

-- Rafael

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Ralph,

No. If I did that, then every friggin' thread on the Forge would have to be locked at, say, two-three months expiration (ie no new posts). Although I confess that I find that appealing, the fact is that most people perceive locked threads in a negative way - as if it were a failed or punished thread of some kind.

So everyone simply has to be nice and help new posters see that (a) old threads should be let lie, (b) when I say it's closed that it is, and (c) their comments are not being marginalized just because my/our standards for old/new threads are a little strange here.

In the spirit of (c), could someone please address Evan's point in this thread?

Best,
Ron

2 seperate issues as I see it.  This was not a case of resurrecting an old thread that should have just been left alone.  This was a case of a topic being discussed to the point of impasse and (in the midst of otherwise active posting) you as list moderator declaring the the thread closed.

I don't question you doing so, it seemed like a good place to call it quits anyway, and that responsibility/authority of course is yours to wield.  But if you are going to verbally call a thread over and done, than it makes little sense (to me) to not take the extra measure and lock the thread.  By declaring it done and expecting people to honor that you are essentially locking the thread anyway.

I wouldn't expect that to apply to all threads that get stale...merely seems like a good policy for threads that you feel the need to make such announcements on.

Quote...I'm also wondering if it might not be ideal to start novices out with a classless game system? In this instance, it worked well, but it's also the first time I've GMed novices in about a decade.

I have to agree with this altogether. Yes, I think classes have a roll, but how much "class" is suitable for what you're doing. I find D&D Classes to be very restrictive (as in the Willow example, above), and so I don't play D&D any more (well, actually there's a ton of reasons), despite the fact that I had many good and joyous years playing it. IMO it comes down to (1) what your players want to do with their characters and (2) what they are and aren't willing to "believe."

TROS doesn't have classes per se (I mildly disagree with Ron's statement of "socerers and everyone else" as classes in TROS), but each character is required to invent their own "concept" at the beginning of play, which is really just a self-defined class. That allows even new players to have the freedom of expression that was addressed with classless systems and new players above, but also the structure that comes with a defined role.

I think that some major pros of classes are: easy to use and define, easy to get started, easy to stereotype, etc.
Major cons: they don't often (or usually, for that matter) fit the "concept" that a player has in mind, unless they've been conditioned to the "basic 4" or whatever during years of previous play. They're restrictive. They usually (but not always) are attached to level-based systems (which drive me nuts, mostly on grounds of hit points and other mechanics, but that's really more a personal issue...oh, and I hate hearing, ""My 47th level guy did so-and-so"...ugh...)

I really think that RPGs exist to help us realize fantasies, daydreams, stories, or whatever, and I find that Classes (especially strongly pre-defined classes as in--but not only--D&D) hamper creativity and story-creating capability.

Just my 2c.

Jake

QuoteWhy not take the concept of an "iconic" character to the extreme and make a set of pre-generated characters that ARE the characters to be used in every game of "New Game X"? Forget character creation. Just say, okay...choose one: A, B, C, D or E.

Hmm. I'd imagine that for long-term play players would be more likely to want to create their own PCs, but I can imagine this working in some games just as a change of pace. The two caveats would be this: you'd have to create enough pregens to accomadate any reasonable group size, and you'd have to make any possible combination of them plausible. For "God games", like you mentioned (but I snipped), that'd be somewhat easy, just build a large pantheon, and whatever gods the players choose might have any reason for working together. On the other hand it didn't work for TSR's INDIANA JONES game because everyone wanted to play Indy (though Marian would be acceptable, I'd imagine- that girl can handle herself) and not many people would be keen on playing Willie or Short Round instead.

Quote from: Jared A. Sorensen
Why not take the concept of an "iconic" character to the extreme and make a set of pre-generated characters that ARE the characters to be used in every game of "New Game X"? Forget character creation. Just say, okay...choose one: A, B, C, D or E.

The Sims RPG.  Actually, I really like this idea - this would be true Exploration of Character, as the explorer is still alienated from the Character and thus has an externality to Explore.

Quote from: deadguy
So, Evan, I agree with you, but I'm also wondering if it might not be ideal to start novices out with a classless game system?  In this instance, it worked well, but it's also the first time I've GMed novices in about a decade.

Yes yes yes yes. IMO the looser the system for novices, the happier everyone is.

Quote from: Evan WatersHmm. I'd imagine that for long-term play players would be more likely to want to create their own PCs, but I can imagine this working in some games just as a change of pace. The two caveats would be this: you'd have to create enough pregens to accomadate any reasonable group size, and you'd have to make any possible combination of them plausible.

Hmm...

A while back I proposed a theoretical "Scooby-Doo" RPG (didn't you write something like that up, Jared?). My proposal (in no way meant to infringe upon the license of the suddenly more valuable Scooby-Doo franchise) was that in that game, you could only play with five players, and the characters were Fred, Daphne, Thelma, Shaggy, and Scoob. No chargen, just the same characters every game. I also proposed that it be highly structured, with "clues" laid out at regular intervals, a plan to catch the villan at the end, and every session ending up with the captured villain saying, "And I'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"

Sure, why not? I think that's one of those assumptions that should have gone on that list, that players get to make up their characters at the beginning of every RPG. I also think that, like many boardgames, limiing the number of players that can play to an exact figure is fine, too.

Mike

various thoughs and replies:
1)Hi everyone from the new guy.

2)For the record I'd define class as something like this.

A choice made by the PLAYER at charachter creation time that restricts the directions the charachter can go in the future.  This choice is usually based on some sort of conservation mechanic. In some cases the thing being conserved is 'balance'.  Basicly, all characthers are considered to have roughly the same amount of the thing being conserved, thus, you can't do everything.
To take the the previously mentioned
example of Occupation: The thing being conserved is time, so everyone is...say 25. Now unless I'm some sort of supergenius(we'll just say that's impossible, we're starting people here). I can't both have a Ph.D in Computer Science and be a MD.(I wouldn't have time to do both degree's).
Therefor classes could be defined by what choices the charachter has made over their life and what they could not do because of limitations.

Multiclassing simply extends this by saying that some choices are compatable. To continue of occupation example: I could start off as a Surgeon, and later become Writer with very little effort.(Really, all I have to do to do this is write alot. We'll ignore the quality of what is written and weather or not I can actually make money doing it).
This also generally means that to much multiclassing makes a charachter who is no good at anything. Or more generally,
the rewards for unlimited specialization outway the rewards for unlimited diversification.
I could make a fighter/mage/theif/cleric/psionicist, but the rest of the group would be around 5th level, so I'd have few hp/s and die. Another wayt to think of it is a gurps charachter with lots and lots of skills at 8 or less. I'm no good at everything.  :)

 
I think people start to have a problem when there is no apparent thing being conserved(My Inner Simulationist rebels).
Eg. Ok, so a mage only had time to learn how to use a dagger...this implies one of two things.
1)Why couldn't the one weapon the mage had time to learn be something else? Say a mace or broadsword?
2)Or, say you have to learn dagger befor you learn bigger weapons, why arn't all fighters at least somewhat proficient in dagger?

Disclaimer:I looked at the previous thread and some other ones, so this while this isn't really new, hopefully it is usefull to the current thread.

Uh... I kinda closed discussion on the first thread because I was a newb when I started it and the thread didn't really have a premise.  I don't see how this one is different...  Anyway: Classes don't work for a simulationist game in virtually any function, for the simple reason that they don't make sense, despite every effort made by game designer.  For function, they can allow for easy GMing, as the players have fewer choices, and they allow for protaganism.  But are thoes two things good? Look at LOTR, because it's the basis for the original classed system. Do ANY of the characters from the Hobbit fit into classes? Mabee Gandalf, but he does have a sword.  Bilbo, a thief?  In a classed system, to preserve the protagonism, he'd get the same abilities as every one else.  You could not therefore have the LOTR journeys.  

To start a premise for this thread: If classes have actual gameplay enhancement properties, what should they determine? Money, weapon proficiancy, skills?

And Ron, why bother moving everything from the first tread to a new one, if you can simply lock it.  If you feel that locking gives a controllish and restrictive attude, then you should already know that the forge is like that already and that not one cares.  This attitude makes Spammers leave quickly and people like me, adapt my attitude quickly.  It's O.K.

Quote from: PyronAnyway: Classes don't work for a simulationist game in virtually any function, for the simple reason that they don't make sense, despite every effort made by game designer.  For function, they can allow for easy GMing, as the players have fewer choices, and they allow for protaganism.  But are thoes two things good? Look at LOTR, because it's the basis for the original classed system. Do ANY of the characters from the Hobbit fit into classes? Mabee Gandalf, but he does have a sword.  Bilbo, a thief?  In a classed system, to preserve the protagonism, he'd get the same abilities as every one else.  You could not therefore have the LOTR journeys.  

Please stop confounding "Classes" with what D&D does.  You will not find a single person on the Forge who disagrees with you on the idea that D&D was an unsatisfactory bastardization of Tolkien and other myths.  Hell we had an interesting discussion this weekend on how a huge part of what is now concidered to be "standard fantasy" was made up by a bunch of proto-gamers in their basement.  

This is one way of doing classes, and not one I find particularly satisfying either.  However, it does work to the degree it was intended to work.  Where it fails is when it gets applied to areas that it was never intended to be applied to.  This is not a failure of the class system as much as its a failure of game designers who try to make "one size fit all".

I'm a big believer in customized game mechanics.  A games mechanics should address the purpose of the game in such a way that it handles that purpose extremely well.  If this leaves the game less suited for other purposes, that IMO is a good thing.  Pendragon for instance is one of my all time favorite RPGs (although the mechanics could use a little updating) because it is difficult to imagine the game being used for anything other than Arthurian (or closely related) adventure.

Similiarly D&D in its earliest incarnations was a very customized RPG.  It was designed for dungeon crawls.  It was designed to represent that subset of a world's population that make their living delving underground and killing things for loot.  It does that well.  Where it failed as a game, is when people started thinking of it as some sort of "universal" system and started trying to have non dungeon crawl adventures with the game.  Thats when the seems started to show.  Thats when the features like levels, classes, hit points, and (in the earliest versions) lack of non combat related skills started being a problem.

Don't blame D&D, blame the people who tried to take DUNGEONS and Dragons, out of the Dungeon.

Quote
To start a premise for this thread: If classes have actual gameplay enhancement properties, what should they determine? Money, weapon proficiancy, skills?

Now that is a worthy topic for discussion.  I'd have to answer it at this point with a large "that depends".  What game are we talking about?  The biggest question is "what are people supposed to be doing in the game" or "what is the game about".

The answer to your question is then this:  Classes should determine for the player's characters whatever set of features (money, weapons proficency, skills, etc) most applies to the answer to the question of "what are those characters supposed to be doing".

In original D&D the characters were supposed to dungeon dive.  Classes then determined a package of features appropriate for dungeon diving (and very little else...which IMO is wholly appropriate).

In Pendragon the characters were supposed to be knights.  Classes as they existed in Pendragon determined things like social status, starting equipment, and skill requirments.  They combined with culture and region in a "choose one from column A and one from column B" sort of way to determine religion, and starting personal beliefs (great for use as sources of conflict).

Right there you can see the idea of classes (which is nothing more than a broad ranging set of features slapped on a character all at once...whether its called Class, or Template, or Profession doesn't matter) being used to promote two completely different answers to the "what are characters supposed to do" question.

Quote from: ValamirRight there you can see the idea of classes (which is nothing more than a broad ranging set of features slapped on a character all at once...whether its called Class, or Template, or Profession doesn't matter) being used to promote two completely different answers to the "what are characters supposed to do" question.

I've said this before but I think it bears repeating. The difference between a D&D-class and a Call of Cthulhu "profession/template/whatever" is that the class (or whatever you call it -- Character Type A) defines the Player's role in the game where the other (Character Type B) defines the character's role in the setting.

I do think this ties into GNS because of the whole metagame angle (a Thief in D&D is a completely different beastie than a Thief in CoC, Ars Magica or Riddle of Steel). So I don't buy the "Classes don't work" argument (the complaint being that they're limiting, not realistic, used to pigeon-hole characters, etc. etc.)...

Good distinction Jared.  Can we think of any other games that use class as a player role differentiator.  Is it common enough to develop a taxonomy around?

Quote from: ValamirGood distinction Jared.  Can we think of any other games that use class as a player role differentiator.  Is it common enough to develop a taxonomy around?

Orkworld has some definite player roles going on (Tala being one of the most important ones as that determines how experience and Trouble are  gained, IIRC). Trollbabe and Elfs don't have multiple classes but they definitely have classes ("everyone's character is a _______"). Superhero games have a tendency to dwell on defining the professional skills of a character, but these aren't really important. The "class" is "superhero" regardless of background or profession.

D&D had player classes as well that had nothing to do with the characters. Remember the Mapper, the Treasurer and the Caller?

In a lot of games (they seem to be mostly sim games), there is an absence of classes -- you can play virtually anything but that doesn't really affect how you approach the game (except via player choices -- characterization, character history/background, etc.). The classic example would be the high-fantasy game character that is a cook or something similarly atypical for "heroic adventuring."

Vampire seems to have layers upon layers of classes...good because they allow for minute customization. Bad because each layer draws away from the focus of the game and the player's role. I'm a Vampire (all-encompassing game role)/Gangrel (clan)/Survivalist (professional skills) -- add generation, Nature, sect and status into the mix and it gets really confusing.

Edit: I was gonna mention Paranoia. Then I wasn't. Now I decided to mention it after all. The de-facto class is singular: Troubleshooter. The service group is just something to define your skills and not really used to define your role in the game (the HPD&MC guy doesn't have a specific function in the group...not like a cleric or Tala or Hacker does).

But if you look at it this way: "Everyone in Paranoia is a Traitorous Troubleshooter" (traitorous defined by being a mutant and a member of a secret society), then you begin to see specific in-game functions. The "real" class in paranoia is a Mutant Secret Society Member. Being a Troubleshooter is more like a secondary class. It explains who your character is but not really what you as a player are supposed to do.

Y'know, I'm thinking Cyberpunk almost bridges the gap between role-in-game and role-in-setting, since the roles there (Solo, Fixer, etc.) not only focus the professional concept of a character, but provide unique skills for that role (e.g., Combat Sense for Solos, Resources for Corporates, and the like).  Thoughts?

Best,

Blake

Quote from: Blake HutchinsY'know, I'm thinking Cyberpunk almost bridges the gap between role-in-game and role-in-setting, since the roles there (Solo, Fixer, etc.) not only focus the professional concept of a character, but provide unique skills for that role (e.g., Combat Sense for Solos, Resources for Corporates, and the like).  Thoughts?

Best,

Blake

Yes, to a point. I think Cyberpunk tries too hard to be "complete" -- there's not really a point to a few of the roles. Solo, Netrunner, Corporate, Fixer, Techie and Medic work for me. Rockerboy and Media do too, but in a different game (as does Cop, I guess...kinda). Nomad? Huh...hmmm...no.

But yeah, the unique abilities are very Classy (hah!).

- J

Quite true.  Cyberpunk classes almost require that play gets organized along a theme (generic useage).  You can do the road warrior Cop / Nomad / Fixer type campaign.  You can do the Max Headroom Media / Fixer type campaign.  You can do the Emergency 51 Nomad / Medic / Solo / (fixer if you go shady) type campaign.  You can do the Rockerboy hero type campaign, you can do the Shadowrun Solo / Fixer / Netrunner type campaign, etc.  But if you play too much mix and match, it doesn't really come together.

As you point out, this is because Cyberpunk aims to be more "complete".  D&D didn't have this issue as greatly because its classes were already centered around a theme dungeon crawling.  The closest you'd have to this issue in D&D is whether you should swap a Ranger and Druid for a fighter and cleric and elves for dwarves cleric a wilderness dungeon instead of an underground one.

Well, at the risk of hair-splitting, I never said the class-role-thingies in C-punk worked.  I agree completely with your take on 'em, Jared.  Mixing some of the roles together felt... awkward.

Best,

Blake

Jared had a good point with the difference between a charachters role in a game verses a charachters role in a setting. Valamir got at this also.

I think that a premise actually creates roles for the game. Some subset of these roles must be filled for the premise to work. Not all roles must be filled, but some subset must for the premise to work.  Generally, a GM can work around if some roles are missing, by tailoring what happens in the game or by providing NPC's.  Also, as was mentioned the before, the roles the provided by players must be compatable.  
For instance the 'Dungeon Crawling Adventurers' premice creates roles for
1)Person to deal wtih traps 'thief'
2)Person to fight baddies 'mage/fighter'
-mages have more punch, but fighters have staying power(I.e. can get in many fights, you don't run out of sword swings for the day)
3)Source of healing 'clerics'

Also, most have a secondary role. Mages  have knowledge of magic, clerics can turn undead(common dugeon monster). Clerics and thiefs are also secondary fighters. (I left of thief sneaking as it's more of a city thing, and there is a tendency to 'thief scouts ahead and get's killed')

CoC has the premise of 'investigators' and so it creates the following roles.
1)Person who has relevent knowledge to the matter at hand.
2)Person who has skills that can resolve the situation.
Both these roles are more varied, as they are both fairly broad, and probably require multiple people to fill. E.g. one person has social skills to do interviews and another can defeat the zombie masters zombies so the actual master can be reached.

I think C2020's class system was pretty good, inasmuch as they do pretty comprehensively cover the "adventuring layer" of society.  Some of the roles are difficult to mix-n-match, but then again, any particular combo of characters could be present in A story - its just does not work as a persistant model.

As another thought, it occurred to me that on meeting people we often ask "what do you do (for a living)", which is pretty much "what class are you".  We do not necessarily gsain much insight about the personality of the person, but it does give an insight into their daily life and the kinds of problems they face and the skills they probably employ to solve them.  Newspapers, often refer to "Bob Jones, a retired plumber from Essex" for much the same reason.

QuoteYou will not find a single person on the Forge who disagrees with you on the idea that D&D was an unsatisfactory bastardization of Tolkien and other myths.

:::sheepishly raises hand:::

Was D&D a crude pastiche of Western fantasy? Yes. Is it a fully accurate reflection of any single one of them? No.

Do I find it unsatisfactory? Not in the least. I find it works for a lot of kinds of fantasy, and it's one of my favorite games. I understand how on an indie RPG forum there'd be an overall trend of dissatisfaction with the ultimate #1 corporate-owned game on the market, but let's not generalise.

However, I do see the point Valamir is making in general, which is that talking about the problems of classes in D&D is not talking about the pros and cons of classes in general. Just like me pointing out any problems I've had with, say, the Storyteller system would not be pointing out the inherent flaws of dice pool systems.

Should have been more clear Evan, I apologize.  I didn't want to come across as saying that D&D was an unsatisfactory game...only that it was an unsatisfactory adaptation of the source material it was largely drawing from.