Classes Vs. Reality

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I have made very valid arguing points in the past posts. Please argue against thoes instead of inferences you made about me and my experience.

OK, fair enough. I tried going back over your past post to figure out what you're driving at here and I have to say that I am confounded.

Near as I can figure, You have a dislike for classes and D&D/d20. WHether you hate D&D because you hate classes or you hate classes because you hate D&D I cannot say, but that's really not the point.

All you give for your dislike of classes it that they are unrealistic and limiting creatively, but as far as I can see, you do not back this up very well.

Realism is a word thrown around a lot by those who make and play RPGs. But the word is essentially meaningless unless you know what the game is realistic compared to. Real life? A fictional reality e.g. cartoons? As seen in Lord of the Rings? So the realism debate is itself pointless until we know exactly what your criteria is.

The limiting factor really isn't an issue if limiting is the intent of the designer. However, you disagree.

what I'm saying is that classes as a general princible don't help the designer's goals unless they are to make a simplistic game designed for the players to take on limited tasks using limited creativity

I happen to disagree with you. A game with a detail skill system can be daunting to people. It says, do whatever you want, but gives little direction on how to do what you want.

If you let 1,000 people make a character using the hypethetical system above, you will get 1,00 different characters. But, across those 1000 characters you could group them by variuos common abilities. In essence, these are classes except instead of simply choosing a class, they had to built it from scratch.

Similarly, you could go into a restaurant and order a burger with lettuce, tomato, mayo, pickles, onions, ketchup, mustard, cheese or you could go into Burger King and just ask for a Whopper. Some games do have room for customizing you character after class selection (Whopper, hold the pickle)

With you're blanket staement on classes "as a general principle" you are assuming a whole lot about people that is not really true. People do not always like to build their characters from scratch. People do not always like to decide what to get on their burger and are happy to get it as it comes and just pick the pickles off. ANd people sure as hell do not always enjoy the idea of spending three hours on character generation for the "increased satisfaction" of the finished character.

Trust me on this one. You've said you've been gaming for about a year, I've been gaming since 1982. I've played numerous games that took several hours to create characters and the amount of time and effort was not always worthwhile. The resulting character eventually took on a pattern not unlike the 1000 characters above, and in effect was character classes but it took us 4+ hours to make them.

Basically, you're assuming several big things here. You're assuming in what is realistic or not, and that these concerns matter to everybody. You're assuming that completely customizable characters are universally desired. You're also assuming that such a limitation will also limit creativity.

This last one depends on the system. I've been limited by AD&D1e but was not so limited byt Rolemaster.

Also, I had asked you several questions about the example of your game. Any reply?

[Eric J.]

Fair enough.  However, you've taken my objections to great extremes.  I understand how taking 4 hours to build a character to make them an individual is annoying.  However, if you compare D&D (second) and Star Wars D6 (the systems that I've played the most) to eachother, there are some huge exceptions to your rules.  When you said that classes shorten creation time; D&D, on average, takes over 20 minutes on average (for my players).  Star Wars characters can be made over the phone.  I am deffinitelley NOT turning the argument into another D6 vs. Star Wars, but I'm just illistrating that classes don't have to shorten creation time.  I also understand the concern for realism and gamplay.

Now I'll clarify realism from my perception.  Realism, to me, is what exists when logic is reinforced.  The laws of physics and the generalities of humanity should hold close to true for other RPGs.  That would include laws about individuality, personal ability and most of newtons observations.  If D&D's population is generalised by the PC's; the world would be full of mages, druids, and fighters with identical abilities.  A simple skill system can work, but can't completelley compensate.  Another belief that I have, is that classes serve to complexify the game, especially in cases of Class vs. Race; NPC classes (When the GM wants to make a trulley original character that the PCs don't expect), and most of all: Multi-classing.  A problem with saying that you could classify 1000 people with certain factors is true, but next to irrelevant to disscussion.  If each of them was a simple measurment of Combat ability vs. Skills, or 1 of 10 professions, then it would be very difficult to create a class system around them that would transelate into simple RPG mechanics.  Another problem with classes is for all of the people that would like to make mechanics around a character instead of the inverse (the narrativists).  This seems to imply that classes are almost always designed for the gamists.  And while I have no problem with that, I think that many could find new challenges in systems that give them more options.

A good way to simulate classes is to use templates.  This allows people to still have guidelines, or as an option, make a character that they really want.

I respect others' opinions.  I however give you mine.  All RPG mechanics can satisfy one person, but that just isn't good enough for me.  What am I arguing? Hell.  I don't know any more.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

When you said that classes shorten creation time; D&D, on average, takes over 20 minutes on average (for my players

Which is considerably less that 4 hours. Also, how much of that time is spent buying equipement and such, not defining character abilities as defined by class?

Another belief that I have, is that classes serve to complexify the game, especially in cases of Class vs. Race; NPC classes (When the GM wants to make a trulley original character that the PCs don't expect), and most of all: Multi-classing.

Maybe I've been dealing with the lunatic fringe of RPG design for too long but isn't this stuff all just stuff found in D&D?

Another problem with classes is for all of the people that would like to make mechanics around a character instead of the inverse (the narrativists).  This seems to imply that classes are almost always designed for the gamists.

I think Ron would take a great deal of exception to this, but I'll wait for him to comment.

I respect others' opinions.  I however give you mine.  All RPG mechanics can satisfy one person, but that just isn't good enough for me.  What am I arguing? Hell.  I don't know any more.

Me either.

Explain to me what you mean by "All RPG mechanics can satisfy one person"

[Bankuei]

When you said that classes shorten creation time; D&D, on average, takes over 20 minutes on average (for my players). Star Wars characters can be made over the phone.

This is a small side point, Feng Shui uses classes, it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to make a character...  If you want to go into the utility/handling time of character creation, or other useful bits of class, I suggest a new thread.

What is becoming a distracting issue here is that many of the games you are complaining about were never intended to be realistic.

Realism, to me, is what exists when logic is reinforced. The laws of physics and the generalities of humanity should hold close to true for other RPGs. That would include laws about individuality, personal ability and most of newtons observations.

But would this apply to a superhero game?  Dragonball Z? or a cyberworld?  The rpgs designed to around those ideas are usually not focused on a realistic interpretation.  If a game is designed to be unrealistic(G or N, or certain varieties of S), then why should it conform to realism?

Now, regarding the topic at hand, a clarification;  Pyron, is your intent to discuss realism/lack of realism in classes?  As in, why they haven't been, why they will never be, or how they can be made more realistic?

Otherwise, this thread is really a pro/con opinion debate about classes, not a discussion.

Chris

[Eric J.]

O.K.  I have come to the conclusion that I don't know what we're arguing anymore and it's mostly due to my lack of judgement.  I started this thread pre-maturalley and uhh, well, don't know how to finish it. I guess that I'll debate the points that have been brought up as they were, but wherever this thread is going, if anywhere, is up to you guys, I guess.

Jack: The problem is, that equipment is also defined by class.  As is the money, armor allowed and neccesities.  If you didn't always have to reffer what you could or could not use, or did or did not need, it could potentially go much faster.  My example was NOT meant to be globally, but to illistrate how little any single example showed.

Bankuei: I'd still hold true that all RPGs use some common features, including DBZ, cyberpunk and that freaky Munchkins game (slight allusion of humor intended). And a pro/con debate IS a form of disscussion.  I really don't know where this is going any more than any one else, so I'll wait for your response.

[Bankuei]

Pro con is fine as long as logical reasons and ideas are being presented.  Arguing opinion isn't based on logic, just opinion.  Like you and I can argue what tastes better, oranges or apples, but neither one of us will learn anything by the debate, hence it is a useless discussion.

If you find a more defined question or line to follow, let's start again with a new thread.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hey there,

Yup! The good thing is that everyone listened to one another and understood one another's points.

I pronounce this thread closed.

Best,
Ron