I pronounce this thread closed.

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.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Evan,

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

Ron

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

Evan Waters wrote:

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.

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

Ron Edwards wrote: 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

...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.

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.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
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.

deadguy wrote:
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.

Evan Waters wrote: 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.

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.

Pyron wrote: 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?

Valamir wrote: 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.

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?

Valamir wrote: 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?

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

Blake Hutchins wrote: 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

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.

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.

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.