Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Role-Playing Games => Topic started by: 42 on May 25, 2004, 05:21:26 AM
-
Okay, so I'm starting to have mixed feelings about character classes in RPGs. I can see the freedom that comes with not having them, but yet I remember the enjoyment of playing say a 3rd level Magic-user and knowing that was something completely different than playing an elf or thief.
Thoughts? Opinions? Rants?
-
I've never had mixed feelings - I hate them flat out. My first reaction to the class based-nes sof cp2020 was "Can I mix and match?" - the limitation is annoying and arbitrary.
Now, I understand the idea of a template of some form, but using a class just seems and unnecessary and unnatural limitation. Why can't I have a warrior who learnt to cast fireballs? What if I want to be a Paladin who just so happens to be a little corrupt and kleptomaniac, and thus has a good stealing skill? Some systems let you do this, others don't. If I want to play a paladin, I want to annoucne that in my choice and background, not an arbitrary skill set.
-
There are 2 reason JP:
1) Simplicity, most games try not to be overly complicated and haveing to have players design (or even offereing that while still provideing some templates) can add a lot of confuseion and the rules may not work to well.
2) For balence, lets face it players would abuse it too bad. The only games I've seen that have a workable system to design classes/templates are allwayse simpler games that offer less things for players to be able to do.
-
I will say that classes allow for faster set-up. In fact, they are almost ideal for dungeon crawling. And classes do tend to keep things more balanced.
I think the GM part of me really likes classes because they simplify things. The player part of me detests them because the limit what I want to do.
-
In other words, classes are good for bad roleplayers is what you're saying, because that's sure what it sounds like. :)
I don't have balance problems, because the GM can always say no to a proposed character, and besides storyline importance in the games I enjoy is far more important than butt-kicking statistics.
As for simplicity, I'm all for it, but I tend to find non-class based games simpler with more variety. D&D is (IMO) bogged down with statistics, while CP2020 (It keeps coming up because I'm obsessed at the moment) has a wide variety of different skills. Compare this to, say, FATE, which defines a character simply by skills and aspects. It's not complex (it's FUDGE based) but it does have a massive vaeriety. Or Advanced Fighting Fantasy - It's a simple system, three statistics, and a hero is basically characterised by their skills. You can still do a whole lot with it though. I can't imagine a character for the setting you couldn't build with it.
I have to mention the window here - diceless roleplaying, and you can do anything with a character you can conceive.
-
When you find yourself having to build 20-30 NPCs for a couple of sessions, classes make things a lot easier. Otherwise you have to spend the time creating several templates to work with when it would just be easier if templates were already in place.
Also, I find that good players can work both with and without classes. A good player should be albe to take a class and make it their own.
-
I had never thought in terms of creating npcs like that, mostly because my style of GMing is near diceless - If I need to roll for an NPC, I often just make up a number, or based on the roll being high or low do whatever I deem dramnatically interesting.
Yeah, you can make a class your own, but it's harder and more annoying, because you can't do exactly what you want. It's the same reason I like random generation - completely weirded out and original characters.
I'm not saying classes don't have their place - I'm using a class right now and enjoying it as an original character regardless. I simply think that making a class gives an arbitrary restriction, when you could just allow for anything, and say, for example, a standard fighter has these stats with X skill points to spend on other skills.
-
Actually, I rarely use dice to create NPCs. After I figured out how they fit into the game, I ussually just look up a standard class and make them as standard as possible. I will spend some time on their personality, I just want to have their abilities in place in case I need them.
-
I repeat what I said in my essay, that classes are hardly as restricting as JP thinks. You CAN have a fighter who can cast fireballs. Take levels in fighter and in wizard? How hard is that? You can mix and match.
that being said, I was developing a classless system for d20 until M&M came out, which is nearly (not exactly) what I was trying to do. Just move some of the feats and convert some numbers and you have it.
-
After playing GURPs and White Wolf, i far prefer no classes. I just like being able to decide exactly what skills my character has. Said characters usually fall into the paladin archetype - high charisma, melee fighters - but i still prefer making them myself.
Classes are quicker, and its easier to work out where everyone is in terms of power. A lot more balanced than GURPs. But I just plain enjoy making GURPs characters, so classes take the fun out of it :)
-
I like Shadowrun's system. It's simple to create a character, and your character doesn't start out as a complete newbie that gets killed by the first orc it meets like in D&D.
-
I like playing complete newbies. I like the challenge low-level/low-powered characters present. I think I just like wondering where they will go instead of having a character who is essentially fully developed before I even start to play.
-
I generally prefer the low powered, the only problem being that my campaigns rarely last long enough for the character to develop, so starting high can sometimes be necessary. That said, the low campaigns tend to be thematically more interesting, like my Ars magica one which involved a newly created covenant.
After all, would LOTR have benn so interesting if it starred Gandalf rather than Frodo?
-
To me the argument about character amounts to a declaration of the style of playing you prefer. Simulationists the descendents of wargamers, are more likely to appreciate classes and codifying, while narritivists (ie storytelling GM's) like a more free form associative style.
I like both styles, but the more exciting for me to play is the Narrativist style because it challenges me to think openly about who I want my character to be and what I want him to become.
Gm'ing narrativism doesnt have to be complicated or take very long.
For mooks you just jot down what they should have and dont go into a ton of detail.
-
see, i still disagree with that attitude. People who think that d20 is inherently restricted haven't really thought about it. Perhaps it is slightly more restrictive than other systems, but there are few restrictions on feats and skills, and judicious selection of multi-class mediates that issue.
-
In other words, it's inherintly restrictive, and several years behind the curve they added new features so it wasn't quite as bad?
-
that is not anything at all like I said. Inherently in my usage, at least, means it's a defining feature. Which it is not.
-
I never said it was inheriently restrictive or used d20 as an example.
-
but you did group class systems together, and d20 is a class based system. No, you didn't use the words, but the implication of the last several posts favoring non-class-based game systems has been that it is.
-
Well I only have two posts on this thread (3 if you count this one) so if there was implication it was done by other people and not me.
Anyway I said simulationists are more likely to like class systems , not that they were all the same, or inferior or even that people like narrativist games hate them or find them useless.
Class systems are by definition more structured than systems without classes... the class may be flexible, but not as flexible as no class at all.
I dont want to be misunderstood about what I mean when I say I feel more challanged by a narrativistic system so I feel I need to qualify that a little.
Sometimes in systems with character classes I just make a generic something or other because its easy. Its hard to do that with a blank page, or at least harder than having a framework to work off of, so I feel more challenged by classless systems. Im sure it can be just as challenging to create a character for class oriented games, but that isn't my usual experience.
I like both systems and dont see it as a flaw in any way. Its just a different approach. As a roleplayer I tend to like a more narrativistic style, but appreciate a good class based system now and again (I like hackmaster for Gawd sakes).
-
Classes can be limiting in some respects. However, I feel that D20 has addressed this problem in many different ways:
(1) They always say..."If you don't like something, don't use it or change it." This is great for me as I have done some modifying of the D20 rules for D&D for my current campaign, making it exceptionally high powered (almost an Elric from White Wolf sort of difference between the heros and the "norms") but it is fun for the players and I like it too.
(2) Wizards has been relatively good about offering numerous variants that can be used if you don't like the standard rules. In Unearthed Arcana they even go away from the standard classes and offer the variant of "Generic Classes" that offer you a template of warrior, expert, or spell-caster, but allow you to customize a class in almost every single facet, from savings throws to feats, etc. And that is setting aside the "Gestalt Classes" which is even better than multiclassing as you go up in levels for 2 heroic classes at a time.
I feel that a class based system is great for balance, and, as long as the GM ensures balance among the Player's characters, any modifying of the classes is fine.
-
Personally, i enjoy classes and multi-classing. I've taken a liking only to D&D and SWRPG, however. D20 Modern stinks, and i have yet to play other things.