Class systems -- is there no escape?

[Kristopher]

Why is it, when HERO doesn't even have classes, that these forums still see characters so often described as fitting neatly into the pidgeonhole of some narrow archetype, as they established by...that other game?


Don't let the mages have spells willy-nilly, and definitely don't let them "have" anything more powerful than anyone else; that sort of thing is always carefully given at your discretion. I could be wrong, but I'd say the best bet is to make sure that, in every direct one-to-one comparison of mage-to-"other guys", the mage comes up just a little bit short. It doesn't have to be in total power, but the mage shouldn't do as much damage as the fighter unless it costs him somewhere else (time, END, Skill Roll, material components, whatever), nor should he be able to skulk as well as the thief, etc etc etc. Remember, the mage is (usually) the toolbox guy, the generalist; fighters whale on the baddies, thieves backstab and pick locks, and clerics heal. Mages do what they can't do, or help them do their jobs a little easier.

(I removed the name on the quoted post because it's not about this one post, it just makes for an easy jumping-off point to start up a discussion about something that's been bothering me.)

[Teflon Billy]

Why is it, when HERO doesn't even have classes, that these forums still see characters so often described as fitting neatly into the pidgeonhole of some narrow archetype, as they established by...that other game?



(I removed the name on the quoted post because it's not about this one post, it just makes for an easy jumping-off point to start up a discussion about something that's been bothering me.)For the same reason that people continually pigeonhole Supers into the same neatly defined roles (Brick, MA, Speedster, etc...) It makes it easier to discuss and it makes a gaming party better by making sure that all the bases are covered by having assigned roles.

Or do you regularly see teams of generalists in real life?

TB

[sbarron]

I basically agree with Teflon Billy. I think there is a difference between class systems and character specializations. Most of the time here we're talking about characters in terms of what their primary function is (e.g. fighter, thief, mage), and not their predefined character development path.

I also think that the group nature of role playing games, and the general desire to have characters with abilities unique within the party, makes character specialization a big part of RPGs. It would take a fairly adept roleplaying party to have fun if the characters in the party consisted of a fighter-mage with thieving abilities, a thieving-mage that was pretty good in a fight, and a thief-fighter with some magic talent.

Not that it couldn't be done, mind you. It would just require that the players distinguish their characters in other ways...personality, goals, methods, etc. That's not everyone's cup of tea.

[CUnknown]

I personally think that classes add a lot to the game in a Fantasy genre. In fact, I think that one of the major problems with Hero when used to play Fantasy is the lack of a class system to provide structure and meaning to the various powers.

I grew up playing "that other system" as I'm sure most people here did. Although, I don't especially like to play it anymore, the class and magic systems have a way of sticking with you. I think it's a testament to the genius of Gary Gygax, personally.

Let's face it, Hero lacks personality. It does that on purpose though--as it says on the book, it's the Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit. You can make anything you want, from wizards to robots to whatever. And it combines this universality with the best game mechanics of any game I've ever seen. That's why I play Hero. But in my heart, I'm still playing 1st edition D&D, and that's why I went through all the trouble to transfer all the spells, classes, monsters, etc.

If you don't like class systems, don't use them. But, in a Fantasy game, classes are just about mandatory, at least the mage class. Magic needs to be restricted in some way.

[Vondy]

Because archetype references of this sort serve as communal jargon loaded with implicit data that doesn't need to be recounted when explaining an issue. They serve as a common shorthand. Indeed, have you considered where the "classes" used by most games come from in the first place? In general they are generic versions of archetypes that were already extant in the genre the game is attempting to model. And they generally represent the primary method for which the character influences the world.

In fantasy, for instance: "mage" = people who use magic, "fighter" = one who fights (usually with sharp pointy things, but not always), "thief"= one that steals especially stealthily or secretly; also : one who commits theft or larceny, "cleric" = religious figure who can call on divine power. All of these "classes" are common types found in fantasy fiction, which the game is trying to model? The fact that we aren't using classes doesn't mean we aren't trying to model the same general genre archetype.

Let us focus on the word mage, for instance, which comes from the Latin word magus, which in turn comes from the Greek word magos, which simply means "a wise man," but became synonymous with sorcerous powers during the Christian era of the Roman Empire and Early Dark ages of Europe. I suspect we can agree this term, with its connotations of occult prowess, predates Dungeons& Dragons by a significant period of time. That being the case: which came first, the term, or the class from some sordid class based RPG that lifted that term as a descriptor?

The point: I'm not supposed to use a word that has clear and specific meaning because some RPG used it? I think not. RPGs didn't invent the languages they're written in, they're merely written with those languages. The words to which you object have linguistic meaning beyond the RPG community. I am therefore disinclined to acquiesce to your implied linguistic demands. :D

[Killer Shrike]

I touch on that very subject in this document within the context of the conversions I provide from D&D to Fantasy HERO:

Character Design Notes (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/CharacterDesignNotes.shtml)

Here are some key points:

In classic Class & Level based FRPGs such as xD&D the variance between player concept and GM vision is often curbed by the existence of predefined Character Classes with inherent and predictable power strata.

In such a set up not only does the GM knows what to expect, but the players know what is allowed. In a way, Character Classes form a sort of contract between GM and player. This contract says to the player "as long as you restrain yourself to this set list of abilities, you can play your Character as you like", and to the GM it says "make allowances for these types of Characters because your players are going to play them".

While this sort of an arrangement has its pros, it also has its cons. It can become a straitjacket on the creativity of both the player and the GM. That's where a point based open-progression system like the HERO System comes in to its strength. Players can make what they want, and GMs can too. The downside is that a GM has no real way of planning for what his players are going to do.

...

Many of the "sacred cows" of xD&D can (and in my opinion should) be done away with in the HERO System if the GM is amenable, but any of the tropes of xD&D that a GM feels are quintessential to the feel of the game he wants to run can be put into effect. This ranges from the simple (a warrior that wants to spend a few points to learn how to pick a pocket, or a mage that wants to be skilled at swinging a sword) to the more overarching (a player wants to play a Character that is completely outside of all conventions of the genre or the xD&D world view).

...

The conversion material presented in this website assumes that no actual Level or Class based restrictions inherent in xD&D are enforced in the HERO System by default.

[OddHat]

In part it's about what you're trying to simulate.

If you want to simulate D&D style Fantasy, you will have clearly defined Wizards, Rogues, Fighters and Clerics.

If you want to simulate David Gemmell style Fantasy, you'll have characters who specialize in various types and styles of combat, and a few gifted in magic but again specializing in various areas (psi and magic being closely tied in Gemmell), and a very few at the high end who can do it all.

If you want a world of Norse Mythology, powerful Warriors will also sometimes know some magic, and old witches will sometimes be deadly in HtH.

A Chinese Fantasy game will have all high end martial artists as practitioners of various styles of magic. Warriors with no access to something like Flying Style will be at the low end of the power scale.

The other side is that, in a party based game, specialization is both more efficient and gives everyone a chance to participate. A party full of characters who can do a little bit of everything can be fun, but allowing characters a chance to stand out becomes that much tougher.

I never liked the "Wizards must be gimped to help fighters shine" thing. It doesn't fit the settings I use for games, or the Fantasy novels I prefer. That said, there's a case for preventing player Wizards from becoming too powerful in many settings, depending on the stories you want to tell.

[Killer Shrike]

Because archetype references of this sort serve as communal jargon loaded with implicit data that doesn't need to be recounted when explaining an issue.

Exactly -- the quintessential ideas at the core of the "standard" classes serve as a sort of logical algebra for people with experience with the genre.

If I say my PC group has 7 warriors, a mage, and a bard: Clutching Nine Arrows (http://www.killershrike.com/SanDora/Campaign/NineArrows_PlayerCharacters.shtml) people know generally what that means even though none of the characters are literally FIGHTERS or WIZARDS or BARDS in the D&D sense.

The details are very different, but the general archetypes are there, and thus the "metalanguage" of "that other game" and games like it still has a use even in my hardcore points based High Magic highly customized homebrewed setting.

[OddHat]

It's also worth noting that D20, while still class based, has become more friendly to archetype blending over the years. It's possible to have a character who does a little of everything in that system; he just won't be as good in any one area as a specialist of equal level. That's not so far from a point based approach (said as someone who prefers a relatively open point based system).

[Steve]

If you don't like class systems, don't use them. But, in a Fantasy game, classes are just about mandatory, at least the mage class. Magic needs to be restricted in some way.

Why? Gandalf used a sword, and he's pretty much the archetype of a mage in a lot of players minds. I can't imagine he was a pushover in a straight up fight, even without bringing out his spells.

In my experience, magic is inherently self-limiting in a point-based game system. If I spend a third of my points on cool magic, then I have less points to use to spend on stats, or to know how to pick a lock or swing a sword.

Magic is also limited based on concepts set into the campaign parameters. If a spell must take a Limitation that the character can't be loaded down with armor or whatnot, then you'll find magic-users not wearing armor generally. They can still spend points on other abilities though.

The new D&D is better at letting a player customize a character than previous editions, but it's still a bit chafing because of class archetypes.

[teh bunneh]

In my experience, magic is inherently self-limiting in a point-based game system. If I spend a third of my points on cool magic, then I have less points to use to spend on stats, or to know how to pick a lock or swing a sword.

That's been my experience as well.


The new D&D is better at letting a player customize a character than previous editions, but it's still a bit chafing because of class archetypes.

The thing I find restrictive in the new D&D are the class-based skills. F'rinstance, if you want to play a not-quite-shiny Paladin who used to sneak out of his seminary at night to go gambling and drinking, it's prohibitively expensive to buy him the Lockpicking, Move Silently, and Gambling skills (which fits with his character background) -- unless of course you dual-class him as a Rogue (which might not fit with the background).

In a point-based system, you just buy him the skills you want and say, "Looks like I don't have enough points to buy him KS: Religion. That's OK, he probably slept through those classes anyway." ;)

That said, I tend to use D&D terms as generic shorthand. If I say, "My character is a fighter" then everyone has a good idea about what I'm talking about. I can then add any extras on top of that -- "...who has the magical ability to cause it to rain." :D

Bill.
(But I'm probably preaching to the choir here...) :)

[CUnknown]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CUnknown
If you don't like class systems, don't use them. But, in a Fantasy game, classes are just about mandatory, at least the mage class. Magic needs to be restricted in some way.


Originally Posted by Steve
Why? Gandalf used a sword, and he's pretty much the archetype of a mage in a lot of players minds. I can't imagine he was a pushover in a straight up fight, even without bringing out his spells.

I'm not saying you have to use the D&D Mage class that disallows most weapons and armor, I am saying nothing really contraversial--just that generally you need to have some sort of magic system in your Fantasy Hero game, otherwise the characters end up looking like Super-Heroes. This magic system is your mage "class" and just about all Fantasy Hero games have one.

[StGrimblefig]

Then there are the other FRP games that do not use character classes, like RuneQuest. I was introduced to roleplaying via D&D, but shortly thereafter was playing more RQ (and Traveller and Champions, but that is off-topic) than D&D.

In RQ, rune magic was prevalent enough that almost everyone used at least a little magic in their day-to-day lives. The really powerful magic was only attained by those who focused on it, however. Fighting skill was not mutually exclusive with magical prowess, but the more time and effort you spent on training for combat, the less you could spend on magic (and vice-versa). RQ had in the rules that you could only spend XP to improve a skill or ability that you successfully used in an adventure.

Okay, that is a little rambling, but the point is that you do not HAVE to use classes (or levels) in FRP to have an enjoyable game.

[Killer Shrike]

Like all tools, use as needed (if at all)

[Killer Shrike]

As an aside, in my last Fantasy campaign many of my players built their characters up directly by combining a Race Package and one or more Profession Packages (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Content/PackageDeals/professionPackage.asp?profession=masterlist) from the materials provided on my website, and then tailored them from there to suit.

Some of the links have odd behaviors as its been a few years and the site has undergone a good deal of redesign, but here are some of the early templates.
Early Templates For Nine Arrows Campaign (http://www.killershrike.com/sandora/campaign/NineArrows_StartingCharacterTemplates.htm)

The characters evolved from these early prototypes, but it served as a very handy way to get started. By me offering a broad array of Packages to chose from, it communicated to the players what was ok for my campaign, and gave them a general idea of the kind of abilities they might face from opponents.

Due to having that kind of a frame of reference, the players were able to make appropriate decisions. They were also still able to deviate and make their characters distinct with the added benefit of having a baseline to consider outre abilities against. Providing the tools resulted in a Win-Win in my opinion.

[Kristopher]

For the same reason that people continually pigeonhole Supers into the same neatly defined roles (Brick, MA, Speedster, etc...) It makes it easier to discuss and it makes a gaming party better by making sure that all the bases are covered by having assigned roles.

Or do you regularly see teams of generalists in real life?

In some things, yes. A special ops team is still made up of guys who are all very good as soldiers, and might have special skills spread out amongst the team. All the players on a basketball team are capable to some degree of dribbling, passing, shooting, playing defense, etc.

[Curufea]

Hmm, and here I thought it would be talking about the homeless, the poor, the middle class and the upper class...

[OddHat]

Hmm, and here I thought it would be talking about the homeless, the poor, the middle class and the upper class...

I thought we were here to see the violence inherent in the system.

[Cancer]

In some things, yes. A special ops team is still made up of guys who are all very good as soldiers, and might have special skills spread out amongst the team. All the players on a basketball team are capable to some degree of dribbling, passing, shooting, playing defense, etc.

This, I think, depends to some degree upon the campaign. A team of generalists will be able to get by until there are fairly frequent (or, perhaps, rare but mission-critical) required tasks which cannot be successfully performed by a generalist. Then you'll heave to have specialist(s) who can do those tasks, and pick up enough other skills to avoid getting killed outside of those moments.

Specialization does make for an easier way to a GM to provide "glory moments" for each character in a team. That's a double-edged thing, of course.

[Curufea]

I discourage specialists in my games - it leads to two dimensional characters with little background and if their specialties don't occur, they spend entire sessions being bored.

Plus if specialists are a common occurance, it makes the setting seem unreal.

[Kristopher]

Because archetype references of this sort serve as communal jargon loaded with implicit data that doesn't need to be recounted when explaining an issue. They serve as a common shorthand. Indeed, have you considered where the "classes" used by most games come from in the first place? In general they are generic versions of archetypes that were already extant in the genre the game is attempting to model. And they generally represent the primary method for which the character influences the world.

In fantasy, for instance: "mage" = people who use magic, "fighter" = one who fights (usually with sharp pointy things, but not always), "thief"= one that steals especially stealthily or secretly; also : one who commits theft or larceny, "cleric" = religious figure who can call on divine power. All of these "classes" are common types found in fantasy fiction, which the game is trying to model? The fact that we aren't using classes doesn't mean we aren't trying to model the same general genre archetype.

Let us focus on the word mage, for instance, which comes from the Latin word magus, which in turn comes from the Greek word magos, which simply means "a wise man," but became synonymous with sorcerous powers during the Christian era of the Roman Empire and Early Dark ages of Europe. I suspect we can agree this term, with its connotations of occult prowess, predates Dungeons& Dragons by a significant period of time. That being the case: which came first, the term, or the class from some sordid class based RPG that lifted that term as a descriptor?

The point: I'm not supposed to use a word that has clear and specific meaning because some RPG used it? I think not. RPGs didn't invent the languages they're written in, they're merely written with those languages. The words to which you object have linguistic meaning beyond the RPG community. I am therefore disinclined to acquiesce to your implied linguistic demands. :D

I think, though, that those words carry an extra implied meaning attached to the class system, when used in the context of the RPG. The use of the terms implies, unfortunately, the limitations as well as the skills. Because of xD&D and the others, to say that a character is "a fighter", in the context of the RPG, implies that he or she does not do the "mage" or "thief" things well.

[Manic Typist]

This ranges from the simple (a warrior that wants to spend a few points to learn how to pick a pocket, or a mage that wants to be skilled at swinging a sword) to the more overarching (a player wants to play a Character that is completely outside of all conventions of the genre or the xD&D world view).




As an aside: what sort of character concept would you see as completly outside the D&D worldview?

[CrosshairCollie]

Basically, people like to boil things down to a simple descriptor or easy-to-digest phrase. As stated above, people boil Champions Superheroes down to a quick archetypical role or two ('Brick', 'Martial Artist/Speedster'), if for no other reason than expediency. "What is it you do?" "Well, I have a 70 STR, 20 DEX, 33 CON, 20 Body ..." "You're a brick, got it."

[CrosshairCollie]

I thought we were here to see the violence inherent in the system.

Help, help, I'm bein' repressed!

[Killer Shrike]

As an aside: what sort of character concept would you see as completly outside the D&D worldview?

Any character that doesnt conform to the D&D Classes, even with heavy "multiclassing".

[Curufea]

Any character that doesnt conform to the D&D Classes, even with heavy "multiclassing".

ie - nearly every fantasy character in any book.

[ghost-angel]

I personally think that classes add a lot to the game in a Fantasy genre. In fact, I think that one of the major problems with Hero when used to play Fantasy is the lack of a class system to provide structure and meaning to the various powers.

I grew up playing "that other system" as I'm sure most people here did. Although, I don't especially like to play it anymore, the class and magic systems have a way of sticking with you. I think it's a testament to the genius of Gary Gygax, personally.

Oddly enough, it's the "class" system that caused me to basically quit gaming completely.

I find them neither necessary nor helpful. I find them the exact opposite - restrictive and useless. Box Thinking at it's worst.

I too grew up on that "other system" and quite frankly - it's a crappy system. It sucks down to the utter core. I wish I could wipe it from my brain at this point it has tainted gaming thought so much. One man's genius is anothers raving lunatic I guess.

THE major strength of Hero to me is the lack of a class system. Points are self limiting, how I choose to spend my points tells me what kind of PERSON I'm playing, not what class they are.


If you don't like class systems, don't use them. But, in a Fantasy game, classes are just about mandatory, at least the mage class. Magic needs to be restricted in some way.

Again, not only are they not mandatory I believe they hurt the genre to the point of making it, for me at least, not fun and my suspesion of disbelief is simply killed dead. Real People pick up a diverse set of skills as they go through life, Fantasy Genre people are no different.

All that said, if you like classes by all means use them as you will. But don't claim they're "mandatory" to a Fantasy Game. Because they aren't, some people simply find them helpful. More power to them if so.

[Kristopher]

THE major strength of Hero to me is the lack of a class system. Points are self limiting, how I choose to spend my points tells me what kind of PERSON I'm playing, not what class they are.

Again, not only are they not mandatory I believe they hurt the genre to the point of making it, for me at least, not fun and my suspesion of disbelief is simply killed dead. Real People pick up a diverse set of skills as they go through life, Fantasy Genre people are no different.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Lucius]

Edit: Von D-Man, my pedantic nit-picking aside, I want to express that the substance of your post was entirely valid and correct; I didn't mean to undercut it, and I basically agree.



Let us focus on the word mage, for instance, which comes from the Latin word magus, which in turn comes from the Greek word magos, which simply means "a wise man," but became synonymous with sorcerous powers during the Christian era of the Roman Empire and Early Dark ages of Europe.


Actually, it goes back to Persian, and was a word for a priest of the Zoroastrian religion. Prior to that it was a more general word for priest, and (according to my sources) before THAT it was a word designating a specific tribe that was supposedly famous for the quality of their priests.

Now, "Wizard" rather literally means "Wise one." And let's not even get started on "Witch...."

Lucius Alexander

Or "palindromedary"

[Black Rose]

Why is it, when HERO doesn't even have classes, that these forums still see characters so often described as fitting neatly into the pidgeonhole of some narrow archetype, as they established by...that other game?

(I removed the name on the quoted post because it's not about this one post, it just makes for an easy jumping-off point to start up a discussion about something that's been bothering me.)

Just wanted to chime in, since it was my post used. In the thread in question, the question was how does one keep non-magic-using characters viable when you've already given them:


...I've set up casters to get spells at RC divided by 5... Also, they cast spells from an End Reserve, typically with a fairly large REC, but it only recovers once every 6 hours....

I've tried to balance defensive spells so that they either have negatives (things like Earth Skins though they last long have actual weight and cost a x2-x3, and FF tend to be high protection but cost END either every phase or every turn)."

So, your MU-ing types basically get an MP without paying for the base, and don't knock themselves unconscious using it. Not good for Gavin Swordswinger, is it?

The main reason I used the icky-bad "classes" was because:

I, too, started out with D&D and 1st edition AD&D, and the class concept is still in my head. Doesn't mean I don't ever make guys outside the box, but I am aware of how such would look in a class-based format.
I think certain abilities would naturally lead one down certain paths; if you can poison with a touch - or a kiss - it's almost a cliche that you'd become an assassin. If you can meld into the shadows, it seems a bit odd that you wouldn't choose a field that let you make the most of your natural talents, like thieving, or assassination, or bodyguard work. See? There's an out-of-the-box idea, right? I really can't see very many people saying to themselves "You know, I seem to be near impervious to fire, I think I'll become a gardener." without a really good explanation.

Anyway, that was what I wanted to say. Another thing I should point out is I was a bit tired when I posted that.

[Vondy]

Edit: Von D-Man, my pedantic nit-picking aside, I want to express that the substance of your post was entirely valid and correct; I didn't mean to undercut it, and I basically agree.

Actually, it goes back to Persian, and was a word for a priest of the Zoroastrian religion. Prior to that it was a more general word for priest, and (according to my sources) before THAT it was a word designating a specific tribe that was supposedly famous for the quality of their priests.

Now, "Wizard" rather literally means "Wise one." And let's not even get started on "Witch...."

Lucius Alexander

Or "palindromedary"

From Webster:

mage
One entry found for mage.
Main Entry: mage
Pronunciation: 'mAj
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin magus
: MAGUS

magus
2 entries found for magus.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: ma·gus
Pronunciation: 'mA-g&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ma·gi /'mA-"jI, 'ma-/
Etymology: Latin, from Greek magos -- more at MAGIC
1 a : a member of a hereditary priestly class among the ancient Medes and Persians b often capitalized : one of the traditionally three wise men from the East paying homage to the infant Jesus
2 : MAGICIAN, SORCERER

First, you need to nitpick the professional etymologists at Webster's, not me. Second, you need to nit before you pick: the Magos were the priestly class of the Medes (indo-iranian but not ethnically Persian) who were responsible for their funerary rites prior to their absorbtion into the Persion Empire in 550 BCE, and who subsequently adopted Zoastrianism, albiet in an unorthodox form called Zaruvanism. We don't know how long it took for them to adopt/create Zaruvanism, but we do see Herodotus using the term around 500 BCE in the context of the Medes and their rites, not the Persians and Zoastrianism - so the term clearly came into the Greek prior to its adoption by Zoastrianism. And, in defense of Merriem-Webster, it did come into English by way of Herodotus and the Greeks, not the Persians.

The "Zoastrians Invented Everything Fan Club" frequently neglect to mention these little details when propounding their pseudo-theories. Its why they typically avoid peer reviewed sources and aren't accepted in mainstream academia as serious scholars. The facts, when examined with a critical eye, seldom line up with their assertions. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. The Persians (Zoastrians) were a melting pot that absorbed everything they came into contact with. Indeed, there is no evidence that Zoastrianism was monotheistic as we understand the term prior to 600 BCE. It was a plurality of faiths rolled up into one, and referred to itself as a unity of faiths. This is born out by the Persian Emperors themslves from that era, who decreed all faiths of their subject peoples were equally valid. Al-Qadim, anyone?

Its a fine, but extremely critical, distinction. And one that makes a world of difference when evaluating the claims of would-be thinkers.

//Rant off.

Von "the benefits of the much derided classical education" D-Man

[Lucius]

To further refine what I was trying to say, I don't mean either you or your dictionary are wrong. It's true that the word magus comes to English from Latin, and Latin got it from Greek. I was just trying to say that it didn't originate in Greece any more than it did in Rome or England.

I respect your reputation for getting your facts straight too much to question the assertion that the Greeks were using the word before the priestly caste it refers to were absorbed by Zoroastrianism. I'm sure my own understanding of the matter must have been at fault, and if I looked it up I'd merely confirm what you're telling me.

Meanwhile, your basic point is that these words - mage, warrior, rogue, priest, bard, wizard, fighter, thief, cleric, minstrel, etc. - and the associated meanings, both denotative and connotative, all predate the first role playing games by centuries. Even if D&D had not created the concept of "character class" we would probably still have SOME tendency to "pigeonhole" game characters into the same "types" we see in fantasy fiction - although in fact, our categories (and the way we think of them) probably would be even closer to the "source material" than they are now.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary observes that one man's Mede is another man's Persian.

[Dale A. Ward]

~heavy sigh~

Why all the angst about words? If you don't like a certain word, use another. It doesn't mean that you're playing a class-based game! The words are just a handy way to describe yourself, as several others have pointed out. Without those handy descriptors, we'd all get bogged down in semantics as we try to describe our characters without using those terms.

Kinda like trying to describe a polar bear without using the word "white". :D

[CUnknown]

Ghost-Angel wrote:
All that said, if you like classes by all means use them as you will. But don't claim they're "mandatory" to a Fantasy Game. Because they aren't, some people simply find them helpful. More power to them if so.

Maybe the mages in your game can take any power they want, in any combination, with as many or as few limitations as they want, but to me that doesn't sound like any fun at all. Everyone would have some magic, and needless to say, magic would dominate the campaign.

Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill, a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.

[OddHat]

Maybe the mages in your game can take any power they want, in any combination, with as many or as few limitations as they want, but to me that doesn't sound like any fun at all.

Your fun and my fun are not everyone's fun.


Everyone would have some magic, and needless to say, magic would dominate the campaign.

In Norse Myth, Chinese Fantasy, and many other types of Fantasy settings, that would be a valid approach.


Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill, a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.

A Class System, as it is being used in this thread, is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play.

Describing the mechanics, requirements, range, power and limits of Magic in your game has very little to do with "Class System" in the context of this conversation.

[Killer Shrike]

Maybe the mages in your game can take any power they want, in any combination, with as many or as few limitations as they want, but to me that doesn't sound like any fun at all. Everyone would have some magic, and needless to say, magic would dominate the campaign.

Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill, a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.

I dont think that constitutes a "Class System" any more than saying that because you must have some WF's and a good CV and the proper gear to be an effective warrior an effective "fighter" class is imposed.

The way I see magic systems (and Ive made more than a few) is that the definitions of the peculiarities of how they work are the equivalent to the definitions of gravity and breathing and circumstantial perception modifiers and other environmental effects. Metaphysics, basically.

A character that wants to interact with those metaphysics takes the abilities designated as being appropriate to do so. This doesnt mean that they can't take other abilities as well if they so chose.

As with all things in a points based game, you get out of something what you put into it; so if you split your points between abilities thats fine, but you wont be as focused as a character that invested more heavily in something else.

If your concern is the opposite, that if allowed EVERYONE will invest a few points into magic and you don't want that, then you just structure your Magic Systems so that they have high costs of entry, require a "Gift For Magic" Talent that must be taken at character creation, difficult entry requirements such as lengthy training or need to find a special tutor, or a harrowing initiation trigger, some combination, or any other means of setting the entry bar higher to discourage casual use.


I guess what Ive been trying to say throughout this thread is that if you like Classes, GOOD NEWS! HERO supports that. If you don't like Classes, GOOD NEWS! HERO supports that too.

I see the HERO System as an encompasing / assimilating force. If there is something that you like and want in your campaign, there's pretty good odds that HERO can approximate it without too much effort. I wont go so far as to say it can do ANYTHING smoothly (as some folks would say) as I do believe there are things that are more trouble than they are worth.

Fortunately, Classes is one of those things that it can do effortlessly and moreever can support BOTH approaches in the SAME campaign. You can have characters built along the lines of broad "professions" with some structure for players that LIKE that, and also have individualistic characters that go their own way for players that LIKE that too, side by side. Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

[CUnknown]

Oddhat wrote:
In Norse Myth, Chinese Fantasy, and many other types of Fantasy settings, that would be a valid approach.

Perhaps that approach is more valid in some settings than in others, but even in these settings there are certain power constructions that would "break the mold" and thus be illegal, I'm sure.



Oddhat wrote:
A Class System, as it is being used in this thread, is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play.

Describing the mechanics, requirements, range, power and limits of Magic in your game has very little to do with "Class System" in the context of this conversation.

Don't try to make this into a semantic arguement--I'm using the same definition of "class" that everyone else is using in this thread. Talking about the requirements, power, and limits of magic in the campaign is the essence of any mage class in any system.

I would argue that just about everyone who plays Fantasy Hero uses at least the mage class (of some sort or another). Those Fantasy games that don't use a mage class wouldn't have the appropriate Fantasy feel, or Norse feel, or Chinese feel.. they would feel more like a Champions game in the middle-ages than anything else.

[CUnknown]

Killer Shrike wrote:
I dont think that constitutes a "Class System" any more than saying that because you must have some WF's and a good CV and the proper gear to be an effective warrior an effective "fighter" class is imposed.

The difference is that the game system itself requires that someone who wants to fight effectively take combat levels and WFs, but it does not require KSs, perks, or magic skill to use the powers listed in the power section. If we require that for our games, we are imposing some sort of structure on the game--which is the same a class structure. A very limited class structure, but a class structure nonetheless.

[OddHat]

Perhaps that approach is more valid in some settings than in others, but even in these settings there are certain power constructions that would "break the mold" and thus be illegal, I'm sure.

The Characters in those settings can all potentially use magic to one extent or another. Some builds would violate the rules of magic in those campaigns; all characters would still potentially have access to magic, regardless of "class".



Don't try to make this into a semantic arguement--I'm using the same definition of "class" that everyone else is using in this thread.

You don't seem to be.


Talking about the requirements, power, and limits of magic in the campaign is the essence of any mage class in any system.

You don't need to have a "mage class" at all in HERO.


I would argue that just about everyone who plays Fantasy Hero uses at least the mage class (of some sort or another).

That may be true.


Those Fantasy games that don't use a mage class wouldn't have the appropriate Fantasy feel, or Norse feel, or Chinese feel.. they would feel more like a Champions game in the middle-ages than anything else.

A high power Chinese Fantasy or Norse Myth setting would feel pretty much like Period Superheroes.

[Cancer]

I discourage specialists in my games - it leads to two dimensional characters with little background and if their specialties don't occur, they spend entire sessions being bored.

Plus if specialists are a common occurance, it makes the setting seem unreal.

Funny, I have the opposite reaction. My experience is that if you don't force specialization upon the PCs by making it clear that a broad array of situations and skills will be important in your game, then for PCs you get nothing but a bunch of ubermooks: uniform, faceless min/maxed ninja combat monster killing machines whose individuality is limited to choice of preferred weapon and whatever high-class equipment they've managed to take off the bodies of dead opponents, and whose "background" is just another sad, perhaps grotesque, litany of excuses for being a sociopathic monomaniacal hunter-killer. Spending precious character points on noncombat stuff? Dat's for L00z3rz.

To me, individuality must come from the choices made in specialization, and what the character has chosen that they can do well. If you as a GM don't reward that by providing specialized challenges to players, then you're affirming that all you really want in your campaign are ubermooks.

I recognize this can devolve quickly into arguments over the utility of skill adds, campaign flavor and character concept, and loud Power Gamer versus Roleplayer debates over what makes for a good game.

[StGrimblefig]

Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill, a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.
That depends entirely on how you define the term "class system" -- but that path devolves into purely semantic arguments that are counterproductive.

Realistically, the practice of magic (in most universes) involves learning "secret knowledge" and the study of things that the general populace either doesn't want to know or is better off not knowing. But then this also applies to most skilled professions in our universe, as well.

I am an embedded software engineer. I need to know certain things to be able to write programs. I have chosen to focus on real-time embedded software, because that is where my interest lies. I have not studied business programming, databases or 3D graphics programming, so that I could focus on real-time embedded programming. It is not that I COULDN'T learn anything about those other subjects, but if I had I wouldn't be as skilled at what I choose to do.

Does that mean that I am locked into an "Embedded Software Engineer" class? Not at all. However, the choices I have made make it impossible for me to be a Professional Footbal Player and still remain in my present profession.

I think that is what the class systems are trying to simulate. The fact that, in order to be good enough at a profession to be a "heroic figure," you have to have made choices that tend to preclude similar capability in other professions.

[Killer Shrike]

The difference is that the game system itself requires that someone who wants to fight effectively take combat levels and WFs, but it does not require KSs, perks, or magic skill to use the powers listed in the power section. If we require that for our games, we are imposing some sort of structure on the game--which is the same a class structure. A very limited class structure, but a class structure nonetheless.

By your interpretation. Obviously, other people's interpretations vary.

[Killer Shrike]

That depends entirely on how you define the term "class system" -- but that path devolves into purely semantic arguments that are counterproductive.

Realistically, the practice of magic (in most universes) involves learning "secret knowledge" and the study of things that the general populace either doesn't want to know or is better off not knowing. But then this also applies to most skilled professions in our universe, as well.

I am an embedded software engineer. I need to know certain things to be able to write programs. I have chosen to focus on real-time embedded software, because that is where my interest lies. I have not studied business programming, databases or 3D graphics programming, so that I could focus on real-time embedded programming. It is not that I COULDN'T learn anything about those other subjects, but if I had I wouldn't be as skilled at what I choose to do.


So youre not a Embeded Developer 20, and Im not a Business Developer 6, DB Developer 9, Web Developer 5, and Dan S. isnt an Epic Level Java Developer 14, Web Developer 10?

MADNESS!!!!

[Steve]

That depends entirely on how you define the term "class system" -- but that path devolves into purely semantic arguments that are counterproductive.

...

I think that is what the class systems are trying to simulate. The fact that, in order to be good enough at a profession to be a "heroic figure," you have to have made choices that tend to preclude similar capability in other professions.

I agree with this assessment as well. A fighter is one who fights, a rogue (or thief for us more "old school" types) is one who picks locks and finds traps, a cleric is one who casts divine magic, and a mage is one who casts arcane magic. It's a pre-defined stack of boxes of abilities, and you gain a box when you level up. With multi-classing available, you can choose to be totally focussed on one of those box stacks, or you take some boxes from one stack and some boxes from the other but not be as good as someone who stacked their boxes to the roof from a single stack.

With HERO, you smash the boxes open and can pick and choose from among the pretty baubles inside. There's a granularity you simply can't get in a class-based system. Want to be a fighter who knows how to cast a healing spell, but doesn't want to turn undead or be a paladin? As far as I know, that can't be done in xD&D.

That means you can have a player make a fighter type with a single healing spell without being a cleric, or a roguely sort who has an invisibility spell without being a mage. So what? That fighter type has spent points that could have gone to another combat level, and the rogue has spent points that could have gone to skills. I agree with KS that if you want magic to be rarer and known to a more select few, give it a high cost of entry. That eliminates the dilletante spellcaster who only wants to be able to start a campfire without flint and steel or know a single healing spell.

If you define "magic" as taking the powers in HERO and requiring certain Limitations be applied to define them as spells or divine magic, that is classifying magic and how it works, not the people who know how to use it. It's defining laws of the universe.

How much player ability granularity is wanted in a campaign is defined by the GM. You can set up stacks of boxes that rigidly define abilities that players can have, like magic ability, or you can break the boxes open and let them play mix and match with the baubles inside. I prefer the latter myself, but YMMV.

EDIT: Whoa! This is my 666th posting. :eg:

[CUnknown]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CUnknown http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1207308#post1207308)
The difference is that the game system itself requires that someone who wants to fight effectively take combat levels and WFs, but it does not require KSs, perks, or magic skill to use the powers listed in the power section. If we require that for our games, we are imposing some sort of structure on the game--which is the same a class structure. A very limited class structure, but a class structure nonetheless.

Killer Shrike wrote:
By your interpretation. Obviously, other people's interpretations vary.

I am using Oddhat's definition of a "class system", which is: "is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play."

According to that definition, it's difficult to have a different interpretation, Killer Shrike. You would have to explain how you thought that the structure we are imposing on the game is different from a class system, admittedly one which was extremely limited in scope.

[Killer Shrike]

I am using Oddhat's definition of a "class system", which is: "is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play."

According to that definition, it's difficult to have a different interpretation, Killer Shrike. You would have to explain how you thought that the structure we are imposing on the game is different from a class system, admittedly one which was extremely limited in scope.

A) I dont have to do anything. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can tell me what I should and shouldnt be doing.

B) I know OddHat. Ive gamed with him. I consider him to be a good "net friend". I don't always agree with him (or he with me) and we've had a set-to or two, but I respect his gaming sensibilities and skills as a roleplayer, a GM, a content creator, and a general gamer. If there is one thing I am sure of, it is that he doesnt talk out of his rear end or blather about things. If he states his position its not just a random assertion, its backed up with some amount of thought and consideration.

Considering what he stated as his position, your responses to it, his refutation of such, etc it is clear that OddHat doesnt agree with your interpretation of his "definition".

And neither do I.

[CUnknown]

A) Of course you don't have to! I thought you wanted to participate in this discussion.. :confused: I apoligize if you thought I was trying to force you to do something.

B) I'm saying I agree with OddHat about the definition. Perhaps you misunderstand me?

Anyway.. we don't have to be continuing this conversation, it's really a minor issue.. I don't mean to be making anyone upset.

[Dale A. Ward]

~shrugs~

I really thought this was a rather silly premise for discussion to begin with... and now, it looks like people have begun arguing for argument's sake. Time for me to unsubscribe from the thread and disappear into the shadows.

Later!

[Curufea]

Funny, I have the opposite reaction. My experience is that if you don't force specialization upon the PCs by making it clear that a broad array of situations and skills will be important in your game, then for PCs you get nothing but a bunch of ubermooks: uniform, faceless min/maxed ninja combat monster killing machines whose individuality is limited to choice of preferred weapon and whatever high-class equipment they've managed to take off the bodies of dead opponents, and whose "background" is just another sad, perhaps grotesque, litany of excuses for being a sociopathic monomaniacal hunter-killer. Spending precious character points on noncombat stuff? Dat's for L00z3rz.

To me, individuality must come from the choices made in specialization, and what the character has chosen that they can do well. If you as a GM don't reward that by providing specialized challenges to players, then you're affirming that all you really want in your campaign are ubermooks.

I recognize this can devolve quickly into arguments over the utility of skill adds, campaign flavor and character concept, and loud Power Gamer versus Roleplayer debates over what makes for a good game.

It's more like-
if everone is a combat monster, except one player, do you run a solo adventure everytime you have a social situation with most of your players being bored?
If one character is skilled at magic, what do you do with all the other players in a situation that can only be handled by magic?

[Kristopher]

From Webster:

mage
One entry found for mage.
Main Entry: mage
Pronunciation: 'mAj
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin magus
: MAGUS

magus
2 entries found for magus.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: ma·gus
Pronunciation: 'mA-g&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ma·gi /'mA-"jI, 'ma-/
Etymology: Latin, from Greek magos -- more at MAGIC
1 a : a member of a hereditary priestly class among the ancient Medes and Persians b often capitalized : one of the traditionally three wise men from the East paying homage to the infant Jesus
2 : MAGICIAN, SORCERER

First, you need to nitpick the professional etymologists at Webster's, not me. Second, you need to nit before you pick: the Magos were the priestly class of the Medes (indo-iranian but not ethnically Persian) who were responsible for their funerary rites prior to their absorbtion into the Persion Empire in 550 BCE, and who subsequently adopted Zoastrianism, albiet in an unorthodox form called Zaruvanism. We don't know how long it took for them to adopt/create Zaruvanism, but we do see Herodotus using the term around 500 BCE in the context of the Medes and their rites, not the Persians and Zoastrianism - so the term clearly came into the Greek prior to its adoption by Zoastrianism. And, in defense of Merriem-Webster, it did come into English by way of Herodotus and the Greeks, not the Persians.

The "Zoastrians Invented Everything Fan Club" frequently neglect to mention these little details when propounding their pseudo-theories. Its why they typically avoid peer reviewed sources and aren't accepted in mainstream academia as serious scholars. The facts, when examined with a critical eye, seldom line up with their assertions. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. The Persians (Zoastrians) were a melting pot that absorbed everything they came into contact with. Indeed, there is no evidence that Zoastrianism was monotheistic as we understand the term prior to 600 BCE. It was a plurality of faiths rolled up into one, and referred to itself as a unity of faiths. This is born out by the Persian Emperors themslves from that era, who decreed all faiths of their subject peoples were equally valid. Al-Qadim, anyone?

Its a fine, but extremely critical, distinction. And one that makes a world of difference when evaluating the claims of would-be thinkers.

//Rant off.

Von "the benefits of the much derided classical education" D-Man

Excellent post, good information. Thank you.

[Kristopher]

Maybe the mages in your game can take any power they want, in any combination, with as many or as few limitations as they want, but to me that doesn't sound like any fun at all. Everyone would have some magic, and needless to say, magic would dominate the campaign.

Here, we've been running a series of campaigns in which all characters have access to magic with little in the way of restrictions other than points, and universal access to magic hasn't created campaigns dominated by magic, any more than universal access to weapons has created campaigns dominated by weapons. At least in the setup we've been using, magic is limited by other factors in such a way as to require any character using magic to be competent in other areas, very selective with his magic use, or both.


Once you start saying Mages need certain things to cast spells (magic skill, a mana pool, certain KSs or perks), and can only take certain powers if they are a certain type of mage, then you enter the realm of the dreaded class system. This is why I say that at least the mage class is just about mandatory in a Fantasy Game.

That's not, per se, a class system, but rather a systemic reflection of the setting being used. It doesn't, as a class system would, also constrain all the other choices about a character, such as other skills, weapon choices, etc.

[Kristopher]

Funny, I have the opposite reaction. My experience is that if you don't force specialization upon the PCs by making it clear that a broad array of situations and skills will be important in your game, then for PCs you get nothing but a bunch of ubermooks: uniform, faceless min/maxed ninja combat monster killing machines whose individuality is limited to choice of preferred weapon and whatever high-class equipment they've managed to take off the bodies of dead opponents, and whose "background" is just another sad, perhaps grotesque, litany of excuses for being a sociopathic monomaniacal hunter-killer. Spending precious character points on noncombat stuff? Dat's for L00z3rz.

Not to be rough, but...sounds like you need better roleplayers, and fewer roll-players.


To me, individuality must come from the choices made in specialization, and what the character has chosen that they can do well. If you as a GM don't reward that by providing specialized challenges to players, then you're affirming that all you really want in your campaign are ubermooks.

I recognize this can devolve quickly into arguments over the utility of skill adds, campaign flavor and character concept, and loud Power Gamer versus Roleplayer debates over what makes for a good game.

To me, individuality comes at least as much from the non-statistical stuff. A good group of players could, at an extreme, take 6 statistically identical generalist character sheets and come up with 6 very different characters.

[Kristopher]

I am using Oddhat's definition of a "class system", which is: "is a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play."

According to that definition, it's difficult to have a different interpretation, Killer Shrike. You would have to explain how you thought that the structure we are imposing on the game is different from a class system, admittedly one which was extremely limited in scope.

Setting aside the issue of whether that really is Oddhat's definition of "class system", it's certainly not in any way required for running a Fantasy HERO game, and certainly does go quite a bit further than simply requiring a few skills or a talent or whatever to be purchased before a character has access to magic.

[Lucius]

Right. And if I say no one can take Computer Programming in my fantasy game because computers don't exist there, or say that you need a Weapon Familiarity with Swords before taking the Fencing martial Art, I'm also creating a class system.


Does anyone actually agree with the above statement?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is in a class by itself.

[Killer Shrike]

Right. And if I say no one can take Computer Programming in my fantasy game because computers don't exist there, or say that you need a Weapon Familiarity with Swords before taking the Fencing martial Art, I'm also creating a class system.


Does anyone actually agree with the above statement?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is in a class by itself.
Nope.

[Curufea]

By saying nope do you mean no, or do you mean negative.
Do you agree with that?

[Killer Shrike]

By saying nope do you mean no, or do you mean negative.
Do you agree with that?


Q -- "Does anyone actually agree with the above statement?"

A -- Nope; I do not agree with the "And if I say no one can take Computer Programming in my fantasy game because computers don't exist there, or say that you need a Weapon Familiarity with Swords before taking the Fencing martial Art, I'm also creating a class system." statement.

[Curufea]

Q -- "Does anyone actually agree with the above statement?"

A -- Nope; I do not agree with the "And if I say no one can take Computer Programming in my fantasy game because computers don't exist there, or say that you need a Weapon Familiarity with Swords before taking the Fencing martial Art, I'm also creating a class system." statement.

Sorry, Killer Shrike, I was being sarcastic about the inanity of the original question, not your response to it.

[ghost-angel]

I think maybe some solid ground rules on "class" vs "archetype" are really needed in print somewhere.

An Archetype is "someone who specializes in magic, possibly eschewing other forms of learning, and calling themselves a Mage"

A Class is "This is how a Mage is constructed, you may not deviate from this template called Mage when constructing a Mage. You may not forgoe some Mage Like Abilities to diversify your skill set"

To be fair, that other system has taken some steps to alleviate the Class issue and is moving further along towards Archetype Construction. But it's earlier incarnations that have influenced pretty much all of our Fantasy Gaming most defintely forced a Class System down the line.

Classes are not required to properly simulate the Fantasy Genre.
Archetypes are helpful in helping players and GMs come up with a solid Fantasy Background, but are best left as a Good Guideline for creation. Mixing Archetype's is always a good challenge and can be a lot of fun.

Mixing Classes usually ends up with a character who just plain sucks at both sides.

[Kristopher]

I reread the thread.

Can I ask a favor? Is it possible for us to discuss this without some of the tension I'm noticing?

[Kristopher]

I think maybe some solid ground rules on "class" vs "archetype" are really needed in print somewhere.

An Archetype is "someone who specializes in magic, possibly eschewing other forms of learning, and calling themselves a Mage"

A Class is "This is how a Mage is constructed, you may not deviate from this template called Mage when constructing a Mage. You may not forgoe some Mage Like Abilities to diversify your skill set"

To be fair, that other system has taken some steps to alleviate the Class issue and is moving further along towards Archetype Construction. But it's earlier incarnations that have influenced pretty much all of our Fantasy Gaming most defintely forced a Class System down the line.

Classes are not required to properly simulate the Fantasy Genre.
Archetypes are helpful in helping players and GMs come up with a solid Fantasy Background, but are best left as a Good Guideline for creation. Mixing Archetype's is always a good challenge and can be a lot of fun.

Mixing Classes usually ends up with a character who just plain sucks at both sides.

That's the distinction I was trying to get at a bit further back.

[CUnknown]

Oddhat wrote:
...a set of restrictions on what and how characters can do and learn, and on the roles they can play.


ghost-angel wrote:
A Class is "This is how a Mage is constructed, you may not deviate from this template called Mage when constructing a Mage. You may not forgoe some Mage Like Abilities to diversify your skill set"

So, these are two different definitions. When a speak of class, I've been using the first one, not the second. Maybe that's where the confusion is coming from.

The first definition is a simple description of what a class is and what it does. The second is really just a more extreme version of the first. Not only are you restricted by class, but now you absolutely "may not deviate" from it. So, according to the second, it is indeed true that the restrictions placed on magic in the vast majority of Fantasy Hero campaigns does not constitute a rudamentary class system. But, according to the more inclusive first definition, I still believe that it does.

[Alcamtar]

I think maybe some solid ground rules on "class" vs "archetype" are really needed in print somewhere.

An Archetype is "someone who specializes in magic, possibly eschewing other forms of learning, and calling themselves a Mage"

A Class is "This is how a Mage is constructed, you may not deviate from this template called Mage when constructing a Mage. You may not forgoe some Mage Like Abilities to diversify your skill set"

Well, checking four dictionaries and a thesaurus:


CLASS

1. a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason
of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits; kind; sort

1. A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members
regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or
category.

1. a group of persons or things having characteristics in common

4. a collection of things sharing a common attribute; "there are two
classes of detergents"

Synonyms: group, category, type, family, kind

ARCHETYPE

1. the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind
are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype.

1. An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype: “‘Frankenstein’... ‘Dracula’... ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’... the archetypes that have influenced all subsequent horror stories”

2. An ideal example of a type; quintessence: an archetype of the successful entrepreneur.

1. An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned.

1. an original model on which something is patterned

Synonyms: exemplar, ideal, model, original, paradigm, prototype


"Wizard" and "Mage" are classes.

"Merlin" and "Gandalf" are archetypes.

Also I'd suggest that the "Magic-User" is an archetype, in that wizards in many games are patterned after the original D&D magic-user. The Magic-User archetype includes:

- extremely limited physical combat abilities
- has flashy and effective combat spells (fireball?)
- is a specialist with exclusive access to magic, needed to round out a party
- has exclusive access to powerful "magic items" not usable by other characters, and also exclusive ability to create potions and magic items
- is balanced for play, being neither ineffectually weak nor overwhelmingly powerful, unlike wizards in myth and literature which seem to gravitate toward one of these two extremes

The Magic-User archetype is not at all necessary. There are plenty of games where wizards can wear armor and fight, where they are unbalanced, where they may lack flash combat spells, etc. In a game like HERO the archetype does not exist at all unless you specifically create it.

As for classes, most games are set up this way for two reasons: because classes are realistic, and because classes provide variety and balance when multiple players are involved.

In order to understand these two reasons, you first have to understand what a game would look like without classes. A class is merely a group of characters that share common traits. By definition this means that there are other characters that do not share these traits. So then, if there were no classes then there would be no clear distinctions... for example, everyone could fight, everyone could use magic, everyone could sneak around, etc. The usual response to this is "not everyone will do all of them, but it should be possible" which brings us to the first reason.

Classes are realistic. In reality, people specialize. This is due in part to people actually being interested in some things and not in others, but also due to economic realities and the simple fact that we have a short lifespan. There really is only time to master one trade. If everyone in the game world learned everything, then everyone would look pretty much the same and it would seem weird and alien. And dull.

Which leads to the second reason: it would be really kind of boring if everyone were the same, and more importantly individual players would not be important. If everyone can fight, then the group really doesn't need a dedicated fighter and the fighter player becomes irrelevant, since any other PC can replace him. (Of course if you only have a single player then a jack of all trades is preferred, otherwise he'll have serious problems.) People play to have fun and be cool, but coolness is proportional to how important you are and how extreme you are. Without classes, nobody is important and nobody is extreme. Additionally it would be really dull if every NPC you encountered was the same fighter/wizard/thief/whatever mix. No variety, same challenge every time. And it is also boring if your character can do everything and has no weaknesses.

Classes are good, and I don't think gaming would be much fun without them. However they have to be enforced because if you let people do anything they want, they will. If I had time and energy to learn martial arts and painting and blacksmithing and mechanical engineering and sailing and politics and law and medicine and 14 languages I certainly would. Allow it in a game and players will too. Not all would learn everything, but very very few would restrict themselves to a "realistic" limit. Of course in reality we can often learn a little about each of these, and theoretically we could learn any of them. So we bristle at inflexible class systems like D&D that flatly disallow variety.

The problem is that we interpret a game rule that you cannot do X as somehow meaning that X is not possible, but that is just perception. A game rule in the form of a Physical Lim that says I cannot tell a lie does not mean that lying is impossible, it means I will never do it. Maybe a D&D wizard never learns to fight because he never chose to learn to fight, and as part of playing that class the player is voluntarily choosing to never be a good fighter. Not that fighting is impossible, if he wants to fight he can play a different class. Furthermore the GM can always make an exception, and besides what is going to happen if the Magic User picks up a sword and pokes someone with it? He is violating the rule, but I don't think anyone would say the world ends or it is impossible or anything. But in the spirit of cooperation each player voluntarily accepts certain limitations (after all he could play HERO instead). Thus the class limitatations are rules not reality, and compliance is 100% voluntary. A good roleplayer will take his class restrictions and find good in-character reasons for them, play them as if they are natural.

That's my take on it. Classes are cool and I love them. They are not necessary but I think a game without them would be dull and would feel very unrealistic, not to mention not resembling classic fantasy.

Mike

[teh bunneh]

Which leads to the second reason: it would be really kind of boring if everyone were the same, and more importantly individual players would not be important. If everyone can fight, then the group really doesn't need a dedicated fighter and the fighter player becomes irrelevant, since any other PC can replace him. (Of course if you only have a single player then a jack of all trades is preferred, otherwise he'll have serious problems.) People play to have fun and be cool, but coolness is proportional to how important you are and how extreme you are. Without classes, nobody is important and nobody is extreme.

While this may certainly be true for some games, I haven't found it to be true in my own experience (and from what I've read in this thread and elsewhere, I don't think I'm alone). :)


Additionally it would be really dull if every NPC you encountered was the same fighter/wizard/thief/whatever mix. No variety, same challenge every time. And it is also boring if your character can do everything and has no weaknesses.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that every character can do everything, just that the restrictions in (many) class systems seem arbitrarily limiting, and that some people chaffe at such restrictions.

Classes tend to reflect the game creator's vision of what a wizard (for instance) "should" look like. I think a lot of Hero players want to say, "That may be what your wizard looks like, but not mine." :)

[ghost-angel]

Dictionary definitions aside - because they aren't gaming specific dictionary definitions they have minimal relevance to us.

Here's how I came about my thoughts on the differences between "Class" and "Archetype"

Archetype: Fighter.
Common abilities: knoledgeable with many weapons, possibly a Master with a few or just one, good offensive and defensive capabilities, tough sucker.

Creating this Archetype (in Hero terms for ease) one might take a multitude of Weapon Familiarities, several CSLs in over all combat, several CSLs with specific weapons. No set amount of any of the above. If the fighter in question had a love of Elven poetry they make have dropped a few CSLs (didn't practice ALL the time) for Language: Elven, KS: Elven Poetry, etc...
Or they might have gone hardcore and dumped every last little point they had into being able to kill you with anything and everything (I'm pictuing Riddick with his tea cup at the moment).

Class: Fighter
You're Attack values are decided, variance in Stats may deviate slightly, you will always know at least "this set of weapons", You will progress in a specific and laid out manner.
Again, in Hero terms a Fighter Class would be forced to take certain WF, be required to have certain CSLs in various formats - usually a no more/no less format.

Package Deals are the closest things Hero get to Classes. If every single "Fighter" in the Campaign World were to be required to take the approved Fighter Package you have successfully created a Fighter Class. Congrats.

Those are simply my thoughts on the idea. I'm by no means the be all end all authority here.

Rergardless of how you defein "class" it is neither necessary, needed or requiered to be used in order to properly simulate the Fantasy (or any other) Genre.

The idea may be useful as a starting and/or stopping place. But is by no means "required."

[kuoshu]

Ok, good discussion here, even when it has gotten a bit "heated" but while I agree with almost everyone here at some base level, I do not agree that adding a "talent for magic" restriction that must be purchased to use magic leads us back to a class system. A character that would be "classified" as a fighter (big shiny sword, very strong, heavy armor, "is all about the beatings") can still purchase that talent and use magic if they want to spend points there.

A class base game system (of which I've played one or two) does not allow that because the idea behind a "class" is that each specific "class" is "balanced" against the others.

All of the definitions I've read hear have been great and very informative, but in the end it's about what a class based system actually does in a game. I know there are many things, but I think of it in two terms.

1) Help a player create a character by limiting them to a defined set of choices.

2) Hinder a player from creating exactly what they want by limiting them to a defined set of choices.

1 is roxxors while 2 just plain suxxors. But it's hard to have one with out the other, I've not played a class based system that did.

So, back to the original question, "is there no escape?".

Yes you can escape this. As long as everyone knows what to expect in the game setting I think it can work fine. But classes, archetypes, and even racial/professional packages help everyone involved in the game know and understand what the people around their characters are going to look like in a given game. Without them it can be hard to get everyone on the same page.

Is this realistic? That's one for debate, but I would say usually not. But then it's really about being able to say "Fighter" and have people think of Mike Tyson, or "barbarian" and have people think of Conan, or say priest and have people think of the Pope.

And, at the very least using classifications like this helps to guide players during character creation so that they can do most of that work on their own. When they bring the build to the GM, chances are there will not be a lot of rewriting required.

So, when we say wizard, thief, priest, fighter, on this board it is usually not that there is a rigidly defined "class" with limitations on what they can and can't do, it is so that people get the general idea of what kind of person the character is.

Thank you very much for your time,
-Kuo "using sample profession packages in my FH game" Shu

[Kristopher]

Well, checking four dictionaries and a thesaurus:

"Wizard" and "Mage" are classes.

"Merlin" and "Gandalf" are archetypes.

Also I'd suggest that the "Magic-User" is an archetype, in that wizards in many games are patterned after the original D&D magic-user. The Magic-User archetype includes:

- extremely limited physical combat abilities
- has flashy and effective combat spells (fireball?)
- is a specialist with exclusive access to magic, needed to round out a party
- has exclusive access to powerful "magic items" not usable by other characters, and also exclusive ability to create potions and magic items
- is balanced for play, being neither ineffectually weak nor overwhelmingly powerful, unlike wizards in myth and literature which seem to gravitate toward one of these two extremes

The Magic-User archetype is not at all necessary. There are plenty of games where wizards can wear armor and fight, where they are unbalanced, where they may lack flash combat spells, etc. In a game like HERO the archetype does not exist at all unless you specifically create it.

As for classes, most games are set up this way for two reasons: because classes are realistic, and because classes provide variety and balance when multiple players are involved.

In order to understand these two reasons, you first have to understand what a game would look like without classes. A class is merely a group of characters that share common traits. By definition this means that there are other characters that do not share these traits. So then, if there were no classes then there would be no clear distinctions... for example, everyone could fight, everyone could use magic, everyone could sneak around, etc. The usual response to this is "not everyone will do all of them, but it should be possible" which brings us to the first reason.

Classes are realistic. In reality, people specialize. This is due in part to people actually being interested in some things and not in others, but also due to economic realities and the simple fact that we have a short lifespan. There really is only time to master one trade. If everyone in the game world learned everything, then everyone would look pretty much the same and it would seem weird and alien. And dull.

Which leads to the second reason: it would be really kind of boring if everyone were the same, and more importantly individual players would not be important. If everyone can fight, then the group really doesn't need a dedicated fighter and the fighter player becomes irrelevant, since any other PC can replace him. (Of course if you only have a single player then a jack of all trades is preferred, otherwise he'll have serious problems.) People play to have fun and be cool, but coolness is proportional to how important you are and how extreme you are. Without classes, nobody is important and nobody is extreme. Additionally it would be really dull if every NPC you encountered was the same fighter/wizard/thief/whatever mix. No variety, same challenge every time. And it is also boring if your character can do everything and has no weaknesses.

Classes are good, and I don't think gaming would be much fun without them. However they have to be enforced because if you let people do anything they want, they will. If I had time and energy to learn martial arts and painting and blacksmithing and mechanical engineering and sailing and politics and law and medicine and 14 languages I certainly would. Allow it in a game and players will too. Not all would learn everything, but very very few would restrict themselves to a "realistic" limit. Of course in reality we can often learn a little about each of these, and theoretically we could learn any of them. So we bristle at inflexible class systems like D&D that flatly disallow variety.

The problem is that we interpret a game rule that you cannot do X as somehow meaning that X is not possible, but that is just perception. A game rule in the form of a Physical Lim that says I cannot tell a lie does not mean that lying is impossible, it means I will never do it. Maybe a D&D wizard never learns to fight because he never chose to learn to fight, and as part of playing that class the player is voluntarily choosing to never be a good fighter. Not that fighting is impossible, if he wants to fight he can play a different class. Furthermore the GM can always make an exception, and besides what is going to happen if the Magic User picks up a sword and pokes someone with it? He is violating the rule, but I don't think anyone would say the world ends or it is impossible or anything. But in the spirit of cooperation each player voluntarily accepts certain limitations (after all he could play HERO instead). Thus the class limitatations are rules not reality, and compliance is 100% voluntary. A good roleplayer will take his class restrictions and find good in-character reasons for them, play them as if they are natural.

That's my take on it. Classes are cool and I love them. They are not necessary but I think a game without them would be dull and would feel very unrealistic, not to mention not resembling classic fantasy.

First, Gandalf and Merlin aren't archetypes, they're individual characters.

Anyway, setting aside that, the dictionary definitions don't suffice here, because in the context of these discussions, "class" and "archetype" have distinct meanings -- "terms of art", if you will.

Much of the "classic fantasy" that people are pointing to as having characters that are obviously of one class or another are actually works that post-date the emergence of AD&D and are to some degree influenced by that class of fantasy setting.

The classic fantasy works, Tolkein's, are full of characters who blatantly violate the assumptions of D&D's classes.

There's nothing realistic about classes -- real people and well-written fictional characters are nothing like as cookie-cutter and specialized as class system would have us believe. Skillsets and abilities and training don't isolate out in nice, neat packages.

It's not a character's skills and powers and specialties that make him or her interesting, or important to the game -- it's the character, the personality, the quirks, all the things that make them "a person".

[ghost-angel]

Ok, good discussion here, even when it has gotten a bit "heated" but while I agree with almost everyone here at some base level, I do not agree that adding a "talent for magic" restriction that must be purchased to use magic leads us back to a class system. A character that would be "classified" as a fighter (big shiny sword, very strong, heavy armor, "is all about the beatings") can still purchase that talent and use magic if they want to spend points there.

This is a very good point, and I think from reading most of us (if not all of us) agree that a prerequisite to use something is not creating a Class.

Saying "anyone who uses Magic in this game must pay for the Magic Talent" is not a Class, it's a Game Element. And it doesn't put you into an Archetype either, you may still be a pretty strait forward Fighter, but spend a few points on a Mage Talent and picked up a spell or two.

[Steve]

This is a very good point, and I think from reading most of us (if not all of us) agree that a prerequisite to use something is not creating a Class.

Saying "anyone who uses Magic in this game must pay for the Magic Talent" is not a Class, it's a Game Element. And it doesn't put you into an Archetype either, you may still be a pretty strait forward Fighter, but spend a few points on a Mage Talent and picked up a spell or two.

Given a campaign world with a Mage Talent, I suppose one could make a case for using a Faith Talent as well, to allow access to divine magic. Most people could be said to have faith in something, but only a few individuals have Faith with a capital 'F' instead (or maybe name it Channeling as Rolemaster did, or True Faith as White Wolf did), and only those people can call down the divine power.

But GA is right in that having such a talent required for magic use does not a Class create. Yes, you could have a burly warrior sort with it, maybe with only a single spell to his name. That doesn't mean everyone will take it, since not everyone is interested in the shiny, sparkly magic.

I frankly disagree with the notion that without classes games will degenerate into a group of identical generalists, with l33t ninja/warrior/sorcerers running about. I've only seen that if you put a bunch of power gamers or munchkins together at a table.

[Kristopher]

Given a campaign world with a Mage Talent, I suppose one could make a case for using a Faith Talent as well, to allow access to divine magic. Most people could be said to have faith in something, but only a few individuals have Faith with a capital 'F' instead (or maybe name it Channeling as Rolemaster did, or True Faith as White Wolf did), and only those people can call down the divine power.

But GA is right in that having such a talent required for magic use does not a Class create. Yes, you could have a burly warrior sort with it, maybe with only a single spell to his name. That doesn't mean everyone will take it, since not everyone is interested in the shiny, sparkly magic.

I frankly disagree with the notion that without classes games will degenerate into a group of identical generalists, with l33t ninja/warrior/sorcerers running about. I've only seen that if you put a bunch of power gamers or munchkins together at a table.

Agreed.

In our campaigns without any kind of class setup, players still create characters that often fit into loose archetypes, focusing on certain areas of capability, and you get some who are sneakier, some who are better in a stand-up combat, some who are better at magic of some sort, etc. But rarely will you end with a character who is of limited capability outside of a narrow set of situations.

[Alcamtar]

Anyway, setting aside that, the dictionary definitions don't suffice here, because in the context of these discussions, "class" and "archetype" have distinct meanings -- "terms of art", if you will.


Dictionary definitions aside - because they aren't gaming specific dictionary definitions they have minimal relevance to us.

Just for the record, and then I'll shut up on this point --

Pretty much the entire RPG world uses class and archetype interchangeably (myself included) and this thread is the first time I ever saw anyone distinguish between them. So I don't think this is an example of "gaming terminology."

These things tend to snowball. Over at The Forge they've redefined many common terms to mean something special and as a result, an outsider can hardly tell what they're talking about. It's annoying and makes it hard for Forgeites to interact meaningfully with the rest of the world, plus it engenders a lot of ill-humor toward them.


Class: Fighter You're Attack values are decided, variance in Stats may deviate slightly, you will always know at least "this set of weapons", You will progress in a specific and laid out manner.

I've often heard this termed a class-and-level system -- class being the character concept, and level defines the specific character abilities at every point in a character's career. The classic example is AD&D. Dungeon HERO was an interesting class-and-level build for HERO.

A pure class-based system enforces the character concept without requiring a specific implementation of that concept. Examples are hard to find because nobody has found a really good way to do it yet, other than rules light games that pretty much leave it to intuition. Examples might include SLUG and RISUS.

A pure level-based system enforces game balance at each point along a character's career path without requiring any specific character concept. Examples: Savage Worlds, D&D 3.X

HERO is of course none of these, because it enforces nothing in the rules.

[Alcamtar]

I frankly disagree with the notion that without classes games will degenerate into a group of identical generalists, with l33t ninja/warrior/sorcerers running about. I've only seen that if you put a bunch of power gamers or munchkins together at a table.

The only game I can think of that even allows this is Fudge, where you can do anything you want.

Pretty much all other games require you to make choices, set limits on what you are allowed to do. Hero does this with points: you can specialize in A, but you'll have to sacrifice B to do it. If you gave unlimited character points and the GM exercised no veto power in Hero, it could degenerate very very rapidly. And I don't think anyone would enjoy it past the first session unless the players were exceptionally mature gamers. (Curious: has anyone actually done this?)

Except in very restrictive games, all players have to make choices, and choose based on their character concept. Class is essentially just a distilled character concept. Whatever you want to call it, nobody really wants to play without one, because all the coolness is in the concept.

That said, I feel strongly that it has to be limited. You can't just let any concept into the game or you destroy the flavor. Strong class-and-level systems appeal to the majority because they embody the most popular concepts, require no work, and the GM never has to be the bad guy and veto something. It should not be surprising that people bring popular concepts into Hero. Personally I don't play Hero because I want to be radically different, but because I'm picky and I want to fine tune characters within their classes and other things, and HERO provides a rich and controlled framework in which to do that.

[Killer Shrike]

Just for the record, and then I'll shut up on this point --

Pretty much the entire RPG world uses class and archetype interchangeably (myself included) and this thread is the first time I ever saw anyone distinguish between them. So I don't think this is an example of "gaming terminology."

These things tend to snowball. Over at The Forge they've redefined many common terms to mean something special and as a result, an outsider can hardly tell what they're talking about. It's annoying and makes it hard for Forgeites to interact meaningfully with the rest of the world, plus it engenders a lot of ill-humor toward them.



I've often heard this termed a class-and-level system -- class being the character concept, and level defines the specific character abilities at every point in a character's career. The classic example is AD&D. Dungeon HERO was an interesting class-and-level build for HERO.

A pure class-based system enforces the character concept without requiring a specific implementation of that concept. Examples are hard to find because nobody has found a really good way to do it yet, other than rules light games that pretty much leave it to intuition. Examples might include SLUG and RISUS.

A pure level-based system enforces game balance at each point along a character's career path without requiring any specific character concept. Examples: Savage Worlds, D&D 3.X

HERO is of course none of these, because it enforces nothing in the rules.
I try not to make me too posts, but this is pretty well said.

At this point I think we can all admit that there is a lot of connotative baggage associated with the term "class" in an RPG context, and likely the root of how divided we all are on the subject is that we all mean slightly different things when we say "class".

Again, Ill kick the quickly expiring horse, and say that in the end, the HERO System can support very nuanced interpretations of the concept ranging from precisely strictured to no restrictrictions at all and everything in between to suit each gaming group's and individual's preferences, so arguing about it is entirely moot.

[Vondy]

Just to be a ditto-head: I prefer point based systems to class and level based systems, but that preference is wholly subjective, and there is nothing inherently wrong with class based systems. Some people swear by them and prefer the rigid structure and (theoretically) rigid balance they provide, and its not mine to deride their preference. If it suits them and they're enjoying it who am I - or anyone else - to say they should do it differently? Point based systems also have drawbacks, I just happen to prefer the drawbacks point based systems have. The entire notion that class based systems should go the way of the dodo because of subjective differences is a little odd to me. I don't play them, but others do. They should give up their games because I don't like them?

[kuoshu]

Just to be a ditto-head: I prefer point based systems to class and level based systems, but that preference is wholly subjective, and there is nothing inherently wrong with class based systems. Some people swear by them and prefer the rigid structure and (theoretically) rigid balance they provide, and its not mine to deride their preference. If it suits them and they're enjoying it who am I - or anyone else - to say they should do it differently? Point based systems also have drawbacks, I just happen to prefer the drawbacks point based systems have. The entire notion that class based systems should go the way of the dodo because of subjective differences is a little odd to me. I don't play them, but others do. They should give up their games because I don't like them?

Thank you, well stated and agreed. Both have drawbacks and it's about which drawbacks you personally can live with.

Personally I love the fact that class (or class and level*) based systems are usually so easy to get together and run with. But I also love the flexibility of point based or skill based systems. The fact that Hero can do both with a bit of front load time is why I am willing to read these threads for bits and pieces of wisdom from the assembled gurus.

-Kuo Shu

[Lucius]

Sorry, Killer Shrike, I was being sarcastic about the inanity of the original question, not your response to it.

The question I asked – or rather, the statement I made that I asked the question about – is deliberately inane. It’s a response to statements like this:



Don't try to make this into a semantic arguement--I'm using the same definition of "class" that everyone else is using in this thread. Talking about the requirements, power, and limits of magic in the campaign is the essence of any mage class in any system.

I would argue that just about everyone who plays Fantasy Hero uses at least the mage class (of some sort or another). Those Fantasy games that don't use a mage class wouldn't have the appropriate Fantasy feel, or Norse feel, or Chinese feel.. they would feel more like a Champions game in the middle-ages than anything else.


The difference is that the game system itself requires that someone who wants to fight effectively take combat levels and WFs, but it does not require KSs, perks, or magic skill to use the powers listed in the power section. If we require that for our games, we are imposing some sort of structure on the game--which is the same a class structure. A very limited class structure, but a class structure nonetheless.

If one accepts what CUnknown is saying, my statement logically follows:


Right. And if I say no one can take Computer Programming in my fantasy game because computers don't exist there, or say that you need a Weapon Familiarity with Swords before taking the Fencing martial Art, I'm also creating a class system.


Does anyone actually agree with the above statement?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is in a class by itself.

So I would expect that CUnknown at least would agree with my statement, as it logically follows from his.

No, that’s not true. I really don’t expect him to agree, but I’m hoping that by (gently I hope!) illustrating the absurdity of his position, I will persuade him to reconsider it.


Just to be a ditto-head: I prefer point based systems to class and level based systems, but that preference is wholly subjective, and there is nothing inherently wrong with class based systems. Some people swear by them and prefer the rigid structure and (theoretically) rigid balance they provide, and its not mine to deride their preference. If it suits them and they're enjoying it who am I - or anyone else - to say they should do it differently? Point based systems also have drawbacks, I just happen to prefer the drawbacks point based systems have. The entire notion that class based systems should go the way of the dodo because of subjective differences is a little odd to me. I don't play them, but others do. They should give up their games because I don't like them?

On the other hand, I think it’s a very telling point that even AD&D has responded to the existence of HERO and other more evolved systems by becoming ever more flexible – in fact, even Hackmaster, deliberately designed to be a kind of parody of the absurdity of D&D, has the equivalent of Disadvantages that net you points to improve your character with (although the disads are rolled on a chart rather than chosen.)

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary maintains that Lucius Alexander is like an unemployed teacher – no class!

[Alcamtar]

This thread started out asking why classes happen even though they are not required, and then sort of lost focus.


Why is it, when HERO doesn't even have classes, that these forums still see characters so often described as fitting neatly into the pidgeonhole of some narrow archetype, as they established by...that other game?

There are prescriptive classes and descriptive classes. A prescriptive class says "here is a pattern that you must follow" while a descriptive class says "here is a group of characters that fit a recognizable pattern."

Many of us like HERO because it allows natural characters who have reasons for what they do. On the other hand, people intuitively recognize and classify patterns; in gaming we call them styles or genres. Most of us want our games to be recognizable as genres, or even specific books or movies. In other words, we want to see specific descriptive classes without artificially prescribing them. But since HERO is so wide-open, some prescription is unavoidable ("no guns, use this magic system, must have heroic motives", etc) combined with the GM exercising editorial control.

Regarding "why D&D", I don't see D&D style fantasy as any less valid than books or movies. It doesn't surprise me that people want to emulate it "naturally" in HERO just like any other style. D&D works because it draws on broad pre-existing genres, and it mixes genres, so that gamers with differing tastes can each find something to identify with. Plus gaming is very pragmatic while fiction is rarely so, and the D&D genre is a very natural genre for gaming in simply because it evolved from gaming. This pragmatism is appealing to many.

Anyway I think it's valuable to realize that we're all emulating something, and that we all define and use classes (at least descriptively).

[Markdoc]

I would argue that just about everyone who plays Fantasy Hero uses at least the mage class (of some sort or another). Those Fantasy games that don't use a mage class wouldn't have the appropriate Fantasy feel, or Norse feel, or Chinese feel.. they would feel more like a Champions game in the middle-ages than anything else.

You could argue that, but in my experience it just ain't so. In the current game, the closest the a mage class would be a priest - and even then you can be a priest without knowing any magic. In the current set of players only one (by a stretch) could deescribed as a mage/priest - but almost all of them have magic.

I think what you mean is that classes - and especially Mage - are essential for a FH game which mimics D&D - as many of them do. But it's neither essential, nor as common as you seem to think for FH games in general.

Classes (outside of D and D) are a useful shorthand for description, nothing more. If I had to describe the current group, one I would describe as a fighter and another as a rogue - they fit the D and D stereotypes pretty well - but in addition I have a young noble's son, an animal handler, a merchant and an inquisitor - because those short descriptions fit their characters better than the D and D descriptions.

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

There are prescriptive classes and descriptive classes.

You put it better than I did -- repped.

[Vondy]

You could argue that, but in my experience it just ain't so. In the current game, the closest the a mage class would be a priest - and even then you can be a priest without knowing any magic. In the current set of players only one (by a stretch) could deescribed as a mage/priest - but almost all of them have magic.

I think what you mean is that classes - and especially Mage - are essential for a FH game which mimics D&D - as many of them do. But it's neither essential, nor as common as you seem to think for FH games in general.

Classes (outside of D and D) are a useful shorthand for description, nothing more. If I had to describe the current group, one I would describe as a fighter and another as a rogue - they fit the D and D stereotypes pretty well - but in addition I have a young noble's son, an animal handler, a merchant and an inquisitor - because those short descriptions fit their characters better than the D and D descriptions.

cheers, Mark

Tangential to Markdoc's point:

If you define fantasy within the scope of High Fantasy and Swords& Sorcery then yes, the traditional mage, is essential in one form or another. However, there are numerous sub-genres within the wider Fantasy genre that the mage, as he understood in HF and SS stories, is not essential to. Low fantasy, historical or strong simulationist fantasy, some mythological fantasy, horror, and dark fantasy don't always have, or need, such an archetype to firmly remain within the realm of fantasy. And even in terms of Swords& Sorcery there are stories that do not strictly require such a designation. Farfd and the Grey Mouser comes to mind, and the Stormbringer game handled sorcery extremely well without having a specific class. The mage is a common element of many prominent fantasy stories, and is a useful descriptor when describing many fantasy characters, but he's certainly not indispensible to it.

[Thia Halmades]

I've only skimmed the thread, and checked in on the end of it to see where the discussion is now (prescriptive vs. descriptive) and of course the general starting question seems to have been "Can we get away from class structure?"

Something MarkDoc said was a little surprising to me; that he would only pidgeonhole two characters, but others - the noble's son, etc. - he wouldn't put in the same category. I find this odd because to me, Noble's Son is a special effect backed up by a few specific choices (maybe a couple of skills, and a couple of perks). I had a PC in my old d20 game (the game I converted) who was a noblewoman from a specific subculture of Elves, and we went through a whole bunch of effort to get that character created in a way that it would work, without taking 'expert class' from the DMG.

I mention all of this because for us, in my group, yes, there is an element of d20 emulation - but that's all it is - emulation, not simulation. I knew that I would need to put together a complex magic system, which is comparatively low powered, diverse and balanced. I knew that I would be looking for warriors to have 'Sword Tricks' and for Theives to have 'Thief Tricks' - but that was about the extent of it.

I switched out of a class system and into a point buy system to get away from, on a variety of levels, the over-simplification of the class structure. You could not, without buying a level or more of Rogue, have a skill heavy warrior. Granted, it took me a really long time to fully grasp what HERO does well vs. what d20 does well, but now that I've pretty much completed the transition, I both see a place for class-based games like d20 (simplicity is king) and for complex point buys like HERO.

[Markdoc]

Something MarkDoc said was a little surprising to me; that he would only pidgeonhole two characters, but others - the noble's son, etc. - he wouldn't put in the same category. I find this odd because to me, Noble's Son is a special effect backed up by a few specific choices (maybe a couple of skills, and a couple of perks).

Which is the point. The Noble's son is, in the game, a noble's son and has the attributes one would expect from that description - some basic weapons skills, some courtly graces, some contacts. Describing the character that way gives you an impression of what the character is like.

The fighter is, in the game, exactly what a straight D&D fighter would be like - armour, weapons, some "feats" and a few basic skills. Thus "fighter" gives you a pretty good idea of what that character is all about.

As I said, they're *descriptions*. I could have described the Noble's son as "sort of like a bard, but without any magical powers related to music, lots of points in social interaction skills and some combat skills" but "noble's son" is more succinct.

cheers, Mark

[Thia Halmades]

Different evolution of thought. To me, Mike's noble woman was always a Sorceror and the focus to an extent (because of the system) needed to be on maintaining a level of effectiveness in combat and fighting tooth & nail with the system to bring about that concept.

It was one of the reasons that I switched systems in the first place, and still, I would say she's a Sorceror. which is odd, considering part of the point was to enable him to play her concept out completely, without the system getting in the way of the character.

Consider more a testament of speaking one language for nearly two decades in its various incarnations, then moving to a whole new country, and still learning how to express myself in a new language.

[Blue Jogger]

I tried having a classless campaign called "AD&D remix" about a very high-magic world (i.e. castle city in the clouds) that suffered a complete magical collapse. Thirty years later, magic starts to return but it is much different than before. (No longer AD&D, but now Fantasy Hero)

One of the major changes, everyone can now do some minor magics. Without any skill or training, it's not much (10 active points) and usually more frustrating than its worth. (You can spend points into raising your skill level, which makes you more likely to succeed with higher level magic without blowing yourself up and doing faster, etc.).

The upshot is, even with all this freedom, most of the characters fall easy into niches: the berserker, the treasure hunter, the cleric, the merc, the monk, the ranger/animal trainer, and the ever-loving fire mage.

So my answer is "no". Although there are no proscriptive reasons to have classes, people aren't going to be generalists.

[Chris Goodwin]

After having read the entire thread....

It's still here because most of us came from some form of D&D, because a class gives you an easy way to describe your character in shorthand as well as conceptualize it, and because the Hero System makes it easy to whip up at least an approximation of D&D character class abilities in Fantasy Hero.

[TheQuestionMan]

Why is it, when HERO doesn't even have classes, that these forums still see characters so often described as fitting neatly into the pidgeonhole of some narrow archetype, as they established by...that other game?
Association? enough said?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_%28psychology%29



QM