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.

[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

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 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."

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 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

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.