Class systems -- is there no escape?

[Kristopher]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Maybe the mages in your game can take any power they want' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Funny' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

By saying nope do you mean no, or do you mean negative.

Do you agree with that?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Which leads to the second reason: it would be really kind of boring if everyone were the same' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Ok' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Anyway' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

I frankly disagree with the notion that without classes games will degenerate into a group of identical generalists' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

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]

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

 

Just to be a ditto-head: I prefer point based systems to class and level based systems' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

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