Hi. I’m CourtFool and I hate classes.
A few years after I started playing Basic D&D I stumbled upon the James Bond RPG. There were no classes and characters were defined by the skills they possessed. I never looked back.
When I leaf through a new game, if I see classes, the game is promptly returned to the shelf and I move on. I find classes restrictive and they utterly destroy my immersion. I have never found a class I was perfectly happy playing.
So what is the appeal of classes? They have survived every iteration of D&D. They have survived in any number of games beyond D&D even after other games have embraced skills.
I have seen some people say classes provide balance. This is highly debatable. There are any number of threads on the WotC boards decrying each and every class as too powerful with an equally compelling title two threads below bemoaning how weak that exact class is. Point buy systems have found they are equally prone to muchkinizing, so I would call this a draw.
I have seen some people say classes make character creation easy. I have to admit this is true. Choosing one class from a list of a dozen classes is easier than much larger list of skills and deciding what level of each is appropriate for your particular concept. Of course, D&D itself added skills and feats. To me, this seemed an admission that classes were restrictive and did not provide enough differentiation. Templates could be created for any skill based system pretty much eliminating this argument.
I have seen some people say classes provide niche protection. This is just as easily violated with classes as without. I think niche protection is far better served in some kind of social contract. Besides, aren’t you tired of shafting the late guy with the cleric all the time?
What have I left out? Sell me on why classes are a good mechanic.
|
You seem to be on a roll today. 'I decided that my game is the best way to play and everyone should tell me why they game the stupid way they do.' seems to be your motto of the day.
Could you at least try to pretend to not be so superior with your opinion? Usually I dig your opinion but today you seem to be living up to this thread's title.
Hi, I'm Robby and I left D&D long ago (but not because of classes). Isn't this the "Other RPG" section of the boards anyways? Wouldn't you be better served raising this issue in a D&D section? :)
Classes serve their purposes. Lack of game balance isn't a function of classes, its a function of the system underneath. You can make a balanced system with classes, you can make an unbalanced system without. I think that with 3x, classes could become more easily unbalanced because so much was packed into each level. The more granular you make your advanced (rather than "big bang" advancement), the easier it is to make sure advancement is more balanced.
That said, even many classless systems - like Savage Worlds - default provide some niche protection (at least by default). You see this most with magic. If one archetype (say, a magic user) can do everything that a thief or ranger or [insert archetype here] can do, why play anything but a magic user?
You seem to be on a roll today.
I apologize if I came off as sounding superior. I am trying to see things from another perspective.
You seem to be on a roll today. 'I decided that my game is the best way to play and everyone should tell me why they game the stupid way they do.' seems to be your motto of the day.
Could you at least try to pretend to not be so superior with your opinion? Usually I dig your opinion but today you seem to be living up to this thread's title.
For what it's worth, I didn't get a superior attitude form the OP. My $.02 and all that.
Hi. I’m CourtFool and I hate classes.
A few years after I started playing Basic D&D I stumbled upon the James Bond RPG. There were no classes and characters were defined by the skills they possessed. I never looked back.
When I leaf through a new game, if I see classes, the game is promptly returned to the shelf and I move on. I find classes restrictive and they utterly destroy my immersion. I have never found a class I was perfectly happy playing.
So what is the appeal of classes? They have survived every iteration of D&D. They have survived in any number of games beyond D&D even after other games have embraced skills.
I have seen some people say classes provide balance. This is highly debatable. There are any number of threads on the WotC boards decrying each and every class as too powerful with an equally compelling title two threads below bemoaning how weak that exact class is. Point buy systems have found they are equally prone to muchkinizing, so I would call this a draw.
I have seen some people say classes make character creation easy. I have to admit this is true. Choosing one class from a list of a dozen classes is easier than much larger list of skills and deciding what level of each is appropriate for your particular concept. Of course, D&D itself added skills and feats. To me, this seemed an admission that classes were restrictive and did not provide enough differentiation. Templates could be created for any skill based system pretty much eliminating this argument.
I have seen some people say classes provide niche protection. This is just as easily violated with classes as without. I think niche protection is far better served in some kind of social contract. Besides, aren’t you tired of shafting the late guy with the cleric all the time?
What have I left out? Sell me on why classes are a good mechanic.
Classes provide a shorthand frame-of-reference. Sure, not every 20th level with is going to be the same, but "20th level wizard" still conveys a lot.
In theory, classes also provide ease of use, though I think the realization of that benefit is a mixed bag in D&D 3.5 (and 4E could be better or worse...no way to know yet).
Back in the 2E days, I went down the Hero 4th edition path, but point-based systems come with their own complexities. In the end, 3E was "good enough" for the "network externalities" and ease-of-use to make the difference, and I've never really left D&D since.
I have upset Fake Healer between this thread and another one. It certainly was not my intention. I shall be more careful in the future how I sound.
Sell me on why classes are a good mechanic.
Don't look at me. I think they're unrealistic, too. But the industry leader uses them, so most others will too :/
I wonder if WotC, in their enlightened rewrite of the game, considered dropping the level mechanic. I can think of lots of great games without them: White Wolf Storyteller, Iron Crown (OK, they're dead), Call of Cthulhu, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Just a couple more cents :)
Hmmm, World of Darkness.... Um.... Shadowrun?
Nope, I'm not gonna be selling you on anything class based.
I do love my D&D but I can only do it in small sittings. I fell out of favor for AD&D 2nd Ed years ago because there were better games to play, notably the above mentioned games. I was sold on 3rd Ed when I finally tried it but I do not feel it is superior to classless games.
What have I left out? Sell me on why classes are a good mechanic.
I don't really like classes, either. I play D&D because that's where the other players are.
Contributor
|
I'm not really a big fan of classes either, it was in fact one of the things that led me to drop D&D prior to 3E.
Like Kruelaid though, I have found that D&D is where the players are. And the best writing gigs (if you can get them).
The only other thing I'll say is that class-based systems are almost always level-based systems, and level-based systems are almost always class-based systems. In theory, level-based systems are easier to write balanced material for. 3E has the most detailed balance rules I've ever seen yet, and even though they are a little wonky in places, I have really come to appreciate the system. Especially since I've gotten better at spotting the wonkiness and adapting to it.
Point-buy systems like GURPS should be easy to balance this way, but I have yet to play one that is, and usually the guidelines are pretty vague. Although it's been a while since I've played one. Even so, one innovation of 3E is the level cap on skill. In a point-buy system, usually a character can specialize to the point that what should be balanced is not. It can still happen in D&D but less so.
But most of this is only tangentially related to classes.
Moooo mooooooooooo!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I don't really like classes, either. I play D&D because that's where the other players are.
What have I left out? Sell me on why classes are a good mechanic.
There is nothing better or worse about class systems over classless systems. I have played and enjoyed both over the years (1e Shadowrun was my first foray outside D&D, followed by TMNT/Robotech and finally settling with Vampire the Masquerade). I think there is a difference in how classes are interpreted within the system itself. Take for example:
*D&D Wizards are not as physical as Fighters. This is demonstrated by their lower hp dice. It is there to differentiate the specific roles that a party needs to complete their adventures (in it's most basic form, the proliferation of more classes has blurred this line somewhat). Every party had a Fighter, a Wizard, a Cleric and a Rogue. That was the norm. That is not to say that a party of 4 Fighters could not do well (etc...) but that this was just the core party expected.Within their classes, there was still alot of room for customisation. You can still have a Wizard with 16 STR, 16 CON and 14 INT. It just means that you are a slightly more robust Wizard who can hold his own instead of the "frail old man" image. Feats, Skills and Alternate Class Features just make for more customisation and in my opinion are a good thing (except for the proliferation of Feats which either contradict themselves or do the same thing... that's just bad editing/continuity). You still have the choices available to make the character you want, you just do it with within the confines of a "base template" so to speak.
*Classless systems on the other hand are good in that you have that same level of customization available right from the word go, without the confines of that "base template" of a class. A classless stystem's "base template" is more of a guide rather than a strict pidgeon holeing. eg. In Shadowrun, my Decker was actually better in combat than our Street Samurai. The were both Cybered out the Wazoo, just mine were slightly better (to this day I still have no idea how; we both spent the same amount of ¥ and my Decker could still Deck really well!).
Both systems still have similar options available to them. In vampire, if your Tough Guy wants to cast Magic, then you take some dots in Thaumaturgy. In D&D if your Fighter wants to cast Magic, then he takes a level or 2 of Wizard. Both options dilute your character in similar ways. Vampire means that you can't spend that xp on increasing your Physical Attributes. D&D means that you loose some hp/BAB. Similar, just different. (I have been criticized before in our gaming group for using that term, but I think that it is actually a really good way of explaining some concepts).
Similar, but different!
Neither is better or worse than the other. Both are viable and it just comes down to personal preference as to how you want to play.
To answer you though Krue. I don't play D&D because that's where the players are. I play D&D at the moment because that is what I choose. I have alot of ideas and am just in that "D&D phase" right now. Immediately before I was playing D&D, we were playing a WoD (Oldskool) game which I was also really enjoying. (We started off as all Vamps, then as Characters died we slowly branched out into other concepts. There were only 2 of us who had the original Vamps. Myself with a Setite Sorcerer and a Lasombra Beatstick. We also had a Demon, Nagah, and Redcap).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Hmmm, World of Darkness.... Um.... Shadowrun?
Nope, I'm not gonna be selling you on anything class based.I do love my D&D but I can only do it in small sittings. I fell out of favor for AD&D 2nd Ed years ago because there were better games to play, notably the above mentioned games. I was sold on 3rd Ed when I finally tried it but I do not feel it is superior to classless games.
Heh, shoulda read you post first... you said it alot more succinctly than me. I didn't fall out of favour with 2e though, I just moved away from RPing to CCGs for a while. I missed 3e, but came back into 3.5 2 years ago after picking up a Dungeon from the Newsagents for nostalgic reasons (Thank You Paizo for getting me back into D&D!). This led to me also getting back into Vampire the Masquerade (Wod) as well.
I hear you flash, I choose it too. I love D&D. I'm not trying to beat on D&D, here, I just love systems without class AND maximum customization.
But I wouldn't be playing much if I didn't choose D&D. And I really appreciate the support material available for D&D, which is a consequence of having so many players.
Know what I mean?
I have upset Fake Healer between this thread and another one. It certainly was not my intention. I shall be more careful in the future how I sound.
CourtFool, you look different today! Did you do something with your hair?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I hear you flash, I choose it too. I love D&D. I'm not trying to beat on D&D, here, I just love systems without class AND maximum customization.
But I wouldn't be playing much if I didn't choose D&D. And I really appreciate the support material available for D&D, which is a consequence of having so many players.
Know what I mean?
How would you do classless D&D? The number of new base classes and prestige classes are a sign that people want choice.
I'm still waiting for it.
How would you do classless D&D? The number of new base classes and prestige classes are a sign that people want choice.
I'm still waiting for it.
I would never do classless D&D because it would not be D&D. I have played Fantasy Hero and Gurps Fantasy without classes and loved both. The amount of choice in Fantasy hero is staggering.
But people obviously like classes. If they didn't D&D would not be so popular.
It´s not that a game is better or worse with or without classes and levels. It is first and foremost a matter of personal taste.
D&D is defined in part with using classes and levels - you can argue about this or that edition being closer to or farther away from the spirit of D&D, but no designer dared to remove classes and levels from D&D - IMO, D&D would not be D&D without this subsystem, and I guess that many others would agree.
Personally, I have difficulties imagining some background taken from books or movies using levels and classes (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings come to my mind, especially since I enjoyed the old WEG Star Wars immensely, despite its bugs). For a background written especially for gaming, I have less trouble accepting it.
IMO, systems without classes and levels are better suited to games trying to be realistic in their rules, but D&D is not even trying to be realistic - if you look for a realistic game system, you better look elsewhere.
my 2c
Stefan
My name is Luke, and I've been frustrated with classes for a while.
I like them, don't get me wrong, but after playing Shadowrun and Cyberpunk a few years ago, I started liking a game where 'class' was 'eating with a knife and fork', loosely defined by your skills, not railroaded into exclusive and separate orders.
I'm also a fan of the way Oblivion works (but if you choose things you'll never ever use as your class skills and then increase all the others to 100, you'll be fighting low-level monsters but you'll have massive skills... breakish, no?).
However, I do like the 'cool' factor of having powers that no-one else can choose. Yes, you might be a 5th-level wizard, but you can really never cleave a guy in half with a sword. Or sneak attack someone. Or inspire greatness.
Finding a system that incorporated all of this would be great.
And I don't think CourtFool came off as being condescending... he presented his point of view, argued it out, gave rational examples, and asked for comments. Nowhere did he say "this makes me want to hurl" or "I hate this so much I'll never buy x products again..."
I think this is actually what coherent debate involves, isn't it?
|
|
Or you could have access to all class features, from hit dice, saving throws, BAB, to favorite enemies, spellcasting, extra feats. Just buy what you want when you want with your experience points. It looks great! Here is is
Or you could have access to all class features, from hit dice, saving throws, BAB, to favorite enemies, spellcasting, extra feats. Just buy what you want when you want with your experience points. It looks great! Here is is
Did you have to point that out? Now I had to buy it! (actually, I toyed with the very idea myself, but gave up, as it seemed to complex. With this system, you might just keep the feel of D&D and gain unknown flexibility - but you need responsible Players and DMs, as it is easy to abuse.)
I like it, and when I have read it completely, I´ll present the option to my players.Stefan
Or you could have access to all class features, from hit dice, saving throws, BAB, to favorite enemies, spellcasting, extra feats. Just buy what you want when you want with your experience points. It looks great! Here is is
While working with this stuff, I came across the question: How do you treat abilities from Prestige Classes that mirror other abilities from the base classes? For example, a PrC grants the "Special Mount" ability. Do you recalculate the costs according to PrC minimum level, or do you take the regular cost from the base class?
Stefan
Hi. I’m CourtFool and I hate classes.
The horse... it's dead Jim... stop beating it.
;)
Hi. I’m CourtFool and I hate classes.The horse... it's dead Jim... stop beating it.
;)
okay, in case it was misunderstood, I was just kidding around. CF does tend to bring up the "anti-class thing" a lot though. :)
right now my answer is "Classes just work/make sense for me in D&D" I'll see if I can't come up with a better answer than that. I don't use them in most games, well unless they are built in, of course.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I've started out with mostly classless systems, and have come to love them.
Why, you ask?
Realism? No, absolutely not.
Ease of Play? Not necessarily
What has sold me on them is two main points: Genre and Pigeonholing. You heard right, pigeonholing. It is immensely useful that the characters have clearly defined responsibilities in the group, each able to do its thing, but not infringe on another's.
Honestly, one thing i hated about later 1st Edition Exalted was that everyone had to have Martial Arts, and if you had it, you were a better sneaky assassin, better healer and quite possibly better administrator as well. Players need some niche in which they can be cool, and classes provide just that.
You know calling something highly debateable doesn't actually do anything for your argument eh?
Very well, let’s debate it. I do not think classes are any more balanced than a system that uses point buy. In my experience, at low levels, Fighters rule. At higher levels, Wizards pretty much make every other class obsolete, save maybe the Cleric. The Cleric seems unbalanced to me. Spells, Armor and decent hit progression. Their only real weakness seems to be skill levels. I have heard people say Druids are grossly over powered. I am not familiar enough with Druids to confirm this.
Yes , and Yes but then again, your "templates" to class systems which you say would be better than classes are what most people would call classes... yes classes are restrictive, and yes more options for customization are nice, the moral of the story is that this argues for at best class/skill (or other methods of customization) in class systems, not touching on classes themselves.
I disagree. Templates can be completely ignored at the player’s option giving them complete freedom. Classes are built into the system. In my opinion, templates give you most of the benefits of Classes with none of the disadvantages.
You know why classes are a good idea, you just don't like em.
If Classes are a good idea, I feel that point buy is a better idea. Easier character creation can be achieved with templates leaving those players who enjoy more effort free to ignore the templates and build whatever they want. Niche protection can be achieved with a social contract which I think does the job even better than Classes. Clerics can easily infringe on the Fighter’s front line role just as easily
easier character creation and niche protection.
Provides a method of introducing things that skills don't do well or easily (evasion, shapechange, etc from rogue, druid respectively)
Most point buy systems that I am familiar with provide a mechanic for things skills do not really do easily. G.U.R.P.S. has Advantages, Hero has Talents/Powers, Savage World has Edges. Players are free to choose which abilities better suit their character concept.
The horse... it's dead Jim... stop beating it.
O.k. I admit that Classes are one of my soapbox issues. It is one of the major reasons why I do not like D&D. I am trying to get other people’s perspective so I can ‘open my mind to the possibilities.’
What has sold me on them is two main points: Genre and Pigeonholing.
Can’t Genre just as easily be served by templates?
If your players like being pigeonholed, I have no argument for that. You are absolutely right, Classes are great for pigeonholing characters.
However, I think you can protect niche without pigeonholing your characters. I do not think Classes effectively protect niche. And personally, I do not want the system spelling out what my characters niche will be.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Can�t Genre just as easily be served by templates?
If you look at the "get-go" condition, yes. But experience (to me) shows that even from these templates, pretty soon the cherrypicking will result in more or less same characters, with some leftover elements of their templates.
If your players like being pigeonholed, I have no argument for that. You are absolutely right, Classes are great for pigeonholing characters.
However, I think you can protect niche without pigeonholing your characters. I do not think Classes effectively protect niche. And personally, I do not want the system spelling out what my characters niche will be.
Maybe you can, with the theoretical perfect players. I have yet to see it, though. Class-based systems make sure some variety is retained, as absurd as it may at first glance be.
The system supports niches for players, rather than "punishing" them for it. This is what i expect from a good system, and why i like class-based systems more than their counterpart.
That being said, naturally you can do either of them right or wrong - but that is another topic.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's already been mentioned, but I think the biggest advantage of classes is that they are easy and make the game very accessible for new players. They not only give you a package of abilities that (in theory) work well together, they define your role in the game. That's very useful for new players, and can even be useful for more experienced players that are intimidated by building the entire character from the ground up.
A common criticism I see of classless systems is that you also end up with a lot less specialization, which means that everyone is mediocre at a lot of stuff, you get a lot of overlap between characters, and no one paritcularly shines in any arena. Obviously, this is not inherent to the classless system, but it frequently arises.
Another advantage is designing adventures for classed systems seems much easier to me. Both the players and the DM have a sense of a balanced party, and each can prepare characters and challenges accordingly. You're never sure what you're going to get in a classless system, and it makes generic adventure design a bit more difficult.
On a personal level, what I find most challenging about classless systems is the sheer volume of choices. I've been playing around with building a M&M campaign lately, and for the longest time, I couldn't make any progress. Each time I sat down to build an adventure, I got paralyzed with all the choices offered. Part of this is definitely lack of experience, but I really missed the pre-packaged value of classes. The templates didn't really do it for me because they tended to be much broader than the type of campaign I wanted to create (I don't like magic, aliens, or high tech in my comic book campaigns).
Anyway, I eventually had a breakthrough that taught me something very valuable about classless systems. I imposed classes. Not in the strict sense of D&D, but I stepped back from my campaign to ask what I wanted to do with the system. What I concluded was that the campaign would be about exploring evolution, and that each super would have powers stemming from how they had evolved. The basic branches were ferals, those who were mutating more towards the animal side of things and had powers centered around strength and physical might, cyberpaths, those who were mutating more towards machines and able to integrate technology into their bodies, and psis, those who were mutating into a more advanced state of humanity and gaining psionic type powers.
With those design constraints established, I started building powers that fit them. So, for cyberpaths, I built wired reflexes, a power suite that improved their initiative and gave them evasion. I made the power cheaper for cyberpaths than for other 'classes' to encourage them to use it. Approaching the design from this perspective also let me flavor the classes more. For psis, I wanted their powers to require concentration rolls and be slower. For ferals, I wanted their powers to be reliable and simple. For cyberpaths, I wanted to emphasize speed and non-combat powers.
Anyway, it was a great experience for me. If I were to ever run the campaign, I would probably come up with a list of powers at 5 pts, 10 pts, and 15 pts for the players to choose. I would give the players the freedom to build their own powers or modify the ones I create, but the hope would be that by building a list of powers myself and associating them with a particular class type, I could communicate what each class is like and have a library of powers to plug into bad guys. Maybe this isn't even a class system, but I really found the class tools to be a helpful framework for using such an open system.
End of the day, I don't think classes are better than not, I think that each system has advantages and disadvantages that appeal to particular player types. I lean more towards class systems, but I don't think they are per se better or worse than classless systems.
Edit: One more thing. The problem with using templates instead of classes and opening up all abilities to player tinkering is that it increases the complexity of the game quite a lot. You need to have concepts like maximum active points in Hero or power level in M&M. You usually end up with less nuanced powers because players won't generally do something like build in a concentration check for flavor reasons. One nice thing about pre-generated abilities is that the package usually has certain inherent checks and balances. Players are typically wont to avoid building powers that have these balancing elements that create tension and make for interesting play choices. A good example is Magic cards - if you compare fan made cards to real cards, you can see that the former tend to be very narrow and have a lot of raw power, whereas the later are a mix of power and have tension in requiring the player to make choices and trade-offs. Classes give you the benefit of the work of a good designer, a skill that not all DMs or all players possess.
Good points. Thank you TerraNova and Sebastian. In all my years of gaming with point buy/classless systems, most players try to ensure all their characters are roughly the same in combat.
Designing an adventure for point buy systems can be daunting. I tend to be more of a reactive GM, so I never really saw this before.
A few years after I started playing Basic D&D I stumbled upon the James Bond RPG. There were no classes and characters were defined by the skills they possessed. I never looked back.
CourtFool, you're not alone. We played D&D (essentially) using the James Bond rules for years, and absolutely loved it. The ONLY reason we switched to 3.5e was to make Paizo's adventures in Dungeon easier to run without converting them (prior to subscribing, I wrote all the adventures specifically with the PCs in mind).
We played D&D (essentially) using the James Bond rules for years, and absolutely loved it.
The first role playing game that I am aware of that did not have Hit Points. I ran a Supers campaign with it.
I am re-evaluating Classes again. I was hoping someone who had not posted previously might offer their opinion. Those who posted before are, of course, welcome to post again.
Let me see if I understand correctly some of the pros offered so far:
Balance: Classes put the majority of responsibility of balance on the designer's shoulders who is likely more skilled in this area than the average GM or Player.
Ease of Use: Classes make character generation easier.
Genre Enforcement: Classes thematically tie PCs to the world.
Niche Protection: Classes help GMs and Players understand what role any particular PC will fill, essentially defining what their spotlight time will be.
Pre-Packaged Abilities: Classes help GMs prepare for PCs capabilities.
The Arg... gish issues thread got me thinking. Are gishes such a hot point because they bring balance and niche protection into question?
The Arg... gish issues thread got me thinking. Are gishes such a hot point because they bring balance and niche protection into question?
90+% of the posts I've seen in various "I hate gish" threads boil down to: "I hate using the word 'gish'."
I think you hit the main points in your list above, especially "Genre Enforcement" and "Niche Protection".
P.S. I prefer systems where there's a lot of variety in what character you can play. Whether the system has classes or not is mostly irrelevant, IMO; you could have a classless system with very little variety or a system with classes and a lot of variety.
The Arg... gish issues thread got me thinking. Are gishes such a hot point because they bring balance and niche protection into question?
I'm not a big fan of classes, but I've been feeling the same way about levels, lately. And character advancement in general.
...but I've been feeling the same way about levels, lately. And character advancement in general.
Would you elaborate, please?
...but I've been feeling the same way about levels, lately. And character advancement in general.Would you elaborate, please?
It's just a thought, and not one I've fully been able to articulate, which probably belongs in a thread by itself. But what it comes down to is what motivates us to game. I've had so many games where the players build their characters with advancement in mind, so while they might be engaging in the low-level adventure, they're really just counting XP until they can get to their dream-level, when they can take N levels of X prestige class, or when they'll be able to take feat Y, or whatever. If that's what they really want, why not just start the game there?
Same goes for any character building system, really. A lot of people in the Champions games I've run over the years have SETTLED for their initial build, but really coveted the XP they'd earn on their way to buying off disadvantages, or buying up their powers. I've seen it (and done it) in GURPS, Mage (and other WW games), Shadowrun, Marvel... Everything I've played. Whatever you play, there's always some part of your attention in that game that is shopping for things to buy when you have enough of the currency of power for that game.
Why are we playing? Are we playing to collaboratively tell the story? If we're here to tell a story, why MUST we have a cookie to reward us for the task of performing the quest? Are we here to level a character? If so, how do we know when we're done? At what point do you stop looking at what comes next for your character?
Boil it down to a simple question: If there were NO experience point, gear, or skill progression mechanic, no chance your character will become more POWERFUL than when he was created, would you still game? Can you accept a system where a character can simply become immaterially richer for the experience without gaining new attack modes or becoming invulnerable?
Can you accept a system where a character can simply become immaterially richer for the experience without gaining new attack modes or becoming invulnerable?
Speaking for myself, yes. However, a friend of mine expressed, very vehemently, that he saw no point in a game where his character remained static. For him, character growth was an essential element of role playing.
I do wonder if character growth was a concept artificially initiated by D&D. There is some character growth in Cinema and Literature, but for the most part, the heroes remain largely the same.
It is food for thought.
I do wonder if character growth was a concept artificially initiated by D&D. There is some character growth in Cinema and Literature, but for the most part, the heroes remain largely the same.
SOME character growth? Only SOME?!?
Was Bilbo Baggins pretty much the same hobbit when he left Hobbiton and when he came back? Were Frodo and his friends even remotely the same people when THEY came back?!?
Was Conan just as skilled when he first left Cimmeria as when he was king of Aquilonia?
Was Dorothy the same when she first arrived in Oz and when she left?
And nevermind just the fantasy genre. Is the main character typically consistent throughout a novel? SHOULD she be? I would shout a resounding NO!!! A dynamic character is more INTERESTING!!! Ask any Literature teacher!
If you can keep a character pretty much unchanging for more than a few months and still have fun playing him, that's fine. But some people start to get bored until they find they have a new ability to play with.
After D&D, the first system I tried was MEGS, which was a point-buy system. (Yes, I know what you said in this thread about point-buy systems, but bear with me here...) I loved the system, and thought "Class-and-Level systems are too restrictive. I want a point-buy system!" But after trying out GURPS, I came to the conclusion that although point-buy systems seem better in theory, D&D is, for some reason, more fun to PLAY.
Also, yes, as some people have said, it's easier. When you hear a character is an Nth-level <class>, it's easier to peg that character down, without having to pore through the character sheet.
What's your opinion on True20's take on classes/characters?
I would rather do without them, that is why I prefer M&M over True20. However, I find them more palatable than other Class-based systems. I have not played a game of True20 yet, but I would like to give it a try.
They are far more flexible than most other Class-based systems. In that, I think they may break some of the points for Classes.
Was Bilbo Baggins pretty much the same hobbit when he left Hobbiton and when he came back?
I have not read the trilogy. Based on the movie, no, but it was personality that was changed. I do not see him leveling up.
Was Conan just as skilled when he first left Cimmeria as when he was king of Aquilonia?
You have me here.
Was Dorothy the same when she first arrived in Oz and when she left?
Again, personality wise, yes there was growth. I do not see any added competencies.
But some people start to get bored until they find they have a new ability to play with.
And I can respect that. If you include new friends and allies, then yes, I agree there needs to be growth. I do not need +1 To Hit though. Especially when the GM is just going to add one to the oppositions AC. The net effect remains the same.
Can you accept a system where a character can simply become immaterially richer for the experience without gaining new attack modes or becoming invulnerable?Speaking for myself, yes. However, a friend of mine expressed, very vehemently, that he saw no point in a game where his character remained static. For him, character growth was an essential element of role playing.
Questions about your friend: ever play in a Convention? Has he ever played a one-shot?
I do wonder if character growth was a concept artificially initiated by D&D. There is some character growth in Cinema and Literature, but for the most part, the heroes remain largely the same.
Exactly. And the case I usually use is highly hypothetical (as in "But he's not a Champions character" is not a valid answer) representing Spider-Man in a Champions game.
My point is that you don't have to give the hero tons of extra abilities, and make him invulnerable, to keep him interesting, or to show growth.
Bilbo certainly DID level up. At the beginning of "The Hobbit," he lacked the competence to pick his own nose. By the end, he was sword-fighting against giant spiders, and freeing dwarves from elvish dungeons. Granted, he needed the ring to do it, but the original Bilbo wouldn't have dared TRY, ring or no ring.
When Frodo and his friends came back to Hobbiton, they found conquerers in charge of Hobbiton and kicked their @$$es, laughing all the while. And Sam took charge of running the town, although he was NOBODY when he first left.
Dorothy clearly developed when she first slapped the lion on the nose. She started as a false heroine - it was only luck that her house dropped on one witch - but she was a REAL heroine when she killed a witch for real. As the series went on, she threatened the Nome king, perfectly confident of her ability to do so, with no fear of harm to her own person.
As for your point of character growth being a kind of arms race... well, you do have a point there. But I find the same is true in fantasy novels and comic books. As soon as a character gets a new ability, he suddenly finds himself in situations where it's useless, or finds opponents who circumvent the new ability. Besides, high-level characters do sometimes find themselves tackling lower-level challenges... when I GM anyway. It gives the players a chance to bask in their newfound glory now and then.