I'll admit that comic-book hero advancement is slow. It HAS to be, when a character is around for 70 years. Although when a superhero is NEW, he typically advances for the first few years... but OK, I'll concede the point. MEGS makes superhero advancement slow...
...and maybe that's one of the reasons I get bored of a superhero campaign after a few adventures.
I'm still standing by my opinion that advancement in RPGs is FUN.
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.
That was what I was going to use as my counter-example. When Merry and Pippin got back to the Shire,
BUT, my point is not that fantasy literature characters don't ever get any better at things, it is my QUESTION of whether the advancement is the reason they quest. I doubt that, when Pippin left the Shire, he said "When I hit 7th level, I'm going to take the 'Drank Ent Nectar' feat and grow one size category so my Strength is higher and I hit more and do more damage."
How many levels did Frodo gain in LotR? How many levels did Aragorn gain? Gandalf? Other than having a major artifact, what abilities did Bilbo gain on his trip? Did he get more hit points? Did he get better at picking locks? Not really.
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.
Exactly. Does Dorothy learn to throw more magic missiles every 100 monkeys she kills?
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.
And this is part of the problem I have with levels. Everything the GM is going to let you affect is going to be about your level, whether you start at 1 and go to 20, or start at 12 and stay there forever.
I'm still standing by my opinion that advancement in RPGs is FUN.
I won't argue that at all. And I'm kind of threadjacking with the idea. But ask yourself this. You don't have to answer here.
Would you play a role-playing game where the only form of advancement was some abstract personal growth and development of the player character?
IN GAME, your character doesn't typically quest to improve his skills. (Although even there, I can think of a few major counterexamples...) But the player's motivations may be different. Players can plan advancement without their CHARACTERS doing so.
I still feel that Bilbo became a better burglar and fighter over the course of his novel, although clearly, I'll never convince Christopher Dudley of that, so I'll just leave that one as an impasse.
Dorothy may not have learned any magic spells, but it seems like she must have gotten more hit points and better saving throws, because she started going on adventures more and more recklessly, without fear of danger, as the series progressed.
As for the bonus to hit vs. better AC thing, I already made my argument about that point, so I won't bother repeating it.
IN GAME, your character doesn't typically quest to improve his skills. (Although even there, I can think of a few major counterexamples...) But the player's motivations may be different. Players can plan advancement without their CHARACTERS doing so.
I still feel that Bilbo became a better burglar and fighter over the course of his novel, although clearly, I'll never convince Christopher Dudley of that, so I'll just leave that one as an impasse.
Dorothy may not have learned any magic spells, but it seems like she must have gotten more hit points and better saving throws, because she started going on adventures more and more recklessly, without fear of danger, as the series progressed.
As for the bonus to hit vs. better AC thing, I already made my argument about that point, so I won't bother repeating it.
Well, I certainly didn't want to get into a fight about it. Like I said I haven't fully articulated it, and I'm certainly not saying that anyone who plays that way is in any way flawed for it. It's something that I've been thinking about, and I invited others to think about it, as well. If I've expressed myself poorly, or seemed to have asserted any solid opinion on the matter one way or the other, or if my tone came across as superior or condescending, I apologize.
I like playing D&D and I don't even mind classes while doing it. I dislike that the classes are "so limited" that players/game producers feel we need more than a dozen base classes and umpteen million prestige classes and make it supremely easy to "level dip" etc.
The very nature of classes (discrete rather than continuous advancement) make them easy to game for advantages - you can always find ways to crunch any system for advantages, but some classless systems are slightly less gameable.
So, I like to play a wizard or maybe even a fighter-wizard. I'm less excited by characters that are rogue 1/barbarian 2/cleric 1/... because I feel like (my opinion, not fact, so lay off if you don't like it) folks that have characters with 20 class levels containing 8-9 different classes are probably doing so less for role-playing reasons and more for roll-playing purposes.
I actually prefer classless systems, however, and I think GURPS is a very good one.
M
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.
Use Magic Device obviously got a point or two added, as did Knowledge: Critters (witness the flying monkeys as well as the whole "how to kill a witch" thing).
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.
Digging into the dark recesses of my brain, I recall something called the "Hero's Journey." Basically, it's a trope of heroic fiction that a young, unskilled person goes off to fight the big baddie, loses, comes back with more experience, and wins.
Off the top of my head, we see it in the Star Wars trilogy (4-6), where at the end of Empire, Luke done got all cocky and lost a hand, but in Return, he won.
Superman movie, same idea. Superman gets caught by Luthor and a box of kryponite, but is able to overcome that defeat and win the day.
Look at the growth of Bilbo in "The Hobbit." Defeat at the hands of the trolls, almost defeat at the hands of the goblins and Smeagol, near defeat in Mirkwood, and his friends get imprisoned by the Elves. But in the end, he steals something from a dragon. This was not something that he thought possible when the dwarves showed up on his doorstep.
I already said something about Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz. But look at Western movies. Invariably, the heroes suffer some sort of defeat before coming back to win the day. The Tombstone movie showed
Heck, even Pulp Fiction had a version of it, where
Sell me on why classes are a good mechanic.
To clarify your original question . . . classes are a mechanic. Nothing else. They are not inheirently good or bad. They are a way to reflect the world that exists within D&D.
The fantasy tropes of wizards and warriors mean that, in D&D, the abilities of these people are exclusive to those people. A wizard cannot wear armor and hack with a sword, while a warrior isn't the guy with a long beard and an owl sitting on his shoulder.
Certainly, there are games where the assumptions of the world are not the same. The Thieves' World stuff, for instance, allows for easier access to minor spellcasting, since it is assumed that magic isn't as exclusive in that world as in the standard D&D world. GURPS doesn't have classes at all, because the assumption is that Johnny the warrior had the chance to be flexible as he was growing up, and pick up a bit of this and a bit of that.
The same debate (whether something is a good mechanic) can be found in discussions about Vancian magic systems. In the end, all that system does is allow the game authors a set of assumptions about the world.
What happens if we eliminate classes (or Vancian magic)? The world becomes a highly different place. Neither better nor worse, just different. Using an example most people can relate to, the LOTR movies, these don't translate directly to D&D terms. Is Sauron a warrior or a wizard? Why doesn't Gandalf use material components for his spells? But is it any less fun to tell stories in Middle Earth than in Golarion?
The rules that each game uses allow for a different set of assumptions about the world. "No classes" might fit in with your preferred style of play, but that doesn't mean classes don't make sense in a traditional D&D game.
I've played both classless and classed systems, and both have their good points. I think, for myself, it's nice to not have to learn all the assumptions that go into the world. A wizard is a wizard. I get that mental picture. The classless systems I've played work better with modern/futuristic settings, because the assumptions I have about the world carry over from real life to the game world. The CIA of a modern game is probably pretty close to the CIA of the real world, so I don't have to work hard to imagine what a CIA agent might be capable of. Sure, they might have magic, but they're still gonna be the CIA. A mechanic is gonna probably be a mechanic, maybe with a touch of the otherworld, but I get that the guy fixing the batmobile is still a mechanic.
What the frak is a gish? Sounds like some Sumatran dessert.
"And now . . . dessert!"
"What is it?"
"Chilled monkey brains, with gish. Mmmm, yummo!"
Christopher Dudley, I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression. I didn't think we were "fighting," I never meant to imply that your tone came across as superior or condescending, and there's certainly no need for you to apologize.
I thought we were having a nice, friendly debate. I learned much about your opinion (and, by extension, the opinions many others might have.) I came to appreciate your view. The next time I mention that Bilbo advanced, I'll keep in mind that there are those who would say he didn't. I was enjoying our talk, and I hoped you might have been also. If *I* said anything that seemed less than friendly, I apologize too.
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.
I am not advocating class systems as superior, I love many classless games. However, they do fit well with certain types of storytelling. I will add an example along the lines of what Bitman here is saying: Slaying dragons. Unrealistic though it may be, it is a staple trope (and can be a hell of a lot of fun) in most fantasy settings. But if the heroes start out able to slay a dragon at the beginning of the campaign, then what's the point. I think part of the reason character "power" development is appealing (or indeed required) by so many gamers is it connects us with the escape. You start relatively incapable (like most of us in RL), but you become more capable until, one day, you can take on the most powerful beasts and villains of the world. That's escapist fantasy.
Digging into the dark recesses of my brain, I recall something called the "Hero's Journey." Basically, it's a trope of heroic fiction that a young, unskilled person goes off to fight the big baddie, loses, comes back with more experience, and wins.
This is an excellent point. The Hero's Journey isn't just a trope of heroic fiction, it is the most common storytelling thread in human history. ALL cultures have a version of this story, and they usually take on religious significance (Gods being our ultimate heroes).
So it is no wonder that when we stop reading about heroes and start playing heroes, we like to make the journey ourselves.
|
IMO, a class structure makes it easier for a new player to join a game and not make a bunch of choices that utterly suck. (Not guaranteed, mind you, it's still possible to decide that 'a Samurai sounds kewl!' and find out that a better-designed class beats you up and takes your lunch money.)
I see classes as training wheels. Once you've gotten your feet wet, you start dabbling with multi-classes and racial substitution levels and alternate class features and class variants and all sorts of ways to mix things up, which are tweaks and kludges designed to take those training wheels off, piece by piece.
At that point, you might be ready to play with a classless system, like GURPS, or you might find that a *totally* classless system is a little *too* loose and unstructured (and that it is indeed far too easy to make a 'useless' character, as class-based systems generally make at least a passing effort to make every class at least marginally useful in a few standard encounter types, while your Social Goddess might be as useful as t%*~ on a bull in a Zombie Apocalypse). In that case, games that straddle the line, such as True20, with it's three modular base classes of Adept, Expert and Warrior, can allow greater freedom, while still have some built-in features that automatically upgrade (such as BAB, skill points and saves).
I've played (and loved) both systems. GURPS was a huge deal for me, back in the days when 1st and 2nd edition D&D, with their archaic class / race / level limits, had begun to feel stale and restrictive. And yet, 3rd edition threw 90% of that crap out the window (leaving behind only meaningless restrictions on Paladin and Monk multi-classing, which were spit out like spoiled milk a year or two later in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting anyway), and, I found that D&D had turned back into something I could love again.
Other games flirt with the idea of classes. In Vampire (Werewolf, Mage, Trinity, etc.), they call them Clans (Tribes/Breeds, Conventions/Houses, Orders, etc.), and they don't restrict your choices as much as make it easier to walk the pre-determined path.
IMO, the best characters I've made, that feel the most 'mine' (and not some cookie-cutter formula that was spooned into my mouth) came from either classless or 'class-light' (such as Vampire) systems. And yet some of the best *games* I've played have been D&D games, and I think that at least part of that is that D&D is a more 'friendly' game for an experienced player to play alongside less experienced (devoted, obsessed...) players.
There's blather occasionally about a game rewarding 'system mastery,' and D&D does reward system mastery, to a degree, while GURPS practically requires it, and it's far too easy for a new player to get left in the dust by more experienced players. At the time of launch, 4th edition seemed to be making *huge* effort to downplay that, to allow a new player (and, really, we *all* were new players, to this new system) to feel powerful and capable and fully equal to the 'more experienced' players (and not just because the more experienced players were being forced to start over with a new system, but because the various classes were designed to have very similar mechanics, and very similar effectiveness on a round-by-round basis).
RPGs seem to have gone along a continuum, with GURPS, Hero, Champions, Mutants & Masterminds, etc. (and it should come as no surprise that superhero games require more flexibility than others, since they have to allow someone to be Superman *or* Batman, Thor *or* Captain America, an alien, a magician, a demigod, a robot, or some dude with a gun and a need for vengeance) at one far end of the spectrum, with near-total flexibility, Vampire, True20, etc. with 'pseudo-classes' near the middle, 3.5/Pathfinder closer to the 'choose your own path' adventure with prepackaged meals instead of a pile of meat and vegetables and a sheet of 'directions' that say 'season to taste, good luck!' and 4th edition a bit further along the scale towards structured classes and paths, that bring the 'newb' closer to parity (and thus, closer to having an enjoyable first experience) with the CharOp veteran.
And yes, anyone parsing that last sentence for backhanded swipes at 4th edition is free to interpret it as comparing 4th edition to having your first sex with another fumbling virgin, instead of a more intimidating encounter with Mrs. Robinson. :P
IMO, a class structure makes it easier for a new player to join a game and not make a bunch of choices that utterly suck. (Not guaranteed, mind you, it's still possible to decide that 'a Samurai sounds kewl!' and find out that a better-designed class beats you up and takes your lunch money.)
I see classes as training wheels. Once you've gotten your feet wet, you start dabbling with multi-classes and racial substitution levels and alternate class features and class variants and all sorts of ways to mix things up, which are tweaks and kludges designed to take those training wheels off, piece by piece.
At that point, you might be ready to play with a classless system, like GURPS, or you might find that a *totally* classless system is a little *too* loose and unstructured (and that it is indeed far too easy to make a 'useless' character, as class-based systems generally make at least a passing effort to make every class at least marginally useful in a few standard encounter types, while your Social Goddess might be as useful as t**& on a bull in a Zombie Apocalypse). In that case, games that straddle the line, such as True20, with it's three modular base classes of Adept, Expert and Warrior, can allow greater freedom, while still have some built-in features that automatically upgrade (such as BAB, skill points and saves).
I've played (and loved) both systems. GURPS was a huge deal for me, back in the days when 1st and 2nd edition D&D, with their archaic class / race / level limits, had begun to feel stale and restrictive. And yet, 3rd edition threw 90% of that crap out the window (leaving behind only meaningless restrictions on Paladin and Monk multi-classing, which were spit out like spoiled milk a year or two later in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting anyway), and, I found that D&D had turned back into something I could love again.
Other games flirt with the idea of classes. In Vampire (Werewolf, Mage, Trinity, etc.), they call them Clans (Tribes/Breeds, Conventions/Houses, Orders, etc.), and...
Brilliant post. I especially like the "season to taste, good luck"....and of course.....Mrs. Robinson.
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.
Genre Enforcement: Classes thematically tie PCs to the world.
That one is for me the main attraction of classes.
Most game setting define itself with archetypes. Character archetypes are not the only way that a setting can define itself, but it is a very efficient way to tie the character to a particular setting/universe/genre.
As Set previously mentioned, many games define their archetypes differently. Rolemaster has profession, Warhammer has careers, Vampire and cie has the clans etc. D&D has classes.
By working with classes, D&D/Pathfinder defines itself as a generic fantasy RPG, and yet give a definite uniqueness and feel to the game. D&D, especially 3rd edition and its heirs benefit from what I call a 'building block' mechanics that allow you to customize some elements of the game (mainly races, spells, feats and prestige classes) in order to fit a particular world, without affecting the core of the rules and classes as written.
I'm only starting to appreciate classes as more generic 'pre-packaged' set abilities and aptitudes (as opposed to AD&D 1st and 2nd edition's narrowly pigeonholed archetypes with matching abilities). Personally, I wish that Paizo had encouraged multiclassing as a way to personalize your character instead of encouraging single classe built, but that's a very personal opinion.
'findel
I see classes as training wheels. Once you've gotten your feet wet, you start dabbling with multi-classes and racial substitution levels and alternate class features and class variants and all sorts of ways to mix things up, which are tweaks and kludges designed to take those training wheels off, piece by piece.
Again, there are complex systems with classes (e.g. 3.5 D&D, including every supplement) and there are relatively simple systems with no classes (e.g. classic Call of Cthulhu). I think I could more easily come up with a dozen ideas for 3.5 D&D characters that are substantially different mechanically than I could for a dozen Call of Cthulhu characters.
That doesn't mean that I like Call of Cthulhu less than 3.5 D&D, but for me it gives 3.5 D&D more "replayability", in a sense.
Developer
|
You guys should all check out Burning Wheel. "Crunchy" system, awesome character-driven mechanics, and your character develops and grows based entirely on what you do. Fight someone? You get better at fighting. Sneak around a lot? You get better at sneaking. Meet a lot of scary monsters? You aren't so scared of them any more.
No classes whatsoever. Still an awesome fantasy game with wizards, thieves, barbarians, elves & dwarves & orcs & monsters and whatever the heck else you want.
I like it anyway and I love its "classless" approach. As for classes/Pathfinder/OGL systems, I don't mind them so much. They're just archetypes to me, and d20 is still extremely flexible. A druid can be a shaman, warlock, witch, or whatever you want to "flavor" it as. Not all druids are necessarily the same in flavor. A lot of people might play that way, but it's avoidable.
I wonder if my dislike of classes comes from 1e/2e days where Class largely defined a character. Instead of seeing the compromise between role definition and complete open ended characters, I focus too much on the restrictions and do not appreciate the options that do exist within 3.5/Pathfinder.
This is an excellent point. The Hero's Journey isn't just a trope of heroic fiction, it is the most common storytelling thread in human history.
Good post. I was going to comment on the Hero's Journey when I read the OP, but I refused the call.
Zo
I wonder if my dislike of classes comes from 1e/2e days where Class largely defined a character. (snip)
...which was Ok if your definition of a character was offered as one of the few archetypes proposed. For many players, it was just fine, but otherwise the limits were quickly reached.
The limits of a class system are still present in the more modern iterations of D&D/pathfinder, but they are more flexible than ever. For me, they offer a close balance between restrictive enough and flexible enough. As weird as it sounds, I like to play with *some* limitations and restrictions.
I also like to build with Legos. As with Legos, the building blocks of a D&D character are there for you to see and choose. Even if that particular piece or color is missing, there's always a combination that work just as good, sometimes even better, than what you first considered.
'findel
The limits of a class system are still present in the more modern iterations of D&D/pathfinder, but they are more flexible than ever...there's always a combination that work just as good, sometimes even better, than what you first considered.
Given the plethora of quality RPGs of all genres that have a "roll your own" character generation system, isn't it putting the cart before the horse to get rid of what is arguably THE defining feature of this specific game? Surely adapting D&D/Pathfinder fluff to a different rule system would be a more efficient project than reworking the crunch of a system that assumes races & classes as fundamental. I totally agree with the notion that a game should provide some limitations that players don't like. I don't like going to jail in Monopoly, but I deal with it.
Zo
I think it boils down to this:
D&D has retained the class system because it sells more books. A book of shiny new classes will sell more that a book of shiny new skills and templates.
Players accept the class system because D&D is number one in market share and it's easiest to find players for that system.
Dorothy may not have learned any magic spells, but it seems like she must have gotten more hit points and better saving throws, because she started going on adventures more and more recklessly, without fear of danger, as the series progressed.
Actually, Dorothy never took a hit throughout the entire series. What made Dorothy grow as a character was her friends. Especially once she hooked up with Princess Ozma, she knew that she had magical protection greater than anything that Oz or the Nome King could throw at her.
On the subject of character growth and advancement, I feel that it's important for PCs to have a sense of accomplishment and empowerment. This does not always translate into (warning! TVTropes link)More Dakka. Sometimes, having a wing of the local hospital named after one of the PCs is enough.
(I recently published an Oz RPG, so I've done a lot of thinking on this one.)
I also like to build with Legos. As with Legos, the building blocks of a D&D character are there for you to see and choose. Even if that particular piece or color is missing, there's always a combination that work just as good, sometimes even better, than what you first considered.
I see point buy systems a better analogy to Legos. Classes are like having 75% of whatever you want to make already built. Unlike Legos, though, you can not easily tear out all the parts you do not want.
Given the plethora of quality RPGs of all genres that have a "roll your own" character generation system, isn't it putting the cart before the horse to get rid of what is arguably THE defining feature of this specific game?
Sure, there is the sacred cow argument. Personally, I have little use for them. If an idea can stand on its own merit, fine. Just because it has always been that way is not a good enough answer for me.
Now, stepping outside of this thread for a moment, I agree there is little reason for D&D or Pathfinder to give up classes considering most people do not think they are 'broken'.
I totally agree with the notion that a game should provide some limitations that players don't like.
Agreed. I would go further that the GM should provide some limitations that players don't like as well. And I would rather a game system error on the side of including something and allowing the GM to decide whether or not it is appropriate for any particular game.
For me, personally, I do not want to force players into specific roles at the system level. A GM can still do it at the game level and allow other games (even with the same GM) to run something where everyone is a fighter (for example).
Yes, I believe we have spoken once or twice before.
However no system that I know of really gets rid of them.
Would you please elaborate.