|
For most people it all comes down to preference. Most roleplaying games are not designed to be super realistic, and why should they? We play these games to escape reality and realism, and it's a lot more fun to focus on the characters and drama and heroism than it is to make sure that everything makes sense internally.
I've played a few games based on skills and a few based on classes, and some that are in between. The question of skill or class based isn't as important to me as the question of whether or not the mechanics inspire me to do fun and interesting things.
The point is that it's really up to the players to make the most, and what works for some doesn't work as well for others. I recommend broadening your experience a bit and see what you like. A few games I could recommend that would help broaden your experiences:
FATE based games are skill based with a strong focus on having cinematic fun. Games include Spirit of the Century, Diaspora, Starblazer Legends, Legends of Anglerre, Icons, and the Dresden Files RPG. I highly recommend any of these.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (any edition, though I prefer 1st) uses careers rather than classes, and has no levels. Your character progresses through a series of careers that give him themed skills and abilities. This game is a major departure from what you're probably used to, but I absolutely love it.
The BRP system has been used for a wide variety of games, most famously Call of Cthulhu, and is also skill based, and a lot of fun.
Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG is based on the computer game of the same name, and uses classes but in a bit different way from D&D.
True20, also by Green Ronin, is a setting-neutral game that offers very generic classes, but also gives you rules for creating your own from scratch. It's based off of the d20 system but makes a LOT of changes, and it's very interesting to read for ideas.
I've played a number of games that focus more on skills and traits rather than class. To me they are more or less the same. The big difference is the type of role-players they attract. In the skill based games I've played people often get much more immersed in their character and act more according to their sheet. The characters tend to be a bit more fleshed out and less "I am a paladin and thus must act in this way".
However, I think that a lot of it comes down to the player and how he/she plays their characters.
Is it more realistic... Well no both setting have dragons and vampires. However, in my experience I've found that the actual role-playing in skill based games is that much more in depth.
Hiya
Is it more realistic... Well no both setting have dragons and vampires. However, in my experience I've found that the actual role-playing in skill based games is that much more in depth.
Just the opposite with me. I've found that the folks I've played "skill based" games with tend to play one or two character styles/types. They are usually polar opposites; either an assassin scum bag, or an altruistic paladin. It seems that the only thing different from character to character is what skills they have and how good they are in them.
With 'class' based (and that pretty much includes any game that isn't purly skill-based...which is most I've seen), I find players are more apt to try different takes on characters. An assassin who is a downright friendly townsman and family member, but who goes into "serious bad ass mode" when he has a job to do. Or the paladin who partakes of the wine a bit too much, sometimes indulging in excess (both wine and, perhaps, woman/men)...and then must atone for his wonton ways. Then there's the "cool but different" takes; the wizard who knows how to use a chain whip and concentrates on personal enhancement/protection spells...or the fighter who is all about tactics and "knowing your foe", with multiple Knowledge skills and whatnot.
Anyway, that's my experience. :)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I've played both class/level and point/skill based systems extensively, and a handful of hybrids.
.
.
Point/skill systems allow more freedom to create a wide variety of customized characters at character creation. Characters generally start with more of their abilities, and grow more slowly. It's not unusual for end-game characters to be about 2-3 times as powerful as starting characters. In my experience, skill/point games tend to be written for more realism. Because customization is emphasized over advancement, a series of short, intertwined stories is typical. (More of a sandbox feel if you're familiar with that term.)
Class/level systems start characters in predictable tracks, but give more growth as the game goes on. End-game characters may be ten times as powerful as starting characters. In my experience, class/level games tend to be written for more abstraction. Because advancement is emphasized over customization, a single, long-running, epic tail is typical.
If you want a very realistic feeling fantasy game, I suggest GURPS. You'll find that it's about as different from D&D as possible.
@pming
I don't doubt your experiences, but they've been the opposite of mine. I've found that most games that are written to emphasize roleplaying over gaming do not use level systems.
Haveing read all the previous posts I am not sure I understand the question.
I play all versions of D&D except 4th,no hate just no intrest in my area, and reguardless of class the skills a charecter has is very important.
For example the guy with the highest charisma score is going to be our party diplomate and face. The highest strength score is our intimidator, the wizard is the knowledge guy and the cleric is the one with the heal skill and other stuff. Thats just maximizing the skill points so that all skills are covered within the group and overlapping skills are great cause lets face it low rolls happen.
My experience with Shadowrun makes me think of a perfect balance between a Class RPG and a Skills RPG. Basically no matter what your class was you could pick skills based on your intrest.
I have had plenty of shamans and mages with the skills for combat bikeing and computer programming(easiest way possible to break the games wealth limit) or the street samauri with a knowledge of high fashion and fine wines even thought he was more robot than man.
If you want a great class based RPG that focuses on skills then try shadowrun 3rd edition. I can't speak about 4th because even though I'm sure it's great theres no intrest here to go to anything 4th ed.
|
I play all versions of D&D except 4th,no hate just no intrest in my area, and reguardless of class the skills a charecter has is very important.
Well, all versions of D&D are class-based. Something that's skill based would be Call of Cthulhu. There are no classes in that game, there are just charaters who have distributed their skill points differently.
I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. I like both.
Point/skill systems allow more freedom to create a wide variety of customized characters at character creation. Characters generally start with more of their abilities, and grow more slowly. It's not unusual for end-game characters to be about 2-3 times as powerful as starting characters. In my experience, skill/point games tend to be written for more realism. Because customization is emphasized over advancement, a series of short, intertwined stories is typical. (More of a sandbox feel if you're familiar with that term.)
Class/level systems start characters in predictable tracks, but give more growth as the game goes on. End-game characters may be ten times as powerful as starting characters. In my experience, class/level games tend to be written for more abstraction. Because advancement is emphasized over customization, a single, long-running, epic tail is typical.
This has been my personal experience, as well.
One hidden drawback of skill based games is 'barrier to initial entry'.
Making a standard GURPS starting character can take a lot longer than making a starting D&D character, in large part because of the wealth of options for tweaking. Being able to start from archetypes is a huge advantage for someone picking up a game.
Most of the skill based systems can start out with character templates so you can pick an archetype and customize; D6 is one of those.
Unless there are rules to prevent it, most skill based systems are worse at niche preservation than a class based system is; over the course of a medium term campaign, every character ends up buying skills in whatever the GM asks rolls for, regardless of character concept.
One of the examples of this in D6 is the 'dodge' skill, where every character from Aunt May and Professor Xavier to Spider Man and Sherlock Holmes starts maximizing the skill early on.
Those flaws noted, I generally prefer skill based systems to class/level ones, particularly those that have concrete rules for encouraging specific types of behavior.
I haven't really role-played in skill-based role-playing game system, as I have been something of a D&D enthusiast for years. So I can't answer these questions of his. But for those of you who might have had the chance to role-play in such a game, how do Skill-based rpg's compare to Class-based ones such as D&D or Pathfinder in your opinion? *curious* Are they more realistic than what's in D&D and Pathfinder in terms of game play?
Skill based systems tend to be more simulationist, and they have the same rules applying to all characters. I like them for that reason, but the difference between them and D&D is they tend to have much less of a power curve as you gain experience. If you start off as an outstanding swordsman, for example, you can stay ahead but aren't going to get much better. Because every character uses the same rules, balance is rarely if ever an issue, and everyone can do everything if they want to.
Class based systems like D&D have two big advantages: you can instigate new rules/features for each class separately that make characters much more unique, and you have a much steeper power curve as you gain experience.
I like Pathfinder's system of multi-classing and skills because it allows all of the advantages of a Class based system with some of the simulationism and flexibility of a skills based system. Back in the days of 1e AD&D I tried doing skills-based system for D&D type games ... it really didn't work well.
My own experience with skill-based systems have been less than stellar. The guys I usually play with will accept built in limitations of classes, but as soon as you ask them to build an entire character from the ground up, they immediately set to trying to figure out how to break the game with their character.
My own experience with skill-based systems have been less than stellar. The guys I usually play with will accept built in limitations of classes, but as soon as you ask them to build an entire character from the ground up, they immediately set to trying to figure out how to break the game with their character.
This is my experience with the HERO system. I would ask for a character concept. They would give me a great idea. I'd tell them the point value and give them a week to work it up. At end of week, concept gone and just a series of nonlimiting limitations with nonweakining weaknesses. Oh, and everyone ended up being able to cast spells.
But this was when we were all much younger, so maybe it would be different now.
As an aside, some of the BEST roleplaying for our group was with AMBER diceless RPG. Not sure where in the spectrum you would place that game. Ability based?
Greg
Hiya.
If you (original poster) are looking for a game that kinda 'bridges the gap' of both types, you may want to take a peek at an old Avalon Hill RPG called "Powers & Perils".
Powers & Perils gives two "classes"; either you cast spells or you don't. Either way, everyone has a "CEL" (Combat Experience Level), and only those that cast magic have a "MEL" (Magic Experience Level). Think of these as your "core knowledge of what you are doing"...your Experience, in other words.
Now, skills are based on Expertise (note I said Expertise, and not Experience; important distinctions in this game). Each skill (and individual spells each count as a 'skill'), has an Expertise Level, or "EL". This allows for a veteran barbarian warrior king to be, say CEL 18, but not really know how to use a Glaive-Guisarme. His core CEL will help him with a his base chance to score a hit (which are Shield Hit, Hit, Severe Hit and Critical Hit...oh, and if you don't have a sheild, a Shield Hit counts as a Hit), but his EL 0 in Pole-Arm won't help him. However, his mediocre teacher (CEL 7), while haveing a lower base chance to hit the barbarian king overall, may have EL 21 in Pole-Arm; Glaive-Guisarme. This gives the teacher a VERY nice -21% to his hit chance...almost guaranteeing a hit every time unless some consistantly bad rolls are made (re: higher than about 80%).
Anyway, its a pretty sweet system overall, with a lot of built-in optional systems and suggestions in the rules (usually a side bar in a different color). You can DL the core rules for books 1 and 2, and find a lot of other good stuff at the 'main' P&P site: http://www.powersandperils.org will take you there.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Has no one here played Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds? It is a pretty good mix of a level/skill hybrid.
You have a "power level" set by the GM, so roughly speaking, all skills, powers, attacks, defenses have a maximum parameter, so the PCs then buy what they want from there.
Don't want Base Attack Bonus, and just want to be able to use a Rapier for 1/4 the price? Sure.
Want a Toughness save (AC, basically) but not have high Constituition for half the price? sure. I'd say it's one of the most moddable forms of the d20 system out there.
In my experience with White Wolf's Exalted, which is skill based, the power level of the game is INSANE. PC's end up like Gods if the GM is willing to go that far. In fact, even more powerful than the Gods if you really go for it.
I would classify Mutants & Masterminds as a Skill-based system. Yes, you are limited to how powerful you can be based on Power Level but there are no classes.
Exalted is a hybrid, much like D&D is now.
|
....is a hybrid, much like D&D is now.
+1. Since perhaps the introduction of a non-weapon profs in 2e, D&D has headed more and more to being a skill based system. The 'classes' are really just sets of skills you mix and match with with the 3e+ multi-classing rules. Combine that with the vast array of skills and feats, and I believe that 3e+/4e sit better now being called a strongly-skill-based-hybrid system. For me at least the true class-based D&D died with 1e/2e.
And a big +1 on the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is you want to try something different with great, but defined, flavor. 1e WHFRP is the best in terms of flavor in the book the magic is less common, 2e is a better system mechanically speaking but does have players having access to magic faster.
The simple answer is there is no simple answer. Do you mean more realistic in terms of weapons hurt or the chance to do A or B reflects real-World experience or Stats? I don't think that Skill vs Class really determines such things - it's the underlying mechanics. For example Pathfinder = extremely heroic, whereas A Game of Thrones RPG = semi-heroic, but both are 3e D&D derivatives.
S.
Personally I wouldn't want DnD/Pathfinder as a skill based system. I find that the more open the system the more difficult it is to manage. Systems like mutants and masterminds have caused all sorts of havoc in my group due to the ulimate increase in complexity. Classes are simpler and in my opinion make character creation a smoother and more managable process.
|
|
Personally I wouldn't want DnD/Pathfinder as a skill based system. Classes are simpler and in my opinion make character creation a smoother and more managable process.
Feats, skills, traits (in some cases), choose ANY class each time you level. I'm not sure 3e+/PF is what I would call a pure class-system. In 1e if your were a Ranger it was very unlikely you would have the stats to dual-class and even if you did you got only ONE more class. Other than that multi-classing was decided at 1st level. This I call a true class-system - once you decided that IS what you were from level 1 to level X. In 3e+/PF what is a Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Bard? And as you can choose in 3e+/PF how many levels of each you want and when it really is more based on the "skills" each can provide.
I agree about class-system being faster - we made up 1e AD&D characters last weekend. Four players already to play in about 15 minutes. If you have someone who wants to 'optimize' then PF can take a full day for the same number of new players.
S.
A friend/co-worker of mine once pointed out that the more options a computer program had, the more complex it was and therefore, the higher the learning curve. It seems to apply to RPGs as well.
However, some rules light systems seem to leave much of the task resolution up to the GM allowing flexibility and simplicity.
|
|
If you want a great class based RPG that focuses on skills then try shadowrun 3rd edition.
Apart from the fact that Shadowrun isn't a class based RPG :)
Seriously, it has some "archetypes" such as Street Samurai, Shaman, Rigger, Mage or Decker (Hacker in 4th ed), but the system itself does not provide a framework of rules for those - a character who was built as a Street Samurai with a decent Car skill could get a Vehicle Control Rig implanted and call himself a Rigger for example.
|
Shadowrun, imo, is a good example for a skill based system that has character classes in disguise.
To create a character that can work as a decent decker, fighter, rigger or caster, certain skill / ability packages are a must and those packages are so expensive, that all other skills and abilities have to play second fiddle.
Most skill based systems that have strong, different archetypes (unlike for example Call of Cthulhu, where the archetypes are more professional skill sets) like Shadowrun, most G.U.R.P.S. games, The Dark Eye e.a. can be used to flesh out said archetypes with more freedom then class most class based games, but the difference isn't all that big - You can get the same results with class based games that, within the classes, most/all skills and abilities can be purchased, only for different costs (like the Alternity game).
That is my experience anyway, and although I played my share of class based and skill based games, I certainly do not think they must be true for anyone els.
I think most Class-Hybrids discourage doing things outside of your expected role. Whether that discouraging is a good or bad thing is a different debate and I think mostly a matter of taste.
|
|
I think most Class-Hybrids discourage doing things outside of your expected role. Whether that discouraging is a good or bad thing is a different debate and I think mostly a matter of taste.
I agree, I just think, many seemingly classless games with strong role shematas, like Shadowrun, do the same.
The only real difference I see between Class based systems...and skill based system is that skill-based system need alot more houserules. Which is not neccessarily a bad thing.
|
|
I had a chance to play World of Darkness a little while ago & just loved it. As someone who was very used to 3.5 & then giving up D&D for Pathfinder, it was a huge wakeup. Everything revolved around the story being told (in this group). The storyteller (no "GM" here) points to the player & gives a short narrative to your character ("It is Friday, 5pm, raining. What are you doing?" etc.) & it goes from there until the party came together.
I was blown away at how fun this was. Sadly we only played two games before two people moved away & the rest of us never continued. It feels like Angel or a little bit of Buffy.
I also like that, after your character becomes a veteran in the skill based games, they are really only twice or three times as "powerful" as you began.
On the opposite end, level/class based games definitely have veteran characters 10 to 20 times stronger than the beginners, practically destroying the idea that anything that hasn't been building xp/fighting alot can exist in the same realm.
I did play Exalted as well, two sessions. It is extremely high fantasy & a bit anime for me, but I liked the system. Not nearly as simplistically beautiful as (new) World of Darkness/Hunter, but containing the same endless horizon for customization & character concepts. (You define your character in a concept, & build them to fix that with no limits, rather than looking at your options out of classes & archetypes, etc)
I love them both as I think a lot of people are drawn to the whole medieval fantasy thing, & Pathfinder is really amazing for this area (I have not played further than level 5 in PF, mind you. 3.5, years ago, we got a lot higher though so I do know what it's like)
I have been tinkering quite a bit with the mechanics of primarily skill based systems, primarily class based systems and various grades of both combined.
Class based system provide guidance during the character creation process. It inherently promotes niche play and makes generating a party with a scope of abilities, yet maintaining specialism. However, it also limits the options for each individual player (by design) to the extent that individual play becomes difficult. Of course, most of these games aren't designed for individual play, so it's usually not a problem. The other problem with primarily class based systems (if it is a problem) is that it prescribes many of the character abilities, that may not, perhaps, be desirable for that character.
Skill based systems, on the other hand, promote the most variety within characters. For individual play this means that a character can cover as many roles (as the rules allow) as possible. On the downside, unfortunately, this means it is difficult to maintain specialism for individual members of the party - the temptation to generalise becomes too strong for many, or else feels artificial. Skill based systems, for this reason, tend to be the most realistic, because they limit the theoretical potential of the character. Within a group of characters, however, this potential really needs to be limited in order to allow all characters to shine.
There is also the question of balance. Primarily skill based systems tend to promote a level of mechanical balance that ironically, I think, limits how simulationist the game is (at least, without a lot of conscious effort). Balance in a primarily class based system inherently promotes imbalance in certain areas. The plan is, it seems, to ensure an equal spread of imbalances between the classes and what they can achieve.
For my own system (shameless plug), I went for a mix of both system. It is primarily skill bases, in that (theoretically at least) all areas of trained skill are available to every character. But it is also largely class based in that there are a number of special abilities and areas of expertise that are only achievable through class. For my purposes I think this works perfectly. The game is no longer clearly identifiable as a DnD game, though the inspiration is obvious, and the game is more simulationist, I think.
A friend of mine has been wondering if D&D, or Pathfinder would do better as a skill-based role-playing game system rather than a class-based system.
I don't think so.
He thinks that the former is more realistic than the latter as the latter places more emphasis on who the character is and what he can do rather than what he is inside an adventuring party.
Sure, classless systems are more realistic in many instances because you can take whatever abilities you want (within guidelines, of course). No "no favoured enemy, you must be a ranger for that". And since they're also level-less, you can have a guy who's great at one thing without being good at many other things the class-and-level-based games lump together or make automatic advancements.
However, if you look for realism, Pathfinder is not for you. And I'm not even talk about the whole magic, elves and dragons thing. I'm talking about things like hit points and pretty much all the stuff a Pathfinder character can survive due to those HP and saves. How could you withstand a beam that disintegrates almost 300 cubic feet of any material? How can you survive falling 200 feet? How can you just shrug off gallons of poison being pumped into your system by a stinger the size of your torso being plunged into your torso?
He also thinks that in a skill-based system things like ECL, LA and CR wouldn't be necessary because each player character race or monster race would have any racial advantage being checked by a disadvantage.
How's that? Who says that a skill-based system has to check advantages by disadvantages? I know a few of these systems, and many just don't work that way.
A thing that is not really done in either Dungeons and Dragons, or Pathfinder for some strange reason.
Level adjustment IS a disadvantage. Anyway, the reason Pathfinder doesn't give powerful races disadvantages is not "because it's class-based".
I haven't really role-played in skill-based role-playing game system, as I have been something of a D&D enthusiast for years. So I can't answer these questions of his. But for those of you who might have had the chance to role-play in such a game, how do Skill-based rpg's compare to Class-based ones such as D&D or Pathfinder in your opinion? *curious* Are they more realistic than what's in D&D and Pathfinder in terms of game play?
I know a few systems, played some of them a bit, too. I played the old Vampire, the new Vampire (as well as some more generic New World of Darkness), we had a short trial run of Legend of the Five Rings 3rd Edition. Vampire/World of Darkness is class- and level-less, while L5R is a bit of a hybrid.
While it is true that you can basically develop the character exactly as you want in such games, since there are usually no limitations ("You must be a warrior to be strong in weapons, but that means you can't do blast magic"), this system has disadvantages, too, not just advantages, as well as things that are just different (and not to everyone's liking)
Things tend to be a lot more lethal, for example. There are no hit points. You have wounds, or vitality, or something like that, but since there is no level, it is based solely on your basic stats (Stamina + size in vampire, Earth Ring in L5R). While characters that have learned to take (or avoid) more damage will be able to survive longer, it's not as linear as in Pathfinder.
The system is unpredictable (or at least a lot less predictable) when it comes to assessing the threat level of an enemy. In Pathfinder, you have CR as a handy way of getting a quick first assessment on whether this monster will just kill the party when they encounter it, or vice versa, or whether it's an appropriate challenge. Level 5 party? They'll obliterate a basic orc (warrior 1) without breaking a sweat, will find a troll or two a decent challenge, and will simply not survive going up against an adult white dragon.
In free-form systems, there might be the total number of XP you have spent on creating a character to give you a (very) vague idea of what he's capable of, but depending on how you spend it, he can be more or less of a threat. Dump everything into toughness and attack skills? Relatively dangerous enemy. Only the most basic toughness stats and no fighting skills whatsoever? The guy can have a killion XP and will still be a victim, since the fact that he's the world's best quantum scientist, psychologist and origami master will help him not at all once the bullets start flying.
And, of course, this applies to PCs as well! Having pre-made adventures becomes a lot harder if you cannot make any assumptions about the characters. If you do a Pathfinder module for 5th-level characters, you'll have a general idea of their fighting skills. If you do a free-form module for, say, 50 XP characters (just a number, how much that is can vary wildly based on how much the different kinds of abilities cost), you might have a fighting force to be reckoned with, or a bunch of brainiacs that are afraid of small, furry creatures.
And, in Pathfinder's defence, it is actually a quite liberal system as class- and level-based systems go. Yes, there are classes, but they tend to be quite versatile, with different ways to play each class. Compare, say, Diablo 2, where the sorceress can be played as a ice caster, a fire caster, a lightning caster, or a mix of these different kinds of elemental blasts, to Pathfinder. A Pathfinder sorcerer can be all of that, but also a charmer, mindbender, illusionist, movement master, buffer, hexer, and a lot of other things, and he gets to mix and match them. Pathfinder fighters can be tin men with huge weapons, mobile fencers, archers, swashbucklers, tacticians, phalanx soldiers, the list goes on.
You can even multiclass, i.e. mix 2 or more classes in one character.
And beyond that, you have skills and feats, which are mostly independent from the classes (classes influence the number of skill points and what is a class skill, and some classes get skill bonuses and new uses for skills; and some feats are extensions of certain class abilities).
It's not quite a hybrid, but I think it includes enough freedom from the free-form systems to be quite attractive as a class-based system, get the strengths of such systems while downplaying some of the disadvantages.
Everything revolved around the story being told (in this group).
Well, that's not completely up to the game system. You can do that in Pathfinder, too.
The storyteller (no "GM" here)
That's just words. Still the same job, whether you call it Dungeon Master, Game Master, Referee, Arbiter, Narrator, Storyteller, HoLmeister, or Master Chief.
WoD also has chronicles instead of campaigns, coteries instead of parties (though other games in the WoD use different names, like cabal or tribe), chapters instead of adventures, and so on.
The terms we use in D&D/Pathfinder show the games' roots in Wargaming. When WoD was first made, they wanted to distance themselves from this "lesser" form of playing. (That's not to say that all WoD players think they're better - but some of the creators of WoD/Vampire apparently are/were pretentious, condescending pricks.)
When you say pretentious and condescending pricks, might you be referring to people who spell their last name with a dot in lieu of a hyphen? :)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the WoD games and the Storyteller system, but there is definitely a strong bent towards navel contemplation and pretention associated with the games.
Don't you understand that TRUE roleplaying, when sufficiently angst-ridden and introspective, reaches a level of profundity that you simpleton D&D players can never hope to reach? This is personal horror, and it's operating at a level your mind probably cannot hope to grasp.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go consider the paradox of being immortal but having to sustain my wretched immortal existence with the blood of innocents. The horror. The horror.