A friend of mine was wondering whether a skill-based setting would be better than a class-based one and if anyone would actually be interested in playing in such a setting. From his point of view, skill-based settings are better because it allows the players to customize their characters any way they want. It also allows for more realism since not every skill would be at the same level, and a given character might be an amateur in some skills and a professional in others. He also feels that a skill-based setting would keep the character's race from being overshadowed. In 3.5 and Pathfinder the character's racial traits are set at first level and don't get better, meaning that (barring feats) there will be little difference between a 10th level Dwarf and a 10th level Elf.
While fourth edition does address this, there isn't (in my opinon) enough done to ensure that race is more important than class. What do you think? Would a skill-based or class-based setting be better? Why?
It does not matter. The only way the race stays relevant is if the system allows the race to get better. This can be done in a skill or class based system.
You could have a class based system that allows certain races to get bonuses as they leveled up based on the race or a skill based system where certain skills received bonus based on race. Special abilities to bypass rules could be based on a race also, but only unlocked at certain levels.
|
Skill-based generation is good if you have imaginative players who want the freedom to customize their characters to the very end.
Class-based generation is good if you have players with no idea what to do and need a nice package to define the basics of their characters.
Imaginative players will chafe at the restrictions of class-based and clueless players will have no idea where to start with skill-based.
A friend of mine was wondering whether a skill-based setting would be better than a class-based one and if anyone would actually be interested in playing in such a setting. From his point of view, skill-based settings are better because it allows the players to customize their characters any way they want. It also allows for more realism since not every skill would be at the same level, and a given character might be an amateur in some skills and a professional in others. He also feels that a skill-based setting would keep the character's race from being overshadowed. In 3.5 and Pathfinder the character's racial traits are set at first level and don't get better, meaning that (barring feats) there will be little difference between a 10th level Dwarf and a 10th level Elf.
While fourth edition does address this, there isn't (in my opinon) enough done to ensure that race is more important than class. What do you think? Would a skill-based or class-based setting be better? Why?
I agree with Wraithstrike, as far as races is concerned... it doesn't matter. Hero system/Fantasy Hero is a very skill based system. You bought a "racial" package when you made your character. Let's say you wanted an elf. It had the common elf characteristics. They did not change as you gained more skills, much like in DnD a first level commoner ELF has the same racial abilities as a twentieth level inquisitor ELF. Case in point, just because I learn more skills, or get better at my profession, doesn't mean I gain more human abilities.
However, if this is just a comparison between class and skill systems, this thread was posted earlier this month.
LINK
There are several good posts on that thread.
Greg
However, if this is just a comparison between class and skill systems, this thread was posted earlier this month.
LINK
By the same person no less.
Neither a skill based nor class based game system supports race more. Case in point, the Basic D&D classes:
Cleric
Fighter
Magic User
Thief
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
I would put forth that a point-buy system does allow players the freedom to build their own races at the expense of added complication and additional oversight from the GM.
Point-buys are generally skill based, but not necessarily so.
Neither a skill based nor class based game system supports race more. Case in point, the Basic D&D classes:
Cleric
Fighter
Magic User
Thief
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
I played AD&D before I ever even heard of basic. A friend years later, when they came out with basic cyclopedia, ran a few sessions of it for our group. It was just so strange playing a third level "dwarf". The whole concept ran against the grain for me.
And in my earlier post, I took the stance of non-progressive races. wraithstrike had already shown that both systems could easily be done as a progressive race. But, I have a personal bias against that method :).
Greg
2e totally raped years of history and dumbed down a perfectly good system! It was like a friggin' video game.
As to racial growth one suggestion i would like to make is treat racial skill bonuses like the feats that enhance skills so if an elf gets 10 ranks in perception his bonus goes from +2 to +4 ect.
Or you could add by level effects to other racial abilities although balancing them would be difficult maybe every 5 levels for instance a human may gain another bonus feat every 5 levels whereas other race's skill bonuses go up by 2 every 5 levels and at level 10 they gain specialization in any racial weapon they have proficiency in ect.
...{{clipped}}... He also feels that a skill-based setting would keep the character's race from being overshadowed. In 3.5 and Pathfinder the character's racial traits are set at first level and don't get better, meaning that (barring feats) there will be little difference between a 10th level Dwarf and a 10th level Elf.
While fourth edition does address this, there isn't (in my opinon) enough done to ensure that race is more important than class. What do you think? Would a skill-based or class-based setting be better? Why?
emphasis mine.
Just to repeat, making a race more important can be done easily in either system. It is just as easy or just as hard. It's a wash.
My question to Courrain would be why do you feel race should mean more than profession? I have been trying to think of other games that accomplish this and I guess WW's world of darkness would be along those lines. A vampire's clan is more important than what a vampire does. AD&D (1&2), D&D (3.0,3.5, and Pathfinder) have always encouraged class over race. I have to disaggree with your friend though, I believe there is plenty of differentation between races already. There are reasons there are threads on the forums with posters proclaiming they will not play a ... (insert race). Since this thread is so simmilar to your first thread, is there a system you or your friend likes that encompasses your ideal of race over proffession that you are waiting to see if someone brings up?
Greg
2e totally raped years of history and dumbed down a perfectly good system! It was like a friggin' video game.And then HERO came out and that was like the final nail in the coffin of intelligent gaming.
@CourtFool-- Wow, I actually liked what second edition did with AD&D, those changes were alot easier for me to assimilate than second edition to D&D 3.0.
@lastknightleft-- HERO system is still my fave system for a superhero game, if only for the ease of design. Marvel's system comes second, only because of its ease of use. I never played FantasyHERO, but only because there were so many other fantasy games out there it kinda went to the bottom of the pile for rulesets. Besides which, I like to think my players game intelligently. :P
Greg
Something that I've always thought would be cool (but haven't really seen in a system) is for race to define class while the combination defines character.
For example, an Elven Fighter being dramatically different from a dwarven fighter on a fundamental level, rather than just having a few surface differences.
So perhaps, a few combat feat trees that are specific to race/culture? Sort of building upon feats that have a racial requirement, such as Elven Accuracy?
Greg
|
2e totally raped years of history and dumbed down a perfectly good system! It was like a friggin' video game.And then HERO came out and that was like the final nail in the coffin of intelligent gaming.@CourtFool-- Wow, I actually liked what second edition did with AD&D, those changes were alot easier for me to assimilate than second edition to D&D 3.0.
@lastknightleft-- HERO system is still my fave system for a superhero game, if only for the ease of design. Marvel's system comes second, only because of its ease of use. I never played FantasyHERO, but only because there were so many other fantasy games out there it kinda went to the bottom of the pile for rulesets. Besides which, I like to think my players game intelligently. :P
Greg
If you took anything I or courtfool say seriously then I have a rock that keeps tigers away I'd love to sell you.
@CourtFool-- Wow, I actually liked what second edition did with AD&D, those changes were alot easier for me to assimilate than second edition to D&D 3.0.
I apologize. I was being satirical and, likely, in very bad taste.
I have preferred each iteration of D&D over its predecessor. I see all of them as an evolution of the game. However, I believe keeping to the sacred cow of class based has stunted its growth. Obviously, this is just my opinion as many people prefer class based systems.
Imaginative players will chafe at the restrictions of class-based and clueless players will have no idea where to start with skill-based.
OMG, so true!
If you took anything I or courtfool say seriously then I have a rock that keeps tigers away I'd love to sell you.
Point one, sorry I didn't get the joke. I did not take offense. I just did not realize it was satirical humor.
Point two, I think I already have one of those rocks. Haven't ever seen a tiger near me. :P
I apologize. I was being satirical and, likely, in very bad taste.
I have preferred each iteration of D&D over its predecessor. I see all of them as an evolution of the game. However, I believe keeping to the sacred cow of class based has stunted its growth. Obviously, this is just my opinion as many people prefer class based systems.
Firstly, absolutely no need to apologize. I have been sick and feverish, so maybe that is why I missed the satire. But even taking it seriously, I don't see what you wrote as offensive in any way. I admit to liking my DnD class based, but that does not mean I do not like NONclass based systems. Just not in my DnD :P. Some of the best RP gaming I can remember was in Amber Diceless Roleplay. And I am still not certain as to how one would define it.
Greg ( slow on uptake)
I can't speak to race with regard to classes / skills. It all depends on how the game is crafted from the ground up.
Aside from race, I ****far**** prefer skill based systems. As CourtFool has pointed out, classes are a vestigial sacred cow which has hindered more than it has helped (when considering the overall evolution of D&D). It also saddens me to see how skills are often relegated to combat or combat related footnotes, with a tacked on feel. Feats too, in my opinion, were a poor attempt at giving cookie cutter characters more "character", when, in fact, all it did was simply promote the mechanical MtG "build" mentality.
IMHO, if you want your game to have a significant combat component, a class based system is going to work much better. If combat isn't that important to you, a skill based system is going to work much better. It all depends on what you want out of the system.
To give more concrete examples, I think d20 is a pretty good system for a game like D&D (despite its flaws), and I think Chaosium's BRP (I think that's the right acronym) is a pretty good system for Call of Cthulhu, despite its flaws. I think d20 is a crappy system for Call of Cthulhu, and I think BRP is a crappy system for an adventurey fantasy roleplaying game. Although I know both of those things exist and have their fans.
As far as what makes races stick out more or less? Either/neither.
|
I happen to agree with Dire Mongoose. I used to play West end Games Starwars d6. It was a skill based system. I think it worked great for Starwars. Not surprisingly, in one of the games I played in, every one played a Jedi. Because we had very different skill focuses, our characters were quite different. we had a pilot type jedi, a healer jedi, a sword master jedi, and my character was an archeologist type jedi. We all had to work together.
I think that a skill basted system would be better for a modern / sci fi type game.
I think the Pathfinder class bases system is better for an adventure fatantasy type game.
As a pretty big Shadowrun fan, it's important to note that skill-based rpgs tend to fall into archtypes just as much as a class-based rpg does. Theoretically a skill-based game means you can make anything. In practice, you have your face, your hacker/decker, your rigger, your street sammy, your mage, your adept, and your sneak. Now, in both skill and class-based games, there's interlay between archtypes - my last SR4 character was the sneak and the mage, the decker/hacker and rigger was the same person, and the adept handled face work (The street sammy was just a pure gun bunny). The biggest difference could theoretically be that, in a skill-based game, you can intermingle ANY of the archtypes as you want, whereas in a class-based game you're limited to what classes mingle together, but in practice, some archtypes run against others (street sammy vs mage/adept/technomancer), some have a lot of support for blending (adept spells can drastically improve their work as face), and some just don't really have much support.
So how does race fall into this?
Well, to be honest, it falls in pretty equally. Racial bonuses in both skill and class based games point you into the direction of what that race is good at. In Pathfinder, elves are good at things that utilize intelligence and dexterity. In SR4, elves are good at things that utilize charisma. You get the idea.
The big difference, I think, is that skill-based games let you branch out of your archtype easier. So you can have a gun bunny with a bit of social skills, or a technomancer that knows their way around a drone without being a full time rigger. With classes, things tend to be far more specialized; in a purely skill based system, dabbling works. Not so much in D&D however; you can't have a fighter who's "a little good with magic" and have that actually reflect in a meaningful way due to how fast and hard things scale. The same goes with race. If I make a pure gun bunny who's an elf, I already have a boost to my social skills, so even if I don't want to go into being a face, my racial bonus gives me a bit of dabbling into it. If I make a dwarven fighter, that wisdom bonus doesn't give me a little help towards casting divine spells, and even if I do dip into cleric to "dabble" with it, the end result is still staggeringly un-useful.
Edit: Apologies to those that do not understand the massive amounts of Shadowrun babbling and don't know what a gun bunny or rigger is :p.
IMHO, if you want your game to have a significant combat component, a class based system is going to work much better. If combat isn't that important to you, a skill based system is going to work much better. It all depends on what you want out of the system
I can agree with this 100%.
With a class-based system it's easy to give all "classes" some measure of combat ability, but it's hard to give them variability with skills or out-of-combat abilities.
With a skill-based system, skills and out-of-combat abilities can go wherever, but combat abilities often suffers for it.
With a small party skill based systems enable a player to cover two "roles" in the party with one charackter.
Small parties are (in my experience)also more likely to use skills/magic instead of brute force to solve problems.
Class based systems gives a PC the chance to be really good at something at the expence of other things. In my opinion the class based character is more dependent on the rest of the party to provide for him.
Class based systems are also blessedly free from the player-as-accountant ("did i buy healing with my last point or did i save it" (starts an hour long discussion on what he/she said last session) Or "lost my charachter sheet so i need to rebuild my charachter from the start"( ready to play to hours later...)
Skill-based-systems are a PITA for the DM, unless he is very experienced.
How powerful is your D&D character or a D&D monster? well, roughly about as powerfull as his level or CR says.
How powerful is your skill based character or an enemy (i.e. old good D6 Star Wars game)? Well, I don't know, let me see your blaster, dodge, constitution, etc. numbers and let me guess.
The problem here is, you're coming at this from a purely combat perspective, while I think Mongoose and myself agree that a skill-based game is best when combat is by far not the main focus, but merely one of many styles.
To (ab)use my Shadowrun example a bit more, it's possible - and, frankly, preferable - to have a run go down where there's no combat at all. One thing a lot of skill-based games have is very deadly combat, so fighting is somewhat of a last resort rather then the main goal.
If you took anything I or courtfool say seriously…
Exactly. I'm a friggin' poodle for crying out loud.
…clueless players will have no idea where to start with skill-based
I would alter this somewhat. Players who do not have or do not wish to come up with a clearly defined concept on their own will find the sheer number of options paralyzing. I would point out that this does not necessarily make them 'clueless'.
But even taking it seriously, I don't see what you wrote as offensive in any way.
It was a cheap shot at Edition Wars™ warriors. I remember nearly the same arguments against each new iteration as I heard against 4e.
IMHO, if you want your game to have a significant combat component, a class based system is going to work much better.
I disagree here, Dire Mongoose. I do not think Class/non-Class works better or worse for combat. I think Class based systems enforce niche protection. if you want niche protection in your combat, then yes, I would agree with your assessment.
However, I think niche protection is a separate issue. Say you want clearly defined roles for all your social interactions. Then Class based system would appear to be superior to non-Class based systems. Again, the actual issue here is niche protection.
Not surprisingly, in one of the games I played in, every one played a Jedi.
And to this, I would point out that non-Class based systems allow the players and/or GM to define niche protection. This can be a problem when everyone wants to be the best at one thing, or it can work if everyone picks something different no matter how similar it may be to other players.
The protection is simply not built into the system. So you can have a party of all Fighters. Often times, players will simply find something else, other than Class or Archtype, to differentiate themselves.
I think the Pathfinder class bases system is better for an adventure fatantasy type game.
Yes and no. Pathfinder is good for adventure fantasy with heavy combat focus. I can run good adventure fantasy with G.U.R.P.S., Hero and even Mutants & Masterminds. I could even run good adventure fantasy with heavy combat focus with any of those systems. If I ran modules as written, I might have to force players to take certain roles (someone has to play the healer, and someone has to play a trap finder).
…it's important to note that skill-based rpgs tend to fall into archtypes just as much as a class-based rpg does.
Yes and no. The Archtypes are often far more generalized like Bruiser or Sneak and there is a lot more interlay. Point in fact, I have long held the theory that all PCs should have some kind of skill with Stealth. At some point, the entire group will be sneaking into someplace.
Most people who keep to fairly standard Archtypes have a long history with D&D. In my experience, the more people play Skill based system, the more they try to stretch common Archtypes with each new character.
With a skill-based system, skills and out-of-combat abilities can go wherever, but combat abilities often suffers for it.
In my opinion, the problem here is that one person decides his niche is combat and puts 90% of his abilities directly into combat. So then everyone else looks like the Three Stooges.
This can be 'fixed', but requires more work from the GM and buy in from the players. You need a combat range where all characters should be near that range. This will allow everyone to contribute to combat and still have something they bring to the group outside of combat.
Again, I think this is most common with players who have a long history with D&D where combat is so important.
Class based systems are also blessedly free from the player-as-accountant…
True.
Increased flexibility = increased complication. Just look at many of the debates between 2e and 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. See many people complain about all the added Skills/Feats and how it 'ruined' the game.
Skill-based-systems are a PITA for the DM, unless he is very experienced.
True.
Anyone sufficiently motivated to break any given game will. However, increased options = increased possibilities for effective synergies. It is simply easier for someone out to 'break' a game to do so with Skill based systems (and a larger extent Point Buy systems).
The only solution I have for this is to play with people mature enough not to put their own fun above everyone else's. I know that sounds like common sense, but just look at any thread titled ZOMG [X] IS BROKEN BEYOND PLAYABILITY. The root of the problem will be one player not willing to back away from ruining a perfectly good game.
In defense of those players, I would like to think most of them do not realize they are ruining the game. They just want their character to survive and/or be totally badass. Most of us do. We just need to recognize when we have gone too far.
I apologize for being so long winded. It seems this thread really hit a nerve with me.
I disagree here, Dire Mongoose. I do not think Class/non-Class works better or worse for combat. I think Class based systems enforce niche protection. if you want niche protection in your combat, then yes, I would agree with your assessment.
However, I think niche protection is a separate issue. Say you want clearly defined roles for all your social interactions. Then Class based system would appear to be superior to non-Class based systems. Again, the actual issue here is niche protection.
Certainly a class based system can give you combat niche protection, but I don't agree that it's the only value to it. For example, it's very easy to gauge what will be an interesting but not overpowering combat for level 5 D&D characters. It's not as easy to gauge that in any skill based system I've seen, unless the answer is "any combat, even against a hobo with a hobo knife, can kill very experienced characters" a la Call of Cthulhu.
I haven't personally encountered a skill based system that could stand up to optimization-minded players very well that didn't also have high lethality combat. YMMV!
Certainly a class based system can give you combat niche protection, but I don't agree that it's the only value to it.
I apologize if it sounded like that was what I was saying. Class based systems provide niche protection across everything, not just combat. And I concede that is not the only value of Classes. I thought I had pointed out others in my post. Maybe I need a list at the beginning of the post so it is more clear.
|
|
I would alter this somewhat. Players who do not have or do not wish to come up with a clearly defined concept on their own will find the sheer number of options paralyzing. I would point out that this does not necessarily make them 'clueless'.
I was trying to come up with something that clearly represented what I was trying to say, but that was the best I had. 'Players without a clear concept' is much better, thank you.
|
As a pretty big Shadowrun fan, it's important to note that skill-based rpgs tend to fall into archtypes just as much as a class-based rpg does. Theoretically a skill-based game means you can make anything. In practice, you have your face, your hacker/decker, your rigger, your street sammy, your mage, your adept, and your sneak. Now, in both skill and class-based games, there's interlay between archtypes - my last SR4 character was the sneak and the mage, the decker/hacker and rigger was the same person, and the adept handled face work (The street sammy was just a pure gun bunny). The biggest difference could theoretically be that, in a skill-based game, you can intermingle ANY of the archtypes as you want, whereas in a class-based game you're limited to what classes mingle together, but in practice, some archtypes run against others (street sammy vs mage/adept/technomancer), some have a lot of support for blending (adept spells can drastically improve their work as face), and some just don't really have much support.
So how does race fall into this?
Well, to be honest, it falls in pretty equally. Racial bonuses in both skill and class based games point you into the direction of what that race is good at. In Pathfinder, elves are good at things that utilize intelligence and dexterity. In SR4, elves are good at things that utilize charisma. You get the idea.
The big difference, I think, is that skill-based games let you branch out of your archtype easier. So you can have a gun bunny with a bit of social skills, or a technomancer that knows their way around a drone without being a full time rigger. With classes, things tend to be far more specialized; in a purely skill based system, dabbling works. Not so much in D&D however; you can't have a fighter who's "a little good with magic" and have that actually reflect in a meaningful way due to how fast and hard things scale. The same goes with race. If I make a pure gun bunny who's an elf, I already have a boost to my social skills,...
You forget that Shadowrun kind of enforces those archetypes in the setting and by providing a bunch of "use out of the box", um, archetypes.
HERO and GURPS is a bit better about avoiding that.
But, we did argue that 2e did dumb down (and sanitize) the game. So that part is spot on.
Remember Player's Options: Powers and Skills?
Can you hear the grognards shaking with furry at the mere mention?
Can you hear the grognards shaking with furry at the mere mention?
I hope not. :( If so, they should get a room.
Doh! Curse you inappropriate almost homophone!
|
|
But, we did argue that 2e did dumb down (and sanitize) the game. So that part is spot on.Remember Player's Options: Powers and Skills?
Can you hear the grognards shaking with furry at the mere mention?
I skipped 2e all together, kept playing 1e (with a Shadowrun campaign on the side, and lots of Paranoia and CoC thrown in as one offs). 3x brought me back to the fold, only because I was locked up when it came out and they were the only books we could get sent in (1e being OOP, and hardbacks had to come straight from a retailer, no second hand stuff).
Now I just play it out of inertia and the fact that I lost boxes of 1e stuff, my homebrew setting and all of houserules I compiled over the years when I was sent off.
Remember Player's Options: Powers and Skills?
Can you hear the grognards shaking with furry at the mere mention?
When that mess first came out I was "WOW!!! TOTAL CONTROL!!!" Then I realized I could make a 'full BAB' full caster with pefect saves, heavy armor, etc... all for the cost of some crap I didn't need (such as Turn Undead!) and it all fell down. An overly open skill *or* class system is easily abused. The care we have to show is in how each system is applied.
Class Systems have Niche Protection (a fine enough phrase) built in explicitly. You cannot have too many 'tasks' you excel at: A Fighter is the best figher, a Rogue the best skill monkey, a Fighter/Rogue can be decent at both, add a third class (say Wizard) and you start to suck... Your Niches are protected.
Skill Systems have Niche Protection implicitly: If I only have so many 'points' to build with, "I cannot be BEST in multiple categories." Your Niches are Protected.
I like both systems but prefer Classes for it's general ease of use. Almost like Cruise Control--it doesn't steer itself, but at least you can take your foot off the gas!
GNOME
PS: I just want to point out that the poodle said "Furry" :p
Exactly.
Despite the fact there are many outspoken supporters of a "free" skill based system in contrary to a "limiting" class based one, the vast majority of games (P&P as MMO) are now class based.
If you want to know the reasons for this then you need only to look at the troubles that the Eidolon causes to many groups.
In other words, the difference between the "imaginative" players that are overly restricted and the "optimizers" that need these restrictions lest anyone runs basically the same fotm char is simply too narrow.
Powers and Skills, aka "EVERYONE'S A CLERIC!"
The easiest way to make races matter more without making them increase over time is to lessen how much everything else increases over time.
One other thing that helps is to make their bonuses hard to get otherwise. For example, there was a suggestion to make ability score bonuses work like point buy, so if you gained a +8 bonus to strength, it would increase strength like if you'd put 8 points into strength; a str 10 character would gain a new score of 15, while a str 15 character would gain a new score of 17. If this is done across the board with the exception of race, the racial bonuses are just worth so much more and makes an elven fighter play a lot differently from a dwarven one - because the 4 lower con matters a lot more than it does now since it can't be covered as easily with items.
Something I got out of my experience with Point Buy systems was that racial adjustments were superfluous. If you wanted to play a strong Dwarf was of little difference to wanting to play a strong Human. Either way, you had to pay for strength.
What really defined Race were the special abilities. Low light vision, wings, magic resistance. Another side effect of Point Buy was less focus on magic items. Because of this, those special abilities were not frequently gained by everyone else in the group through magic items.
I do not think this is special to Point Buy. It just happened that way in my experience.