|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:07PM
#1
|
|
|
So I've been reading around a bit here and there to see what the general feelings of the community are. Generally speaking:
- People don't want to be pigeonholed into a class's restrictions on race and alignment. (Racially speaking, when a race has a +2 to something that only that particular class uses so if you want to play that class you better darn well be playing as that race)
- People want full freedom to decide what their characters are capable of doing.
- People want their characters to have the capability of being wildly unpredictable and different compared to the next.
The only difference between characters at the moment is more or less what we imagine them to be. I thought it was hilarious how every Smuggler in Star Wars: The Old Republic gets a wookie companion regardless of their progression. Isn't this the same as having every single Ranger getting an animal companion and a favored enemy? I imagine an assembly line that our characters are forced down, and at every certain interval various parts and additions are screwed or bolted into place regardless of how we feel about it and a person could just look down at the end to see how they're going to end up eventually. Is that really how our characters' lives should unfold? Or should our characters have their own opinion of what happens in their given situation? I believe that a 'Ranger' type of character should have the option of saying, "To heck with casting spells, I want to learn more hunting skills and to shoot a bow better." and that simply can't happen short of writing more and more books with countless class variants, cross-role base classes, and prestige classes. So if this is what people want: Why have classes at all?
Why take the power of creation and customization away from the players? Why not simply create a set of guidelines for a player to progress through challenges and situations in a way that appeals to them?
Having a set of suggessted progressions for different roles would definately be a positive thing, especially for new players, but the ultimate choice of progression should stay with the player and by proxy the character. ~~~ My personal opinion (I'm no game designer) on how to accomplish this would be to allow the player to spend their experience points on their progression, and in that way they would be progressing very gradually and slowly until they at some point look back and see how far they've gotten without the need to compare levels like a percentage of completion toward a goal. This would not only help tear down the wall between mechanics and role play, but bring a sense of individuality to the characters we can create.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:16PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Within only a few years of D&D's apearance in 1974, there were games that were taking the classless or skill-based aproach. A prime example was RuneQuest, which was quite good, and did, indeed, let characters advance (learn, really) in an incremental, mostly self-directed fashion. There were no classes or levels, though very experienced characters could choose to become Shaman, Rune Priests, or Rune Lords, which were a bit like classes, in that they opened up specific options, but still allowed the character to progress in quite a piecemeal fashoin, choosing spells to sacrifice for, skills to learn, and so forth.
D&D never went down that road, probably because it would have meant a loss of identity for the game. 4e didn't even dare deviate from tradition so much as to eliminate classes, and WotC has been forced by sheer, virulent, unreasoning, reactionary hatred, to backpeddle from the changes it did make, and rush a new edition years early.
I can not immagine that classless D&D is on the table. I suspect designers would be tarred and feathered by angry mobs of nerds with pitchforks and torches if they tried.
That said, it's not a bad idea. Other games have done it and done it well. And, 4e - I assume unintentionally - laid some groundwork that could take the game more or less 'classless.'
If you were to take the 4e AEDU progression, and use if for all characters. But, take powers of classes and pool them under Source, then take the features of classes and boil them down to Role features, you could have a classless game where a player just choose Source & Role, and picks powers and features to suit. You could then layer on Race, Theme, Proffession, Weapon choice, and myriad other things that open up power swaps for as much or as little customization as the player cares for. In a sense it'd be classless, in a different sense it'd be like having as many classes as you wanted...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:24PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2003
|
Yaknow its funny when people use such wording such as unreasoning and reactionary hatred.
When people simply did what one is supposed to do when they don' t like something. They didn't buy it. And that is honestly all that happened. They didn't pay for a game that they didn't enjoy the mechanics of, or the way Wizards was handling it.
Methinks some 4e players think too highly of their favorite game system, and have issues understanding that not everybody will like what they like.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:26PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2011
|
Shadowrun is a rpg that I have played for a few years along with D&D that does not use a true class system. Thier player's guide offers some premade characters and starting equipment that would prove useful to a player that wanted to accomplish x with their character.
Character creation starts with a blank template and you spend build point to add on certian character attributes, skill points, knowledge points, and equipment. I found the system really rewarding to have such a wide range of choices. In fact it was through playing this game that I feel I really grew as a role player. Anyway I can see how a classless system could not only work but be really effective at the same time.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:32PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2004
|
This is one of those things that goes beyond a sacred cow and into the territory of fundamental aspects of the game. It's something that pretty much everyone knows aboutit. Find someone who'd never even consider playing D&D, and mention that you play it, and they'll probably make a smart-ass remark about you being a level 12 wizard. (Or accuse you of satanism, but that's a whole other thing.) You can make a perfectly fine game with no classes at all, and people have. But it wouldn't be D&D, any more than an edition without dragons would be D&D.
Rhymes with Bruce
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:38PM
#6
|
|
|
I don't see why both systems couldn't be incorporated. A generic "adventurer" class that uses advancement points to do whatever a player wanted. Perhaps this is a separate manual. But it would allow players to build exactly the type of character you wanted to build.
And from that well, you can build the pre-concieved archetypes, which would be nothing more than using the same free-for-all system, with specific decisions already made for players.
No biggy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:49PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2011
|
This is one of those things that goes beyond a sacred cow and into the territory of fundamental aspects of the game. It's something that pretty much everyone knows aboutit. Find someone who'd never even consider playing D&D, and mention that you play it, and they'll probably make a smart-ass remark about you being a level 12 wizard. (Or accuse you of satanism, but that's a whole other thing.) You can make a perfectly fine game with no classes at all, and people have. But it wouldn't be D&D, any more than an edition without dragons would be D&D.
you're right, having a class is fundamental to D&D. Over all it's a balancing act between a few core issues.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:49PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2012
|
I love playing shadowrun, it's a great system, but D&D should always have classes, hit points, magic, and traps. Without any of those things, it doesn't feel the same. A reworking of the multiclassing system would be a much better option, I think.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 4:55PM
#9
|
|
|
The Usherwood Expansion for OSRIC provided a "Jack-of-All-Trades" Class that was effectively a classless character. (Yes, a class that's classless, I know.) It allowed players to pick options from any class they want in a relatively balanced way. They could incorporate an option like that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 5:01PM
#10
|
|
|
Didn't Arcana Unearthed have an option with 3 classes? caster, fighter, and skill guy? and all class features bascially became feats?
something like that could be done, so ranger/barbarian/etc are feats or talant options under the fighter class. cleric/wizard/druid are feats and talents under caster, etc.
|
|
|
