If you use a system with character classes, how do you prefer think of them with respect to how closely they tie into the game's fluff?
It seems like some games have their classes as part of the crunch only: classes are a purely "meta" thing. They have some rules and effects that distinguish them to players, but each of those classes can take a wide variety of forms in-universe, so the notion doesn't really carry over into the fluff. This may be an extreme, because it seems like most games tie them in at least a little. For example, the classes have some notion of being a "profession," but it's a broader category than people in-setting would consider. People in the setting might look at both a soldier for the royal army and a brawler at the pub as a "fighter," but they'd probably also see more differences than similarities between them. It seems like D&D usually takes this approach.
On the other extreme, maybe the classes are tightly integrated with the fluff. What class you are is clearly defined in both crunch and fluff. Something like a caste system, schools of philosophy, guilds, or the like. Sometimes this merges "class" with "race" or doesn't have a distinction between the two at all. White Wolf, I'm looking in your general direction.
Maybe I've missed something in between, or something else entirely.
What have all of you used in the past that works well, and what doesn't? :yumm:
Oh, and if you're only going to post to say you don't like or don't use classes, please don't post. :grin:
I prefer a system with a small number of classes, where the classes are intrinsically tied to the fluff of the game. I liked 3E, for instance, pre "Complete X". I still think that the 8 core classes of 3E D&D (minus the sorcerer) can accomplish any archetype if more builds are present within each class. A Warlord, for instance, wears heavy armor and fights straightforwardly, so they can just be a build of the Fighter. An Invoker could just be a more offensive focused Cleric, and an Avenger could be a Paladin build.
I like classes so much that I will probably retain them as I cobble together a system that is perfect for me. I have found that classless systems leave some of my players lost and without direction when sitting down to build their character.
I tend to think of classes as only minimally representative of a character's profession and skillset. However, in systems where there are more classes and these classes tend to be fairly specialized, it obviously gets pretty hard to ignore the prevalence of the class abilities and any attempts to change the fluff about your character can be hard to do without feeling a little contrived (at least in my experience). The best example of this where it didn't feel odd that I think I've DMed was a friend of mine playing in one of the last D&D games I ran; he played the 3.5 Warlock class but reflavored it to be a "sand mage".
I think my favorite implementation of classes is actually the SWSaga classes; even though the Jedi class is pretty obviously tied to a setting-specific tradition it's relatively easy to use it and the other classes in the system to represent most anything you want - especially since you don't have to belong to a specific class to use the "magic" (Force) of the system. It's easier because the classes are very broad and the availability of a wide variety of feats and talents to take (along with the fact that you get a LOT of them) makes it easy to customize these classes and turn them into very unique characters. When I or anyone I've played with has used this system, even if we're playing in the Star Wars universe, taking a level in a class becomes more of a "what's the fastest way to acquire this ability for my character concept" thing, which I always found didn't really happen when making characters in D&D. I can see how it would happen in that system, but it always seemed so much harder.
Quote from: XeviatI have found that classless systems leave some of my players lost and without direction when sitting down to build their character.
I have pondered this as well, but I can also see the argument that classes can feel restrictive.
What has been floating around in my mind a lot lately is the purely "meta" classes, without backing in fluff. That is to say, players decide what kind of "role" they want to give their character in the game's mechanics, but they can make the character actually fulfill that role in any way they please. This kind of divorces crunch from fluff with a hard break, but, honestly, sometimes a hard break is better. For example, I don't mind FATE points, but some of the fluff for 4E's combat abilities feels so contrived and silly I wish they wouldn't have bothered trying to give it fluff at all. :)
Quote from: OmegaLimittaking a level in a class becomes more of a "what's the fastest way to acquire this ability for my character concept" thing
If I understand correctly, this kind of goes with what I said above, right?
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: OmegaLimittaking a level in a class becomes more of a "what's the fastest way to acquire this ability for my character concept" thing
If I understand correctly, this kind of goes with what I said above, right?
I suppose. :D
I like it when classes are a thing in the world of the game.
It's tough for me to come up with an example of where I feel this is done well. Upon reflection, that's probably because the closer something gets to the way I like classes to be treated, they less they feel like classes to me. They start to just feel like a type of thing that you are. I suppose if we want to call Asura's various types of conduits/asuras classes, or if we want to call White Wolf's various vampire bloodlines and whatnot classes, I'd call those classes done very well-- you can say, in-character, "I'm a [name of class]" and you'd be describing something real in the world's fiction that nobody else has in common with you without also being [name of class].
D&D has never done classes very well, to my mind, and it's because there isn't that level of exclusivity-- almost no class really has its own domain in any meaningful way that's not totally about game mechanics. A ranger, in the fiction of D&D, is a dude who likes to live in the wilderness, has a pet, and probably either fights with a bow or with pair of knives. The problem is that anybody can do those things, so if you say, in-character, "Bob's a ranger", you are either referring directly to game mechanics or you are making a pretty empty statement. This gets further complicated by the way players can mix and match all sorts of classes and arrive at the same flavor from multiple directions. In any iteration of D&D I'm familiar with, there are so many options I could choose between to build a character who lives in the wilderness, has a pet, and fights with a bow that ranger-the-class is about as useless as ranger-the-description-of-Bob.
I suspect this is where a lot of people who dislike class-based systems learned their dislike: you end up fighting the game mechanics to get the character you want to play. I always got the feeling in D&D that I was being presented a menu of popular archetypes and invited to customize them to my liking, but always running into barriers and penalties in the course of that customization-- and heaven help you if you didn't care for the archtypes presented and wanted to create your own from scratch. It's a system of mechanics that can't decide whether it wants to be a toolkit or not, so it stops somewhere in the middle, which feels like a frustrating bait-and-switch.
I think a great example of what I'm talking about is found in the Dragon Age franchise. In this world, being a mage is nuts. Mages are lucid dreamers who gain power from the world of dreams but are vulnerable to possession from the demons who live there. This is a fact with all kinds of societal ramifications in the world, and there's no middle ground about it-- either you are a mage or you're not. It makes sense for this to be handled as a discreet class. But the other two classes in this three-class system are the fighter and the rogue, which are both just slightly different flavors of "person who stabs other folks." There's an in-world reason why a non-mage can't dabble in magic, but no in-world reason why a fighter can't dabble in lockpicking-- that's an arbitrary limit. So this whole franchise has elements that I think are handling the class system well, and other elements that I think are handling it poorly.
I could really get behind a class system in certain cases, where character options and powers are set up in ways that absolutely do not overlap. Like, if you were playing a game where the conceit is: monsters all work together to defeat the humans and take over the world. So you might have a group with ghosts, which can move through walls and scare people but can't physically interact with anything, zombies, who are tough and have "rot powers" but who can't think or speak, and alien brains in jars, who have telepathic powers but can't move. In this example, I'd absolutely go with a class system, because each type of thing has such radically different capabilities it totally makes sense to build them out of distinct sets of building blocks. (This is an extreme example; one "class" here has a strict monopoly on the coveted ability "touch something".)
I suppose, when you boil this down all the way, this whole issue is really an issue of the way you set a world's limits and the extent to which players buy into those limits. There's not a huge amount of conceptual distance between "you have to be either a fighter, rogue, wizard, or cleric because every adventurer in this realm is one of those four things" and "you can't play a starship pilot because this game is set in the dark ages". Each world has things that are appropriate and things that are not, and players must either accept the terms presented (or try to renegotiate them), or pass on the game and hope for the next one. Speaking for myself and my own priorities, I guess I'm much more likely to accept those terms when they are supported by the fiction of the world in a way that makes sense (i.e., no starships in the dark ages) and more likely to question or reject them when they are not, or when the support seems arbitrary. But then, every game has a degree of that, classed or otherwise.
That's a good post, LC.
I can actually tie this into what I meant about deciding on a "role" in the game's mechanics and then acting on it. What I wonder about is if the "no backing in fluff at all" sorts of classes that I was considering might actually be the sort of thing that appeals to you simply because their whole purpose is to convey abilities that nobody else has; the only difference is that the player decides why the character has that ability. On the other hand, this is also probably a perfect example of "no class really has its own domain in any meaningful way that's not totally about game mechanics."
For example, let's say there's a class system where a "Fighter" gets an extra d6 on melee damage done, because he's a fighter. This could be because he's extra strong and tough, or because he's a martial arts master, or he has an innate talent, or whatever. It's up to the player to rationalize it in the character's backstory, or not. Furthermore, that fighter can dabble in lockpicking and living-in-the-woods and whatever else. Other characters can also dabble in combat, and can get quite good with a sword-- they'll just never get that extra damage die, because they're not a "Fighter." If that damage die seems inconsequential or uninteresting, then please don't get hung up on that, because my point was really just to talk about the addition of a unique special ability. Maybe a "Rogue" has something like Fate Points that he can spend and nobody else does, to reflect the little knacks and extra luck that a roguish type like him has.
What to make of this? :D ? :weirdo: ? :ill: ? :huh: ?
In case anyone's curious, this has nothing to do with Asura. I'm quite happy with the "class" system in Asura, and it makes me feel good to see you mention it as something you feel was done right. :grin:
I'm not really sure I've ever seen that sort of system before. I'm going to have to let the ramifications sink in a bit to really know what I think.
I guess my real question about that system would be: why does the system delineate between groups of characters with such a rigid distinction when the fiction does not?
Put another way: I'm creating a character who is a dashing swashbuckler. I can make him a "fighter", who's formidable as a swashbuckler because of his extra damage, which he gains by his superior speed and technique. Or I can make him a "rogue", who's effective as a swashbuckler because of his rogue points, which he gains by his guile and good fortune. Put both versions side by side, and you probably can't tell them apart based on their performance-- they're both effective swashbucklers, and you have to "look under the hood" at the game mechanics to figure out which is the fighter and which is the rogue. So why force a choice that is invisible?
Presumably there are other junctures during character creation and advancement where I as a player would choose some things and reject other things. But this choice is unique because it is a.) central to the style of play (that is how I am interpreting "deciding on a 'role' in the game's mechanics and then acting on it", anyway), b.) automatically exclusionary (putting points in Basketweaving doesn't automatically prevent me from also putting points in Haberdashery, but choosing Rogue Points automatically means I can never also have Fighter Damage), and c.) calculated to have as little impact as possible on the fiction of the game itself (Tim the Swashbuckler has no idea whether he's a "fighter" or a "rogue", terms which would be meaningless to him in the sense we're using them [in a generic sense he probably considers himself to be both, and might be baffled by the idea that being both is impossible]). It's like this choice is trying to be a big deal, but also at the same time, not a big deal. I dunno how successful that ever is.
Damn it, this was supposed to be a short post.
I kind of think, if it's so important to eliminate these distinctions from the fiction, why not also eliminate them from the game mechanics? Alternately, if it's so important to define roles within the group that you're building it into the system, why not also build it into the fiction? (Or at least make it a thing that characters can notice or talk about, so that if players know they're having trouble because they need a fighter [and Tim the Swashbuckling Rogue, despite the fact that you can't actually tell him apart from a fighter, isn't cutting it], their characters can also realize this, talk about it, and go hire one.)
If you really just want each character in a group to have a unique power that none of the other ones have, on the other hand, why not just post that to players directly: "build a character using blah system and such and such steps, oh and also you get one unique power that you get to make up, so it's just for you only."
I don't want to entirely reiterate what LC said, so I'll just keep it short and say I agree with him. Classes are, in my opinion, successful when they mesh seamlessly with the fluff of the world. I will say that, at least in my case, there is an appeal of "fighting the system to play what you want," because if yo can make it, you get this sort of feeling of accomplishment (well, I never do). I think that's because one of my players is a computer programmer; he's used to fighting with the system to make it do what he wants.
Anyways, I will echo the sentiments that classes can leave players at a loss at times, so I think the concept of a class, or role, or whatever is a good idea to have kicking around. In DF FATE, you have your templates, which to new players might look kinda like classes, but they're really just blocks of information to help guide you into character creation until your comfortable enough to just make whatever you want on your own. I like that because it promotes character creation and exploration of the setting/mechanics at hand. The best part? If you don't find any of the templates interesting, make something up yourself.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonI guess my real question about that system would be: why does the system delineate between groups of characters with such a rigid distinction when the fiction does not?
The short answer is because it's a distinction that is largely one of
mechanics, designed to allow interesting things to occur in the crunch. I was thinking of it in terms of things like as superhero game's "energy beam," where the player decides what sort of energy beam that is, fitting the superhero's motif, e.g., Flameman's energy beam would be a blast of fire, but Solarwoman's energy beam would be the pure rays of the sun, and so on.
However, you and Weave have convinced me that even with this rather "gamist" way of looking at it, a tie-in to the fluff is not entirely a bad thing. My concern is simply that I didn't want the crunch messing with the fluff. I think it's not entirely necessary to completely separate them, and you both have made some good arguments as to why it might be better not to. It'd just have to be managed carefully, is to avoid sounding too much like a transparent exposure of the game mechanics to the in-universe character; no "his power level is over nine thousand" stuff.
Going back to my example, it could be as simple as having some kind of astrology or whatever. Like, the guy with +d6 damage was born on the Holy Day of the War God, where the guy with the "Awesome Points" was born during the Festival of the Goddess of Luck. Something like that. It would help with the "exclusionary" aspect, too, because you can only be born on one certain day, and then it would be something that everyone has-- or at least can have, if we're going with the idea that the PCs are special and mooks might not be tied into their astrologically destined hidden talents.
QuoteGoing back to my example, it could be as simple as having some kind of astrology or whatever. Like, the guy with +d6 damage was born on the Holy Day of the War God, where the guy with the "Awesome Points" was born during the Festival of the Goddess of Luck. Something like that. It would help with the "exclusionary" aspect, too, because you can only be born on one certain day, and then it would be something that everyone has-- or at least can have, if we're going with the idea that the PCs are special and mooks might not be tied into their astrologically destined hidden talents.
I actually typed out a whole paragraph on birthsigns in the earlier Elder Scrolls games, then deleted it because I was afraid it was not relevant enough. That's essentially what they do-- any character can get good at any skill, but each has a unique ability based on the astrological sign they were born under, and there's no other way to get those abilities besides being born at the correct time. (I don't think it's ever specifically stated, but I am under the impression that most people in that setting are not born under any special birthsign at all, but the PC is always an exception with auspicious birth.)
Anyway.
It almost sounds like you have a really good game mechanic idea you want to use, and you don't have a compatible world idea that fits well with it, so you're justifiably worried that either your crunch or your fluff is going to damage the other when you cram them together. If that's the case, you might have better results if you just write your stuff down, let it percolate for a while, and bring it out of storage when you've come up with more agreeable pairings. That way, you can unabashedly use your sort-of-class mechanic in a setting where that makes sense as an element in the fiction as well, and you don't have to sneak around and hide your mechanical elements from your fluff.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonIt almost sounds like you have a really good game mechanic idea you want to use, and you don't have a compatible world idea that fits well with it, so you're justifiably worried that either your crunch or your fluff is going to damage the other when you cram them together.
It almost does!
I'd say "almost" because I'm not sure if my idea is "really good." :grin:
Past performance is indicative of probable future performance, and furthermore,
I think 3E D&D did classes well in theory; it's failings were mechanical in nature. Just looking at the core 11 classes, you have:
Warrior who uses the inner power of emotion to fight.
Expert who dabbles in the arcane and can influence the emotions of their allies and enemies through song.
Priest who crusades on the front lines, using magic to heal and augment their fighting ability.
Priest who defends nature, wielding the power of the elements and the form of animals.
Warrior with peerless skill and training.
Expert who uses the inner power of discipline to augment their fighting ability and perfect their mind and body.
Warrior who dabbles in the divine, powered by virtue to defend the innocent and smite the wicked.
Expert who dabbles in nature magic, who studies chosen prey to become the ultimate hunter.
Expert who fights with guile and trickery.
Mage with inborn power.
Mage with learned power.
Now, the bard, paladin, and ranger are very much D&D tropes in these incarnations, but they fit into a grid of pure casters, dabblers, and non-casters. Now, in theory, 3E D&D's multiclassing lets people progress with several classes when it seems logical. Each class has some overlap, but they also have something unique (the paladin has the least unique things, since lay on hands and holy smite could be replicated by several abilities).
Each class also has meaning in the world. Yes, fighters and rogues do similar things in combat (they both stab/bash people with things), but they are differentiated because the fighter fights straightforwardly and the rogue fights with tickery. It's not that a fighter can't sneak up to someone and stab them in the back, it's that they simply don't (and don't train to).
Separating classes from trained skills or skill points could go a long way to making things feel more natural.
I do agree that classes without flavor could make building characters easier, but I don't like that way. I'm currently reading into L5R, and their "classes" (they're called schools) are very much a part of the world. You don't pick a school because it gives you what you want to have, you get what you have based on the school you want to be from. It's all a matter of whose driving who, the cart or the horse.
I think classes work best when they work as archetypes, building blocks and inspirational stepping stones.
A class shouldn't define the entirety of your character's identity, but rather complement and accentuate the identity you have already developed prior to (or during) character creation - at most classes should inspire you to try new and interesting ideas.
I think a surprisingly good example of class design is found in Iron Heroes. At first glance the classes appear to be closely modelled on the standard 3E suite of classes, but on a closer look it turns out they are both broader and more flexible. They don't necessarily prescribe a playing style as much as they present different options for your newly-formed character to interact with the world (and most often his enemies) around him.
When I first skimmed the IH classes my mind was filled with all the possibilities the book laid out before me. This is what a class system should do if anything.
Although, despite my overt enthusiasm in the above paragraph, this is not necessarily the way I would implement classes myself. But I think my issue lies with the levelling structure and not the class structure. If we take Unhallowed Metropolis as a new example, classes there are tightly connected with the fluff and prescribe playing style more than I'd like, but because the system is level-less the class instead gives you an instant array of abilities and, more importantly, new options for advancement.
I think somewhere in between these two extremes would be preferable with classes presenting small, tight packages of Character Identity with multiclassing being encouraged instead of discouraged. In a point-based character creation system it would be interesting to treat them exactly like skills and perks - make classes voluntary, supplementary and costly. Instead of having them be the be-all-end-all template of character identity let them be yet another piece for the player to meddle around with.
Disclaimer: I have only just woken up and haven't bothered to read through what everyone else has posted, so sorry if I'm repeating any of what others have said.
I think classes instantly tie a game to a genre. If you look at a set of rules, and characters can either be, let's say, barbarians, fighters, magicians or thieves (the class options from Crypts & Things) then you instantly know this is a fantasy game, and probably quite an action-heavy one seeing as half the classes available are warrior-types.
I like that they do this. As much as I like Savage Worlds at the moment, I do have a big soft spot for class-and-level rulesets, and I think a lot of that has to do with the idea of classes as archetypes and their relation to the genre of the game. I always thought the idea of blander classes, like for example D20 Modern's Strong Hero, Smart Hero et al, was a bit weird - an attempt at a class-and-level system trying to emulate a classless system's openness and ending up with the worst of both worlds. Well, maybe not the worst, but the not-best.
EDIT: So, I lied, I did skim some of the posts in the thread, and saw someone-or-other saying that mechanical differences between classes weren't the same as in-setting differences. Well, I disagree. Yeah, maybe all fighters don't belong to the fighters guild and have to have taken their training from an accredited master fighter or whatever, but if they're the only ones who can really deal that amount of hurt in combat, they're still a thing in the setting, even if they could have learned to fight that well in any number of ways. Their mechanical abilities inform their place in the setting, even if there's no specific fluff. People will see them fight and be scared/impressed/jealous/whatever. People will want to hire them as champions, bodyguards, gladiators. People will talk about fighters in-character - maybe not using the actual word fighter, but that's still what they'll mean when they say stuff like "Suomar Cold-Heart is one of the greatest swordsmen I have ever seen" or "We need to hire a real warrior for this. Not just any sellsword, but a veteran"
EDIT2: I've looked at the thread a bit more properly now, and it seems the whole thing has become about this crunch/fluff stuff. I still stand by what I said in the first edit about mechanics creating their own fluff in a way, but I also recognise the points people have made about class overlap. I think that really just comes from poor class design or a needless glut of classes, rather than being an issue inherent to character classes. This is why I've always tended towards a smaller number of classes. The four I mentioned above, from Crypts & Things, are a good example I think. The thief does sneaky stuff, the magician does magic, and the other two hit things with other things - but the difference between a fighter and a barbarian is clear enough that, although they have very similar roles, they're not likely to be confused. Another system that does this well in my mind is Iron Heroes, although, obviously, with a wider array of classes. They're all essentially fighters of one sort or another, but each class is based around a particular fighting style which is kept vague enough that no specific fluff is imposed, but distinct enough that each class really is unique and there is the potential for a lot of in-game significance for any or all of the classes.
Figured I'd chime in on this one, since I've been giving this a lot of though for X20.
For me, what it boils down to more than anything else is a class is a defined set of skills that improve with use - someone who gets angry and flips out and gains strength from it, someone who is dedicated to learning how to be a better warrior, someone who focuses on sneaking and stabbing in the kidneys - that tie into flavor. If you call the first class a barbarian, the second a fighter, and the third a rogue, we know we're playing fantasy. If, on the other hand, you call them a 'Roider, a S.W.A.T, and an Infiltrator, we're probably playing a modern setting. If it's a Adrenal, a Space Marine, and a Starstalker, it's sci-fi - EVEN IF the fundamental mechanics of the classes are virtually unchanged.
That being said, a class should have abilities that tie it into the fluff of the setting, though the ties should be loose enough that you're not completely fixed into a particular role once you are that class (I'm not a fan of the white wolf setting.) Take the 3.5 Barbarian, for example. They're tied to the wilderness to some extent, hence their Handle Animal and Survival skills, as well as exist in a world where traps are a perpetual threat, hence their trap sense class ability. A 'Roider, on the other hand, might have some knowledge of healing from learning the right chemicals to achieve what they are, or might have streetwise knowledge from learning how to aquire the substances, and instead of trap senses might be more alert to when a situation is about to go hostile, giving them an edge in acting first. An Adrenal might know actual genetics from their own biological manipulation and have a sense of other genetically altered individuals or enhanced senses on top of their rage.
Really, what it comes down to is an agreement with the end of Kindling's post, mildly paraphrased:
QuoteEach class [should be] based around a particular [ability set] which is kept vague enough that no specific fluff is imposed, but distinct enough that each class really is unique and there is the potential for a lot of in-game significance for any or all of the classes.
That's the ideal I think class design should strive for.
On a meta level, I feel that classes should have something that mechanically distinguishes them from each other - 3.5 did a decent job of this, though fell a bit flat when it came to casters, especially sorcerers and wizards (Really, the difference there is where you have flexibility and other than that, all fluff.) Doing that with a huge number of classes is damn near impossible from a design perspective though, which is one thing I liked about 4e's power sources, because (in theory) you could distinguish classes as different facets of onw power source, but on the flip side, every class in 4e besides the psionic ones played EXACTLY THE SAME on a fundamental level, which is a complete failure of design IMO.
I think the final point you make about how classes should play differently is a very important point.
The central idea seems to be that while a hypothetical classless character can do anything, a class allows him to excel at something.
And I think your final point is just as, if not more, important. :P
That, more than anything, is what defines a class: a way to track excelling at something that oftentimes is lost or unfocused in classless systems.
Quote from: Superfluous CrowThe central idea seems to be that while a hypothetical classless character can do anything, a class allows him to excel at something.
This is an interesting way of thinking about it. The issue, probably, is whether the
excelling is enough to set the class apart, like, if the excelling is simply a matter of acquiring enough levels/ranks/dots/whatever in the appropriate skills, and there's nothing (or nothing but arbitrary mechanical barriers) stopping other characters from acquiring those skills too, the concept of "class" starts to feel flat again.
There is also nothing but "arbitrary mechanical barriers" stopping the Lockpicking skill being used to seduce an NPC. It all depends where you like your arbitrary barriers to sit :)
Quote from: Superfluous CrowThe central idea seems to be that while a hypothetical classless character can do anything, a class allows him to excel at something.
I, too, think this is an interesting concept. It's certainly a concept that feels "realistic", at least in a setting where there aren't genetic barriers to certain power sources.
Then again, I am also starting to want to go back to a system more like 3E D&D. Class is just another track of your abilities representing something that takes more effort then gaining skills or gaining feats. L5R, for instance, has schools. At character creation, you start at Rank 1 in a school. Your insight rank also starts at 1. You total your skills and a multiple of your ability scores determines your insight rank, and when it goes up you can gain a rank in a school. Thus, school acts like class.
Quote from: Kindling
There is also nothing but "arbitrary mechanical barriers" stopping the Lockpicking skill being used to seduce an NPC. It all depends where you like your arbitrary barriers to sit :)
No. There are very good in-game reasons why the Lockpicking skill won't generally work to seduce anyone. Considering what picking a lock usually entails, and how that is rather unrelated to most social encounters, it would suggest that the skill would not be particularly useful. It's not simply an "arbitrary mechanical barrier" that declares the skill not useful, but a logical analysis of the task that is being attempted compared to the skill being used.
On the other hand, there may be no particularly good in-game reason why someone can or can't learn certain skills except the "class" that they belong to. Rather, there are
arbitrary mechanical limits placed on what skills the character can acquire in order to maintain balance in the class system. After all, if class B can eventually get as good at class A at everything class A can do, there's no real incentive to play class A. And if that's true for all the classes, then it's not so much a class system as a set of templates to help choose initial skills, but then you can grow in any direction you like.
Quote from: sparkletwistThere are very good in-game reasons why the Lockpicking skill won't generally work to seduce anyone. Considering what picking a lock usually entails, and how that is rather unrelated to most social encounters, it would suggest that the skill would not be particularly useful.
I agree... until you start thinking of the "Lockpicking" skill as being a knowledge as well. The idea is that you have lots of first hand experience and knowledge about picking locks. Utilizing the "Lockpicking is a knowledge" point of view, you could then utilize it in a social situation (To talk about picking locks). Now if an NPC is
excited by thieving skills (a character like Parker from Leverage would probably fall into this kind of category), then I see no reason why using your Lockpicking to seduce would not be an appropriate use of the skill.
However, there is no indication that you could potentially use Lockpicking in this manner in most core rule books (probably because it's a VERY situational use of the skill). So, I'm inclined to agree that most of the time the reason you can't use skills for ANYTHING is because of arbitrary rules.
But, I'm also a proponent of breaking the rules when it comes to skill uses. If a player can give me a convincing (or amusing, or cool) reason for why they should be able to use a skill that would not normally be called for in some situation that they now find themselves in, I'll typically allow it (with a potentially slightly higher DC depending on how much more difficult the action will be utilizing the odd skill).
Quote from: sparkletwist
... a logical analysis of the task that is being attempted compared to the skill being used.
And when did the decision that your character should be defined in terms of a set of skills stop being an arbitrary one?
Sorry, I'm just being awkward now :P
You're absolutely right, there isn't a
direct parallel between skills and classes, but the point I was trying to make, in a bit of a flippant way, is still pretty valid in my mind. In all but the most intensely simulationist of rules there will be arbitrary limits of some sort or another and depending on your personal preference vis-a-vis suspension of disbelief you will find it more or less fun having them in different areas of the rules.
Classes are the easy way out, both in terms of fluff and crunch. And in some ways, this is a really good thing. for both the GM and the players.
I have, for those who know, spent a great deal of time going from a class-based game to creating a skill based game. And at the heart of the reason why is purely that I like a game that creates characters that become what they do; not based on what clas they choose in the beginning. I've had archer types become Priests, I've had Assassins become social-based warriors, I've had battlemages become healers, and I've had a commoner become a mercenary become a courtier become a priest of the Autumn harvest.
And that is an advantage of a skill-based system, if that is the kind of game you want.
I also wanted a game where base skills overlapped somewhat realistically into sub skills; sort of like the way coursework is supposed to work in college. Your 101 course gives you an overview and a smattering of everything; Physics 101 doesnt mean you can build a fusion bomb; but you probably learned optics, some mechanics, thermodynamics, acoustics, etc. But unless the sub skills are studied, more advanced, esoteric skills are never really used.
But the 3 things a class based system does well is to create a faster game that runs fairly and provides readymade, identifiable archetypes. (Faster, Balanced, Archetypical).
They fulfill both crunch and fluff well and in a framework that makes sense. Want to have players have a play experience and become like Aragorn? No Problem...classes make it possible to choose this in the beginning and have the mechanics do some of the heavy lifting, instead of the GM having to create a game that makes this happen. Want to make the Grey Mouser type character, with that kind of play experience? Again, no stress, create the class-template based on this.
IN addition, classes are excellent at creating balance (and in the reverse, to see what a game is really built to do by seeking this balance). The early 0D&D game was really based on adventuring, and the classes all had various skill-sets that were built to be balanced around this. Fighters were the best in combat situations, Thieves were the best in traps or scouting or sneaking, clerics healed or protected or were especially good against unholy things, and wizards were jacks of all trades who could read languages, lock doors, create light, create fires...The AD&D game started moving the balance into the campaign; and while adventure was still criticl in game, much of the balance started to be based on the whole level continuum, with strongholds and followers and tithing all part of the balance.
And to let you in on a secret; real, long term balance is a thing that most GMs are bad at.