How do you think of classes?

[Kindling]

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.

[Xathan]

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:

Each 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. 

[Superfluous Crow]

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.

[Xathan]

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.

[sparkletwist]

The 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.

[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 :)

[Xeviat]

The 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.

[sparkletwist]

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.

[SabrWolf]

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.

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).

[Kindling]

... 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.

[LordVreeg]

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.