Character classes - start simple, get complex?

[badger2305]

One of the ideas I've been bouncing around in my head for awhile now is the following:

At the start of the campaign (and yes, I'm thinking of something more than a few sessions), the only character class choices are fighter, magic-user, and cleric. As time and game play progress, I would introduce new character classes.

To make this more interesting, a new character class gets introduced mostly when an existing character dies. You're probably asking, "why do it like that?" Well, I wanted to re-create the sense of the early days of D&D, when character classes were slowly being introduced and players slowly developed more choices as their existing characters either got killed or retired.

Now if you prefer just the original three classes, that's perfectly fine - but I'm interested in what you think of this idea, assuming that you eventually wanted to include other character classes.

[TheMyth]

Well...it seems like you're trying to recreate the past by ignoring it.

Unless you intend to create all new "new classes" to introduce.

I just think it might create either 1/ hard feelings from players who have a liking for a certain class (like a paladin, ranger, illusionist, etc.) or 2/ players wanting to "switch" characters once a new class is introduced [perhaps even by killing off the current PC.

Now, if you intended to actually make the new classes be something along the lines of advanced classes/prestige classes, then it might be ok. [You know, like after 3rd level, a Magic-User can choose to become a illusionist...].

I know I might have issues with more choice being introduced *AFTER* I already made a choice up-front.

But, in all honesty, this will all depend on *your* players.

[badger2305]

Jul 19, 2008 12:43:04 GMT -6 TheMyth said:

I just think it might create either 1/ hard feelings from players who have a liking for a certain class (like a paladin, ranger, illusionist, etc.) or 2/ players wanting to "switch" characters once a new class is introduced [perhaps even by killing off the current PC.

I understand what you are saying. In some ways, what I am thinking about is getting players into the mindset of the very early days of the hobby - thus the initial limit on character classes. I would suggest that one of the aspects about "old school" gaming for players is not getting stuck on a particular "favorite" class, but being able to come up with something based on what the dice say.

As for wanting to switch to a different class and doing in their character to get that, I think I would encourage someone to retire that character if that's what they really want. But I am hoping that the investment of time and effort into a character would result in an unwillingness to do that.

Probably worth mentioning is another idea I've been tossing around, namely something I want to borrow from Bushido: if your character dies well, you get bonuses to your next character during character generation. Obviously, getting your character killed just to switch would not be a "heroic" death. But this is a different idea.

[dwayanu]

Considering your "reason why," perhaps it would be better to go back closer to the actual state of affairs in the early days. Thieves and Paladins and so on were not "waiting in the wings." Rather, new character types were created as the referee or players saw a natural place for them in the campaign or simply came up with characters they thought would add to the fun.

[badger2305]

Jul 19, 2008 14:08:55 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Considering your "reason why," perhaps it would be better to go back closer to the actual state of affairs in the early days. Thieves and Paladins and so on were not "waiting in the wings." Rather, new character types were created as the referee or players saw a natural place for them in the campaign or simply came up with characters they thought would add to the fun.

Hmm! That is definitely a thought. Thanks!

[ffilz]

While I've had ideas of turning the clock back and trying to recreate the wonder of D&D as it grew, I don't think it will really work. Unfortunately you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle (unless you get brand new players who have never experienced RPGs and are pretty blissfully unaware). We all know the possibilities now.

Now what can work is to say: "Hey, I'm going to run a game with this subset of what all is out there."

What might work is to say that you are going to start with the basic three classes, but you are open to creating new classes. But expect players to then show up with preconceived notions of classes they want to create based on their favorite class from their favorite edition of the game. And of course expect them to want to bring all the complexities of their favorite edition of the game, etc.

Frank

[badger2305]

Oh, sure. Absolutely. In order for this to work, I think I would have to get prior agreement from my players and treat the entire thing as a quasi-experiment.

Another way of looking at this would be to ask: if you had decided to run a campaign with the original three classes, or maybe added the thief class, how would you add additional classes?

[dwayanu]

You know your own style and your players', so natch any alternative is offered on a "take it or leave it" basis!

How I've mainly done it is to treat each character proposal as something unique seeking expression in game terms. Often, that just means taking (say) the Fighter class and slightly modifying it. Describing the "special effects" of spells in a distinctive way may be enough to represent (say) an "ice mage." Sometimes, it's just a matter of role-playing, with no need for special mechanics.

I came back to that after some experiment with bringing in classes not only from the supplements but from Strategic Review/Dragon, Arduin, and other sources. I found that I ended up doing so much work to make them fit either the campaign or a particular character that it was just as well to start from scratch. YMMV!

I don't have any set limit on how many characters a player can have in his "stable." Spreading play thinly among them naturally tends to leave them all at low levels.

[Random]

I would go the "prestige" route for adding new classes.
I'm one of those people who loves complex characters, just not at first level.
You should be able to roll a basic first level character almost instantly and effortlessly, without having to think about a million possibilities.
Then once your fighter, for example, is established in the game world, he can quest for his warhorse, swear loyalty to the gods, etc. and become a paladin (or whatever appropriate highly specialized career path).

[coffee]

Jul 20, 2008 19:20:02 GMT -6 Random said:

I would go the "prestige" route for adding new classes.
I'm one of those people who loves complex characters, just not at first level.
You should be able to roll a basic first level character almost instantly and effortlessly, without having to think about a million possibilities.
Then once your fighter, for example, is established in the game world, he can quest for his warhorse, swear loyalty to the gods, etc. and become a paladin (or whatever appropriate highly specialized career path).

This could work, but I'd shy away from the whole "prestige class" thing. It brings in too much baggage from 3d ed., where "class" no longer equals "archetype" but rather "set of abilities that I can take at this level, making my character build even more broken".

Why does the class have to change? Why can't that fighter be acknowledged as a paladin, possibly with special bonuses or benefits, and still be a fighter?

What I'm saying is, the character follows the class, but gains additional benefits through roleplaying that others of that class might not have (the aforementioned Paladin status, warhorse, etc.)

When one player sees another do this, he'll start going for what he wants. Each can become what he wants, his/her own personal highest expression of the Cleric, Fighting-Man, or Magic-User.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

[Random]

Good point. I agree.

There's no reason you can't have a basic fighting-man with a nose for evil and some mystic healing powers, at least I haven't seen any rules saying you can't.

[jjarvis]

start simple and add as you go works for me. We started with 4 races and 4 classes last year in the game i'm playing and we've added the option for 2 more races and 4 more classes since. It does recreate the developing game feeling of old for me.

[scogle]

I could see doing that if you're introducing new players to the game, particularly people who've never even played a tabletop RPG before, and you wanted to add additional classes without overwhelming them. Still, if I wanted extra classes, I'd just lay out all the options before them from the start. Most classes are so restrictive that few will play many of them, or even be able to.

[scottenkainen]

Hi all! First post here.

Despite the lack of enthusiasm for Badger's initial post, this is EXACTLY what I want to do with an OD&D campaign. The idea of making the campaign more "authentic" by simulating a campaign starting in 1974 appeals to me. If the campaign makes it to year two, then the players can be "rewarded" with supplemental material introduced in 1975, and so on.

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[badger2305]

Sept 11, 2008 12:19:34 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Hi all! First post here.

Despite the lack of enthusiasm for Badger's initial post, this is EXACTLY what I want to do with an OD&D campaign. The idea of making the campaign more "authentic" by simulating a campaign starting in 1974 appeals to me. If the campaign makes it to year two, then the players can be "rewarded" with supplemental material introduced in 1975, and so on.

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

Thank you for the support, Scott!

What I wanted to get at was the feeling of how it unfolded back then - a relatively simple idea gets more elaborate, and with it, possibly recapture some of the "sensawonda" of making the campaign your own as well as incorporating stuff from other sources. So "rewarding" players with more options as time progresses is a way to get at that.

[jrients]

Badger, I've had ideas similar to yours before. One thing I have considered is to have campaign prerequisites that unlock new classes and/or races. For example, successfully recruiting an NPC assassin for a spying or assassination mission could be the trigger that makes the assassin class available for PCs. Or befriending the gnomes of Gravel Gulch would unlock the gnome as a PC option. Some of these prerequisites might be told to the players up front while others could be secret.

[tank]

Ooo. I like that idea, Jeff!