RPG Structures: Class/Level, Skill/Talent, and What Else?

[talysman]

So, I've been thinking again about a way to classify RPGs and near-RPGs based on broad elements. I've talked about it here before, and on my blog (recent post here.) But the short version is: I reduce each game to three elements:

1. Structure (How PCs are defined)
2. Focus (What PCs do)
3. Setting (Where PCs do it)

What I'd like some help with is listing Structure types and distilling the list down to a few broad types. "Structure", in this case, refers to the way the PCs and by extension monsters and other elements are defined in the game, in particular with regards to resolution. I've defined two types:

• Class and Level
• Skill and Talent

OD&D, of course, is Class and Level. Characters are defined with broad areas of expertise (class) and given a rating in that area (level,) which is what is used to resolve combat and a few other things. You can add features with houserules, change the mechanics (replace d20 with 3d6, or change the ACs from descending to ascending,) change the advancement from XP based to an advancement roll, or make other changes, and it's still D&D as long as you have a class and level system and still use class/level to determine resolution.

GURPS is Skill and Talent. Learned abilities are individually rated with a skill level and can be improved individually, while other abilities are bought only at character creation or under special circumstances. (GURPS calls these other abilities "Advantages", but I called them Talents for the sake of my abbreviation scheme.)

Versions of D&D that add skill systems or talents (aka feats) are hybrid CL/ST structures. They are still fundamentally Class and Level systems, but inherit features that resemble GURPS, TFT, and Hero System.

So what I'm wondering is: What other structures like those two are out there? Most of the other RPGs I can think of seem like modified CL, ST, or CL/ST, sometimes with a lot of complexity, I get this vague feeling that a fate point/drama point system or aspects could be another system, where what matters is not a character's ability but what dramatic elements are invoked, but I'm not sure what a good all-encompassing name would be. And I'm welcome to ideas of other possible structures, even if they turn out to be more variations on just those two or three main types.

[luc]

I’ve been looking at running Metamorphosis Alpha, and although it seems based on OD&D it does away with class and level progression altogether. That just leaves characters that are defined by their initial stats and mutations (if any).

The only character development seems to be via acquiring new mutations through encounters with radiation (at the risk of random death) or gathering knowledge and items.

Can’t say that I can think of another game that took this approach. (Maybe Toon? It’s been a while since I’ve read it’s rules)

[talysman]

Apr 13, 2018 7:00:41 GMT -6 luc said:

I’ve been looking at running Metamorphosis Alpha, and although it seems based on OD&D it does away with class and level progression altogether. That just leaves characters that are defined by their initial stats and mutations (if any).

The only character development seems to be via acquiring new mutations through encounters with radiation (at the risk of random death) or gathering knowledge and items.

I hadn't thought about Metamorphosis Alpha, but I'd say it's essentially Skill and Talent, with mutant powers as the talents and the ability scores as a very short list of skills. Abilities in MA are used on resolution tables in a way OD&D didn't really explore.

But you bring up a very good point: advancement can be slow or practically non-existent in Skill and Trait games, or even in Class and Level games. There could be a level cap, or a GM could start everyone at level 4 and focus on material acquisition or social networking.

Can’t say that I can think of another game that took this approach. (Maybe Toon? It’s been a while since I’ve read it’s rules)

There are a few. Toon isn't really one of them. It's Skill and Trait system, with 23 skills and Schticks as traits. I would classify it as "Skill and Trait, Other Fantasy" (STOF).

[sixdemonbag]

Interesting question and TBH I'm drawing a blank beyond those two. Class/Level and Skill Points/Tree (and hybrids) seem to encompass every RPG I'm familiar with.

I wonder if the M-U and Cleric spell tables would qualify as a hybrid approach? Progression is predefined but the actual spell loadout can usually be chosen by the player. Might be a stretch though...

[talysman]

Apr 17, 2018 7:08:34 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

Interesting question and TBH I'm drawing a blank beyond those two. Class/Level and Skill Points/Tree (and hybrids) seem to encompass every RPG I'm familiar with.

That's kind of what I'm leaning towards, as well. It seems like CL and ST are two poles: You can define characters with a single choice and single rating, or with multiple choices and multiple ratings. Games with a skill subsystem alongside the class system, with improvement points or new skills being added as level increases, are hybrids, somewhere in the middle, as are games that focus heavily on multiclassing.

Just about the only suggestion, as I mentioned above, seems to be games where character description matters less and meta choices matter more. For example, if there is some kind of drama currency, like in Universalis or octaNe, or in Toon when the GM leans heavily on the one-time schtick optional rule. Not sure what to call that, though. Maybe Drama (DR) or Plot Points (PL) is good enough.

I wonder if the M-U and Cleric spell tables would qualify as a hybrid approach? Progression is predefined but the actual spell loadout can usually be chosen by the player. Might be a stretch though...

In general, I prefer classifying games based on their main way of defining characters and resolving their actions. But you can still analyze a subsystem as if it were the central system, I suppose.

On the broad level, what determines whether you can cast spells or not and how effective they are is determined by class and level, for most varieties of D&D, so it's not a hybrid approach. But within the spell subsystem, spells kind of act as skills. The fixed spell progression is irrelevant; that's just a detail of how the spells are assigned, just like XP needed to advance a level is a detail in the Class and Level system. But really, spells are more like equipment, and the spell progression is like a highly-elaborate set of encumbrance rules.

[sixdemonbag]

Apr 17, 2018 11:14:04 GMT -6 talysman said:

That's kind of what I'm leaning towards, as well. It seems like CL and ST are two poles: You can define characters with a single choice and single rating, or with multiple choices and multiple ratings. Games with a skill subsystem alongside the class system, with improvement points or new skills being added as level increases, are hybrids, somewhere in the middle, as are games that focus heavily on multiclassing.

That's my view also.

Just about the only suggestion, as I mentioned above, seems to be games where character description matters less and meta choices matter more. For example, if there is some kind of drama currency, like in Universalis or octaNe, or in Toon when the GM leans heavily on the one-time schtick optional rule. Not sure what to call that, though. Maybe Drama (DR) or Plot Points (PL) is good enough.

"Metacurrency" is the term I've seen a few places. It could really be applied to either "pole". It's existence or absence could define a third (optional) pole/pillar. For your classifications, metacurrency simply gives players some limited DM powers. So the distribution and/or consolidation of "DM powers" is what is affected here by metacurrency.

I'm not sure what a catchy name for that would be. What do you think?

On the broad level, what determines whether you can cast spells or not and how effective they are is determined by class and level, for most varieties of D&D, so it's not a hybrid approach. But within the spell subsystem, spells kind of act as skills. The fixed spell progression is irrelevant; that's just a detail of how the spells are assigned, just like XP needed to advance a level is a detail in the Class and Level system. But really, spells are more like equipment, and the spell progression is like a highly-elaborate set of encumbrance rules.

I have to agree with you here as well. At first blush, the D&D spell system resembles a "skill tree" but in reality your choice of spells is either DM fiat or prescribed. The player can't "unlock" a subset of spells by choice. Spells as "consumable equipment" (limited only by class and level) is the correct interpretation as I see it, too.

Cool stuff.

[Finarvyn]

Apr 12, 2018 15:01:15 GMT -6 talysman said:

What I'd like some help with is listing Structure types and distilling the list down to a few broad types. "Structure", in this case, refers to the way the PCs and by extension monsters and other elements are defined in the game, in particular with regards to resolution. I've defined two types:

• Class and Level
• Skill and Talent

I'm not sure I have much to add, but it won't stop me from talking anyway. Your structure seems pretty spot-on, unless you want to include "no advancement" as a third option.

Fundamentally, pretty much every RPG comes down to skills. Characters in Metamorphosis Alpha may get a few starting mutations (essentially skills) and those characters remain pretty constant until they die. Most games allow for a character to add in skills and/or improve existing skill levels as adventures progress. A class system (such as D&D) is really just gaining skill bundles.

Most RPGs differ in terms of how XP are given, or how quickly one can advance those skills. In Amber Diceless the GM secretly tracks XP gained and eventually a character can do stuff they couldn't do before. In Boot Hill, surviving gunfights translates into more bravery. In Warriors of Mars, one can earn XP by saving princesses or slaying beasts. The SAGA system (Dragonlance 5th Age) defines XP in terms of "quests" accomplished. In D&D it's mostly about obtaining gold. Each RPG chooses certain actions which are designed to push a character to more advancement, and acting in other ways will cause the character less advancement.

For all of these games, XP becomes the currency which can translate into skills (or skill bundles called "classes") which can make the character better with more play.

[sixdemonbag]

Apr 18, 2018 13:45:40 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Your structure seems pretty spot-on, unless you want to include "no advancement" as a third option

A good, practical example of this would be a Con one-shot where everyone just rolls up a 3rd level PC and never advances.

A class system (such as D&D) is really just gaining skill bundles.

Good point and a nice observation.

Most RPGs differ in terms of how XP are given, or how quickly one can advance those skills.

[Snip]

For all of these games, XP becomes the currency which can translate into skills (or skill bundles called "classes") which can make the character better with more play.

I actually did a pretty thorough analysis of the affects of XP in the 3lbbs here:

odd74.proboards.com/thread/12532/xp-affect-find-out

[Stormcrow]

Apr 12, 2018 15:01:15 GMT -6 talysman said:

• Class and Level
• Skill and Talent

I haven't read the whole thread, so my apologies if I repeat something someone else has said. I see a third category: "genre applicability."

An example: in an amateur game called "Have-A-Go Heroes," a quickie based on Mystery Men and which I now only vaguely remember, the player-characters get a number of dice to roll based, not so much on what they can do, but on what type of scene it is and how well the player describes what he does. Sure, characters ostensibly have talents and skills, but they're not necessarily stats so much as they are narration hooks. If it's the climax scene and you describe a plan in accordance with your character's powers, you get to roll more dice to accomplish your goals. If it's a scene of exposition and your plan does not accord with your character, you get few dice. How well you do depends on scene and narration.

[talysman]

Apr 18, 2018 17:43:32 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Apr 12, 2018 15:01:15 GMT -6 talysman said:

• Class and Level
• Skill and Talent

I haven't read the whole thread, so my apologies if I repeat something someone else has said. I see a third category: "genre applicability."

An example: in an amateur game called "Have-A-Go Heroes," a quickie based on Mystery Men and which I now only vaguely remember, the player-characters get a number of dice to roll based, not so much on what they can do, but on what type of scene it is and how well the player describes what he does. Sure, characters ostensibly have talents and skills, but they're not necessarily stats so much as they are narration hooks. If it's the climax scene and you describe a plan in accordance with your character's powers, you get to roll more dice to accomplish your goals. If it's a scene of exposition and your plan does not accord with your character, you get few dice. How well you do depends on scene and narration.

This sounds like the as-yet-unnamed third category I was musing about, which I suggested might be called Drama Points or Plot Points, but I'm still undecided. The examples I thought of were Universalis, octaNe, and some playstyles of Toon, although other games can be close to the border, like Risus. I haven't read through any of the Fate system games, but the descriptions of the way Aspects work struck me as being very close to this as well.

The common feature seems to be that these games function partially or wholly on a meta level, where what matters is not so much how good the character is, but how badly the player wants to change what's happening.

[grodog]

Apr 12, 2018 15:01:15 GMT -6 talysman said:

What I'd like some help with is listing Structure types and distilling the list down to a few broad types. "Structure", in this case, refers to the way the PCs and by extension monsters and other elements are defined in the game, in particular with regards to resolution. I've defined two types:

• Class and Level
• Skill and Talent

So what I'm wondering is: What other structures like those two are out there?

Some quick thoughts here, will try to reply more substantively over the weekend:

1. Structure vs. Action Resolution seem like quite different things to me, and are worth separating: action resolution in an RPG system might be very similar (or very different) even when the underlying structure driving the action resolution processes originate from game using the same C/L, S/T, or other model.

Example 1: Vampire 1e has a Stat + Skill Skill/Talent system that's driven through dice pools with target number of successes (like Ars Magica, ShadowRun, etc.), whereas Amber Diceless still employs a Skill/Talent system (with only 4 stats), but action resolution is managed through a straight comparison of the two relevant stats when in opposition, with the higher always winning.

Example 2: Similarly, the 1990s RPG Heaven & Earth (1e version) employed a Stat + Skill system with a target success number but resolved action dicelessly like Amber, with modifications allowed through trying to beat Fate/drawing from a regular deck of cards. Old old info @ web.archive.org/web/19991021225710/http://www.rpg.net:80/ehp/he/herules.html and web.archive.org/web/19991021210317/http://www.rpg.net:80/ehp/he/hefate.html

2. Other RPG structures for PCs/monsters/whatever do exist, and worth investigating vs. the two types you outline above. A few that immediately leap to mind include:

- "universal" attributes defined through bidding (from a static pool of equal points for each participating PC): Amber Diceless
- attributes/skills defined through point buys/pools of points: D&D 3.x had this option for PC gen, and some archtype/template games define their skills through weighted allocations, with the weights varying across templates/archtypes/whatever (Delta Green CoC does this, among many others I'm sure)
- attributes in opposition is probably a subset but might be worth considering (see H&E again at web.archive.org/web/19991013053741/http://www.rpg.net:80/ehp/he/hechrctr.html )

It may be worth looking at Ghostbusters, but I don't know the system well at all, but IIRC it's approach to character definition (and action resolution) may be sufficiently different to be another type, perhaps.

Over the Edge had a much more flexible Skill/Talent range (rather than working from a fixed list, you defined your PC's Skills/Talents, which could be a various as "Hacking Unix Computer Systems" vs. "Wowza Public Speaking to Large Crowds" vs. "Able to digest anything as food"), and various storygames have similarly flexible/open-ended character definition "systems" that you may or may not want to fit into your Venn diagrams here.

3. The idea of different character generation methods is hovering over the above concepts, somewhat, too: random vs. point-buys vs. bidding vs oppositional, and I'm not sure if that's also part of what you might want to distinguish between games?

Allan.

[talysman]

Apr 19, 2018 15:37:52 GMT -6 grodog said:

Apr 12, 2018 15:01:15 GMT -6 talysman said:

What I'd like some help with is listing Structure types and distilling the list down to a few broad types. "Structure", in this case, refers to the way the PCs and by extension monsters and other elements are defined in the game, in particular with regards to resolution. I've defined two types:

• Class and Level
• Skill and Talent

So what I'm wondering is: What other structures like those two are out there?

Some quick thoughts here, will try to reply more substantively over the weekend:

<snip>

Informative post! Looking forward to your post this weekend.

One thing I should clarify is how broad and abstract I am aiming for as I think about these classification systems. I pretty much strip out any quantifiable elements and mechanics, like which dice are rolled (if any,) numeric minimum/maximum, tiers within a character definition (ability scores vs. skills in Runequest, frex.) Part of this is because I think as buyers of RPGs, we tend to focus far too much on such details... but more importantly, it's very easy to alter all of these with house rules and in most cases, it's still the same game, in my opinion. For example, several people -- I think our geoffrey was one -- have replaced OD&D's experience point system with a roll to level up. In my opinion, that's still D&D. Others have replace 3d6 in order with a point-buy system. That's not my personal preference, but I don't think that change alone really alters the feel of the game. It's still OD&D, and it's still a CLEF game. I've got a "backgrounds" system, which is not really a skill system, but acts more like the Secondary Abilities from the AD&D DMG. I don't think it shifts the game away from CLEF towards STEF at all.

So when I look at various RPG examples, I strip out all the actual numbers and think "Does this have basically just one thing controlled what defines a character (Class and Level)? Lots of little separately customizable things (Skill and Talent)? A mix of the two? This mysterious third method of focusing on plot and drama control instead of on the character? Or something else entirely I haven't seen yet?"

I can't comment on many of the games you mention, but the template-style character creation in Delta Green sounds like it resembles ORC system games like Fates Worse Than Death, Tibet the RPG, and In Dark Alleys, which I've played. That's not too far away from The Fantasy Trip, either, which I ran several times. I classify those as Skill and Talent games, even when you have a nominal reference to "class" is the ability in individual areas of expertise. Classes and templates just affect how much each area of expertise costs to improve. And again, the actual details of how characters are created or improved doesn't matter, from the way I'm looking at it. All that matters is what can be defined about a character and how that will affect resolving actions. "Structure" might not be the best label for this, but I picked that name because of the long path of thought I followed to get to the CL/ST distinction in the first place.

[Deleted]

Apr 12, 2018 15:01:15 GMT -6 talysman said:

• Class and Level
• Skill and Talent

I have a different perspective on this split. There are games with classes but no levels (WFRPG, FFG's Star Wars) and games with levels but no classes (Fallout, Skyrim, Kingdom Come, etc).

The difference between games with levels, such as D&D and games with points, such as GURPS, is mainly cosmetic. Simply adjusting the granularity of the increase; where leveled systems have bonuses in large, discreet chunks, and non-leveled games having bonuses in smaller chunks of varying size. [The real outlier is a game like Runequest, where advancement happens as a result of play, rather than a player choice].

Stripping out how advancement works, you're left with classes and the function of those classes, niche protection. You have games with hard niche protection, such as Basic D&D, and games with no niche protection, such as GURPs, and a large number of games with some sort of soft niche protection, where your niche is either encouraged by the genre tropes, like Champions, or a result of a the ability to switch or combine classes, such as WFRPG, FFG's Star Wars or D&D with multiclassing or dual classing. I'd also argue that once you've increased the number of classes sufficiently, that you've watered down the niche protection of a hard class-based system. This is something I saw in 3e but is also true with post-Unearthed Arcana AD&D as well.

As far as skills go, this is just a choice between a small number of broad skills and a large number of specialized skills or any combination in between. I see D&D as having a tiny number of very broad skills. A combat skill, which determines chance to hit, and a general "Adventuring" skill based on level, and a list of skills called ability score. IOW, the distinction between skill and ability score is completely artificial.

[raisin]

For storygames such as Apocalypse World, although it's technically an extension of the "Class & Level" type, I'd go for "Meta-mechanics Package".
Your "playbook" is a class but it has built-in sub-systems to deal with in-fiction stuff related to your character type. Maybe that's just a fancy way of saying Class/Level though.

[talysman]

Jul 4, 2018 7:11:34 GMT -6 raisin said:

For storygames such as Apocalypse World, although it's technically an extension of the "Class & Level" type, I'd go for "Meta-mechanics Package".
Your "playbook" is a class but it has built-in sub-systems to deal with in-fiction stuff related to your character type. Maybe that's just a fancy way of saying Class/Level though.

No, I think your first instinct was correct... I'd been slowly leaning towards adding a third category that specifically breaks the character focus and shifts to a story focus. I offered Universalis, octaNe, and InSpectres as examples. But oddly, even though I mentioned that such games operate on a meta level to alter the fiction, it never occurred to me to use Meta as the name. I kept debating whether to call it Drama or Plot Point, neither of which is ideal, since they carry the mistaken assumption that it's the spending points part that is important, not the manipulation of the fiction on the meta level.

Meta is probably the best name for the third category.

Jul 2, 2018 9:21:53 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Apr 12, 2018 15:01:15 GMT -6 talysman said:

• Class and Level
• Skill and Talent

I have a different perspective on this split. There are games with classes but no levels (WFRPG, FFG's Star Wars) and games with levels but no classes (Fallout, Skyrim, Kingdom Come, etc).

The difference between games with levels, such as D&D and games with points, such as GURPS, is mainly cosmetic. Simply adjusting the granularity of the increase; where leveled systems have bonuses in large, discreet chunks, and non-leveled games having bonuses in smaller chunks of varying size. [The real outlier is a game like Runequest, where advancement happens as a result of play, rather than a player choice].

You may have missed some of the subtleties of the discussion. The real distinction between "Class and Level" vs. "Skill and Talent" is not what names are used for character components, or what the player can select when advancing the character. It's what is used to resolve issues. Do you use just one broad feature with a single rating (Class) or multiple specialized features, each with their own ratings (Skills)?

OD&D is Class and Level. You have one broad ability, your class, with a numeric rating called "Level". Whether you succeed or fail is based on a die roll vs. a target number derived from your class and level using a table. There are various other descriptors for the character, such as the ability scores, but they have very little impact; at most, they may modify your roll.

GURPS and Runequest are Skill and Talent. You have multiple individual abilities, each with their own rating, each of which can be adjusted independent of the others. In GURPS, some of these are called Skills and have a broad numeric range (3 to 21+), while others are called Advantages/Disadvantages and have a much narrower range, in some cases only a binary one (you have it or don't have it) ... and many advantages aren't even separate abilities, but modify one or more skills.

Some games are hybrids of these two. Early AD&D allows some characters to multiclass, essentially giving them a limited Skill and Talent system in contrast to other single-class characters that still operate as Class and Level. Late AD&D, with its non-weapon proficiencies and increased use of ability rolls, and D&D 3e with its skill system, are Skill and Talent when it comes to non-combat resolution, Class and Level when it comes to combat and saving throws. The Fantasy Trip, with its two classes, is almost completely Skill and Talent, since the classes really only affect character development, not resolution.

The exact numeric ranges used for levels or skill ratings don't matter. You can change the range from 1-10 to 1-100, or even to a binary yes/no, and the structure will remain the same, either CL, ST, or split based on what's being resolved.

The number of skills doesn't matter. You can have just two or three (The Fantasy Trip), seven (Metamorphosis Alpha), 20 to 30 (Runequest), or 50+ (GURPS). It's still Skill and Talent.

The resolution method doesn't matter. You can replace a d20 roll with 2d6, 3d6, 4d6 drop 0, 3 to 5+ dice based on difficulty, or coin flips or rock-paper-scissors, but the structure will remain the same.

Character generation doesn't matter. You can replace D&D's random generation with point-buy. You can replace the GURPS point-buy with random generation (it's even listed as an option.) D&D is still Class and Level, GURPS is still Skill and Talent, because D&D still uses a single broad ability and GURPS still uses multiple narrow abilities.

Advancement doesn't matter. You can award XP points, as both D&D and GURPS do, or substitute random rolls, as in Runequest, or eliminate advancement altogether (or restrict improvement to in-game actions, like training.) The structure still remains the same.

I hope that's a little clearer.

[Deleted]

Jul 4, 2018 10:51:43 GMT -6 talysman said:

The number of skills doesn't matter. You can have just two or three (The Fantasy Trip), seven (Metamorphosis Alpha), 20 to 30 (Runequest), or 50+ (GURPS). It's still Skill and Talent.

The resolution method doesn't matter. You can replace a d20 roll with 2d6, 3d6, 4d6 drop 0, 3 to 5+ dice based on difficulty, or coin flips or rock-paper-scissors, but the structure will remain the same.

This is my main point. I see no distinction between a D&D Fighter of 6th level and a character from a hypothetical game that has 6 points in a Fighting Skill. I could make a Skill-based game with three skills: Fighting, Thieving, and Wizarding, and use the D&D rules for each of those skills. Similarly, you can have a game like Bushido, which is a game with Class and Levels, but one where all of task resolution is based on skills, with class only providing a small bonus to certain skill rolls.

Classes are just an easy way to limit what skills a character is allowed to have. The number of games where Class and Level are the sole method of resolution is very small.

[talysman]

Jul 4, 2018 19:23:21 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Jul 4, 2018 10:51:43 GMT -6 talysman said:

The number of skills doesn't matter. You can have just two or three (The Fantasy Trip), seven (Metamorphosis Alpha), 20 to 30 (Runequest), or 50+ (GURPS). It's still Skill and Talent.

The resolution method doesn't matter. You can replace a d20 roll with 2d6, 3d6, 4d6 drop 0, 3 to 5+ dice based on difficulty, or coin flips or rock-paper-scissors, but the structure will remain the same.

This is my main point. I see no distinction between a D&D Fighter of 6th level and a character from a hypothetical game that has 6 points in a Fighting Skill. I could make a Skill-based game with three skills: Fighting, Thieving, and Wizarding, and use the D&D rules for each of those skills. Similarly, you can have a game like Bushido, which is a game with Class and Levels, but one where all of task resolution is based on skills, with class only providing a small bonus to certain skill rolls.

Classes are just an easy way to limit what skills a character is allowed to have. The number of games where Class and Level are the sole method of resolution is very small.

You keep talking about the mechanics. But I'm talking about the structure. I'm talking about the difference between making one choice (which class to pick) and keeping track of it, vs. making multiple choices (which skills to concentrate on, and whether to shift your focus later on.) And I'm talking about classifying games in a useful way, instead of focusing on highly variable and often inconsequential features like game mechanics or specific numbers used.

That's how this idea for classification got started: Robin Laws made a big deal about needing a name for D&D and similar games, and called them F20 games, short for "Fantasy games that use a d20"... as if the most important game feature some people were looking for was the use of a d20. My counterargument is that D&D-like games should be called "Class and Level Exploration Fantasy", because the features people are looking for when they look for a D&D-like game are:

• One primary character feature to track or improve (Class/Level)
• Focus on exploration as the primary activity
• Fantasy setting

Is the number of games where Class and Level are the sole method of resolution very small? These days, maybe. That's not the point. The point is that people pick their games based on whether they want more simplicity (closer to Class and Level) or more customizability (closer to Skill and Talent end of the scale.)

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2018 11:32:24 GMT -6 talysman said:

You keep talking about the mechanics.

That's because the distinction you are making between a Class and Level and a Skill and Talent game is entirely based on mechanics as most games with classes and levels don't actually work that way and are the hybrids you discussed earlier. Pathfinder, for example, has way more customization choices for characters within the same class than a simple skill-based game like Traveller has for all characters.

You've ended up with a circular definition, "D&D is a Class and Level Exploration Fantasy where Class and Level means any game like very early versions of D&D"

The difference between a Class and Level game and a Skill and Talent game can be vast (OD&D vs GURPS) or virtually non-existent (Bushido vs Runequest). Which is why I don't think the term is practical for game classification.

[hamurai]

Personally, I've always classified games into either Open or Closed. Open games have a free character creation (see below) and development while Closed are what you labeled Class games.

I think calling one pole Skills/Talent is too limiting. A very open game like Blood of Pangea (which also uses some sort of class to distinguish the mundane adventurer from the sorcerer) doesn't use skills but is completely open in terms of character development, as it employs a narrative where one can find implied "skills" and other abilities like languages etc.

Similarly, Class and Level seems too narrow to me. What about a game like Awesomesauce* which uses (in its basic edition) only 1 stat which grows over time? That's not a class, just a level, if you so want. You could also call it a skill (the only skill in the system) because that one stat is what you use when you do things. Thinking about it, maybe just rename Class and Level to Class or Level...

Defining the poles with my system of classification it would be Open (completely free character building with free choice of classes, races, skills, weapons, gear) vs. Closed (no freedom in character building at all, like Awesomesauce (basic) which forces me to use 1 stat and only improve that stat).

Near the Close pole would be OD&D where I get to select my class, my gear, my spells. Later editions which introduce skills and proficiencies and more, they move towards the Open pole a little.

Near the Open pole are Blood of Pangea, or Savage Worlds, where I get so choose my race, attributes, skills, talents, gear and the game system only limits the speed with which I develop my character (attributes are limited to 1 raise per experience tier or "level"). The basic idea of PDQ is at the Open pole, where the game doesn't impose anything on me except that I write up some freely-chosen traits and assign them a modifier (would be Skills in your classification).

*free: www.drivethrurpg.com/product/107162/Awesomesauce-The-Roleplaying-Game-Troll-Hammer-Edition?manufacturers_id=4505

[Punkrabbitt]

Classic Traveller is class (service branch) and skill, with the character's background/early life determining what you start the game with and leaving little opportunity for stat or skill improvement during the course of game play.