Classes vs Classless

[jakdethe]

I've been digging through all of the old posts on here, in search of an answer to my current problem. I'm having a hard time deciding between extremely rules-light, role-play heavy D&D; and kitchen-sink, Strategic Review + Supplements, OD&D. I've noticed in particular there are quite a few threads recommending ignoring the thief, dropping the magic-user or the cleric, and some suggesting all three.

On one hand I love Arduin, the Strategic Review, AD&D, the Supplements, and all the cool rules that come along with them. I like class features, and think that is a large part of the fun of D&D, and most players think so too. Keep in mind, most players don't discuss the rules like we do, or have philosophical discussions on author's intent; I think it's fair to say most of us here are Referees. Most players just want to have fun, and enjoy silly things like class features, bonuses, and character customization.

On the other hand, I'm sick and tired of all the different rule sets. None of them does exactly what I want, so I'm always moved to house rule, tinker, and combine them. My feeling is that if I'm going to have a ton of classes and rules (by ton of rules I mean AD&D complexity), I don't want to leave out what I want. One game might have the Ranger and Paladin, but not the Bard and Cavalier for example. It's such a pain to mix and match, but that's exactly what I want to do when I take this route. The frustration of trying to bridge the gap makes me want to go with the above method. Of course when I go with the above method, I feel like I'm missing out, even though consciously I know that's not the case.

If it's cool, I'd love to hear the strong and weak points of each approach. What do you guys do normally? Why do you go with the method you go with? Do you keep them separate, and have two games you play for different occasions? I know there's a healthy mix of the two on these boards, so I want to hear from both, so I can finally make an informed decision on the matter. For the kitchen-sink players, how do you handle mixing and matching? If there's already a thread discussing that, a link would be highly appreciated. If there are any good games that handle the "classless" (or one class) style, recommendations would also be appreciated.

[Finarvyn]

In general I enjoy the "core four" in my campaigns, but that is partly because my gaming group is usually small and it's nice to have each class represented.

If I run a game for a large group I sometimes dust off some of the extra classes so that each player can be from a different class.

[waysoftheearth]

My advice would be to keep your own workload a lite as possible so you can focus on your dungeon/world; so start with the absolute basics (3LBBs) and then let the players help you from there. Remember that it's their game too. If someone wants to play a "whatever", then figure that out between you when the time comes. Until then, it's not worth worrying about.

[ravenheart87]

My motto is "few rules, lots of content". I prefer the kitchen sink approach, but I'm very picky when it comes to rules, unlike with classes, races, spells, magic items, monsters.

[Deleted]

I think the biggest mistake you can make, either in selecting rules or designing a setting is to try and do too much at the start. I have a philosophy I try to uphold called "just in time game design". Rather than presenting a list of classes to the players, ask them what type of character they would like to play. If their description matches a class from a book, you can use that, if not then make one up on the spot. The thing is, you don't need to write a class out to 20 levels with a perfectly balanced set of powers and XP requirements. To make a character, you only need to decide what powers a first level character has, you don't even need to bother deciding the XP table until the character is getting close to leveling. Design the class one level at a time as required. The character may die before leveling so all that design work would be wasted effort.

This is especially true if you want to run a kitchen-sink type setting. There's no way you could come up with all the wacky ideas that the you and all the players would together. I do think that B/X's race-as-class approach makes this easier, as combining the race and class together means you can balance that particular combo without worrying about how that race might work with other classes or how that class might work with other races. It compartmentalizes the design to minimize any negative impact.

As for classless games, Runequest is good and even manages to preserve some early D&D rules that D&D ditches (weapon based initiative, Blackmoor's hit location system, etc). Although Stormbringer/Elric is probably a better designed game but that's debatable.

FGU's Bushido cleverly combines a skill-based game with classes but it's probably too rules heavy.

[talysman]

On classes, my preference is to present the Fab Four only, but allow other class concepts if they suggest one. Make it a mod of one of the four, swapping one power for another, rather than piling on powers and phony restrictions.

For rules in general, I tend towards the very minimal, occasionally dabble in the more elaborate, but either way, it's almost all behind the scenes. The players don't need to know any rules beyond what's presented in Men & Magic, and not even all of those necessarily. The rules are not there to be mastered, but to make things happen. They are tools to make a fantasy world.

[Deleted]

First thing I do is have the players roll 3d6 in order. PERIOD.

It's amazing how quickly that narrows things down. For instance, in 42 years I've had exactly two people roll Paladins.

And I agree with talysman. The rules are to support you in what you want to do. They serve you, you do not serve them.

[jakdethe]

Thanks for the all the responses. Take it slow. I get it. Definitely what I'm going to try and do from now on. It's funny because that's how I Referee, and design my game worlds, I just never thought too apply that mentality to the rules themselves. It makes a lot more sense, and seems a lot easier than trying to determine a full set of options and rules before game play.

[Deleted]

Yeah. There's no point in obsessing about the Man-Eating Carp PC class if nobody wants to play one.

[jacar]

I like just the basic 4 classes but my group likes variety. Lots and lots of variety!

[inkmeister]

I definitely can't stand the cleric, so it goes out the window automatically - no exceptions, ever! The remaining 3 are cool, but the thief presents problems that have been discussed a lot. Sometimes I try to allow for a custom thief, often I drop the thief (the thief concept rocks, the implementation always seems problematic in some way). Sometimes I run classless (fighter as baseline). Searcher's of the Unknown is the template, here.

The problem with classes as D&D presents them is that they sort of dictate to you a lot of things about the world, such as how magic works. Take those rules out, and now the game is wide open. Also, the fighter-only game allows for a highly S&S approach, and magic as mysterious, otherworldly ,and very dangerous.

I never would play with more than fighter, magic user, and thief. AD&D style is right out. I also dislike demihumans in general (I'm tired of the classic dwarf and elf thing that has been done to death - I've no desire to recreate Tolkien). That's just how I feel about it.

In general, I think you should be able to play without any written rules at all, because the game is simple enough to hold it all in your memory. Whatever references that are needed should fit on a page or two, tops, not counting dungeon notes or what have you.

[Porphyre]

Four classe plus the "basic" D&D "races-as-classes".

[Deleted]

I use the four basic classes tweaked as needed for a given setting as well as alter the demihumans if they are included to fit the setting. For instance in my sword and sorcery/sci-fi game at home dwarves and halflings are natives to the campaign world while humans and elves are space explorers/colonists stranded on the planet.

[jakdethe]

Jun 3, 2014 9:07:30 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

The problem with classes as D&D presents them is that they sort of dictate to you a lot of things about the world, such as how magic works. Take those rules out, and now the game is wide open. Also, the fighter-only game allows for a highly S&S approach, and magic as mysterious, otherworldly ,and very dangerous.

This is actually why I thought about this in the first place. Running fighter only brings OD&D closer to my personal background in fantasy, and the literature and media I'm familiar with, IE King Arthur, Robin Hood, the Four Musketeers, etc.

[geoffrey]

I voted "Multiple Games for Different Moods" because I'm a Gemini.

[inkmeister]

Jakdethe, it sounds like you might really enjoy the ideas presented in Searchers of the Unknown. Really though, it is very easy to modify D&D in that direction, so even if SotU isn't exactly what you want, you can get some good ideas from it and easily get OD&D to do the same sort of thing.

I've run fighter only games. My players aren't picky and for us I think it was elegant and fun. My wife in particular is not fond of the very precisely defined and utilitarian nature of magic in D&D, or the rules in general for that matter. A lighter game allows you to do a lot more with the atmosphere and background of your world, which for some players is way more important than having cool powers on the character sheet.

[jakdethe]

I love Searchers of the Unknown, and that's actually one of the things that inspired this train of thought.

I completely agree, as well, with the second paragraph of your post. My wife also hates D&D's built in magic system. I'm actually planning on running a fighter only game soon, with a more Arthurian theme.

[Malcadon]

In ideas for classless, is to allow players to buy advancements with EXP. That is, you can use EXP to improve Ability scores, saves, combat ability, spell-casting ability, thieving ability and so on, on an individual basis. For example, extra HP, THAC0, and extra attacks would be counted as your "Fighting Level". If you only want to get better as a Thief, then put EXP to your "Thieving Level" — it would not improve your HP or THAC0 in any way. High or low Ability scores would not add more or less to earned EXP, but would apply the all related EXP requirements to advanced a stat or ability level. I can even think of a new one called "Leadership Level", that could add to the number of men at your command, so you can play a battlefield General! Naturally, Ability scores would cost the most to advance, as they can adjust the most stats. The combinations of abilities can make for some vary unique class options.

This system would work best with Simon W's Crimson Blades game. Namely, they way it uses secondary stats (Fort/Ref/Will Saves, Lore, Str Feat, etc.), and the Mountebank class is a great social-basted alternative to the agility-based Thief.

On the other hand, if you like to keep it simple like OD&D and Chainmail, you could just keep Combat Level and Magic Level separate, and only use those two classes.