Classes vs Skills vs Point Buy

[lige]

I think Traveller (in its many editions) has the best alternative to class based character creation. Plenty of options and variety but the life path system makes the min-maxing pretty indirect. Point buy is less exciting to me - I really like discovering who the character is through some level of randomness.

[hamurai]

lige , do you prefer Traveller with deadly character creation or do/did you house-rule that character couldn't die?

Personally, I disliked the fact that characters could die because of an unlucky roll. It was just annoying if you wanted to roll up a character for a quick game but they kept dying.

[lige]

I got started with the Mongoose version but have run through the original character creation as well. I like the finality of dying during generation. It really makes it so you are playing for real stakes in the character creation game. Mongoose replaces that with setback events and sometimes gruesome injuries which are still bad but not as final. I can see both ways working and I like each more than point buy. I'd probably lean more towards dying in character creation though maybe making it a little harder to get that result. I do like the career hopping you can do in Mongoose though (feels right for rootless adventurer types) and that is partially supported by the lack of dying in character creation.

[xerxez]

I'm pretty in love with the class system personally, but I also kind of like the games that let you have a skill package based on regionality or sometimes race. The Middle Earth Roleplaying Game had something like that as I recall (not I.C.E. but the hardcover, photo illustrated edition). If I remember rightly you had varying choices based on terrain, rural and city dweller, etc. If I am misremembering I like the idea anyway. But class is the quickest and easiest and best way for new players, too.

[Mordorandor]

A class-based system is really a skills-based-package system, with some class-based systems being more robust in defining those skills in action.

OD&D is a less robust system in that respect, which is what it is. Some like it, some want more standardization.

I like the OD&D approach, as I get to adjudicate what that looks like for a fighting-man, or say, what that looks like for a Hero or Wizard, often in conversation with players.

It leaves a lot to the imagination, and not everyone likes the uncertainty or the ambiguity.

I find it liberating.

[tdenmark]

Nov 3, 2022 9:40:12 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

A class-based system is really a skills-based-package system, with some class-based systems being more robust in defining those skills in action.

OD&D is a less robust system in that respect, which is what it is. Some like it, some want more standardization.

I like the OD&D approach, as I get to adjudicate what that looks like for a fighting-man, or say, what that looks like for a Hero or Wizard, often in conversation with players.

It leaves a lot to the imagination, and not everyone likes the uncertainty or the ambiguity.

I find it liberating.

Yep. That is what makes classes so effective, you're not hunting through lists of skills that work together in a cohesive character concept. Also the granularity in proficiency improvement is more manageable than tracking individual skills. As much as I like RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu, I find that system clunky.

[howandwhy99]

I think of classes as the entire Focus for the game. It's what the players should choose even if everything else is randomly generated.

All of the game mechanics that create a simulated strategy game world are proportioned on the map so there are challenges enough for every classes,

One of the problem with skill systems is they often don't require prepared game content which directly references the game mechanics the players have on their sheets. This is especially true if those game mechanics, skill lists, aren't relevant to the current plot of a story.

By making a game board with a balanced amount of challenges for every game system in the game, D&D allows for players to determine their objectives, plans, and their own path. This openness is rarely possible for skill mechanics games, but requiring this is not commonly designed into those games.

[hamurai]

Nov 6, 2022 19:18:30 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

All of the game mechanics that create a simulated strategy game world are proportioned on the map so there are challenges enough for every classes,

One of the problem with skill systems is they often don't require prepared game content which directly references the game mechanics the players have on their sheets. This is especially true if those game mechanics, skill lists, aren't relevant to the current plot of a story.

Are you saying that the dungeon exploration "game" has equal opportunity to shine for each class and it's suited for each class in the same amount?

As opposed to a skill-based system where it's possible to select the "wrong" - useless - skills for a specific adventure? - I'm just trying to get you right, here.

[howandwhy99]

Nov 6, 2022 23:04:11 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Nov 6, 2022 19:18:30 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

All of the game mechanics that create a simulated strategy game world are proportioned on the map so there are challenges enough for every classes,

One of the problem with skill systems is they often don't require prepared game content which directly references the game mechanics the players have on their sheets. This is especially true if those game mechanics, skill lists, aren't relevant to the current plot of a story.

Are you saying that the dungeon exploration "game" has equal opportunity to shine for each class and it's suited for each class in the same amount?

As opposed to a skill-based system where it's possible to select the "wrong" - useless - skills for a specific adventure? - I'm just trying to get you right, here.

yes, that's right.

I think this is why skill lists have become smaller and more focused rather than larger of late, as in many earlier games. It's really utility in the game for the player and proportioning game content to their utility.

[hamurai]

Thanks for the clarification.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd argue that because of the Vancian magic system, MUs will still be able to choose wrong spells and thereby be less effective in an adventure.
Additionally, some classes may be better suited for the classic "dungeon exploration game" because they excel with their unique abilities, for example the dwarf's abilities to find stonework traps, the elf's ability to better find secret doors, etc. Sure, elves level may level slowly (depending on how you play the elf FM/MU), but unless the demihumans hit the level cap, they have some big advantages over human adventurers.

I agree, though, that all classes are basically suited for the dungeon exploration game, as you won't be able to create a character who is focused on entirely different abilities, like an investigator or a socialite, which would be possible in skill-based games.

[Marcia B.]

Having used to play 5e in high school, I was actually (initially) really happy to see a move away from class-based character structure to a more piecewise one. Although class matters a lot in old D&D because many things are determined by class (combat capability, leveling costs, saving throws), many things are now based on ability bonuses or otherwise are standard between characters. Rather than serving as a standard shorthand for character ability, classes now serve as packages of features which are often redundant with other classes or are just difficult to grok the specifics of.

Coming from that angle, I was disappointed with the direction of 1D&D because of how hard they kept classes! Not just that, they’re trying really hard to formalize one vast scheme, creating not only a standard number of subclasses for each class, but also grouping all of the classes into four superclasses (IIRC mages, warriors, priests, and “experts”, similar to in AD&D 2e). It all feels convoluted for what feels like an opportunity to cut down the bloat on what has become such a complicated game.

I feel like 5e, at least the way I used to play it (very “OC” style), would benefit a lot from GLOG-style piecewise characters in conjunction with the ability bonus rules which they’re pretending aren’t the major core of the game. So like, rather than being a fighter or a wizard, you start off with two or three traits which encompass the basic abilities of those classes, and then earn more as you level up. I think those who still play it as a dollmaker would really enjoy that sort of flexibility, so long as the pieces weren’t individually too complicated. It would also make it easier, perhaps, to introduce “homebrew” pieces to satisfy players whose character concepts aren’t easily reconcilable with the book.

To be clear, though, that’s just my preference with respect to the 5e I used to play! It is such a different game from old D&D in so many respects, but of course the new direction is failing to meet those wants as well. Yet it seems like they have long given up on trying to be like old D&D, and are now instead trying to compromise between 3e style powergamers and OC-style loosey goosey players. A bold move!

[dwayanu]

Oct 10, 2022 22:32:26 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Yeah, I had great fun with Champions until I figured out how to "break" the point-buy system, then I had no interest in playing. Once you find a couple of loopholes you sort of wonder why you bother to play the game anymore.

I find a lot of interest in the system beyond the point values. The authors did not lead me to expect the latter to be, off the shelf, any more than a good starting point for assessment — which is more than we got with V&V (or later with MSH or Golden Heroes)!

With so many possibilities for powers with unanticipated synergies, plus potential variations in context from one campaign to another, there’s only so much a fixed point-build paradigm can handle.

What I’ve always favored is the ‘modeling’ approach, just getting down a good depiction of the character concept. If a points scheme then helps the Mark I Eyeball figure out for which adventures that character is suitable, that’s frosting on the cake.

There might be a scenario in which it’s interesting to have Marvel’s Daredevil, Luke Cage, Doctor Strange and Thor working together. More commonly, though, it’s easy to see that we’re looking at two separate team-ups. The motley crew is something that tends to work better in the comics than in games.

[dwayanu]

Oct 12, 2022 23:15:58 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Agreed!

We've tried BoL's career skill system for D&D, too, and it worked. Every level, the player could put a point into a fitting career. Then we used the career level as modifier for a d20-roll when attempting stuff which fit the career.
It's similar to the background skill system of AD&D, only there you determine the skills before play and cannot improve them.

That strikes me as a good idea, perhaps especially if you’re not limited to a predefined menu of occupations. Your notations can reflect the character’s actual domain of experience over the course of each level.

The drawback for a certain demographic of players is the need for rulings as to what’s applicable to a given situation. Those players prefer to have it more cut and dried.

[dwayanu]

I’m an old enthusiast for RuneQuest (to which I’ll soon be returning with Chaosium’s latest edition).

One notable difference from most other systems is that skills are not a strict zero-sum resource management game. You have only so much time (and perhaps a shortage of money) for formal training, but can potentially get the benefit of experience for any and all skills you use in an adventure. At least by the old rules, maximum rate of improvement is half from one and half from the other.

That means a ‘build’ is not everything, and you might even be surprised by some aspects in which you end up remarkably competent without formal training.

[dwayanu]

Oct 27, 2022 6:23:06 GMT -6 makofan said:

Oct 11, 2022 8:10:29 GMT -6 tombowings said:

DragonQuest is another game that gets skills right. It gets a lot else wrong, but I love the skill system.

One of these days, I'll have to run a DQ PBP. I'm really sure where to run it though. I only really frequent this forum. (You guys are just so cool.)

I plan to run a DQ pBp set in Tarantis (Judges Guid) one of these days

Count me as another likely to be interested in playing!

I will say that some players have found the character generation process too much effort for too little in return. In my experience, a solution was to give a ‘kicker’ of initial EP to spend. Another 3000 worked well. Per 86.4, that’s equivalent to 200 days of non-adventuring experience, or (86.2) to 5 adventures in which the party failed to accomplish its mission.

Of course this means the PCs are not “just off the farm,” but one can encourage a player to fill in some of that biography and so flesh out the stats more into a real character.