Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A decent amount of PbtA games might qualify? Playbooks in PbtA games feel closer to "class" than they do to "template" to me, as the abilities/"moves" are chosen and improved mostly from a list of things specific to the playbooks, rather than from a general list of abilities. Maybe playbooks are their own kind of thing.Im trying to think of one but can't, is there are game that uses classes that doesn't have levels, or do the two concepts always go together?
Too often class is used by some players to justify "that's what my would do because he is a [insert class]".
Why is that bad? Isn't that what they should be doing?
Only a problem if it's defined as a problem? No real people were hurt by those exploits...It depends, I guess.
If a cleric or paladin wants to heal a wounded and helpless enemy, that's good.
But if it's a barbarian just behaving rudely to people. a rogue stealing from or backstabbing a random NPC, or a bard seducing everything in sight...
I fail to see the issue with either.It depends, I guess.
If a cleric or paladin wants to heal a wounded and helpless enemy, that's good.
But if it's a barbarian just behaving rudely to people. a rogue stealing from or backstabbing a random NPC, or a bard seducing everything in sight...
Players only see what they are exposed to - so unless you as GM are bored with what your NPCs can do , classes don't especially limit this. 13th Age, for example, has a load of varieties of opponent for the PC's, including abilities that the PCs don't have. Most NPCs IME don't have powers that impact on the players (unless they are enemies). What impacts on the players is the NPC's personality, role in the game society and what they can do for or to the players.I really disliked classes for a good 20 years but now I am more mellow towards them.
My current feeling is not so much that they constrain the players as there are always more classes than PCs so everyone can do their own thing. But their weakness is that they limit what the NPCs feel like and you can end up with dozens of interchangeable NPCs in terms of their abilities if the GM is not careful.
Im trying to think of one but can't, is there are game that uses classes that doesn't have levels, or do the two concepts always go together?
I think playbooks are great for a system where the players are only going to play one campaign. However for repeat campaigns in the same system, I find the playbook starts to recreate the same feeling characters, given the size and scope of most playbook RPGs, this isn't a big issue.Depends on how you define it, but I'd define just about every modern system that uses playbooks (PbtA, FitD, etc) as using "classes but not levels". More than templates, playbooks typically mildly or strongly restrain future character development to choices from the playbook.
Only a problem if it's defined as a problem? No real people were hurt by those exploits...
I kind of reverse it in one. One can buys skills to qualify for certain pre-made setting customized classes, and qualification provides benefits. So you have a bunch of ingredients, but here are some recipes for dishes well suited to the genre, make them and be rewarded...don't worry if you don't want to cook we have pre-mades...with a little flexibility (you can add salt or pepper as you wish)..in the frozen isles.I always thought Shadowrun's* combination of priority and point-buy was interesting. For those not familiar, you have 5 overall categories of character aspects: Race, Magic, Attributes, Skills, and Resources, and you categorize them from A to E, each priority giving you more points to spend (or money), or in the case of race and magic, I think to play anything besides a human, Race had to be priority A, and certain types of magic users required a certain priority assigned to Magical Ability.
It worked well, haven't seen any other games use that approach ( I guess White Wolf was close)
*1st edition and 2nd, I haven't read the newer editions so don't know if they are the same
I always though that was the role of the CA alignment (chaotic a**hat)It is a problem if players use their characters' classes to justify their antisocial and disruptive behaviours, at the detriment of the other players around the table.
....
Don't play with fucking wankers solves a lot of these problems. My gaming time is too precious to spend it rolling my eyes at somebody's attention-seeking edgelord shenanigans.
Fuck yeah that's the tip for just about everythingDon't play with fucking wankers solves a lot of these problems. My gaming time is too precious to spend it rolling my eyes at somebody's attention-seeking edgelord shenanigans.
If their play is spoiling the fun of others at the table, sure that's a problem. But I don't think classes are the reason, they are a justification. It's perfectly easy to create sociopaths, lechers and boorish characters in any system.It is a problem if players use their characters' classes to justify their antisocial and disruptive behaviours, at the detriment of the other players around the table.
Class does not always imply a certain alignment, or an outlook on life or character goals.
The more "religious" classes like clerics, paladins, and monks may come with certain alignment limitations and obligations, but that is because those classes are also in-world "backgrounds".
Likewise, "barbarity" and "rangerhood" may imply certain outlook on life, but to interprete these as "rude, lacking social awareness, and screwing up the party's attempts at diplomacy every time" and "loner, always scouting apart from the party" respectively get old quickly.
Worse still are players who interprete class as repetitive, near-compulsive, and stereotyped behaviours, like the horny bard and the kleptomaniac rouge.
Sure, no real world persons are hurt by these actions, but unless your GM and fellow players also enjoy this way of playing, then it may harm everyone's fun around the table; not a heinous crime, but surely that is opposite of what we are trying to achieve?
It is a problem if players use their characters' classes to justify their antisocial and disruptive behaviours, at the detriment of the other players around the table.
I'm not a fan of using RPG game systems to try and fix psychological issues.
I'm not a fan of using RPGs as therapy, either. Despite roleplay having uses as a therapeutic technique.I'm not a fan of using RPG game systems to try and fix psychological issues.
An asshole is an asshole, regardless of the game.
I don't believe I suggested that they should.
Sorry for any misinterpretation on my part. What people are comfortable with at different tables varies, and we have different trigger points. I really dislike torture of NPCs (even of evil ones) by PCs. I will present the fact of torture having happened in games as I like to go quite dark - kind of heroic fantasy horror - but always as a horrible evil to be addressed.My original post on this thread reads:
I like them.
They let the other players in the party know what our character is good at, and what he is not so good at. There is niche protection and it plays to the tactical or game side of the game.
That said, stats and skills are only half of a character - the other half is personality, which is something the player has free rein over.
Too often class is used by some players to justify "that's what my would do because he is a [insert class]".
=
That is not a criticism of Class-based rules, but a criticism of the behaviour of some players. To put my original words another way: Class is good from the rules point of view, but rules for Classes do not control how players roleplay their characters.
As for what I was referring to as a problem, it was in response to zanshin's question of why "a barbarian just behaving rudely to people. a rogue stealing from or backstabbing a random NPC, or a bard seducing everything in sight..." was a problem to me.
Again, the criticism was not the existence of Classes, but how players played their characters.
Finally, I still don't believe I suggested RPGs to be used to fix psychological issues.
Yeah, this last part. OTOH, I've found, empirically, that people who plan on doing something like this often find a class system because they believe you can use your class as justification.If their play is spoiling the fun of others at the table, sure that's a problem. But I don't think classes are the reason, they are a justification. It's perfectly easy to create sociopaths, lechers and boorish characters in any system.
But equally unless the ethos of your game is high toned, someone being uncouth as a barbarian is perfectly fair play, and thats why the Greeks named them barbarians. Stealing as a thief - whats the issue? Non parity of resources? That they fail and that disrupts the play? Or that you don't like the idea of people stealing things. Someone being avidly promiscous - I certainly would not want to roleplay anything more than mild flirtation with them, but otherwise it's just an expression of a character. If they are being sexist or making other people uncomfortable with overly sexual description, sure thats a problem.
People often have tics to denote a characters behaviour. If a player wants to be anti social then thats the issue. Not classes.
Agreed, same with my knocking on alignment.It just seemed like your criticism was based upon the idea that an abusive player might abuse classes, as if that was something inherently wrong with classes, as you said:
"It [ referrring to the statement "Too often class is used by some players to justify "that's what my would do because he is a [insert class]".] is a problem if players use their characters' classes to justify their antisocial and disruptive behaviours, at the detriment of the other players around the table."
I simply don't think that is a problem with classes (or any specific system element), it's a behavioural problem with some players.
I personally prefer a nerve induction box and Gom Jabbar;... "It kills only chaotic a**hats. Let's say I am suggesting you are human." Found that to be a most effective session zero.I don't see what Skinner Boxes have to do with classes.
Skinner boxes are all about reinforcement (preferably variable and with increasing intervals).
....