How Many Classes Works 4 You

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I'm not seeing how the two classes of TFT complicate character advancement. There are no levels, and skills and spells are simply a matter of having them or not (you roll against your attributes when using a skill, and attributes can be increased through character advancement as well). The only thing it does is make you pay double for skills if you're a Wizard, and double for spells if you're a Hero. There's no real complication there.

Technically there is (sort of :tongue: ), but if skills and spells are just a one-off purchase and they're the only thing affected, then yeah... the system's so simple overall the added complexity of increasing those costs by class vs having universal costs would be minimal.

I'm still not sure much is accomplished by handling ability costs like that vs just using universal costs if the system is essentially skill-based.
 
Technically there is (sort of :tongue: ), but if skills and spells are just a one-off purchase and they're the only thing affected, then yeah... the system's so simple overall the added complexity of increasing those costs by class vs having universal costs would be minimal.

I'm still not sure much is accomplished by handling ability costs like that vs just using universal costs if the system is essentially skill-based.
I mean, you'd have to ask Steve Jackson why he designed it that way, but the way I see it is that what it does is essentially enforce the genre thing of "Heroes with maybe a few magical tricks, Sorcerers with some knowledge skills and maybe some combat skills. The combat system works similarly in that wearing armor reduces your hit chance, so a warrior deprived of all armor is not worse off in all ways. This is unrealistic, but it does help with making situations like typical Frazetta drawings where Conan has lost all his armor and is fighting in a loincloth much less shitty for the warrior. Similarly with say being attacked at a banquet, the hero who usually depends on their armor isn't completely screwed there. In general, the ruleset is all about tradeoffs as well, and this is another one of those. All three stats are important for most all character types. Strength defines what you can carry, how much damage you do unarmed and what weapons you can carry, but is also what powers spells and your hit points (so you're burning hit points when casting spells). Dexterity is rolled to succeed with most physical type skills, to hit in combat and to successfully cast spells. Intelligence defines what level of talents and spells you can select, including a bunch of combat related ones, and is rolled for all mental skills. There's point buy character creation and everything is a tradeoff. So this is just another one of them which fits right into the game, as well as reinforcing genre conceits.

The one bit of real extra complication is that there are a couple of skills that cost the same for Heroes and Wizards, Literacy and Alchemy are the two that come to mind but there might be one more, and then Languages are a third category bought the same way that is identical in cost. But the game system is very simple so that should be only a very minor mental speedbump for most.
 
My actual preference if you're going low classes is actually to go all the way down to none. Let people build the character they want through stat gen and off a list of abilities. Vagabonds of Dyfed does it that way and it's pretty slick.
 
My actual preference if you're going low classes is actually to go all the way down to none. Let people build the character they want through stat gen and off a list of abilities. Vagabonds of Dyfed does it that way and it's pretty slick.
Just a quick note, Sigil Stone, including Vagabonds (and Five Torches Deep) is currently 50% off on DTRPG.
 
The Leader shows up in pure form sometimes though. Daenerys Targaryen is neither a fighter, a wizard or a rogue, she’s pretty much just a leader. Similar with Ariel from Disney’s The Little Mermaid (don’t think it fits for H C Andersen’s story) and some other Disney princesses.
Actually, she'd fit under the Wizard archetype, because she's educated and a thinker. Remember, some of them actually use Magic! But not all do.

Of course, in certain more authentically medieval games, the three major social Classes are:

Those who labour (peasants)
Those who fight (nobles)
Those who pray (clergy)

So maybe the Cleric is worthy as a Class after all?
Two of which do not fight, thus kinda useless for an RPG game based on adventuring. Not saying you're inaccurate, you're not, but I was talking in context of sources that D&D uses.
 
Actually, she'd fit under the Wizard archetype, because she's educated and a thinker. Remember, some of them actually use Magic! But not all do.
Eh, Jon Snow is educated too, as are Ned Stark and Jaime Lannister, but they're still warriors. Importantly, almost nothing Daenerys accomplishes is based on her education. If I was making classes to try to capture the feel of the Game of Thrones tv show I'd have three classes (and I'd actually have classes, rather than choosing a more open rule base): The Fighter (Jon Snow, The Hound, Brienne), the Schemer (Tyrion Lannister, Margaery Tyrell, Littlefinger) and Magic (Daenerys, Melisandre, Arya Stark). Fighters then are those who are good at fighting, Schemers are those who are good at scheming, and Magic people have some special ability (being able to change faces, having dragons, knowing blood magic). Leadership would then be available to all classes as an optional. Then there'd of course be NPC mooks (Random soldiers, Random slaver nobles, Jaime Lannister) who aren't good at anything.
 
When noble = warrior that is often how that looks, yeah. They aren't 'normal' warriors for the setting though, or even close.
 
When noble = warrior that is often how that looks, yeah. They aren't 'normal' warriors for the setting though, or even close.
Normal warriors for the setting isn’t super relevant, the relevant parts are if they’d be normal for PCs, and in a game based on the tv-show or books, yeah the warrior from a noble family should not be an unusual archetype.
 
Normal warriors for the setting isn’t super relevant, the relevant parts are if they’d be normal for PCs, and in a game based on the tv-show or books, yeah the warrior from a noble family should not be an unusual archetype.
I was pointing out that they aren't normal for warriors, full stop, although they are perfectly normal for noble warriors in many settings. We're talking about the distribution of skills across classes right?
 
I was pointing out that they aren't normal for warriors, full stop, although they are perfectly normal for noble warriors in many settings. We're talking about the distribution of skills across classes right?
No, we’re talking about whether Daenerys qualifies as a Wizard archetype just because she is educated, even though that isn’t her primary way of interfacing with the game world.
 
No, we’re talking about whether Daenerys qualifies as a Wizard archetype just because she is educated, even though that isn’t her primary way of interfacing with the game world.
That seems silly. Wizards are rare in most settings and have no monopoly on learning. Why would anyone even try to argue that?
 
That seems silly. Wizards are rare in most settings and have no monopoly on learning. Why would anyone even try to argue that?
You might have someone on ignore, because that’s exactly what C Chris Brady was arguing and why I responded to him. You’ll have to ask him, or wait for him to reply to me, but I think Chris puts Wizards and Learned in the same archetype, which could make sense in some areas, but I think for someone to fit into that archetype they’d have to use their learning as a tool for solving problems, which isn’t really Daeny’s thing.
 
Last edited:
You might have someone on ignore, because that’s exactly what C Chris Brady was arguing and why I responded to him. You’ll have to ask him, or wait for him to reply to me, but I think Chris puts Wizards and Learned in the same archetype, which could make sense in some areas, but I think for someone to fit into that archetype they’d have to use their learning as a tool for solving problems, which isn’t really Darby’s thing.
Yeah, that's some silly shit. Nobles are learned, guildsmen are learned, priests are learned, even some crazy commoners are learned, blah blah. Arguing differently seems like a waste of breath.
 
Eh, Jon Snow is educated too, as are Ned Stark and Jaime Lannister, but they're still warriors. Importantly, almost nothing Daenerys accomplishes is based on her education. If I was making classes to try to capture the feel of the Game of Thrones tv show I'd have three classes (and I'd actually have classes, rather than choosing a more open rule base): The Fighter (Jon Snow, The Hound, Brienne), the Schemer (Tyrion Lannister, Margaery Tyrell, Littlefinger) and Magic (Daenerys, Melisandre, Arya Stark). Fighters then are those who are good at fighting, Schemers are those who are good at scheming, and Magic people have some special ability (being able to change faces, having dragons, knowing blood magic). Leadership would then be available to all classes as an optional. Then there'd of course be NPC mooks (Random soldiers, Random slaver nobles, Jaime Lannister) who aren't good at anything.
:grin:

Sounds like a good way to model it at a macro level.
 
Eh, Jon Snow is educated too, as are Ned Stark and Jaime Lannister, but they're still warriors. Importantly, almost nothing Daenerys accomplishes is based on her education. If I was making classes to try to capture the feel of the Game of Thrones tv show I'd have three classes (and I'd actually have classes, rather than choosing a more open rule base): The Fighter (Jon Snow, The Hound, Brienne), the Schemer (Tyrion Lannister, Margaery Tyrell, Littlefinger) and Magic (Daenerys, Melisandre, Arya Stark). Fighters then are those who are good at fighting, Schemers are those who are good at scheming, and Magic people have some special ability (being able to change faces, having dragons, knowing blood magic). Leadership would then be available to all classes as an optional. Then there'd of course be NPC mooks (Random soldiers, Random slaver nobles, Jaime Lannister) who aren't good at anything.
The Song of Ice and Fire rpg (which while flawed system wise, is conceptually a pretty good take) doesn't actually have any classes.

But taking it's approach to turning the system into a structured playstyle as cue there would probably be two classes: Warriors and Schemers (Or perhaps Fighters and Talkers). Each of these things has it's own structured minigame and approach, and the way it is designed means that Schemers basically replaced wizards in the scheme of things.

(Basically from what I saw using the point buy system, players tend to instinctively gravitate their characters into being primarily warriors or schemers - there really isn't enough points to be good at both, and if you're good at neither you can't really contribute effectively to the spotlight enhancing minigames).

There is also mass combat as an additional minigame, so you could perhaps have a third class, Strategist - but I suspect a lot of games wouldn't do much with mass combat.

Magic in the Song of Ice and Fire rpg isn't really significant enough to be character defining, it's more similar to Adventures in Middle Earth (where magic is outside the class system) in being something extra you can buy.
 
If I were to do a Song of Ice and Fire game and was compelled to give it classes, I would be sorely tempted to base them on The Seven:

The Father, The Mother, The Warrior, The Smith, The Maiden, The Crone, and The Stranger
 
Like I said, it isn’t realistic, but it’s part of the genre emulation and trade-off system.
I know. That's why I was just grumbling, too:thumbsup:.
At least it doesn't pretend to be realistic, AFAIK.
 
No, we’re talking about whether Daenerys qualifies as a Wizard archetype just because she is educated, even though that isn’t her primary way of interfacing with the game world.
Daenerys is clearly a Beastmaster who has been working on her diplomacy skills, she just never should have taken that arrogance disadvantage to get extra character points. :smile: Seriously as player she wanted the whole campaign to revolve around her backstory, all those players who were Baratheons the GM took care of them...and in the end one of the players got tired of her need for the spotlight too :smile:

These shows can be very amusing when describe as a RPG, ala Darth & Droids. I recently watched all the Madalorian, and swear there is some 4th wall breaking like these are characters in an RPG.
 
That seems silly. Wizards are rare in most settings and have no monopoly on learning. Why would anyone even try to argue that?

Yeah, that's some silly shit. Nobles are learned, guildsmen are learned, priests are learned, even some crazy commoners are learned, blah blah. Arguing differently seems like a waste of breath.

You might have someone on ignore, because that’s exactly what C Chris Brady was arguing and why I responded to him. You’ll have to ask him, or wait for him to reply to me, but I think Chris puts Wizards and Learned in the same archetype, which could make sense in some areas, but I think for someone to fit into that archetype they’d have to use their learning as a tool for solving problems, which isn’t really Darby’s thing.
In the context of an RPG, especially D&D, yes they actually do.
 
I kind of feel like the question is the wrong question.

I mean, you first have to ask "What is the purpose of Classes in this game?" before you can even ask this question.
 
I kind of feel like the question is the wrong question.

I mean, you first have to ask "What is the purpose of Classes in this game?" before you can even ask this question.

Yeah. As I said, I don't think its exactly a given classes are necessary. That doesn't mean they can't sometimes serve a purpose, but you need to decide what that purpose or purposes are and see if a class structure will serve those purposes best (and decide whether the cost of having them is worth it).
 
Daenerys is clearly a Beastmaster who has been working on her diplomacy skills, she just never should have taken that arrogance disadvantage to get extra character points. :smile: Seriously as player she wanted the whole campaign to revolve around her backstory, all those players who were Baratheons the GM took care of them...and in the end one of the players got tired of her need for the spotlight too :smile:

These shows can be very amusing when describe as a RPG, ala Darth & Droids. I recently watched all the Madalorian, and swear there is some 4th wall breaking like these are characters in an RPG.
A lot of good films or tv-shows would be absolutely dreadful rpg campaigns, while more ho-hum films or shows might represent some really fun play sessions. I like to explain The Big Lebowski as a convention game gone very wrong.
 
... I like to explain The Big Lebowski as a convention game gone very wrong.
Indeed, one where The Dude player was actually drinking white Russian after white Russian, you know to be in character man. I can respect that. The really interesting thing, it was supposed to be an RPG about competitive bowling but the GM turned it into a kidnap mystery.
 
Indeed, one where The Dude player was actually drinking white Russian after white Russian, you know to be in character man. I can respect that. The really interesting thing, it was supposed to be an RPG about competitive bowling but the GM turned it into a kidnap mystery.
To me, the guy playing The Dude is the most serious player, he just got stuck with the kind of useless character who is only really there for tying it all together with the Big Lebowski. Walter meanwhile has a minor background note that he fought in Vietnam, but a lot more about Cynthia and the conversion to Judaism etc. But the player is the kind of guy who always plays combat monsters so he went full hog on the Vietnam thing, always brings weapons with him etc. Donny is a character with a lot of skills, but his player is basically falling asleep and barely contributes anything. The fourth player was supposed to play the PI but he never showed up, so in the end the role with the most investigative skills went unplayed. In the end Walter ends up ruining most of the plans with violence, and Donny's player rolled badly for his drawback "weak heart" in the fight at the end just when he woke up.
 
Technically there is (sort of :tongue: ), but if skills and spells are just a one-off purchase and they're the only thing affected, then yeah... the system's so simple overall the added complexity of increasing those costs by class vs having universal costs would be minimal.

I'm still not sure much is accomplished by handling ability costs like that vs just using universal costs if the system is essentially skill-based.
Seriously, if the fact that if you are a Wizard non-spells cost x2 and if a Warrior spells cost x3 is too much for you not sure what RPG would be "simple." In all my 40+ years of gaming have ever heard anyone call this aspect of TFT complicated.

Just because one is not used to it doesn't make it complicated. Perhaps, one could just pencil in the two costs in the rule book, instead of relying on the ability to multiple by 2 or 3 on the fly and trying to remember there are two "classes" and which one you are. Also one can use a 4"x6" index card instead of a 3"x5" index card so you have room to note if you are a Wizard or a Warrior.

The reason for the cost differential is simple, it creates two roles: spell caster vs. non-spell caster. In that one cannot equally and as easily be as good with a sword as with spells. The difference in cost is THE minimal way to have this distinction, far more than crafting classes, or other rules, and also allows for maximum player choice.
 
I kind of feel like the question is the wrong question.

I mean, you first have to ask "What is the purpose of Classes in this game?" before you can even ask this question.
They are recognizable archetypes, that are used to represent heroes commonly found in both literature and consequently gaming. Now, ideally they're BROAD, allowing for a wide variety of types to exist. The D&D Fighter for example can cover all things from Knights, Gladiators, Peasant Heroes and Mercenaries, and many more in between, but the key point is HOW they deal with the challenges ahead of them.

Unfortunately, the human need to compartmentalize and make more things to cover 'edge cases' tends to create class bloat especially in D&D..
 
In the context of an RPG, especially D&D, yes they actually do.
No, they don't. If the archetype was Learned, and there existed possibilities for magic that would be one thing, but it makes no sense don't the other way round. Learned people in a faux-medieval setting are not a subset of Wizard.
 
No, they don't. If the archetype was Learned, and there existed possibilities for magic that would be one thing, but it makes no sense don't the other way round. Learned people in a faux-medieval setting are not a subset of Wizard.
Have to agree, in faux-medieval Learned = Can Read = Reads (and maybe Writes/Copies) = Monk (of the religious variety). Which was very much an archetype of the day.

Wizards are a sub-set of the Learned, devious and likely heretical ones. That is why it is always a good idea to burn certain books, lest they corrupt the mind of a monk weak in the faith. Were are talking Europe I hope.
 
I was kind of assuming a European Faux-Medieval setting since that's pretty much the standard for fantasy. Obviously this could be handled in a bunch of different ways, and many games do.
 
Have to agree, in faux-medieval Learned = Can Read = Reads (and maybe Writes/Copies) = Monk (of the religious variety). Which was very much an archetype of the day.

Wizards are a sub-set of the Learned, devious and likely heretical ones. That is why it is always a good idea to burn certain books, lest they corrupt the mind of a monk weak in the faith. Were are talking Europe I hope.
In a real world, historical context? Absolutely. No argument from me. But in a gaming context? The magic using healer is a D&D construct and subset of the Magic User/Wizard, with a touch of Fighter.

I'm honestly not sure what we're arguing. I'm talking from a gaming context, namely classes.
 
In a real world, historical context? Absolutely. No argument from me. But in a gaming context? The magic using healer is a D&D construct and subset of the Magic User/Wizard, with a touch of Fighter.

I'm honestly not sure what we're arguing. I'm talking from a gaming context, namely classes.

And I'm saying that Daenerys doesn't fit under that class heading because she doesn't solve problems that way. She is educated, yes, but so is Jon Snow and Eddard Stark (he is apparently a good scribe too, not too common for a lord at the time I think) and they would clearly fit into a Fighter class because that is how they tend to solve problems and approach the world. Daenerys doesn't approach the world from a perspective of learning, her highest stat is clearly Charisma, rather than Intelligence. In Game of Thrones Tyrion Lannister or Samwell Taryl fit much more clearly into the "Wizard/Learned" archetype. Their first go to when trying to solve a problem is to hit the books. That's not Daenerys Targaryen, her first go to is "Fire and Blood".
 
And I'm saying that Daenerys doesn't fit under that class heading because she doesn't solve problems that way. She is educated, yes, but so is Jon Snow and Eddard Stark (he is apparently a good scribe too, not too common for a lord at the time I think) and they would clearly fit into a Fighter class because that is how they tend to solve problems and approach the world. Daenerys doesn't approach the world from a perspective of learning, her highest stat is clearly Charisma, rather than Intelligence. In Game of Thrones Tyrion Lannister or Samwell Taryl fit much more clearly into the "Wizard/Learned" archetype. Their first go to when trying to solve a problem is to hit the books. That's not Daenerys Targaryen, her first go to is "Fire and Blood".
Again, it's HOW they deal with problems. Jon Snow is a fighter, because he deals with issues head on. Yes, yes, it doesn't map word for word, but they're archetypes. Thinker over Doer, I suppose you might say.
 
Again, it's HOW they deal with problems. Jon Snow is a fighter, because he deals with issues head on. Yes, yes, it doesn't map word for word, but they're archetypes. Thinker over Doer, I suppose you might say.
Yes, it’s how they deal with problems, and Daeny isn’t a thinker, which is exactly what I said. She doesn’t ponder things deeply, she too prefers to deal with issues head on. Tyrion is a thinker. Samwell is a thinker. Jon Snow is a deeper thinker than Daeny generally. Daenerys Targaryen is a doer, but she doesn’t map onto the fighter archetype because she doesn’t personally fight. Hence she doesn’t fit either of those two classes.
 
Yes, it’s how they deal with problems, and Daeny isn’t a thinker, which is exactly what I said. She doesn’t ponder things deeply, she too prefers to deal with issues head on. Tyrion is a thinker. Samwell is a thinker. Jon Snow is a deeper thinker than Daeny generally. Daenerys Targaryen is a doer, but she doesn’t map onto the fighter archetype because she doesn’t personally fight. Hence she doesn’t fit either of those two classes.
To be fair, I'm not that knowlegeable of GOT beyond the first book I read years ago. So, she might be a 'fighter', rather than a Wizard. But again, it's less how educated they are, but how they use what they know on how to resolves their challenges.
 
To be fair, I'm not that knowlegeable of GOT beyond the first book I read years ago. So, she might be a 'fighter', rather than a Wizard. But again, it's less how educated they are, but how they use what they know on how to resolves their challenges.
I've not read any of the books, but in the show Daenerys is clearly not a "knowledge worker", but nor is she a fighter. She isn't a cunning thief type either. Hence why I'm saying she represents a character type that doesn't fit into the archetypes you set up earlier, which is a character who primarily acts through leadership, charisma, inspiring loyalty etc. Lots of Disney princesses fit into this category. They have no fighting or sneaking ability of their own, but they do have incredibly loyal companions, such as Ariel's fish and crab (the crab is even assigned to spy on her and eventually joins her group of followers, changing loyalties), or the animals of Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty or Snow White.

A perfect example of this in the Game of Thrones show, with a character other than Daeny, is when Catelyn Stark meets Tyrion Lannister at an inn in season one. When he recognizes her she gets everyone in the hall on her side and then gets them to arrest Tyrion and help her bring him to her sister. Most typically in fiction this character archetype will be women because men are expected to know how to fight, but you might find some man in some story who fits into the role.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top