Grunker said:
I said it was bullshit after which I pointed out why.
You did, did you? Well, I must have missed it. Let's take a look together, shall we?
"Case in point: GURPS. With limited access to points and a HUGE variety of stuff to buy with them, it doesn't matter that there are no classes. The limits of the points will have each character focusing on different things thus entirely voiding the class-based argument. Different builds will fill different roles regardless. I play Pen&Paper extensively and in many systems, and if a GM can handle it, class-less systems make for much better, tactical and deep experiences than class-based ones, also when it comes to party-based combat. In essence, no-class systems are actually better at party-based combat. Why? Because class-based systems offer a tight set of roles - Tank, Healer, Mage, Rogue, so on. Basically whatever the designer put in. Class-systems offer unlimited variations within the options (skills n' stuffies) they present, only limited by the player's imagination and the system's efficiency in making different combinations viable. And a designer shouldn't fret that not everything is viable. That's part of the thought process in character customization. If no builds fail, no builds are good i.e. I care less about thinking about my build and less about customization overall. "
Hmm... Let's break it down:
- GURPS is awesome, each character will focus on different things, thus it's better than class-based, no proof why you simply must focus your characters on different things is given
- Classless systems are better, deeper, wider, more tactical than class-based one? Proof? I play PnP extensively! Ergo, "in essence no-class systems are better"! Mmmkay.
- Why? Because class-based offer a fixed set of roles. Why is it bad? Because class-based systems are limited by the designers, whereas skill-based systems, given to us by God, are limited only by our imagination. If you say so.
How is 5 standard roles better than "built-your-own"?
Than build your own what? As if skill-based systems are magical and you can create anything you want.
How is less customizability better than more? The easy answer would be: Because it's simpler simpler to balance! But you just said that wasn't the case.
This argument is based on a hell of an assumption: any skill-based system is more customizable than any class-based system. Which game has a better character system: ToEE or Fallout (which, coincidentally, is based on GURPS)? Or Fallout: Tactics, if you want to compare apple-to-apple, or Avernum (it has classes but it's actually skill-based)? Please explain your answer.
I've designed rule-systems as big as 300 pages and as small as 5. Let me tell you, game-balance is a bitch. But maybe you're superman, I dunno. Or maybe it's easier to handle in a game? I don't know, in my mind, it makes sense that a single character using a simple systems is much easier to balance than a large party with a complex system. Maybe the world of computing works under different rules.
Got it. Balancing a complex class-based system is an impossible task, which explains why it's never been done.
Then again, it can't be that simple when an ultra-simple system on one character can fuck the balance up so bad (see: TWITCHERII)
It doesn't look like they gave it much of a thoughts. Some issues are way too obvious. You can't play the game and not notice them.