Party Based Classless RPG Suggestions

[SCO]

Blackguards

It does have two 'classes' though at chargen, magic user or not.

 

[Shadowfang]

Classless game is a game that lacks classes. Classes are basicaly restriction to what your character can learn, use, cast and what he can not.
In D&D a Paladin won't be able to get diamond body at level 11 because its a specific to the Monk class.

Classless does mean classess, you just want to bring your own definition to the table.

No. You're saying that by removing class restrictions you're removing classes. But if you have a party of characters, each specialising in different abilities to complement each other, you're still making classes, just in an unrestricted way. we're now just debating the use of the word "classless". I'm quite happy for some elites to have termed an RPG format under a banner of their choosing with whatever word they like - heck, open world very rarely means open world, I've rarely seen a game with infinite borders, but in RPGs it means something different. So, ok, I get you, the term classless in RPGs just means no class restrictions, fine, gotcha.

Classes are not Archetypes. You are melting them together in your definition.
By your definition bumping constituition and picking a shield = tank class?

 

[laclongquan]

What I mean is that what do you intend to gain from the answers without playing those games? Sprouting some knowledge someone teach you in a forum?
Shut up, go play those games, then return, grasshopper!

If you dont understand "classless" concept... what do you think opening your mouth here anyway? Isnt it better to try the games mentioned to experience first hand what it means?

Where else would I ask what people mean by a classless system than in a thread entitled "classless suggestions". I'm sorry, but to me that's just utterly duuuuuuuurrrrrrr...

Sorry if it pains you to have to describe the concept...

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Classes are not Archetypes. You are melting them together in your definition.
By your definition bumping constituition and picking a shield = tank class?

Oh right, we're continuing.

In a party setting, by altering one aspect of one character to be different from another character in your party you are assigning them a different role. Hence role-play, each member of the party has something different to bring to the table (because the gameworld is designed to require different skills in order to complete it). Over time, each member of your team will have different things to do in order to react with different aspects of the game, they will have formed into classes. Most likely a healer (if the game really needs one, who knows, but it's normally common-sense) a magic user, a fighter and a rougue - even if the difference between them all is just the odd stat here or there. You could have 4 sword and shields who all use magic and who all perform rogue duties, but one will probably specialise in lock-picking, one sneaking, one pick-pocketing and one trap-making, just to take advantage of what the game has to offer. I would term a difference that clearly separates the duties of party members as classes, in it's common use in referring to RPGs, but ok, the term class in your eyes means a pre-made named set of abilities and instructions, I get that, it's just semantics, confusing semantics. I have now learned what you mean by classless, job done.

 

[Tigranes]

Yes, everybody calls them classless. Nobody calls them delayed classes. Because they are not delayed. Putting 1 in magic after making your classless character into a sword-wielding pickpocket might be stupid, but you can still do it. In some cool systems, it isn't stupid, and gives you a new dimension that would not be possible in many class games (e.g. having one point in one magic school for a melee oriented guy in D:OS). You're basically starting off with incorrect impressions, and then twisting new information this way and that to try and keep them afloat, reaching untenable strawmen like "if you specialise, it's a class".

Part of it is that you seem incapable of imagining building characters that are not cookie cutter classes or min/max munchkins. First of all, depending on the system, min/max munchkins may end up being a weird mix of skills that would not be possible with many class systems. Second of all, many many people have played classless games in interesting ways. Arcanum isn't a well balanced game but even then you can experiment with going magic/tech hybrid, e.g. a character relying on technology to augment its melee combat capacity while summoning creatures or using magic as melee buffs and protection then going to guns for ranged fire, a Fallout character who is good at Science and Melee and does not deal in guns...

The weird thing is, I'm not arguing against any of that. It was just the whole concept of "classless" that caught me out. You say everyone uses that term. I've never once heard it before. Hence all I did was ask what it meant so I could possibly join in. Ok, so now I know, classless doesn't mean classless it just means freedom to create your own hybrid class. That's cool. I still pretty much agree with Octavius though, sorry if that offends you.

Sorry for being tetchy, but you just seem to be really hung up on the terminology and your arguments against the term are even more pedantic. Anyway, if you're not arguing against any of that, that means the only thing left is pedantics, so I'll move on.

 

[k0syak]

I played some Japanese RPGs (like Labyrinth of Touhou) that have no classes, but the characters are pre-made and pretty much defined by their skills (i.e. the choice is in party composition). Japanese are weird.

 

[CryptRat]

The job system in FF5 differs from the class sytem in AD&D games because there are seperated job experience points. You can switch jobs "whenever you want".

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Ok, now I can give my opinion on this topic. I have played games which like to rebel against the concept of pre-defined class.

My opinion has always been that games that offer someone the opportunity to be a battlemage with thief skills are acquiescing to the screams of spoilt or irritating brats who like to sit in their seats with their arms folded screaming "Why can't I fight with a two-handed broadsword in full armour while casting a fireball from a position of stealth and then be able to heal myself after battle!"

It reminds me of my first reaction to RPG forums over a decade ago when people would post their fun builds for an IE game and this one dude would ALWAYS chime in with:

You don't want to do it like that, that build is shit, what you want to do is solo it with a Mage and use Tenser's Transformation with Stoneskin and Haste, combined with Knock and Mirror Image (for traps) you can solo the whole thing on hard, and no matter what you say this build is everything."

And then we get to 3.0 and 3.5 which basically said "oh what the fuck, pick whatever you want to be out of a hat of whatever".

And now everyone demands battlemages with thief skills except elitists who 'enjoy' playing obscure builds.

This is my highly biased and opinionated diatribe which shouldn't be taken seriously and is more of an old man moaning about kids on his lawn.

 

[Shadowfang]

Classes are not Archetypes. You are melting them together in your definition.
By your definition bumping constituition and picking a shield = tank class?

Oh right, we're continuing.

In a party setting, by altering one aspect of one character to be different from another character in your party you are assigning them a different role. Hence role-play, each member of the party has something different to bring to the table (because the gameworld is designed to require different skills in order to complete it). Over time, each member of your team will have different things to do in order to react with different aspects of the game, they will have formed into classes. Most likely a healer (if the game really needs one, who knows, but it's normally common-sense) a magic user, a fighter and a rougue - even if the difference between them all is just the odd stat here or there. You could have 4 sword and shields who all use magic and who all perform rogue duties, but one will probably specialise in lock-picking, one sneaking, one pick-pocketing and one trap-making, just to take advantage of what the game has to offer. I would term a difference that clearly separates the duties of party members as classes, in it's common use in referring to RPGs, but ok, the term class in your eyes means a pre-made named set of abilities and instructions, I get that, it's just semantics, confusing semantics. I have now learned what you mean by classless, job done.

Google classeless rpg and then delayed classes rpg and compare the results.
Its not an arbitrary expression by an elite hardcore minority, it is just simple English.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Google classeless rpg and then delayed classes rpg and compare the results.
Its not an arbitrary expression by an elite hardcore minority, it is just simple English.

A guy wrote this in 2004:

Either can work and either can be disastrous. I think a lot must be said for matching the system to the setting. In some settings archtypes yield the correct feel. In others, it doesn't matter so much.

Realistically, it's absurd to limit a person's ability to learn certain skills or change their focus at some point in their lives. It's also pretty silly to allow people to change focuses willy-nilly. However, RPGs do not necessarily improve when realism is increased.

Class based systems are definitely easier to balance. Skills based systems are prone to homogeneity after a while.

I prefer skills based systems that use some sort of rules for a natural affinity to perform various skills. Stats can do this if they are integrated well, but I think it's really, really hard to make stats meaningful enough to make sense without making the system a munchkin's playground.

 

[Shadowfang]

That guy seems to know what class and classless means.
You should read more of him.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

That guy seems to know what class and classless means.
You should read more of him.

Not so sure, same guy later wrote:

[Some game] has a decent platform for it, I think, with the varying skill costs based upon profession (class). If you renamed "professions" as natural predilections or affinities, you could then re-introduce professions as a "current focus". The current focus would then modify the unalterable natural tendencies (the ease with which skills are learned for that character). That, my friend, would be cool. Flexible, but not ridiculously so.

Unfortunately, only two other [some game] fans agree with me.

Seems like he's fighting a meaningless battle.

 

[Shadowfang]

He seems to like simulation in his rpgs.
What has that to do with your aversion to the expression classless?

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

He seems to like simulation in his rpgs.
What has that to do with your aversion to the expression classless?

I didn't think he did, he said "However, RPGs do not necessarily improve when realism is increased." Which suggests he prefers logical fantasy rather than realism.
I've already told you my view on the word "classless", I was responding to your request that I look up the topic on google with regards to the issue not being an elitist one, because apparently a deeply knowledgeable segment of a niche hobby is apparently not elitist and this is proven by examples of elitists on the internet having used the word in that context before.

 

[Shadowfang]

I told you to google it so you could see it was a pretty common expression, judging by the amount of results you would get.

About the elitism of the expression, you should go deeper. We can't come up with a conclusion like yours just through one random post on the Internet. You should hurry up, i want your paper on my desk by Monday.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I found this:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4411087#4411087

It's a list of
Released Graphical Classless Skill-based Progression MMORPGs

But when it comes to cRPGs and you type in "list of classless cRPGs" you get fuck all but forum posters asking if there's any classless cRPGs out there and people responding with "this is kinda classless blah blah blah".

 

[Gregz]

I'm looking for some suggestions from the Codex on RPGs that are party based, but don't have specific classes.

Dungeon Master

 

[Flux_Capacitor]

Demon's Winter had a fairly unique system. While there are technically classes, anyone can learn any skill; the only difference is how expensive said skill will be for a class. If you want your Barbarian to blast stuff with Fire Magic, your Wizard to learn Kung Fu, or your Thief to summon demons, the game supported it. The cost of skills pushed a class in a certain direction, but it didn't necessarily mean that's the only thing it could ever do.

 

[Xathrodox86]

Dark Souls and Arcanum come to mind. Also Bloodlines with mods. Shame there are so few of these on the market nowdays.