Is there really a point to using classes anymore?

>desperately to sidestep the actual question
Hit a little close to home, did I?

Sorry user: your opinions aren't valuable to others.

The only value in engaging with you, that I can see, is the entertainment I find in putting stupid people down for spewing stupid things.

It's petty, but I'm bored.

Ofcourse its useful, ya ever tried writing a background for an individual jack of all trades every single campaign? Besides, a class is a job or sometimes just a wavy shallow description.

>can you provide an actual reason though
Yes. Fun.

So you admit that you had nothing to add and you're just wasting my time, gotcha.

user, you're wasting all of our time. You are asking us to present "arguments" about what we find enjoyable.

This is maybe a topic for neurologists. But has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of class systems in RPGs.

So no actually reason, gotcha.

Just because a system doesn't use classes doesn't mean that everyone is a jack-of-all-trades.

It's great for people who are new to the game. Remember, modern D&D is often used as a training wheels game for people who are new to the hobby. Classes make it easier to learn. Have you ever tried teaching ShadowRun to someone who has never played a TTRPG before?

Ideally, it would make it easier to balance, not harder, and to make a character. Balance because you know what a given character will be capable of and don't have to look at as many permutations, and character-building because you pick a class, choose a few numbers that go well with the class, and go. Whether these goals are accomplished by most class-based systems is a different discussion.

Nigga, if you think he's shitposting, then don't argue. All it does is make them more inclined to shitpost for the sweet, sweet (you)s.

Classes give you limits to what your character can do. It's pretty well known limits and obstacles are wellsprings of creativity. My level 5 Fighter is mechanically identical to your level 5 Fighter, forcing me to do something to distinguish them through roleplay

5e does remove some of the fluff pidgeonholing, but overall it's still a game for people who like noble paladins and clever wizards.

>They're hard to balance properly, they force you into very narrow range of specializations, a lot of the fluff pigeonholds you into specific archtypes like the grizzled war veteran or the pious paladin,

All that is the result of class proliferation. More and more classes means that each individual class ends up being narrower and narrower, and more often built not on a broad archetype that you can fit a lot of different characters under, but rather on a mechanical gimmick that the creator thought was neat.

>and more often than not there isn't really a point to having two characters that are the same class because they're going to play exactly the same as one another.

This is the cause of the first problem. Everyone wanting their character to "play different" and have its own mechanics leads to the class proliferation problem.

The solution, IMO, is first to ensure that every class is an archetype, not a job description. I had started to hate classes over the years as well, until I played Apocalypse World and saw classes that were strongly archetypal, simple, and yet very flexible. (It reminded me of why I enjoyed the classes of early D&D, and made me understand why I disliked the classes of modern D&D.)

Secondly, you have to change people's mindset and accept that two characters can be very different people, even if they have similar mechanics. Sir Galahad and Sir Bedevere might both be the same class, but they're clearly not the same guy.

If you find something enjoyable than you should be able to provide a reason why you enjoy it user. You were the one who claimed to have "plenty of reasons" why using classes has a point but now we're stuck on the default "I like fun things because they're fun" tautology that explains nothing about whatever merits classes bring to the table.

From personal experience, people who can only say "it's fun" in response to "why do you like it?" are usually people who have been told to like a thing and have no idea why they're supposed to like it beyond everyone else claiming that they like it.

I don't necessarily want to believe that of you user but you're not exactly giving me much confidence to the contrary.

To which systems specifically do you owe your bad experiences with classes?

>Is there really a point to using classes anymore?
No.

There is no point in playing D&D or its countless derivatives.

What wrong with wanting to play fighter #3652 and fighter #4167? #3652 have a gaint axe and #4167 can breath ice.

There really isn't.
Point buy systems are pretty much objectively superior. It's a lot easier to balance concrete skills and powers against each other, than power sets+skill sets.

It also makes it easier to play characters that don't fit distinctly into one "class" or another. And it makes the crunch follow your fluff, instead of picking for mechanical advantage and having to justify why you're playing a dragon-touched halfminotaur ooze, or whatever.

Not to say that you can't have fun playing DnD or other class based systems. But you can have fun playing Simon says or cops and robbers too, which doesn't make Cops and Robbers a good role-playing system.

>Nigga, if you think he's shitposting, then don't argue. All it does is make them more inclined to shitpost for the sweet, sweet (you)s.
I don't think he's shitposting. I think he's legitimately dumb enough that he can't tell the difference between proclaiming an opinion and calling it "right" if no one else convinces him otherwise, and having a discussion.

And shaming that kinda idiot is enjoyable. Particularly because they're too stupid to understand why their behavior is shameful.

>If you find something enjoyable than you should be able to provide a reason why you enjoy it user.
Except you're not asking me to provide a reason why. You're asking me to provide a reason why to you. Your entitlement is mostly what is wrong with your ability to think.

No but that's because ShadowRun is difficult to learn even if you've played it a while, or at least 5e was due to how awful its formatting was.

Honestly, there are better games out there that could serve as an introduction to tabletop such as Apocalypse World, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, etc. but D&D gets priority because it's popular.

All RPGs are derivative of D&D. D&D invented RPGs.

If it's not your style, there are plenty of systems that don't have classes. There is more out there than just dnd. I pretty much just play classless systems, because I'm not a fan either.

>powergaming only happens in class-based systems

Classes invoke a pre-built sense of character and design that point-Buy systems are forever unable to emulate properly without being a think skin over a generic blob.

The worst I've dealt with it was 3.PF honestly. You'd think that having so many classes would mean that it'd be easier to create practically anything but it seemed as though every character I wanted to play required a shitload of different combinations of classes, feats, etc. that it just burned me out on classes for a while.

Then I tried playing 5e and every class was so bland and uninteresting that I ended up using like one class ability over and over again because there was no longer any weird combinations of abilities that could let me make a character that I wanted.

Nowadays I mostly play WoD and I've never looked back, though I wish the community for vampire didn't give us a bad rep amongst the general tabletop community.

Because classless systems are just the same, they merely expect you to put the work of making a class together.

Shadowrun still runs off the concept of having various party roles - Street sam, Adept, Mage, Face, Hacker, Rigger, etc. - And you must build in order to be good at whatever thing you're doing. You don's max out Magic then fill yourself up with the killiest augs.

Can you"multi-class"? Yes, but you're weakening both of your pursuits in order to do so. Just like with a class-based system.

The problem is that the most obvious example of a class-based system is Pathfinder, which is a garbage system and you shouldn't be surprised that it, therefore, has garbage in it. Looking at other class-based systems such as Fantasycraft, which redefines and re-uses the concepts in d20 to make broader character classes that can support a much wider variety of archetypes, or D&D 4e, which allowed for a wide variety of builds in each class - Some were better than others, but the point is you could run your Fighter as a raging barbarian, a defensive sword+board knight, or an axe-wielding maniac, and each of the different build types had different class features (Axes did more damage and could often gain the fighter temporary HP's, shield-fighting gave AC and had more accurate attacks).

Even D&D 2e or 5e's more restrictive classes have fun to them. 2e gave very generic but hyper-specialized characters all over the place, from the Fighting Man who was touch and succeeded in combat as well as was the most skilled and proficient party class or the Mage who could change the rules entirely given EXP and a minute to cast a spell or the Rogue who could competely bypass traps and doors with a lucky roll. In 5e, they added the Archetype idea that would let you customize a class without needing to multiclass - Fighters learning magic or becoming better swordsmen, Rogues becoming better skill users or becoming assassins, etc.

TL:DR it's not as different as you'd like.

Only about as much as pong invented video games.

So your only experiences with classes are two RPGs that utterly fail at making any sort of productive use of classes.
And, based on two RPGs misusing classes alone, you conclude that classes are useless. Did I understand that correctly?

>Classes make it easier to learn.
That does seem like the best argument I've heard in favor.
I'm not sure home much better it is than just having pre-generated characters for the first game or two.

That seems to be a bit of a fallacy. There's no reason you couldn't distinguish your character in role-playing and also be mechanically different.

The logical extension of your argument would be a mono-class system. Where everyone is mechanically the same, to stimulate maximum role-playing.

It's certainly where you'll find the worse of it.
Honestly, you find more generic blobs in systems like D&D than anywhere else.

>The logical extension of your argument would be a mono-class system. Where everyone is mechanically the same, to stimulate maximum role-playing.
So a classless system?

I'm not saying it doesn't. But in any system the GM gets to approve characters. If you spent 195 or your 200pts on a single ability to try an powergame, it's pretty easy to read.

>Point based characters invoke a sense of character and design that class based systems are forever unable to emulate properly without being a thing skin over a generic job-based blob.

Classless systems eventually just have you devolving around into either Mary Sue characters or just recreating your class idea anyway.

There is literally zero argument for a Class-less system in a PnP over a good class system.

I never said that classes were worthless, I just said that they were flawed and asked if there was any point to using them anymore.

Besides, most systems nowadays use point-buy or skills to determine what your character can do and most new systems that still use classes are trying to emulate OD&D's style of play where classes actually had a point to them.

Sorta. Point based systems make it unlikely that any two characters will have mechanical similarities.

>devolving around into either Mary Sue
>or just recreating your class idea anyway

Having a set number of classes makes the game simpler, thus easier to find people to play with.

You either end up making a class archtype in a point buy system, or you just end up with a "Does everything" character.

See: Skyrim.

Not really. RPGs still follow the same basic conventions and systems that D&D laid the groundwork for, to one extent or another. Attributes, skills, special powers, spells, equipment make up virtually every character in virtually every game, except those games that define themselves by lacking one or more of those systems.

Pong actually relied solely on electronic hardware, rather than computer programming. It wasn't an electronic game, rather than a video game. More akin to those magnetized, football fields where you put the pieces down and they vibrate than, say, space invaders.

>Classless systems eventually just have you devolving around into either Mary Sue characters or just recreating your class idea anyway.
I find that kinda shit happening more in class based systems than classless systems simply because one class is going to inevitably be better than everyone else for one reason or another.

For fucks sake, "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" was borne from class based systems but you're going to claim that classless is where you'll find Mary Sue characters?

Not unless you're some kinda retard. I guess that explains why you think that way though.

I've never really seen that in the point based system I've played in.

I guess it's true if you define "mary sue characters" as anyone who doesn't fit into a classic DnD style class.

>I haven't seen that in any point buy system

Yes, you have. You're just being willfully deluded in thinking people don't draw to archtypes or try to meta-game unless it has a class.

Point buy systems attract the same kind of stupid autism to character design as forum freeform roleplay.

Not a single Point buy system is worth using, it's simply a tool for people who want to pretend they're creating something.

>"Does everything" character.
Point based systems punish this sort of thing. If you want to do everything. You can do everything, poorly.

Unless for some reason the character has absurd amounts of points. But even then they'd be worse than an equivalent point level character who didn't decide to be a jack of all trades.

Skyrim is a video game user, and a pretty shitty one to boot. I hope you can tell the difference but I mentioned that just to be sure.

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

>most new systems that still use classes are trying to emulate OD&D's style of play where classes actually had a point to them
Such as?

What in the actual fuck are you even going on about? Are you really saying that point buy systems promote autism when /pfg/ exists?

>linear wizards, quadratic wizards was born from class-based systems
>GURPS is point-based
>Shadowrun is point based

Your argument defeats itself.

>I can't understand your argument because I am a fucking mongoloid.

How funny for Point buy faggots to be so fucking stupid, here, I will spell it out easily for you.

Points buy either promotes huge meta-faggotry because the points buy system allows too many options. Or like Says and the system limits you to your options so you just pick the most cost-efficent ones and you're basically playing a class archtype.

I mean let's go for one second and assume you people are not addled with Down's syndrome and you can form a decent argument that it's "I don't understand"

What is the point of a Class-less system, in a genre that defines itself by Archtypes. One shitty class system doesn't mean all class systems are invalid, I have never seen a good points buy system.

>Point buy systems attract the same kind of stupid autism to character design as forum freeform roleplay.

I'm not sure what your argument even is. Point buy systems tend to be significantly more simulationist than class based systems.

Are you saying that more choices leads to an autistic player base?

>it's simply a tool for people who want to pretend they're creating something.
Isn't this a good thing?
Why would you want tools that don't let you even have the illusion creativity.

Shadowrun's pretty good.

You're saying things but they're so wrong that I don't even know how to explain to you why they're wrong. This is all completely baseless.

One game I can recall off the top of my head was called something like "Lamentations of the Flame Princess" or some shit like that.

I'm sure there's more but I can't be arsed to remember them honestly but I hear them being talked about on Veeky Forums alot if you're into old-school D&D type shit.

That was supposed to be an argument? I just thought you were shitposting and posting smug girls from shitty anime or something.

>Shadowrun
>"Classless"

Shadowrun pretends it has no classes, yet you can easily sum people up as "Street Samurai" and "Decker"

>I don't know what your argument is
>I am literally that retarded I cannot comprehend your simple argument.

I see I am dealing with literal retards, time to sum it up for 12 year olds.

Point-buy systems are a failure in all parts, Either you have less choice than a class system due to constraints, It's broken due to lack of constraints, or it's just a Quasi-Class system like Shadowrun.

People create characters from archtypes, this is reflected in EVERY PnP system, from GURPS to D&D.

Point buy systems are a useless facade for people who think they're too smart to play Class systems.

>Point Buy promotes autism
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
You're not really doing yourself any favors famalam.

...

>Shadowrun pretends it has no classes, yet you can easily sum people up as "Street Samurai" and "Decker"
So because people can name an archtype...that means that it has classes? I can make a back-alley doctor in GURPS but that doesn't mean that there's an actual "doctor" class in it just because I know how to perform surgery.

>Points buy retards cannot form counterarguments so they resort to shitposting

And these are the kind of people who make Points buy systems pointless.

And what skills would you choose as a back-alley doctor and why wouldn't they simple fit under a Rogueish class? Hell, go ahead, throw me your amazing Gurps ideas, I bet I can make them in 5e just as easily.

There is some genuine autism going on in this thread.

>posts smug anime girl and screeches autistically
>Claims that others are shitposting
K senpai

>Thinks I am the guy who posted smug anime girl.

Let's break this down shall we.

What about the Points buy system in GURPS means Fighters are not just as useless as Wizards in that system?

>Points buy either promotes huge meta-faggotry because the points buy system allows too many options.
How is this different then combing a hundred different splat books for that single optimized choice.
>Says and the system limits you to your options so you just pick the most cost-efficent ones and you're basically playing a class archtype.
Wot?
Just because you take a penalty for trying to do everything doesn't mean that there aren't meaningful choices.

>Archtypes
Archtypes aren't the same as classes.
If you're playing a super hero game, the standard achetypes are Brick, Energy Projector, Mentalist, Martial Artist, or Gadgeteer.

But you can play a Brick who's tough and strong because of his Gadgets, ala Iron man. Or a Martial Artist that uses misdirection and hypnosis.

Look at Worm for example. Just because someone fits in the "Controller" archetype doesn't mean the character has any real similarities to another controller.

>D&D
>emulating the medieval world

The only thing D&D emulates is goddamn fantasy-America.

>If you're playing a super hero game, the standard achetypes are Brick, Energy Projector, Mentalist, Martial Artist, or Gadgeteer.

>But you can play a Brick who's tough and strong because of his Gadgets, ala Iron man. Or a Martial Artist that uses misdirection and hypnosis.

I don't see how Points buy and classless makes this situation any better? Oh other than

>I want to be X archtype, but also Y archtype at the same time.

You basically level the argument of "Muh Splatbooks" yet your Points buy system is the same shit, different name. I've never played a Superhero game, but really, it sounds like that can be solved by

>Power source
>Character class

In a system. So again, Points buy is a useless illusion.

>fantasy-America.
I could see american fantasy.

But fantasy America, is a hard concept to wrap my brain around. Settings based on American Folklore? Or fantasy with American values?

Although seeing republican dwarves and elven democrats duke it out in some sort of senatorial Thunder Dome, sounds awesome.

For one, a Fighter in GURPS will actually be able to do more besides (full) attacking until something dies.

That and depending on which supplements you're allowed to use and how many points the GM gives you for character creaction, you can easily build a Fighter whose strong enough to rip trees out of the ground and wield them like an oversized club or jump high enough to cross several miles in a single bound.

That and what weapon you use, where you hit an opponent, and what sorts of maneuvers you have actually matter besides just being fluff to explain how much damage you did to an enemy, which also works because combat is appropriately deadly.

Comparing a Fighter from D&D to one made in GURPS is no fucking contest, it's like comparing a level 1 character to a level 20 as far as the options that you have overall.

I think Earthdawn had it right with classes: classes as mythical professions. as an identity not just a skill set.

Obviously it doesnt fit into every setting.

I'm going to have to disagree with Apocalypse World and Paranoia. I'd add World of Darkness, the system, instead.

How about we just start off with a back alley doctor who performs medical tasks for people who can't afford to see a proper doctor either because of the law or because of a lack of funds?

>"Muh Splatbooks"
One of the distinct advantages of a good point buy system is that you don't need splat books. So it'd be cheaper to play.

>Points buy is a useless illusion.
I still don't understand what it is you're trying to say. That more options is just the illusion of more choices?

>>Power source
>>Character class
Basically the argument on the point buy side is that as classes become boarder to accept more concepts, the number of distinct classes drops. As the become more narrow, to fit more specific concepts you need more classes.
And at both ends of the spectrum, 1 class that fits anything and an infinite number of classes that fit any possible permutations you basically have a classless system.

Apocalypse World is great for teaching newbies to do more with less, Paranoia is good to teach players that death isn't always supposed to be tragic.

Sit down and play GURPS with a good group. You'll see the power of a good classless system. Yes, I'm building off of archetypes, but I'm not forced by my class to get powers I don't want/need, or choose between class options when neither of them apply.

Example: I ran a short campaign taking place in 1760 continental Europe. The party was a group of "deniable assets"
(read: murder hobos) working for the French to find and destroy an Ottoman superweapon before they could sell it to the Prussians Here's what the party built:
>A master swordsman who learned secret Kung-Fu techniques in his travels in the Orient
>An Austrian mad scientists who had extensive knowledge of all things mad and sciencey. Also, he had guns
>A doctor was actually a really nice person, and was only murder hoboing to pay an old family debt. She was VERY dangerous with those scalpels, though

In a class system, the swordsman would have to multiclass or pay a feat tax to get both the "high-level fighter" and "low-level monk" skill sets. Instead, he just built a pretty standard agile fighter, and spent some of his extra points on a few Kung-Fu tricks. The investment was actually really minor in terms of Character Points spent (maybe 10-15%?), but added a LOT of flavor to the character.

In a class system, the mad scientist might have an abysmal shooting skill. He would have to multiclass or pay a feat tax to be useful with it. Instead, he spent 4 out of his 150 CP on Guns (Pistol) and now had a respectable shooting skill

Same with the doctor and her knives. And agile knife-wielding character is usually the "rogue" or "assassin" class, and the "doctor" class is either a non-combat class entirely, or is a combat-medic. She was basically a non-combatant, except the 8 points put in knifing people, and the rest of the points were doctory skills

Not gurps but another point based system.
>Character is in a Space Super hero setting.
>He's a magic user that uses bargain based magic while off earth because only earth has a steady source of mana.
>His skill set, largely reflects his time as an investigator hunting down cults to dark gods
>While on earth he has access to traditional magic, and shuns pact magic because of the dangers and chances of corruption.
>Additionally he's a mildly competent in melee due to significant amounts of cybernetic augmentation
>Main combat attack comes not from cybernetics or magic but an absurdly high caliber gun

>Example: I ran a short campaign taking place in 1760 continental Europe. The party was a group of "deniable assets"
>(read: murder hobos) working for the French to find and destroy an Ottoman superweapon before they could sell it to the Prussians Here's what the party built:
Sounds pretty boss to me.
I think being governmental agents seems like a good reason to have structure in a steam-punky game.

Scorpion and Sub-Zero?

That's actually pretty cool and that's a great example of why I favor classless systems so much.

It's mostly one guy getting triggered by badwrongfun again.

Class-based systems are entirely superior and make for more interesting characters and gameplay.

>>they force you into very narrow range of specializations,

This is a good and eminently useful thing. People become more inventive when they work with limitations and have to play the hand they're dealt. Compare the elegant, efficient code of a programmer from the 80s when he had to fight for every bit, compared to the gigabytes upon gigabytes of bloated trash in a modern unlimited system.

>>a lot of the fluff pigeonholds you into specific archtypes like the grizzled war veteran or the pious paladin

Did you not think that a Role Playing Game would call you to, y'know... Play a Role?

>People become more inventive when they work with limitations
This meme needs to leave.

>Class-based systems are entirely superior and make for more interesting characters and gameplay.
Elaborate.
>People become more inventive when they work with limitations and have to play the hand they're dealt.
That only works when the game promotes the player's ability to go outside the lines without punishing them for trying to go beyond their niche. A Fighter will only ever be good at fighting, they'll never be as good as diplomacy as a Bard, or as smart as a Wizard, or as nimble as a Rogue, hit quite as hard w/o a weapon as a Monk, so on and so forth. Then to make things worse, he's only good at the most straight-forward and boring type of combat there is to boot.
>Did you not think that a Role Playing Game would call you to, y'know... Play a Role?
I can more effectively play a role in a classless system due to the fact that my ability stems from which skills I chose to specialize in, rather than which class I decided to take at level 1.

>I can more effectively play a role in a classless system due to the fact that my ability stems from which skills I chose to specialize in,

The skills you chose to specialise in = the class you decided to take at level 1. There is literally no functional difference. Your exact same gripes about the poor utility of multiclassing apply if you spread all your skill points over the tree without dumping them into what you wanted your character to do.

All skill-based systems are class systems in denial.

>That only works when the game promotes the player's ability to go outside the lines without punishing them for trying to go beyond their niche. A Fighter will only ever be good at fighting, they'll never be as good as diplomacy as a Bard, or as smart as a Wizard, or as nimble as a Rogue, hit quite as hard w/o a weapon as a Monk, so on and so forth. Then to make things worse, he's only good at the most straight-forward and boring type of combat there is to boot.

Okay, so you're some AD&D grognard still bent out of shape at the wizards getting all the attention from the spoddy nerds who wrote the game, gotcha.

>The skills you chose to specialise in = the class you decided to take at level 1.
Not even close. In a class based system, the only skills you're good at are the skills that the designers believe that the class should be good at. If you want to be good at anything outside of that niche, you practically have to break your own arm to get it and even then you'll be shit at it in comparison to someone whose class spec'd in being good at that niche.
>There is literally no functional difference.
Except for the fact that so long as I don't go over my resource, I can choose to spec in vastly different abilities that would otherwise be locked behind a specific class.
>Your exact same gripes about the poor utility of multiclassing apply if you spread all your skill points over the tree without dumping them into what you wanted your character to do.
Poor utility occurs because you can only really benefit from 1-2 different stats and your class needs at least 2 to survive.

Wow, a shitposter on Veeky Forums who only reads a portion of the post and completely misses the point, oh how could I have avoided this little debacle.

It might surprise you to know, but people can actually be good at multiple things without necessarily being pigeon-holed into a blatant stereotype. There's no real reason why, say, a Fighter can't be good at talking to people, or a Wizard can't use their magic to augment their unarmed fighting capabilities and having a class's abilities be this narrowly focused only really promotes stagnation as people get comfortable spamming the same moves over and over again because each class only gets a handful of options that are worth using every turn of combat, which also tends to make the game itself a helluva lot more boring in the long run.

Not every player has the enthusiasm or desire to construct a customized character ground-up and would rather follow a roadmap of character construction. This is not a bad thing, you're just a cunt about it.

In most classless system, each skill will be grouped under the stat that governs it. So if you're a character that has high STR (or its equivalent), you're going to look at the skills that will utilize your STR, whether it's athleticism skills, weaponry skills, unarmed skills.

Also, all you really need to build a character in a classless system is a concept, which the player will most likely already have an idea for either before they sit down at the table or once they've had a chance to look through the list of skills and find the skills that strike their fancy.

Classes are a band-aid for indecisiveness and won't work if the player has a detailed concept for the character that they wanted to play. Looking at this fella right here for example, if his group tried to make their characters in a system like D&D, they'd have to make several compromises and will end up with a character that looks and plays nothing like what they imagined.

Congratulations, you didn't read my post.
Not every player has the enthusiasm or desire to "look at [all] the skills that will utilize your STR" or "find the skills that strike their fancy" and would rather have a roadmap that tells them what to invest in.
This is not a bad thing, you're just a cunt about it.

>Also, all you really need to build a character in a classless system is a concept, which the player will most likely already have an idea for either before they sit down at the table or once they've had a chance to look through the list of skills and find the skills that strike their fancy.
That is rarely the case, in my experience.
Personally speaking, a list of unrelated skills does nothing to spark my creativity. In any point-based system I've read so far, the vast majority, if not all of the skills were of the "I guess I want to be kind of good at this? But it's not really important to me" sort.

Addtionally, point-based systems tend to not communicate their expectations or any sort of suggestion, leaving new players to create a character from scratch without any idea of what works and what doesn't.