Classes or No?

What do you prefer, Veeky Forums? Games with classes or those without classes? Why? What game cemented your decision?

Classless. I want to take traits my character has, not jump through hoops to get them by level 6 along with a boatload of irrelevant traits I don't want or that clash with my existing concept.

It does require GMs to be more active during chargen, but session 0 should be the norm anyway.

Depends on the game.

In a game that sticks closely to a particular genre or playstyle I prefer classes, as they tell me something of the setting and what games are meant to be played there. A fantasy game with classes like Wizard, Warrior, Ranger and Thief establishes itself as part of one particular tradition. A game with classes like highwayman, occultist and plague doctor puts itself squarely in another.

For generic games it often makes less sense to have a 'class'. The beauty of game like Savage Worlds is exactly that I can tailor it to my needs, so to try and impose classes goes against the underlying concept of the game.

I tend to prefer classes, but then, I also tend to prefer OSR rather than the mess of feats and traits and prestige classes and multiclasses and whatever else is surely talking about. All that is pointless chaff.

Just reduce them to the simplest concepts and the rest will be easy to manage.

I can do classless games, too, but usually just in the sort of games and settings where you don't have your generic fighters and wizards anyway, and people tend to be more mixed up, like GURPS and Savage Worlds.

I generally prefer classes as a player:

However, that's probably because I mostly play fantasy games. Outside of fantasy, like superhero or sci-fi TTRPGs, I prefer to fully build a character without classes.

Most of the time I like classes because I like to be given a toolbox rather than constructing one for myself but for some reason it just doesn't work for me in those other types of games.

As a GM, classes. There is always at least one person in every classless game I've ran that has had no idea how to build a character.

However, if I'm a player, I love choice, so classless for me. Too bad I'm a forever GM.

I prefer classes for more fantastic games, especially if they have more focused design goals (i.e. dungeon crawling). In games where you play more "normal" people, they make less sense, although you may still have specialists.

I prefer classless. Every game I GM has that one person who has a reasonable concept that can't be represented via a class but would be easily done in a classless system.
Class systems are fine, but like says it's better to boil them down to very basic archetypes and concepts.

What are some good classless systems? Bonus points if theres an srd or the pdfs are online for free.

GURPS

Savage Worlds

Seconding both GURPS and Savage Worlds, and there's a smaller free edition available on both - enough to get a game going with a feel of how the systems work.

Here's the Savage Worlds test drive.

Fate Core and Accelerated have SRDs online for free as well.

And here's GURPS Lite.

West End Games' D6 System (and Mini Six by extension).

It depends on the game. There are advantages and disadvantages to using classes or hybrid progression systems over point buy, so it's a question of what your system cares about and your design goals.

Classes are objectively better then classless games.

Games with really specific and detailed classes have some interesting ideas, and in these cases restriction can help breed creativity. In games with very vague and broad classes, you can fluff character to be almost anything you want and it still works great in the rules. The only time classes start to give you trouble is when you get into DnD territory with some classes being super specific archetypes (ranger, paladin) and then other classes being super broad archetypes (wizard, fighter) in the same damn game. Redundant classes or 'trap options' are also really bad.

However, classes games are objectively inferior to ones with classes. Giving players unrestricted access to any and all powers or skills they want means that either the game will be a broken mess or every single skill and power will have to be deliberately designed so they can't be combined in broken ways. In class based games this isn't a problem, because you know that a character of X class can't use character of Y classes power, so it isn't a problem. Only when you get into multiclassing does this problem start to happen, because of what I said above.

Finally; the other problem with classless systems is characters will either be jack of all trades, and masters of none or hyper specialized jackasses that don't necessarily fit well with the game, group, or story, and could have been just put under a class instead. It's the same issue in games with point buy instead of rolled stats or arrays; you'll almost never have a player who puts a negative into a stat OR you'll have players who dump every stat as much as possible to hyper specialize.

>TL;DR- Play a game with classes if you want tight, focused, play. Play a game without classes if you want a bland shitty mess.

You could have put it less assholishly, but I generally agree, with the caveat that when you are playing a game that's more simulationist than gamist (basically, you don't really care about the "game" part at all, and having a navy seal and an accountant in the same party in a zombie apocalypse is okay), they are sorta in the way.

Classes are objectively worse design, but can work in some types of games.

While I agree that the strength of class systems is the ability to make complex and interesting sets of isolated mechanics, I feel like you're being somewhat unfair, comparing the ideal of class based systems with low grade examples of classless systems.

Offering players the tools to completely customise their character can be an interesting and compelling thing in a game system. There are problems, of course, but for some premises the flexibility is more than worth the loss.

It is also worth remembering that there are hybrid systems, it isn't a strict dichotomy. From Dark Heresy's weighted point buy via affinities or Legends of the Wulin's Archetypes, there are ways you can blend point buy and classes to try and get the best of both.

I don't really care.

>defending rolled stats
I see you rolled 3 for int.

Classes are awful, gamey shit.

However players are normally retarded and usually can't come up with a coherent character concept without being provided with distinct archetypes to fit into.

It would be nice if they didn't exist, but I understand why games have them.

Classes for fantasy, no classes for modern/scifi.

You can have a system where you can create a character you want, but can also choose from a list of presets, like TES before Skyrim.

I prefer classless systems, and it was GURPS that sold me on it. Some systems do class really well, usually when classes are simple and focused but with their own flavor, but usually it's retarded and restrictive.

>Games with classes or those without classes?
Classless, but with certain Talents and Traits only available if your character is part of a prerequisite group.

>Why?
It feels more organic, it's flexible, and generally avoids a single class or role being rendered obsolete by whatever the equivalent of a full caster is. It allows for more natural character progression, with the gradual acquisition of skill, than the sudden, comparably explosive, growth seen in class based systems.

>What game cemented your decision?
Savage Worlds, with some tweaks, has been immensely enjoyable, more so than any OSR, any D&D, or PF. I also greatly enjoy OWoD and Dark Ages, and NWoD wasn't bad either, though you could argue that all of them have "classes."

I've taken a lot of inspiration from these games for my home brew, and I'm very happy with the current playtests, minus one sack of shit who I never should have let play to begin with.

I'm new to tabletop but what I've gotten just from looking at various games and books is that classless systems seem to be far more generic.

You can't tailor spells and abilities unique to classes. You don't have the kind of result you have an Abjurist having a completely different flavor compared to an Illusionist. You start to lose some of the identity of melee classes, like between a Warlord, Fighter and Barbarian when those traits/perks/whatever don't become locked into specific classes.

Am I wrong in my criticism?

You're not wrong. The strength of class based systems is the ability to build strong, interesting mechanical identities for each class as well as to have more freedom to play with mechanics as they exist in a vacuum.

Classless systems, however, offer you the chance to build your own mechanical identity. It's often harder, but you can come up with some pretty amazing stuff.

Although, again, it's something of a false dichotomy. There are plenty of systems which use a bit of both and IMO that's a very good way to go.

Yes, with regards to GURPS and Savage Worlds. Barbarians are still barbarians, "fighter" is (and should be) a meaningless phrase beyond "someone who fights," warlords still provide team support, either in the form of Leadership rolls in GURPS or various edges in Savage Worlds.

In GURPS, especially, you can create specific, unique, and flavorful spells and abilities (available to all that meet the prerequisites, which are usually character defining, such as a wizard specializing in the "abjuring" college of magic getting the best abjuring spells), and illusion spells don't do the same thing and aren't built the same way as creation, evocation, necromancy, etc. spells.

GURPS and Savage worlds are sort of unique for generic point buy systems. They're so robust you can do most of anything and make it distinct and flavorful, it's just a lot of work.

I think his argument works really well for FATE, where there wouldn't be much flavorful distinction between a Barbarian, a Knight, and a Warlord.

Yeah, I get that. But you're now defined by what you, the player, make your character go into. Which is fine if you want player choice to be practically unlimited.

But when your Illusionist can take what would normally be high level Aburist spells or vice versa, it waters down what it means to be those specific subset of wizard. You can't give Abjurists absurdly powerful spells that are counterweighted by weaknesses unless you give those same weaknesses to everyone.

IE GURPS. I think this is basically the best way to do it, but you'll still get dumb players who make garbage characters then complain that the system is bad because they made a useless character instead of picking a preset. So it's entirely understandable for systems to completely forgo giving players that option.

>I think his argument works really well for FATE, where there wouldn't be much flavorful distinction between a Barbarian, a Knight, and a Warlord.
Without a doubt. If your system isn't robust enough to handle mechanical distinction between the three, it's below the resolution and probably not a factor the game designers had in mind.

>But when your Illusionist can take what would normally be high level Aburist spells or vice versa [...]
True, which is why (again, speaking from a GURPS perspective here), you're given the tools to customize the rules for the world you want to create. For example, Basic Set magic works out really well when you limit Magery (the advantage that lets you take spells, higher levels = more powerful spells) to one or a few colleges. If you want to get really fancy, you can say that the cap for magic depends on how broad your college choices are. Fire means you can buy up to Magery 3 or 4, Fire and Water up to 2, and Fire, Water, and Air up to 1.

That's one of the key selling points of GURPS, although you could probably do that in any system; GURPS just has it all laid out before you.

I favor a lens-based approach, though, which are basically bundles of traits (advantages, skills, etc.) that define aspects of a character and ensure a minimum level of competence. I also write about optimization after the lenses, how to enhance them, and which ones they work well with. You assemble the character by picking out a few lenses that define them, then spend the rest of your points between those lenses, following the optimization guides (or not, your call).

Classless is just a classes game with just 1 class instead of several.

That my friend, is why we use templates for our less creatively minded players.

Either no classes, or an absolute fuckton of classes, with room to homebrew classes, like how Dungeon World does it.

>Games with classes or those without classes?
Both are shit. Jobs/Backgrounds/Careers are where it's at.

Classes are arbitrary as fuck and give you arbitrary shit without any basis for it.
Classless relies on skills, which are usually too dispersed and unfocused.

Jobs, though? Tightest shit ever.
For example, let's say I'm a Level 3 Thief.
I DON'T WANT to get arbitrary bonuses to arbitrary skills like Lockpicking and shit.
I DON'T WANT some fucking features that somehow distinguish me mechanically from other classes.

What I DO WANT is whenever I describe an action my character is about to perform to ask myself "Is that a thing that Thief usually does?".
If the answer to that is "yes", then I get a mechanical bonus proportional to my level. If the answer is "no", I get nothing.
No fucking bullshit, just - bam! - does a Thief get a bonus to picking locks and sneaking around? Does a Barbarian gets a bonus for recklessly charging in, abhorring magic and generally being, well, barbaric?
Does a Spy get a bonus for acting like a spy?
A Diplomat, a Driver, a Marksman, a Scout, a Mage, a Merchant - just think of any fucking job you want and write it on your character sheet, and whenever you perform an action that relates to that job - get a bonus. It's that easy.

Quite wrong. What you need is a few classes that determine your archetype: whether you're the manly warrior, the frail wizard, the sneaky thief, what have you. You need only like three or four to cover each of them, the rest is just tweaking them about.

I feel like D&D 5e does a decent enough job. You have archtypes and then specialized versions of those archtypes.

A good compromise, though one I've never seen before, is having a bunch of classes but 'spheres' (martial, magic, stealth, etc) that share several traits and spells but classes within those spheres have different, unique spells that differentiate them.

And what system uses this?

>Classes are arbitrary as fuck and give you arbitrary shit without any basis for it.
>Classless relies on skills, which are usually too dispersed and unfocused.
>Classes, though? Tightest shit ever.

Classless

As gurps taught me, freedom if choice and development is best achieved when restrictions are minimal and choices Paramount.

DnD classes != Jobs.
Apocalypse World != Jobs.
Archetypes in general != Jobs.

What it is a flexible system where your skills are your jobs. You spend your XP on upgrading said Jobs however you want. You don't need to specialize in said Jobs. Jobs don't give you unique mechanical features unlike Classes.
What Jobs do is consolidate meaningless skill shit under packages while avoiding the archetype pitfall.

>And what system uses this?
Barbarians of Lemuria, for example, although still not to the degree I described.

So if no system exists that uses your ideal concept of these jobs, how do we know they work?

Don't you understand? He wants things to be not bad, but good, if only you adopt his system things will be good and not bad, how is that not clear?

what distinguishes two thieves of same level from each other though?

sounds like you want WFRP2e my man

Actually, Barbarians of Lemuria uses exactly that and it works flawlessly. Its only flaw is that the rulebook doesn't explicitly says that the jobs are freeform instead of solely the choices highlighted in the book.

I don't care about what you personally are adopting, but that's the stuff our group uses, and honestly, it just works.

>what distinguishes two thieves of same level from each other though?
What distinguishes a Burglar, a Pickpocket and a Con Artist? They are all thieves, but the things they specialize in are quite different.

You just pick the available Job nouns depending on the tone of your campaign. For example, if the campaign is heavy on war stuff, then you're gonna allow players to use only more specific nouns like Assault, Sniper, Support and Heavy Weapons. If it isn't heavy on war stuff, then just throw it all under a catch-all umbrella term of Soldier and be done with it.

Ultimately, it's the same as allowing splatbooks - you discuss what Job nouns are appropriate in your campaign and what aren't, either due to being too specific or too generic.

That's horseshit. You don't need classes to determine archetype. Sure you can describe pretty much all characters with those archetypes, but they shouldn't be mechanical classes. That doesn't allow for enough flexibility. It doesn't nearly as easily accommodate for characters with really weird, esoteric builds and abilities. Not to mention a lot of characters are really borderline, and don't fit definitively into one of those archetypes, they're an even combination of them. Making those archetypes official classes will just get in the way with characters like that.

Either make it completely open from a mechanical standpoint, or have a theoretically infinite amount of highly specialized classes.

I prefer classless systems that still gives you a couple.of 'starter packs' like archetypes. Best of both worlds really.

I can either grab a package or tailor my character however I want it. Not that I ever get to play anyway since I'm forever GM... ah well...

I honestly like how 4e did it. Classes were broad sets of mechanics that were very open to refluffing. The mechanical end result was important, not how you flavoured getting there, so as long as each set of mechanics provided was interesting and fun to play it didn't matter how you flavoured it.

Of course, some people really care about 'how you get there', caring more about the justification that gets to the end result than the end result itself.

Or, another, more appropriate example - let's say your campaign is heavy on magic stuff. Then don't just use the term Wizard - use shit like Conjurer, Diviner, Artificer etc. But if your campaign isn't heavy on magic stuff, then just throw it all under the term of Wizard.

Or maybe your campaign is heavy on science stuff. Then you tell your players to use terms like Chemist, Physicist, Biologist etc. But if it's not heavy on science, then just throw it under the umbrella term of Scientist.

Hell, setting-specific Jobs are one of the best things such system allows.
Whenever you thought up some Jobs that are crucial to the setting such as "Awesome McGee", you don't need to try and homebrew the shit out of a class. You just explain to your players what "Awesome McGee" usually does as his job and allow them to use it.

You can do this quite easily with Wildcard skills in GURPS, and I remember Fate Accelerated having something similar with +3/+2/+1 for broad "job" skills. I can't think of many other systems where it's available. Maybe Strike!? I think you make up your own skills in that.

So its basically just freeform roleplay. Because if you're creating new jobs from nothing or extrapolating skills from a job, you can just create a job that gives you 100% of what you need.

Be a spy? What is spy but a thief with extra social bonuses? Why be a sniper when an assassin would get the entire sniper repertoire AND likely several other lethal options like poison, stealth and close range elimination?

I greatly prefer classless systems because of DnD 3.5 and Pathfinder. Both of them felt like they had no real options other than your class and race and since a lot of DM's will limit those choices you don't always get a lot of choice. Feats were nowhere near as good as class abilities/spells so the choices felt rather shit.

I get that there are class-based games where you get meaningful choices, and I've actually enjoyed some of them, but the risk of your class being your only option and said option being limited by setting and/or the GM saying "Fuck that rigged BS" makes me think not having classes is typically better.

I also don't get it why I can't have time/space powers and be a katana wielding badass.

>What is spy but a thief with extra social bonuses
>an assassin would get the entire sniper repertoire AND likely several other lethal options like poison, stealth and close range elimination
You couldn't be more wrong, but whatever, I'll let that slide.

Again, it's all about talking with players (just like in any other game).
They tell you "I wanna be the guy who cuts throats and jumps from rooftops!", and you tell them "Okay, we'll call that an Assassin".

>you can just create a job that gives you 100% of what you need.
And the GM decides what challenges to throw at you and whether to allow a Job into a game as per player's definition or force him to change the noun to more appropriate one before accepting it into the game.

It's like you have to actually communicate and roleplay instead of arbitrarily rolling stuff.

>Playing blades in the dark
>Wish my ghost punching cutter could understand ghosts
>Mention this to DM
>DM replies: He can learn any skill from any class as long as it makes sense how you develop it. You've been hunting ghosts and seeking occult learning the last few sessions if you want to take a spirit related skill next advancement that's fine.

So, again. Its effectively freeform roleplay.

No, it's a skill package without archetyping, it doesn't let you automatically succeed, it just gives you a bonus. If you don't understand that, perhaps you should change your hobby.

Well, it's ultra rules light at the very least. Which is fine, even if it's not for everybody. Personally, the lack of real mechanical distinction kills any interest I have in things that oversimplified.

BRP and sons, ideal for high mortality, "grounded" feel, like lots of sword and sorcery old school like Farhard and the grey mouser, conan or more recent like the first law. It's also the Call of Cthulu system and has plenty of settings. I find it a bit depresing how few people play it there too.

Depends on what I'm playing and who with.

If it's with a group of people who are less comfortable with role playing then I think that classes can provide a lot of structure and help make them more comfortable with the idea of getting into a specific role and how exactly to structure the personality of that role. A warrior has certain personality traits that a person would expect them to have, same with a mage, a priest, a rogue, etc. Also I think games set in the past or far future benefit from classes in some ways for the same reasons, it helps a person give structure to an unfamiliar concept.

With a more experienced group or a cyberpunk/modern setting I think it's better to avoid classes. An experienced played doesn't need the structure they have enough experience to make it work and can make it work regardless with the fluff in the rules. Modern and cyberpunk settings are usually familiar enough that anyone can relate with a little coaching from someone experienced.

Shadowrun for instance, hard game for a newbie to learn but anyone can get the gist of who they're going to be able to play, if not what they're going to play.

Ya feel me?

I'd argue that Shadowrun does have some implicit classes in it, even if they're not spelled out in the rules. The various expensive, high value and mutually exclusive options that get your character access to a specific set of capabilities effectively act as class-like options, giving you a distinct role, even if you've still got a lot of flexibility in how you go about it and can mix and match relatively freely. I'd call it more a hybrid than pure point buy, just kinda obfuscated.

>doesn't let you automatically succeed
Nobody claimed that.

Anyhow, basically the job system boils down to thinking of excuses why your job gives you a bonus to any given situation or whining until the GM buys it i.e. freeform roleplaying.
>of course my assassin knows chemistry, he makes poisons! also ancient languages because he was trained by a secret cult! and he's an expert driver because he needs to shadow his victim!

I prefer classless systems. Savage Worlds taught me that and The Riddle of Steel / SoS cemented that preference. I think.
Even though some (optional) predefined archetypes to work from would be nice in those.
However I don't mind classes systems. Blades in the Dark seems quite interesting and I would love to give it a try, for example.

You aren't wrong and it wasn't a perfect example, just the best I could pull out of my ass while I have my morning coffee.

I mean, if you're playing with shitty players/shitty GM, sure, I guess.
No different than "I roll to persuade at +20, that means that he's basically mind-controlled, right?" bullshit, really.

I don't mind classes as long as they're just guidelines, like in Anima, just a little of guiding but leaves you enough room to create what you want.

you haven't shown what's the significant difference of job system from having a system with broad skillsets, is all.

besides less concrete rules and more bullshitting on the spot, that is.

Backstory stuff translates more easily into jobs than skillsets/classes (you worked as a Bartender for X amount of time, you get X levels in a Bartender job).
More natural leveling (if during the campaign you've mostly done things that correlate with Job X, you get levels in Job X).
Easier action bonuses resolution (if the action is directly related to your Job, add your Job levels as a modifier, if it's related only tangentially - add half your Job levels. No need to juggle skills when you can just ask yourself "is this a thing someone working in Field X should be familiar with?").

Honestly, I don't give a shit whether you are or you are not convinced. That's just how we do stuff and it works.

I haven't played but I've heard Shadowrun has issues with certain roles all basically being very samey and very pigeonholed. If you're focused on being a face, you're not going to have a lot to differentiate yourself from other faces beyond your own personal roleplay style. And if you're a face, you've got very little for combat/rigging/magic through being a face, which leads to people just doubling and tripling down on their chosen role.

I've only played Shadowrun 4e, but that hasn't been my experience. Face is honestly a really easy role to fill as long as you have a decent Charisma. Seeing Charisma based mages also off-facing is extremely common in my experience.

Class and jobs systems aren't exclusive.

13th Age for example uses both classes and jobs.

What do you think of having starting classes/archetypes that only give you initial stat bonuses and equipment (with room for choice and configuration) but otherwise allow you to advance and act freely after chargen? Pic related.

Couldn't tell you, it's been a while since I've played. The example I was using was mostly that anyone regardless of skill can figure out how someone from the burbs would act when thrust into a corporate mercenary situation. Same with someone from the inner city, or a salary person, or whatever. It's close enough to modern day that most people can figure out how to make a character work from a personal perspective with minimal coaching by someone who knows the system.

Ya know?

Seems like the best of both worlds from my original post, to be honest. Gives someone the framework and structure to figure out who they are but allows them the mobility to become whoever they want to be.

Is there a system that works like this? I can't think of one.

Yo Mama's so classless she could be a Marxist Utopia crafted through the GURPS ruleset.

...I'll take my leav now, before someone gets hurt.

13th Age and Risus do it too, at the very least.

It's not an uncommon idea.

Personally I prefer classless systems as they offer far more of a wealth of customisation.

However I've sadly learned that they're near impossible to run.

Normie players simply don't understand how they work , no matter how much you explain them they draw blank and do create awful characters that don't work. (Consider how many normie after multiple sessions in a d20' game then imagine trying to explain gurps to them.

That guy however will create the most disgusting min-maxed character stacking huge amounts of penalties that won't matter against a hoard if buffs with very little justification. They still somehow end up playing this character like they're in a D&D game.

There's obviously ways to mitigate this but it's a lot of book work so ends up much easier to say you're a fighter you're a wizard .

It takes a rare, genius tier player like myself who is able to meticulously craft and play and roleplay a detailed character who works conceptually and mechanically within the overarching campaign contest. . Unfortunately I put that effort into gming not playing as I've yet to meet a GM who can match my level of expertise and can't stomach intiate tier games and GM's. (I count the likes of Matt Mercer at this level) a good voice actor a good GM does not make.

The RPG community has proven it cannot be trusted to push itself to excel .

>and it works.
Sure, for freeform roleplaying. For actual roleplaying games you need a skill system.

Please be trolling. You can't be this autistic.

Pointing out the obvious flaws of the system is autism now?

That you can't imagine a role playing game using a job system instead of a skill system is a fault with you, not the games.

Hence why I hope you are trolling and not this autistic.

If you do it obsessively, it actually might be.

Who are you really trying to convince here, hmm? You said you don't care about what I think, so it must be you then. I think you and your friends have made this slapdash system and that you're trying to convince yourself that you're having the best possible play experience with it, but doubts have started growing in your mind and you're looking for a way out. Basically you're seeking validation from strangers that you're really having fun and not only pretending to have fun with this system.

I'm a new guy whose first post to this chain of conversation was I commented because I worry for your mental health and also, the quality of Veeky Forums.

Why aren't they "professions"? I'd like there to be professions, which gave the characters their initial skills and abilities, but after that they're free to learn new things as they wish.

>A: "we have a system for resolution mechanics, it works like this, this and this"
>B: "but it's not a proper system, because it's not a system I like, therefore, what you're playing amounts to freeform"
>A: "it's not freeform, because there are clearly distinct mechanics, do you even know what freeform is?"
>B: "but your system doesn't have any advantages and has this, this and this flaw"
>A: "the advantages are this, this and this and the flaws can be mitigated by using this"
>B: "well, yeah, but it's just freeform, for REAL RPGs you need a system that I like"
Stop using "freeform" as a buzzword for the things you don't like, because the user above is right - you do look autistic.

that's what i was talking about in sounds like a good idea on paper, but i have no frame of reference for something like that

Fuck yeah son! Job based games are the best! I've got a special love for the Wushu system. We cribbed the whole "hobby, history Job" thing (from Blackbird Pie I think?) And its become super easy to make whole campaigns or to make PC's.

>Giving players unrestricted access to any and all powers or skills they want means that either the game will be a broken mess or every single skill and power will have to be deliberately designed so they can't be combined in broken ways.

That second one isnt a huge problem. The only reason to have ability synergy is if you dont have a broad enough well of abilities to draw from.

What classless games have you played? If GURPS is it, then you dont really know what you're talking about.

Waste of time. Basically identical to a simple point-buy classless system. If they're presented as packages you can opt into, then thats fine, otherwise your game has the worst features of both types of games.

No, you dont, just look at shit like Barbs, or Small Towns, or even Engineheart.

>The only reason to have ability synergy is if you dont have a broad enough well of abilities to draw from.

What? Ability synergy should always be a thing. Your capabilities should be more than the sum of their parts, that's a good chunk of what makes character building fun.

>Both of them felt like they had no real options other than your class and race and since a lot of DM's will limit those choices you don't always get a lot of choice
That's horseshit. 3.x has lots of problems, but lack of choices isn't one of them. Especially in Pathfinder, where your choice of archetypes defines the character at least as much as the class. Some classes are more specialized, but then you have Fighter(for example) which is basically just a chassis for you to create the kind of character you want to.

I meant explicit mechanical synergy. I tend to stay away from systems that are simulationist to the point that heavy minmaxing/exploiting rules loopholes is the name of the game.

Its also interesting that you mentioned the fun of character building. Ive kinda grown out of that. It really is a lizard-brain behavior thats just rewarding you for making choices outside of things that are actually important to the game. If you play ttrpgs like they're wargames then I can understand the satisfaction in making a mechanically cheesey character, but for a lot of people thats just not the point. Making a character is a distraction, and its a skill that has nothing to do with quality of roleplay. A game with difficult or challenging character creation just puts up walls between people and play.

Like I said though, I understand why some people find it fun, but Ive been at it so long that I just see it as a waste of time. For reference, I grew up a 3-tard, so believe me when I say a younger version of myself would have wholeheartedly agreed with you.

I think he's more saying that a lot of the choices are bad, and thats a problem that DnD does have. There are multiple advancement currencies, and WotC still cant seem to peg down what a Feat should really be worth.

I feel like you're missing the point there. It's not two different, disconnected kinds of fun. The strength of an RPG is that it's both.

Building a character is directly related to roleplaying them and who they are, because their personality and experiences are influenced by their capabilities. If a combination of traits and abilities I select give them a unique capability due to that combination of traits, that will influence how they interact with the world and, therefore, how they are shaped by their experiences.

>simulationism is just loophole abuse
>the only way to have fun with character building is ultra-optimization
>3aboos are the primary group to care about character creation
You know, I don't think there are enough implications there. I'm sure you could make a more loaded response.