Why does every RPG seem to use the typical fighter, mage, and rogue, even if they have some crazy inventive setting?

Rolled 37 (1d100)

Am using the post number, but oh well

I was doing the same as and just using the last two digits. Not that I'm opposed to the dice function. Just being lazy.

This is interesting. I think it would work quite well for a "traveling caravan" sort of game.
>The Merchant
>Manage food, cargo, supplies, and money. Keeps the caravan running. In social situations, they are skilled at negotiating.
>The Bodyguard
>A formidable fighter, an effective commander, and good at perceiving threats. Defends the caravan from threats. Can use intimidation and shows of force to get their way in social situations.
>The Scholar
>Studies maps, flora, fauna, languages, history, religion, and other subjects to better understand the world. Guides the grand strategies and goals for the caravan. In social situations, they are skilled at navigating local ways and customs, particularly around nobility and aristocracy.

I like how they are all relevant to civilization, instead of being the typical D&D hobos. Merchant implies trading, rather than simply looting. Bodyguard implies protecting people, rather than seeking out stuff to kill. Scholar implies a researcher who publishes work and debates ideas with peers, rather than a mage isolated in a tower.

You realize that the rogue-mage-warrior trinity has been in existence since before Europe was civilized, right? That they were a part of Chinese folk tales before anyone had even dreamed the Roman Empire might ever exist?

Rolled 92, 83, 60, 74, 82, 56, 24, 42, 82, 32, 90, 23, 61, 93, 64, 81, 16, 31, 23, 84, 49 = 1242 (21d100)

Congratulations, you've started on the path to Chinese myth.

Rolling

>every RPG
Not everything is D&D or D&D derived.

That said, fighter, mage, and rogue are archetypes that predate RPGs. They've been around for ages. The noble fighter, the wise man, and the sneaky, but redeemable rogue, thief, or whatever. These speak to people on a deep level and they're easily recognisable. You don't need to explain it.

I play GURPS so my players aren't restricted :^)[/spoilers]

Classically, they cover the core concepts of most systems.
Physical (Fighter), Mental (Mage), and Social (Rogue) aptitude;
Front-end strength (Fighter), Back-end power (Mage), Utility/Versatility (Rogue);
Equipment (Fighter), Abilities (Mage), and Skills (Rogue)
etc. etc.

Also roll

Classes are fun. I made from the scraps of and bolted on a class system for my game as a sort of bonus layer on top of the actual characters underneath.

I designed the classes Armiger, Assassin, Animist, Bard, Berserker, Doctor, Druid, [Element]mancer, Farmer, Knight, Magi, Merchant, Necromancer, Paladin, Psiboy, Priest, Ranger, Thief, Tyrant, and Valkyrie. Nice solid bit of variety to play with and cross-class around under different names for NPC allies and enemies.

I feel like classes aren't as fun if the game revolves around them as a base identity like D&D does.

How's Shaman weebo?

Eastern spirituality is generally a mix of shamanistic practice and organized practice (mostly Buddhism). Shinto is probably the most well-known example.

Rolled 5, 6 = 11 (2d6)

Roll.
Rogue can be replaced with a Social Class and you have Another option is Physical, Faith, Social and Skills and Magical

Rolled 2 (1d100)

because you're gay
roll

Rolled 20, 43, 49, 99 = 211 (4d100)

sounds like a setting where you play as an arms dealer, nice

Rolled 3 (1d100)

Rolling

Thanks, it took me five seconds to think up.

Rolled 1 (1d100)

Let's find out

Rolled 85 (1d100)

heh

Rolled 78 (1d100)

Eh, fine.

No classes.
Classless systems is where it's at. People might fill into an archetype because archetypes exist for valid reasons, but filling into one should be a choice, not a requirement.

Why do we roll when your post has two numbers at the end anyway?

Rollan

Rolled 93 (1d100)

rolling

Butcher
Baker
Chandler

>why do we use a random number generator rather than a predictably increasing number marking how many posts have been made on a relatively slow mongolian basket-weaving forum when trying to get a random result

gee golly willikers, it's a real brain-tickler you posed there

Interesting. Predict your next three posts on Veeky Forums and link to them in the first post, please. I'm intrigued to know your divinations, ye mighty basement wizard.

Rolled 79 (1d100)

.

Classless is ironically far more difficult to balance.

>Butcher
>Baker
>Chandler
Also Joey.

It depends (tm).
If you go full generic, it's actually easier.

This. Classless definitely has its advantages, but any imbalance is freely exploitable by everybody.

You say this as if roleplaying is a competition as if people are forced to be unbalanced.

Most classless systems (like exalted) essentially by design give you the choice to have a serious advantage. It's really upto you if that's how you want to play it.

It's not a competition, but it kinda defeats the purpose of point values if you have to police yourself anyway, plus balance is pretty useful for keeping a game "on-track" so to say.

In my case as a GM I care more about being able to prep level appropriate encounters. That's almost impossible with a classless system and all its potential exploits. Especially if one character ends up considerably more exploitable than the rest of the party, then it becomes much tougher to balance to the satisfaction of both. So if one person makes that "choice" to be more powerful, it sorta fucks me as the antagonist designer.

Hunter, crafter, carer, farmer.

Of course, this can be expanded to more modern stuff.

Hunter is everything related to the art of war, including leadership.

Crafter is everything that needs you to sit down to do.

Carer is everything that needs other person to be sit down, including teaching, medicine, and economy (the house counts as sit down, ok?)

Farmer is everything related to dealing with the enviroment, including earthworks, animal husbandry, and simple architecture.

Peasent, burgher, noble.

Exalted isn't classless.

Aristocrat, bureaucrat, proletariat.