What are the advantages and disadvantages of Class-based and Classless systems?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of Class-based and Classless systems?

I've seen a lot of people who think classes limit the player while classless gives them complete freedom, but I've seen more than once that sometimes classes give a solid foundation to many concepts, while classless systems end up with "archetypes" or "builds" that end up as pseudo-classes with none of the support of a class-based system.

I know it's not always the case, but the point is that it's not always what the majority seems to claim about either model.

> classless systems end up with "archetypes" or "builds" that end up as pseudo-classes

I think that this is actually a desirable result.

>while classless systems end up with "archetypes" or "builds" that end up as pseudo-classes
A character has to be good at some things but can't be good at everything, so how would you try to prevent this?

Both are good at different things. Classless systems give you a lot of flexibility, letting you mix and match to create a unique set of capabilities for your character. However, along with this, a lot of those capabilities are somewhat generic, with modifiers or combinations creating the interesting, characterful elements.

Classes, meanwhile, let you start with a strong mechanical core and build from there, letting you make much more focused and interesting mechanics that synergise internally, rather than leaving everything very open ended. It's a lot easier to make an individual classes mechanics interesting and fun without mechanical issues than it is to add those same mechanics to a classless system, where you need to be very careful about potential degenerate synergies or unintended mechanical consequences.

I enjoy both, although I also think hybrid systems, with freeform XP spending alongside certain mutually exclusive choices or closed mechanical systems, can work very well.

I find that it's mostly an issue of what kind of ideas players bring to the table.
If they have fully formulated ideas about who and what they want their characters to be, a classless system tends to provide the flexibility and granularity to translate those ideas into a mechanical construct.
If they just have a vague or even no idea what they want to play, classes are a useful starting point, around which more ideas can start to crystalize.

It's not that I'm trying to prevent it, but if the premise of your system is to avoid classes but you end up with totally-not-classes every time it defeats the purpose of a free system. I'm not saying these are bad, or that every classless system falls for it, but why avoid something if you're gonna end up with a similar enough result for your premise to end up irrelevant?

Good insight, user.

What are some 'hybrid' systems for me to look up? Sounds like an interesting concept.

I got you senpai

>classes games
one job user

As a Marxist, I'm vehemently opposed to clear-cut classes.
For starters, classes are templates at best ("the fighter", "the wizard", "the elf"). Much like moral alignments, they tend to RESTRICT you, and when coupled with a creative outlet like roleplaying where you make your own fun... it's a little contradictory. You shouldn't restrict people's creativity.

on the other hand, classless systems can quickly become clusterfucks, and because balance is hard to achieve, one person or more may end up feeling useless. But it's their fault for taking Violin Proficiency (A+) when the game is about hiphop bandits, right?

The game I'm most familiar with is Legends of the Wulin, which uses a freeform XP system, spending Destiny to get new skills or improve your Kung fu, but also has a few different class-esque elements which narrow your options.

Archetypes are broad sets of capabilities, with each PC selecting one at chargen- Warrior, Scholar, Doctor, Priest or Courtier. All of them are still Kung fu badasses, and it's possible to spread into other archetypes, but you get bonuses for sticking within your own.

You also choose Kung fu styles, Internal and External, representing your inner focus and outer fighting style, more or less. Internals and Externals aren't just one and done purchases, buying one allows you to buy more techniques from within the style itself, effectively paying upfront to gain access to it. Over time, a character can gain access to more Internals and Externals, but the up front purchase cost means you need to consider your choices very carefully, as picking a style is a commitment, and if you buy lots of little styles but only one or two tricks from each, you'll end up with a lot less than someone who really focused on their starting styles.

OMG I LOVE CLASSES GAMES

what you got is brain damage, sonny

IMO restrictions are good for creativity. Being able to do everything can often feel rather directionless. Having some limitations and requirements you need to follow forces you to improvise and can lead to unusual and interesting ways of approaching things.

Class-based systems tend to make the players feel more distinct from one another mechanically. Classless systems give you a higher degree of freedom in terms of what your character can do.

I prefer classless but they both have merit and can be done well.

Well, unless your game is really meandering slice-of-life, or everyone is so powerful they can do anything, you're gonna wanna specialize in one aspect of adventuring. The advantage of archetypes over classes is that not every wizard gets all the same stuff at the same time. You could be a wizard who only knows one massive nuke spell and can barely cast it, or just gets absurdly good at Level 1 spells, or learns swordfighting without having to multiclass.

You could probably do all of that with Feats and multiclassing, depending on what class game you're playing, but why not just play a classless game if you're getting so granular?

You are absolutely right. How dare someone make a thread that isn't 40k wankery or Money: the Gyppening

>class-based
Advantages: Boundaries
Disadvantages: Boundaries

>classless
Advantages: No boundaries
Disadvantages: No boundaries

>the real difference
It depends on who is playing.

Not the one who brought up hybrids, but I kind of like Double Cross's approach, even if the system as a whole is crap.

At its heart, DX is a point buy system. You've got stats, skills and powers, and you buy everything with the same resource. However, powers are divided into 12 classes, which each have theoretically unique options, and a general category with weaker, but freely accessible powers. You can pick up to three classes, with more classes giving more versatility, but imposing restrictions on power.

Additionally, you have three methods of character creation.
Quick Start has you just pick a pregen, add a few personal details and you're good to go.
Construction gives you a set number of stat points, skill points and power choices along with a few recommendations to guide you towards a reasonably competent character.
Full Scratch just dumps a bunch of points in your lap and tells you to go wild.

sounds nice, what makes the rest of the system crap?

General incompetence.
It's based on the SRS, Japan's d20 OGL equivalent and almost everything is designed with the assumption that HP matter, even though its main distinguishing gimmick makes HP meaningless.

I think the point of a non-class system isn't to avoid character archetypes, it's to avoid actually LOCKING people out of options.
Consider Shadowrun, a non-class system that goes out of it's way in the setting and gameplay to encourage people to pick up one or more of the roles of "hacker, driver, talker, fighter, mage". There's no intent to keep people from gravitating to those archetypes, but at the same time the option is open for people to make characters who can double up on conversational skills and combat skills, or hacking and driving.

Classless is pretty awesome.
>skyrim
>I'mma be a sword and board
>getting my ass kicked all over the place
>use companion to tank while I spam heals on her
>well, that's not terrible at all.
>hey, i can cast spells from stealth?!
>Awesome!
>Hmm, not enough stopping power/ CC. I bet I could do more damage with stealth archery.
>later I'm a stealth archer assassin

I had my group loosely base it off a class and their story. I didn't want anything locked in. What if the paladin has a fall? What if a mage wipes a whole village out and renounces his magic?

The problem, as you might have guessed, is that classes are often tied to either D&D or it's derivates. The problem being that even among the different editions, the concept of classes vary greatly. Classes can be and do a lot of different things, from being narrative, mechanical or stylistic archetypes (example: The paladin as "narrative" archetype is a good and well meaning warrior, but the focus of the mechanical archetype is a mixture of divine magic and melee combat (which has overlap with the narrative archetype). I think it's more important to ask:
Where can you go with classes as a concept? What sort of design space is still open?

On the other hand, with the growing digital aspect in "pnp" rpgs, classless systems also open up to more and more in-depth systems. Maybe something like the sphere grid from FF10 or the passive tree from PoE, which normally would be terrible in a pnp RPG, could be better implemented with a digital supplement. This would also help reduce the "pseudo"-classes you end up having, because you can have more unique combinations than before.

As someone who plays GURPS and loves it, I sometimes miss classes, just because a designer can sit down and think out what abilities certain roles should have and so players don't.

Sometimes, when given freedom they just fuck themselves. Classes ensure each player has an in and out of combat ability etc.

I find classless systems that require certain choices for roles or characters to work are better off being made into class systems to avoid players hamstringing themselves with fake choices.

I think that's a place where hybrid systems make a lot of sense. Have specific role choices that are mutually exclusive with guidelines as to what capabilities a group should cover, but leave things outside those necessary functions more open ended to still allow freedom of choice.