Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Voss wrote:
Hmm.
I rarely find class interacts with roleplaying in any way at all.

There are a few exceptions, like wizard = educated, and barbarian= unfortunate cultural stereotype, or street urchin= rogue, but thats more player choice than something set in stone.

Roleplaying is more about personality and back story, not class mechanics.
--
your example puzzles me, because except for crit % (which isn't an in-character roleplaying characteristic at all), swinging an axe well is in there by default, and boasting intimidation is easily accomodated by skills (either from class or background).

Your not wrong per se, but it does tend to point you in a very strong "thematic manner" towards what you should be doing with said character. Sure maybe your Frenzied Berserker is an uncultured rage monster, while someone else's is channelling the spirits of his honorable ancestors via ritual but then both these characters will essentially have the same in game choices in using there abilities and powers because of the class they took and level they are at. It is restrictive rather than permissive and if you spend a bit of time actually watching people play D&D you see how their class shapes their RP and character choices.

Perhaps my example is bad, but it comes down to a player being able to shape their character's abilities based on their vision for a character, rather than be told that your character can do X, Y, or Z no matter who their character is. The more I have played RPGs the more stale and railroading the class/Level system feels.

Of course, this is all like, my opinion man. Other people feel very differently and need the guard rails in place or enjoy the meta-game almost as much as the game itself. That is all well and good, different people like and need different things.

I get the feel that 'class' is much like 'alignment' in that it doesn't really affect much but it is where people who are good at role-playing really distinguish themselves.

That said, i found alignment to be useful at the character generation stage to work out how much of a 'hook' was needed to explain why the party were banding together.
And class can be useful to show when you are spontaneously casually role-playing along, provided it's different to your IRL class...

 Easy E wrote:
They need a more "a la carte" system where there are martial skills, and magic skills, and players can use skill points/XP to "Buy into" whatever they want IF they can meet the base requirements to simulate different archetypes or not at their choosing.

Games like exalted spring to mind from that description. Stats and skills that can be advanced freely, and ability trees that are locked by skill minimums.

I do feel though that constraints and limitations can be the source of creativity too, coming up with a reason that your barbarian is educated but still the victim of uncontrollable rages for example!

You do not need classes to do that though? They are just arbitrary bonuses linked to a "class" choice?

I suppose it is supposed to represent your "background" but there are a lot of different ways to handle that which are less binding, since classes also impact your advancement too?

I guess I have no idea what "classes" are suppose to represent after all. <Shrug>

They're supposed to broadly reflect what your character was learning/doing as an adult prior to you playing them.

Right, so then why does it continue on after you start playing?

 Easy E wrote:
I guess I have no idea what "classes" are suppose to represent after all. <Shrug>

The original D&D classes were intended to create clear archetypal character roles for each player - regardless of personality the warrior was always the most skilled combatant, the rogue always the most skilled thief, etc. And then the ongoing levels and xp charts were intended to keep them broadly on equal footing for the range of encounters they would face.
Most of it was fairly arbitrary -
https://orbitalflower.github.io/rpg/people/gary-gygax-quotes.html#character-classes

Class based games in general do tend to me a mix of guiding players down a path while ensuring they keep up with the other characters. The more choice you have the easier it is to make mechanically bad choices and fall out of sync with everyone else (assuming the underlying balance is sound in the first place). Makes it easier for casual players that don't want to skip out on the 'roll-playing' part of the roleplaying but also don't want to read too deeply into the options.

 Easy E wrote:
Right, so then why does it continue on after you start playing?

Because it's an iconic feature of the first and most recognizable/popular/best selling rpg system in top of being useful especially to new players? I'm not saying it's my personal preference (I prefer classless fully customizable systems myself) but I also recognize its merits.

I am going to argue (to continue to generate commentary and discussion) that classes are NOT helpful to new players.... at all.

I have taught dozens of players how to RPG and they find D&D much harder to wrap their heads around with all the bonuses, classes/sub-classes, niche cases, spell lists etc. They get hard coded into "Tank, Hitter, Healer, Support" instead of learning how to play an RPG.

Rules-lite systems are MUCH easier to teach new players the basics of RPG and get playing. Plus, they are less pigeon-holed from the outset while they learn and experiment with what is fun for them!

The reason why D&D is so popular, is because it is fun to talk about the "meta" because there is a lot you can unpack to try and squeeze out that last bit of extra power or oomph. It is also fun to "put together" various classes and abilities because there are so many of them. Many players LOVE this part of the experience and it gives you lots to talk about when you are not actually playing the game. This is a great benefit for semi-experienced players.

Rules-lite systems do not have this depth. Therefore, outside of the game there is very little to talk about mechanically or outside of an actual session. Less fun outside the game, but more fun when actually playing as you are not hard coded into a role from the start and are exploring the world instead of "Your class benefits" and staring at your sheet trying to figure out the minutia.

 Easy E wrote:
I am going to argue (to continue to generate commentary and discussion) that classes are NOT helpful to new players.... at all.
Rules-lite systems are MUCH easier to teach new players the basics of RPG and get playing. Plus, they are less pigeon-holed from the outset while they learn and experiment with what is fun for them!

You seem to be comparing complex class-based rules to rules-lite systems.

Masks (and all games under that system) is extremely rules light, but also heavily pigeonholed into classes. At the other extreme something like exalted has almost no concept of a class but can get absurdly complex both in creation and gameplay.

Something like masks isn't even using the class structure for game balance, it's just there to give a starting point for a player to work from and without it the whole game would probably hit choice paralysis in the first session despite its simplicity.

I like all kinds of RPGs, but I really do like Dungeons and Dragons for exactly what it is. Class based, archetype focused, kick in the door beat up the monster fun.
I like the wargamey aspects to it, I love dungeon exploration and I love weird and wacky monsters.

It's not the be all and end all of RPGs, and I think a lot of issues come from people thinking that they can port whatever game or genre into Dungeons and Dragons. I hear people saying they run D&D with almost no combat and I kinda think, what's the point? Why not play a game that supports that? Or people who talk about running a narrative, why not use a system structured for that sort of stuff, with storytelling mechanics and so on? D&D is great at what it is for, which is exploring dungeons, killing dragons, and stealing their stuff.

A.T. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I am going to argue (to continue to generate commentary and discussion) that classes are NOT helpful to new players.... at all.
Rules-lite systems are MUCH easier to teach new players the basics of RPG and get playing. Plus, they are less pigeon-holed from the outset while they learn and experiment with what is fun for them!

You seem to be comparing complex class-based rules to rules-lite systems.

Masks (and all games under that system) is extremely rules light, but also heavily pigeonholed into classes. At the other extreme something like exalted has almost no concept of a class but can get absurdly complex both in creation and gameplay.

Something like masks isn't even using the class structure for game balance, it's just there to give a starting point for a player to work from and without it the whole game would probably hit choice paralysis in the first session despite its simplicity.

It's not just rules lite, though. As you say, you can get quite a lot of crunch out of systems that are level/classless. The systems used to define a character are not directly linked to the systems used to act in the game world. You can have rules lite level/class systems and you can have complex crunchy point buys. GURPS is basically crunchy point buy. The Genesys games (including starwars) are class based point buy rules lite with a narrative focus.

That doesn't change what classes do. Classes pigeon hole people and they stop them from thinking of their characters as people and instead as a list of features.

A way I have described this to people is super man versus spiderman.

When you ask someone who Superman is they say "Well he has super strength and can fly and has heat and x ray vision and..."
It's a list of class features.

When you ask someone who Spiderman is they say "He's a kid who got bit by a radioactive spider. And it's power and responsibility because his uncle ben died. And he works at the daily bugle taking photographs..."
It's a description of a character.

Classes are the first one and people often describe their dnd characters in that way. "Well I am a level 12 barbarian with a 2 handed axe." and it's classes fault. They inherently start people thinking in those terms. It's not just detrimental, it's antithetical to everything a rpg is supposed to be about.

Not strictly DnD but Zine Quest 3 just started. So there is about to be a big rush of small indie RPG and RPG modules going up on Kickstarter in the next week or so. So those of you that like to collect these little one-shot rules and things. Have at it.

https://www.kickstarter.com/zinequest

 Lance845 wrote:
...it's antithetical to everything a rpg is supposed to be about.

Role playing game.

Classes are one form of game structure, existing to moderate the game side of the RPG. Different players will see them as restrictive and intrusive, or important to setting the underlying rules of the world, or as a useful tool to fill out all the little mechanical details that they don't want to have to think through and keep track of. The role playing side can be as much about taking on a role as creating one, adding personality to the the characters in a larger story.

Dungeons and Dragons invented and defined the RPG as a genre. It can hardly be antithetical to what those games are about.
It's fine not to like it though. Perfectly valid. But trying to narrow RPGs down to one specific thing that you like and labelling the other stuff you don't like as wrongfun is a bit closed minded.

 Da Boss wrote:
I like all kinds of RPGs, but I really do like Dungeons and Dragons for exactly what it is. Class based, archetype focused, kick in the door beat up the monster fun.

I like the wargamey aspects to it, I love dungeon exploration and I love weird and wacky monsters.

I think this hits the nail on the head. At first, it was almost an Model vs. Model wargame using theatre of the mind and resolution mechanics only. Once everyone got on board 100% with Minis, it really is just a Model vs. Model highly detailed skirmish game with some other stuff bolted on for non-combat.

When I play it with that mindset, it works really well. Great point Da Boss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Perfectly valid. But trying to narrow RPGs down to one specific thing that you like and labelling the other stuff you don't like as wrongfun is a bit closed minded.

Not trying to do that at all. Just having a conversation, in fact I try to pinpoint some of its inherent appeal earlier.

Nah I was responding to Lance. Who has some great points to make, but sometimes comes across a bit too absolutist about this stuff. Not trying to shut down the conversation either.

 Da Boss wrote:
Dungeons and Dragons invented and defined the RPG as a genre. It can hardly be antithetical to what those games are about.
It's fine not to like it though. Perfectly valid. But trying to narrow RPGs down to one specific thing that you like and labelling the other stuff you don't like as wrongfun is a bit closed minded.

DnD invented it more or less on accident and long before any truly formal study of game design theory. What DnD was trying to do was make a dungeon crawl version of a table top war game. The RP part of the RPG was basically a happy accident.

I am not talking about what I do or do not like. I am talking about the mechanic that is over 50 years old, as you pointed out, and put in place while trying to create something else entirely is a outdated mechanic that has detrimental impact on the intended purpose of the actual genre that exists today. This isn't opinion. This is an assessment of the mechanic and it's impact.

The part where you talk about intended purpose of the genre is opinion. I agree, the class structure has an impact which is detrimental to the style of game you enjoy, and I think many people agree with you about that.

But where I disagree with you is that something as broad as the RPG hobby has one "intended purpose". It's too reductive, and is in my view just an attempt to lend extra weight to your argument that it doesn't need, because the argument is fine on it's own.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am talking about the mechanic that is over 50 years old, as you pointed out, and put in place while trying to create something else entirely is a outdated mechanic that has detrimental impact on the intended purpose of the actual genre that exists today. This isn't opinion. This is an assessment of the mechanic and it's impact.

In your previous post you used superman vs spiderman for a class features vs character example - but what you actually described was crunch vs fluff.

In any game system both superman and spiderman would have super strength, and each would have as much or as little backstory as the player provided.

Class systems provide a structure. I'd suggest looking at the masks system as it is a free download for the character files - the system is so loose on rules that it has a 'moment of truth' advancement for players where everyone just sits back while that player tells the story instead, but it still uses classes to hold things together in a way that makes it quick and easy for a player to pick the system up.

I liked the what Warhammer RPG did it where classes are professions which help to cohere the idea of your character.

Like say this campaign I want to play a character skilled with a bow and good at hiding in the woods, seeing the poacher or gamekeeper class would help you get an idea about why your character is good at those things, what sort of equipment they would have, what sort of social interactions would be common for them etc. instead of choosing those things from a list without context.
I can see the argument that they are not necessary, but they are basically just a list of ideas to help get the creative juices going!

Even in DnD, people tend to play all these crossbreed and expanded material classes that no-one has ever heard of. This lets them pick and chose what they want, so it's not really restricting anybody.

Da Boss wrote:The part where you talk about intended purpose of the genre is opinion. I agree, the class structure has an impact which is detrimental to the style of game you enjoy, and I think many people agree with you about that.

But where I disagree with you is that something as broad as the RPG hobby has one "intended purpose". It's too reductive, and is in my view just an attempt to lend extra weight to your argument that it doesn't need, because the argument is fine on it's own.

I hear you and I appreciate what you are saying. But it's in the name. It's not Munchkin where you ARE just a race and class and power level (If you are lucky enough to get those cards). It's a ROLE PLAYING game. The RP is front and center. It's the actual genre we are talking about. And by no means am I saying anyone should not have their fun however it is that they want to have their fun.If some group prefers more eleborate Muchkin then they can always just not RP and do that and have a blast. I am not calling it wrongfun. I am talking purely mechanically about the genre and the mechanics used within in.

A.T. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I am talking about the mechanic that is over 50 years old, as you pointed out, and put in place while trying to create something else entirely is a outdated mechanic that has detrimental impact on the intended purpose of the actual genre that exists today. This isn't opinion. This is an assessment of the mechanic and it's impact.

In your previous post you used superman vs spiderman for a class features vs character example - but what you actually described was crunch vs fluff.

In any game system both superman and spiderman would have super strength, and each would have as much or as little backstory as the player provided.

Class systems provide a structure. I'd suggest looking at the masks system as it is a free download for the character files - the system is so loose on rules that it has a 'moment of truth' advancement for players where everyone just sits back while that player tells the story instead, but it still uses classes to hold things together in a way that makes it quick and easy for a player to pick the system up.

I am not talking about crunch versus fluff. I am talking about the psychological impact certain mechanics have on it's players and how that impacts game play. Whether you are aware of it or not game mechanics work not just mechanically but psychologically and create certain skews in the way players experience game play. When you crack open a dnd book over the last 50 years players describe their character in the same order that they create them. I am a Elf (pick your race) Wizard (pick your class) with a dagger (pick your equipment). That is not a coincidence.

It's a role playing game that begins and ends the entire character creation process by asking you what you can do instead of who you are with a rules lite bit tacked onto the end saying "Now make up some gak for fluff!" that is so disjointed from the rest of the character creation experience that most people would have a hard time remembering everything thats in there and the bits they do remember are going to be the statistical entities (what color is your hair/eyes? How tall are you? What color is your skin?) Again, nothing Spiderman about it.

Now... DnD 5e does take some halting steps towards being better. Choosing your "Personality and Background' as step 4 in the character creation right before equipment but also right after they talk about levels first, races second and classes third. You would THINK that talking about a characters background first might inform the choice in class but thats not what these mechanics are about.


Genesys is classes done better. Not great yet, but better. In that the "classes" in the starwars RPG are kind of like an overlay that gets placed over your character and makes certain options cheaper in a point buy system while not restricting you from other options. But then you can choose any other overlay from any other "class" so that you can make your character to fit whatever story you are giving them. I get the idea of making the mechanics digestible for players. But what classes are is people doing it this way because they have been raised to do it this way by the game that invented doing it this way when they were trying to make a different game. We have learned a lot in that time and there is no reason to keep doing things in a bad way because.

 Lance845 wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I am going to argue (to continue to generate commentary and discussion) that classes are NOT helpful to new players.... at all.
Rules-lite systems are MUCH easier to teach new players the basics of RPG and get playing. Plus, they are less pigeon-holed from the outset while they learn and experiment with what is fun for them!

You seem to be comparing complex class-based rules to rules-lite systems.

Masks (and all games under that system) is extremely rules light, but also heavily pigeonholed into classes. At the other extreme something like exalted has almost no concept of a class but can get absurdly complex both in creation and gameplay.

Something like masks isn't even using the class structure for game balance, it's just there to give a starting point for a player to work from and without it the whole game would probably hit choice paralysis in the first session despite its simplicity.

It's not just rules lite, though. As you say, you can get quite a lot of crunch out of systems that are level/classless. The systems used to define a character are not directly linked to the systems used to act in the game world. You can have rules lite level/class systems and you can have complex crunchy point buys. GURPS is basically crunchy point buy. The Genesys games (including starwars) are class based point buy rules lite with a narrative focus.

That doesn't change what classes do. Classes pigeon hole people and they stop them from thinking of their characters as people and instead as a list of features.

A way I have described this to people is super man versus spiderman.

When you ask someone who Superman is they say "Well he has super strength and can fly and has heat and x ray vision and..."
It's a list of class features.

When you ask someone who Spiderman is they say "He's a kid who got bit by a radioactive spider. And it's power and responsibility because his uncle ben died. And he works at the daily bugle taking photographs..."
It's a description of a character.

Classes are the first one and people often describe their dnd characters in that way. "Well I am a level 12 barbarian with a 2 handed axe." and it's classes fault. They inherently start people thinking in those terms. It's not just detrimental, it's antithetical to everything a rpg is supposed to be about.

.....But you can also describe them the opposite way

"Superman is an alien who is the last survivor from the planet Krypton who got sent to earth and who lives as mild-mannered Clark Kent so that he can learn about the latest happenings..."

"Spider-man can shoot webs, crawl on walls, he's got super strength, spidey-senses.."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I am going to argue (to continue to generate commentary and discussion) that classes are NOT helpful to new players.... at all.
Rules-lite systems are MUCH easier to teach new players the basics of RPG and get playing. Plus, they are less pigeon-holed from the outset while they learn and experiment with what is fun for them!

You seem to be comparing complex class-based rules to rules-lite systems.

Masks (and all games under that system) is extremely rules light, but also heavily pigeonholed into classes. At the other extreme something like exalted has almost no concept of a class but can get absurdly complex both in creation and gameplay.

Something like masks isn't even using the class structure for game balance, it's just there to give a starting point for a player to work from and without it the whole game would probably hit choice paralysis in the first session despite its simplicity.

Masks is a fun, interesting example for me because it does almost (in my eyes) the exact opposite approach to class that DnD does.

In DnD, your class dictates the mechanical abilities that your character has. You can describe them and why your character has them in any way you like, and your character's personality can be whatever you want it to be, but at the end of the day, you need to come up with some kind of reason why, for example, your druid can turn into animals, or your wizard can cast magic spells, or your artificer can invent/enchant things. With the way multiclassing works and the fact that the system at the end of the day just isn't that deep, it is actually fairly alacarte - tbh I think if you had a system where you could take any abilities you want but they're in 'trees' then you'd essentially end up with the same thing, or something awfully similar. You'd probably spread out the choice rather than having each tree have a dozen-odd choices at level 3 and then be linear from then on out, but regardless of what you want to call it it'd end up fairly similar.

In Masks, you dictate whatever mechanical abilities that your character has, and your Playbook dictates the archetype that you're going to be fulfilling and the tropes you want your personality to play into. And that works great for heavily 'trope based' mediums like Superhero stories, or monster of the week detective shows. I've also adapted Masks pretty successfully into an ensemble cast fighting-based anime show setup.

 Lance845 wrote:
When you crack open a dnd book over the last 50 years players describe their character in the same order that they create them. I am a Elf (pick your race) Wizard (pick your class) with a dagger (pick your equipment). That is not a coincidence.

But is that due to classes?

If the 3rd edition DnD handbook started with a whole chapter on character background, motivation, and personality followed by choosing a class that best fits them for example ?

the_scotsman wrote:
tbh I think if you had a system where you could take any abilities you want but they're in 'trees' then you'd essentially end up with the same thing, or something awfully similar. You'd probably spread out the choice rather than having each tree have a dozen-odd choices at level 3 and then be linear from then on out, but regardless of what you want to call it it'd end up fairly similar.

See the exalted game system for an example of this.

It has it's ups and downs - you create a character, think about their backgrounds and motivations, decide you want them to be a master swordsman with a side in sorcerery and now you have to read through the 36 interlinked charm cascades (see image).
Though there was also the starwars system where each character class was their own self contained ability cascade, something of a half and half approach.

A.T. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
When you crack open a dnd book over the last 50 years players describe their character in the same order that they create them. I am a Elf (pick your race) Wizard (pick your class) with a dagger (pick your equipment). That is not a coincidence.

But is that due to classes?

Yes. More specifically the level/class system used by D20.

If the 3rd edition DnD handbook started with a whole chapter on character background, motivation, and personality followed by choosing a class that best fits them for example ?

No. Because the entirety of D20 is a cohesive system of mechanics that encourages you to do nothing but kill for reward. Experience points are only distributed for killing enemies in 3rd. Loot is rewarded for killing enemies. It wasn't until 4th when they started even considering a diplomatic situation an "encounter" that should be treated with skills tests with goals and experience rewards for completion. And even then that was the less common of situations. None of this is existing in a vacuum on it's own. It's part of a system of mechanics that function together to build the game play experience. Class is one component in that that fits VERY well in with the other components of D20 to build the experience it was original designed for. A single model per player tactical war game with loot and advancement.

Again, 5th makes some measure of headway on this. The few components of character background that have mechanical presence actually do help you to see who your character is. Backgrounds help you see who they were so you can map out how they got to where they are. But 3.x and before? A complete wasteland of murder hobos.

 Lance845 wrote:
No. Because the entirety of D20 is a cohesive system of mechanics that encourages you to do nothing but kill for reward. Experience points are only distributed for killing enemies in 3rd. Loot is rewarded for killing enemies.

Firstly, xp mechanics and class mechanics are two entirely different things.

Secondly, it has been forever since I played a 3e game where xp and loot are distributed in that way. It's a guideline just like the wealth by level chart and challenge rating so that inexperienced players and DMs have something to work with. And still has nothing to do with the class system.

 Lance845 wrote:
Backgrounds help you see who they were so you can map out how they got to where they were. But 3.x and before? A complete wasteland of murder hobos.

The last 2nd ed game I played in featured a character referred to by the party as 'the thief'. He had a complex background and motivations, was an active driving force in the plot, and was primarily a spellcaster who killed almost no-one across many levels of gameplay with xp being handed out completely by the book.

Last exalted game I played in was populated entirely by murderhobos.

 Lance845 wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
When you crack open a dnd book over the last 50 years players describe their character in the same order that they create them. I am a Elf (pick your race) Wizard (pick your class) with a dagger (pick your equipment). That is not a coincidence.

But is that due to classes?

Yes. More specifically the level/class system used by D20.

Yeah, it couldn't be that the inspiring work of fiction that created dungeons and dragons was based on characters whose personality was often defined by things they could do, and often people who go into roleplaying games are interested in creating characters that feel like existing tropes in fiction, gravitating towards settings where characters are commonly described based on their abilities first and personalities second.

When you ask someone to describe Legolas, Gimli, Gandalf, or Aragorn, what percentage of people do you think would start with

A) their fantasy race
B) their capabilities in a fight
C) their personalities

I would put money on A or B making up over 90% of responders.

(sidebar: this is why I think your "Spider Man Vs Superman" comparison is unrealistic. A person asked to describe either will almost certainly describe their abilities prior to describing their personalities. Most likely what you'd get is their basic abilities, costume/appearance, and then their backstory/origin story which might include some aspects of their personality/personal conflicts. There is almost no chance that someone would talk about 'great power, great responsibility' before the fact that Spider Man can climb walls, spin webs, etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's a reason why the most common/successful RPG settings are those for whom characters can be quickly described and based on their abilities:

-High Fantasy Ensemble Cast Settings
-Urban Fantasy Modern Halloween Monster Settings
-Spy/Heist Movie Ensemble Cast Modern Settings
-Superhero Team Settings
-Science Fiction Ensemble Cast Settings
-Horror movies with a single monster/threat and a group of heroes rather than a sole protagonist

The kind of media that people tend to want to gravitate towards when playing or designing RPGs typically uses tropes as a way to quickly define and establish a large number of characters so the audience can track who's who without spending an inordinate amount of time establishing the character, and the quickest way to do that is by giving the character a distinctive appearance or a distinctive set of abilities.

This isn't some secret conspiracy driven by DnD's original designers, it's a natural outgrowth based on the fact that RPGs naturally lend themselves to genres where a larger group of distinctive characters are given equal screentime rather than a sole protagonist.

I am not claiming conspiracy and i am not saying players cannot go against the grain to do other things with a system that is built to encourage you to do otherwise.

I am participating in a discussion about the mechanic of level/class systems and what it does to players perception of their characters and how that impacts game play. Everyone is different and you can get outliers and with experience people can and will break the mold. But if you are talking about what the system does to and for new players then thats what i am talking about.

DnD is the often used lense of this discussion and that lense is old and mired in out dated legacy design decisions that stick around because.... Reasons.

An anecdote about the good rp you had in a 2nd ed game isnt discussing what the mechanic does. Your dm decideding to make up his own rules for loot and exp isnt discussing the system as is.

LotR has nothing to do with the original dnd. It has EVERYTHING to do with adnd. But adnd was still built around the skeleton of single model chainmail.

Systems exist with good character mechanic models (point buy/levelclass/hybrid) and good character creation that help new players become a person inside the world they live in instead of a PC beat stick dropped into the middle of a field and ready to kill. D20 not only isnt one of them, its one of the worst.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am not claiming conspiracy and i am not saying players cannot go against the grain to do other things with a system that is built to encourage you to do otherwise.

I am participating in a discussion about the mechanic of level/class systems and what it does to players perception of their characters and how that impacts game play. Everyone is different and you can get outliers and with experience people can and will break the mold. But if you are talking about what the system does to and for new players then thats what i am talking about.

DnD is the often used lense of this discussion and that lense is old and mired in out dated legacy design decisions that stick around because.... Reasons.

An anecdote about the good rp you had in a 2nd ed game isnt discussing what the mechanic does. Your dm decideding to make up his own rules for loot and exp isnt discussing the system as is.

LotR has nothing to do with the original dnd. It has EVERYTHING to do with adnd. But adnd was still built around the skeleton of single model chainmail.

Systems exist with good character mechanic models (point buy/levelclass/hybrid) and good character creation that help new players become a person inside the world they live in instead of a PC beat stick dropped into the middle of a field and ready to kill. D20 not only isnt one of them, its one of the worst.

Your premise here appears to be that, because the character creation system in dnd 5e is laid out such that you select

1 race
2 class
3 ability scores
4 background

that leads players, naturally, to primarily describe their characters in terms of gameplay only...despite the fact that race in dnd has a relatively minor impact on how your character approaches gameplay as compared to your class and a much greater impact in terms of how they become a person inside the world they live (because race in dnd is essentially a shorthand with added visual language for how we would consider 'culture' in our human world where multiple different species of sentient being do not exist).

And your premise here relies, basically, on the player just...I don't know, not reading the first paragraphs of the section? before it gets into "Step 1: choose your race"?

"Your first step in playing an adventurer in the Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine and create a character of your own. Your character is a combination of various statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world.

Before you dive into step 1 below, think about the kind of adventurer you want to play. You might be a courageous fighter, a skulking rogue, a fervent cleric, or a flamboyant wizard. Or you might be more interested in an unconventional character, such as a brave rogue who likes hand-to-hand combat, or a sharpshooter who picks off enemies from afar. Do you like fantasy fiction featuring dwarves or elves? Try building a character of one of those races. Do you want your character to be the toughest adventurer at the table? Consider a class like barbarian or paladin. If you don't know where else to begin, take a look at the illustrations in this book to see what catches your interest.

Once you have a character in mind, roll on these steps in order, making decisions that reflect the character you want. Your conception of your character might evolve with each choice you make. What's important is that you come to the table with a character you're excited to play."

But hey, maybe you're right. Maybe these unspecified other RPG systems are infinitely superior, and would never approach character creation in such simplistic terms - they would certainly approach things COMPLETELY differently. Let's just look at the last one you mentioned, GURPS. I'm just going to google GURPS fantasy and look at the first free PDF I can find on google, which looks to be the fourth edition.

Character creation is on page 104, and section one is, oh, "Racial Templates."

After that we have "Occupational Templates". Well that's completely different from Classes clearly, an occupation is how you fit into the world, it's not just what the combat capabilities of your character are. The first ones listed are, let's see:

Archer: This template works for any light
missile troops who provide support
to cavalry or heavier infantry. The
longbow is the classic weapon, but
other options are available

Artificer: Artificers are the technology specialists of fantasy worlds. They can’t
use spells or other forms of magic, but
they can make devices that seem
equally wonderful and mysterious to
the untrained, such as singing birds
made from gold, temple doors that
open by themselves, or Greek fire.

It goes on, Assassin, Bandit, Barbarian, etc with the description primarily being based on 'what your character does in combat.' You choose your background in step 3 rather than step 4, but that's only because you determine your basic stat attributes by taking the base values defined by your class and adding your template.

It does say that you can just define your own template for your class - sorry, Occupation - yourself, and that the templates provided are only examples, but that's the thing: They're the ONLY examples listed, and they are primarily combat-based.

I fail to see how a system where I start by choosing a race, and I choose "I want to be an elf" and that gets me:



would encourage me to more narratively determine how my character fits into the world, vs choosing "I want to be an elf" and that gets me:



I learn approximately equal amounts about the culture assigned to elves from both, I get a few mechanical abilities from both. The only thing you could say is "excessively combat oriented" about the dnd race rules here is that I get training in a few extra weapons and some magic for being an elf, but the racial description in GURPS refers to combat multiple times - talking about how I 'rely on agility rather then strength' and about how my leaders have 'centuries of skill in warfare.'