For example in Edge. I'm a force user, and I'm going to use move to pull the gun from the mooks hand. I roll up the Force Points I need. Yippie, I did it. Nope, the GM now says roll Discipline to do it.?!?!? Wha? Where did that come from. "Well, I just feel that the mook should be able to resist you, because that's how it was in WEG, CR, RCR, and Saga." Great, then go play one of this effing games! This rule book says nothing about opposed discipline checks for that.
1 - That has nothing to do with ditching classes. That's a disagreement between your reading of the rules and your GM's intentions. That sort of stuff should be hashed out before play begins.
2 - By the reading of the Control upgrade (and the concept of Move in general) all it does is "What you could do with your hands, without needing to use your hands" (I'm not getting into tossing starships about here). The rules for Move don't say you can automagically disarm your foes, that's normally something that can only be accomplished with Triumphs (or a leinent GM allowing a Melee attack to forgo damage for a disarm). Personally I'd rule for sort of thing, yeah, it would be opposed. But then I'd also have a discussion with the Player in advance about what sort of hijinks he thinks he can get away with using the Force and we'd negotiate how the Force works in our game.
Now that I hear what you are doing, my recommendation would be to _try_ it with the careers for 50-100 XP or so, see how it feels with the group. If it juGM does not work, recreate careerless (once your house rules are in place to handle it), and go about your merry way.
We just hit the 80 EXp mark in my game... and I have to say, stick with it till 200 EXP if you can.
Unless you've years, and years, and years of succesfully reinventing the wheel in the games you play. I might disagree with 2P51 (his "They're awesome" to my "It looks very slapdash"), but really the designers did have a plan. It might not work for you (it certianly doesn't for me) but it's worth it to see it through a ways to see where things break down for you.
For instance I'm just noticing the wierd non-statistical anomaly of "more failures with more Yellow dice" thing that is happening in my group. Something we wouldn't have seen down in the 50 EXP range band.
And 100 EXP isn't enough to start making a run at a second Dedication. Seeing how that shakes out for your group can also put a spin on your Classless rules. Heck 200 EXP almost isn't enough to get to 2 of 'em.
Many tabletop gamers believe a system which gives them as many character choices as possible is a better system than one which does not. For example, many cling to the idea that a classless system is inherently better than a system with classes.
This broad stroke isn't valid.
I prefer classless systems, I however wouldn't say they are "better". There are elements in many systems I prefer, the dice in this one for instance, that have or nothing to do with class.
My favorite system, GURPS
, falls down in many places for me and I wouldn't blindly suggest it to new gamers (in fact I'd suggest they go play WotC 3.5 Core D&D first*).
My first question when I face a game system is this one:
Can I make these three heroes with out "strange convolutions" withing the rules:
1 - Conan
2 - The Grey Mouser
3 - D'Artagnan
I can do that in every classless system I've run into. I can do that in this game despite the classes, which is a massive selling point! (ignoring that for a Sword and Sandal, a Mysterious Fantasy, and a Renaissance Swordsman game I'd need completely different Talents).
* It's a good mid-point between "extremely limited choice Class-based" and "free-wheeling Classless". Also it's a nice mid point between simulationist and gamist. If D&D 5e is as "good" as the designers are claiming it is, I might shift my "first recommendation" there, as it includes some narrativist elements.
Psychological studies about choice typically don't bear this behavior out. There is a limit at which excess options became paralyzing. In my opinion, too many classless, build-your-own-PC systems fall into this trap. Hero System is an excellent example. In theory, the system is brilliant, since you can create just about any type of character you can imagine. If this is such a good thing, why haven't these tenets spread outside over their relatively shallow waters?
It has. There are almost as many classless systems as there are classed systems.
Why are there so many Classed Systems? Because they are easier on the GMs. No other reason, it simplifies things for the guy running the game (levels when combined with classes increase this simplicity).
Indeed, I'm almost willing to call FFG Star Wars "Classless" because if the GM tells me "I have a Scoundrel Theif, a Fringer Doctor, and an Explorer Scout" I can't tell if we need someone with Piloting (Space) or not.
All three could have pretty good Piloting, all three could have skipped it.
Also the GM has to tailor his games based on his characters with far more care than in other Class-based games. Whn I run this system I know it'll take just as much work (probably more due to my non-mastery of the system) as it does for me running GURPS
* The joke here being I do almost no prep work for running GURPS
. Ever. I will have to do some prep for SW FFG until I'm more proficient with the rules.
Because people do not want infinite choices.
Then why do so many play Pathfinder or late-stage WotC 3.5 D&D?
Seriously, you want "choice paralysis" watch as the dazed look creeps across a new gamers face when confronted with the excruxiatingly level of Class choices (not to mention feats) presented in those games.
We had less issues when I ran a newb through GURPS
than when we introduced him to 3.5. (We actually had no issues with the newb making a GURPS
character, he made one in less than two hours mostly on his own... he spents three weeks agonizing over classes and feat and attributes for D&D 3.5 and that was with us sticking to just the Player's Handbook and the 7 "Complete" books).
What I am saying is that there are very good psychological reasons to use a class system, especially if you're trying to sell a lot of product.
That has nothing to do with "decision paralysis" and everything to do with "Look 3 new Classes in the new splatbook! Look, new options! Look new rules we didn't put in the Core book, rules YOU REALLY NEED!" followed by the rubbing of hands and evil-mustache-twirl and cackling.
It's why I'm never
going to buy anything FFG puts out. Luckily for FFG one guy (our current GM) is a Star Wars fanatic and buys everything Star Wars.
I think he personally funded their CEOs last vacation with his X-Wing Miniatures purchases alone... purchases for a game he doesn't play (we do use the miniatures in our space combat scenes at least). Le sigh.
For the naysayers, I once tried to remove classes from D&D 3rd and turn it into a freeform advancement game.
Blink, blink. D&D is nothing like FFG SW. D&D has classes and levels as it's core character building mechanic.
FFG SW does not. The core character building mechanic here is the interplay between Attributes and Skills and Talents. The Classes and Specializations are a way to "balance" characters after creation, nothing more.
And trying to turn D&D into a classless system? Sounds... crazy to me. But one man's fun is another's beating his head against a wall.
The game is already close enough to freeform advancement that it doesn't matter. But I also don't care to, because removing careers would only create problems that solve nothing.
It doesn't matter to you. It matters to me.
It solves my disgust with some of the "design choices" which do not look balanced in anyway.
Edited by evileeyore, 14 August 2014 - 01:21 PM.