Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Caliber42

Ditching classes.

73 posts in this topic

 

 

I think it's the wonky way some Talent Trees are laid out... and the obvious munchkin choices that are bothering me more.

 

 

I'm with you on this one. It seems almost like they just drew random lines. There's no sense to the escalation in cost or placement on the "railroad grid." 

 

But I've always hated advancement trees. The moment you start taking things not because you want them, but because you have to in order to get to where you want to go, my attention drifts. 

 

We've been kicking around the idea of dropping the extra xp cost for taking out of class specializations. It's not come up yet because no one has wanted to so far, but the main reason we're pondering it is entirely because of the layout of the talents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Levels I hate...classes I can live with.  But if you don't like it, you can actually play the game just fine without any Talents at all.  The players just get really good at certain skills.  Mind you, not having Toughness and Grit means you have to ease up on some challenges.

I've thought about that. But it feels like it would strip away some of the "wahooey" that makes Star Wars cinematic.

 

Alternately you could use the following:

 

Toughness and Grit cost:  5, 10, 15, 20, 25

Enduring and Durable cost:  10, 20, 25

Ranked Talents cost:  5, 15, 25XP (max of 3)

Non-ranked Talents cost:  15

Non-ranked Talents with an Improved/Supreme cost:  10, 20, 25

Dedication or Force Rating cost:  25, and for each you must have at least 5 other Talents, at least one of which is another 25XP Talent

I'll take a longer look at that.  It looks smooth.

 

...if you have a 4 Int, why even bother training knowledges? 4 green will blow away most all knowledge check anyway. Might as well invest everything in Ranged combat where extra success = more damage).

Not everyone's a munchkin.

My character has 4 INT and 4 CUN, I've trained the Knows all my Knows at least 1 rank. I haven't touched combat skills... yeah, being useful in combat is difficult for my character, but I tend to manage (I fix things, I break things, I slice, I heal, I act as a tiny distraction, I steal vehicles and drive poorly, I reload people's weapons, I throw stun/smoke/EMP grenades with much hilarity, etc).

 

Now, if we want to critique the talent trees (and, lo, there is MUCH critiquing that could happen there), their various shapes and compositions, I'm game, but that's another discussion entirely.

A long and no doubt frustrating and confusing discussion. The current configurations make such little sense to me.

 

20.8% increase in success.  If you're curious.....

I know the odds... It just feels like since going from 2Y2G in Mechanics to 3Y1G I fail a lot more. As in "if I'm not Boost stacking, I fail". The Smuggler feels the same, she went from 1Y2G in Light Ranged to 3Y and now never succeeds without 2 Boost dice. And that's against 1P most of the time.

I'm sure it'll even out, but right now we're both sorta wishing we could roll those skills back...

 

We've been kicking around the idea of dropping the extra xp cost for taking out of class specializations. It's not come up yet because no one has wanted to so far, but the main reason we're pondering it is entirely because of the layout of the talents.

I'm really the only one in my group who has hit this "problem". I've spent 50 EXP on just picking up two other specs... but then I felt it was "worth it" as they both brought me skills (2 skills in total) I was going to buy to 5 anyway, so in the long run it'll even out. It's the next Spec Tree that has to be really, really, really worth it before I'll bother (like it needs 2 skills I want or a whole host of low hanging Talents)...

Edited by evileeyore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For none of you having actually tried what the OP was asking about, you sure are sure about how the game would go.

 

I hate classes with a passion also. Blame WEG, Steve Jackson and DP9 for that. That and a desire to actually think for myself instead of obeying the rules. Let the player decide what they want their character to be instead of a game designer's view.

 

I got rid of classes and class skills. The only time it mattered was that you picked a starting tree and got the skills available to that tree. After char gen, all you needed was two of the spec skills at level 2 to buy off that specs tree.

 

The game went over 800 XP over the 18 months we played (yes the game started in the beta). No player had more than 3 talent trees, and no more than two or three L5 skills. I didnt have any problems with the game, as I play with adults, and not people who think abusing the game system is fun. My players got very good at fast talking their way into and out of trouble, and they got pretty good with blasters and fists, but they were scoundrels for the most part, so autofire was used only a few times in the game, and was only occasionally devastating. That just makes it fun. Giving 15 xp per session is a bit much tho, but I think that a as much a generic issue as a house rule issue. I will prolly do 10 xp per next time I run a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since your career is largely meaningless anyways, I'm also unclear as to what you gain from taking careers out of the game. See, Star Wars is already a level-less, largely freeform advancement system, and your career really doesn't play into that. Rather than removing them as some abomination (which is why I so hate when people make house rules), I would like to know what the problem is and why people want to remove them in the first place. How are careers getting in the way and stopping the game from occurring? How are they tripping things up? Are they tripping things up? Or is this just a knee jerk reaction or something to do with the Dedication talent? Because the latter has already been discussed to death as to why that's unnecessary.

Maelora likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Recruit Universal tree in AoR, would help with a lot of this.... except the getting rid of classes part.  It has a ton of skill access etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a conversation. I see a lot of good points, and a lot of...well...yeah.

I have not done what the original post is asking. I am playing my game as much by RAW as I can. Mainly for three-ish reasons.

1. I'm still pretty new to the system and still trying to learn the ins and outs of it.

2. My new group has never played, well except for a couple of minor mini adventures with me; and most just went out and bought the books and are reading them now. So we will all be playing the same game, no wierd house rules to deal with, no one is thinking one thing and having something different come up.

2a. I have just met these people and I am building up my trust base with them. As seen in other threads, I want them to realize that I am here to have fun, tell a good (I hope great) story, and that I am not here to screw them over.

3. I spent a lot of money on this stupid book, so I am going to use it. :)

Some people here make it sound like that if you want to play by the rules, then you are mindless retard who can't do anything on their own. That following the game designers view is wrong. Well, I don't agree. Following the rules does not limit player creativity.

Some people here feel deviating from the written gospel of the book is horrendous and evil. That you can't break the law of the designers. Ok...

People have to do what they, and the group feels right. If everyone is on board with it, then great. Nothing is worse than playing your character and all of sudden the GM changes the rules on you, or you didn't know about them. 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.

My question to the original poster, have you played this game yet? If so, did you play it with Carrers? If not, try it out first, you may actually like it. To those that did play it without Carrers, did you play the game with them too?

I too cut my teeth with WEG Star Wars. I loved that system. Making the switch to D20 was horrible on me. I learned to kind of like RCR, I always hated Saga. I have never been a fan of "Levels". You can't put a level on a 900 year old Jedi master... So if you want to go think for your self, and play a game with out Classes/Careers, then why aren't you still playing those other games?

I am not accusing anyone here of anything, but in my 25 years of gaming I have seen mainly two types of "house rules". Those that a GM/DM makes up to limit the players. And the "house rules" players try to bring in to be a power game. Very rarely are the house rules there to enhance the game to make it "funner" for everyone.

So my advice to the original poster; play the game as written, try it out, learn what works for you and your group, then change what you don't like. Then you actually have a reason to say I changed rule x becuase of this reasoning. Instead of saying well that is how it was in Saga or Pathfinder or whatever.

whafrog and Roman Virtue like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gone for a couple days and returned to find more responses then I thought I'd receive.

 

Like others, I started playing WEG D6 back in '87 I believe it was. I still have many of my books actually...

 

Edge intrigues me, and I've dabbled with it here and there, along with a friend of mine who I've been gaming with for 20+ years. We've played one full session and several sessions of mock combats and skill-checks. I'm not against careers so much as I miss the conceptual character design elements I got from WEG, essentially letting ME create the "career" and starting skills. My players aren't min-maxxers or power gamers, they're just a group of guys who have a starting concept they find is easier to achieve with a classless system.

 

Given the varied responses, and the power of the internet and it's effect on inflection and tone, I get the feeling some are looking at the original topic as heresy. I'm just simply curious if anyone tried it or not.

 

-Cal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back Cal!  I hope all of these replies (some rather vehement) have not scared you off.

 

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 just does not work, recreate careerless (once your house rules are in place to handle it), and go about your merry way.

 

Personally, I found the career helped ground me and focus the character a little bit.  Helped me determine what the character was innately good at, and what they were innately bad at; and gave me easier to find targets to make the character better or worse at for flavour.  It also helped me _not_ step on the toes of the other players at my table.  Without knowing that my table already had 2 smuggler pilots, I might have created one; and thus we would have had at least one pilot not piloting, which sorta defeats the purpose.  Without careers, all the GM could tell me was, "Well, there are 4-6 other people, and I have no idea what they want to build; so just pick something and we will try and make it work."

 

Even in WEG Star Wars, you had templates to start with, and then you broke off and did whatever you like.  This is almost that free form, it is just a little more expensive in XP to get there.  Completely possible, just not a cheap on the XP front.

 

Kevynn

r2trooper and whafrog like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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?

 

Because people do not want infinite choices. There's a reason why 10 or so items works on a fast food menu and why a handful of classes work in an RPG. People dislike infinite choices, because they obsess over making the wrong choice with so many options to choose from. The brain is, essentially, incapable of parsing the various data in order to choose 'correctly' (for whatever that might mean to the individual).

 

Now, I'm not saying systems like Hero or Gurps are bad. They are fine systems. 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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?

 

Because people do not want infinite choices. There's a reason why 10 or so items works on a fast food menu and why a handful of classes work in an RPG. People dislike infinite choices, because they obsess over making the wrong choice with so many options to choose from. The brain is, essentially, incapable of parsing the various data in order to choose 'correctly' (for whatever that might mean to the individual).

 

Now, I'm not saying systems like Hero or Gurps are bad. They are fine systems. 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. 

 

Exactly. I was making characters with my group for Barbarians of Lemuria a few weeks ago. For those unfamiliar, this is a very rule slight game with a few stats, no skills, a handful of different mechanical items to buy, and that's it. One player took literally two hours agonizing over the choice of 2 flaws and 3 bonuses. Nearly all flaws and bonuses in this game are a dice penalty/bonus that applies in that situation, so there were very few details to go over. This was just a matter of picking a few situations the player wanted his character to shine and to struggle. I even limited the choices for each player to their race and profession so things didn't get slowed down. 2 hours for a game that should only take 20-30 minutes with a new player. It was ridiculous. All because the player froze and agonized over the best options to take, thinking that he had to game the system.

 

For the naysayers, I once tried to remove classes from D&D 3rd and turn it into a freeform advancement game. I tried to turn all skills, class abilities, and feats into XP purchases, not unlike what Mutants and Masterminds does (but ages before that book came out). It was a disgusting mess. It was so hard to even come up with the numbers, let alone reproduce a valid character. It was a fun idea, but you'd never be able to play with what I had come up with. I haven't done this with Star Wars because I don't need nor care to. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Two things:

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.

Ahahahahahahaha...

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
Kavadh and KevynnRedfern like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

I always try to make the charming rogue type. That's my standard way of testing out whether I like a new system or not - can I make a character inspired by Errol Flynn? 

 

For all that I rail about specific things (like medicine, stimpacks and surgeon - hahaha) I do love the system in general. Everyone can be Errol Flynn!!!

 

Everyone!!!

 

How freaking awesome is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I run into systems that don't quite click right with me for whatever reason I fall back to either Fate Core or Savage Worlds. I don't spend one moment Hacking the Gibson and trying to come up with weird convoluted loopholes. Shadowrun is a fantastic example. My table hated this game with the fury of a thousand suns...with that said everyone LOVED the setting. So, I could have spent eons fiddling with all of the bits, bobs, and math, or take an hour, port the **** thing over to (insert system here) and call it crackers.

 

I'm not a homebrew guy. Not so much because I'm against ripping the heart out of a perfectly functional game, but because I don't have the will or desire to do it when toolkit systems are right there locked and loaded, and are designed to do it that much better.

 

In the case of Star Wars, I'd load it into Fate Core, maybe FAE if I was a lazy bastard... use the black/white additional die rules to emulate the dice pool side effects, and be rolling just like that. Done.

 

Just my 2 Republic Credits.

evileeyore likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Move control upgrade (only about halfway down the power tree) that allows you to pull a weapon from an opponent's grasp. Just sayin. 

 

And Force Dice are rolled along with the rest of a skill check, if there is a skill check involved. So, R2Builder, your GM was wrong on two counts; possibly 3 counts if you had that upgrade :)

r2trooper and KevynnRedfern like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has nothing to do with Class ditching awayputurwpn! 

 

:P

 

But I am the GM. I have never played Edge before. I have just seen this come up a lot. I would never make a PC give me discipline check to do this on a mook. A High XP Nemesis...maybe...

awayputurwpn likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If gamers don't prefer class-based systems, why do class-based systems vastly outstrip classless systems in terms of sales figures? Why hasn't Hero or Gurps sold a fraction of what D&D, Pathfinder, Star Wars, etc has?

 

For that matter, why hasn't a free form system ever been a dominant RPG sales system.

 

Because freeform systems do not make things more fun, just more complex. If you like them, that's 100% cool. Play what you like, but understand why things are the way they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has nothing to do with Class ditching awayputurwpn! 

 

:P

 

But I am the GM. I have never played Edge before. I have just seen this come up a lot. I would never make a PC give me discipline check to do this on a mook. A High XP Nemesis...maybe...

Against a Nemesis, absolutely, especially if it has the Adversary talent. That would be appropriate.

 

And about the derailing, I got where you were coming from with that earlier comment. It was about a GM who brings rules in from other systems, to the players' detriment. I thought it was apt anecdote. What a GM does consciously or unconsciously can greatly affect the amount of fun his or her players have at the table.

r2trooper and KJDavid like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
You missed my point entirely, yet proved it at the same time. Thanks for playing.

Next contestant?

Edited by ScooterinAB
KJDavid and r2trooper like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

That has nothing to do with Class ditching awayputurwpn! 

 

:P

 

But I am the GM. I have never played Edge before. I have just seen this come up a lot. I would never make a PC give me discipline check to do this on a mook. A High XP Nemesis...maybe...

Against a Nemesis, absolutely, especially if it has the Adversary talent. That would be appropriate.

 

And about the derailing, I got where you were coming from with that earlier comment. It was about a GM who brings rules in from other systems, to the players' detriment. I thought it was apt anecdote. What a GM does consciously or unconsciously can greatly affect the amount of fun his or her players have at the table.

 

Thanks, I'm glad you were able to see that important fact. 

 

 

 

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.

Two things:

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.

Thank you for making my point even more poignant on the importance of knowing the rules before they are arbitrarily changed "because that's how it was in my favorite system".   

Hey, evileyesore, if that's how you want to your run your game, that's great. What is even greater is that I do not have to play in it. If I had a GM do that to me, my negotiation would be: read, know and understand the rules before you make up your own. If you want to cheat to make the game harder on me, then so be it, I won't be in it.

 

As far as classes. If you don't want classes, great, because this game does not have them. Please, call them what they are. Careers. There is an inherent difference between Classes and Careers. the two terms are not interchangeable. 

But, if you do not want careers in your game. great, then don't have them. You seem pretty disgusted with this game, so why even play it? Are you just on this forum now to troll and spread your hatred for this system? Have you even played this system yet? 

 

 

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

Dude really? The first thing you do is try to make three Power/Munchkin Characters that are beyond the scope of most games? Power Game much? 

 


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*.

Um, I'm calling BS here. This game takes very little to ZERO prep work. I know, I have been running this system for a bit now. I think perhaps you are confusing this game with Saga Edition. 

 

So I applaud your efforts to not support the men and women of FFG, not buy the books, and not read them, but still come on here to troll and say how much you hate the game. (I am willing to bet that you have pirated illegal PDF's of the books.) Is this game perfect? No. but is is the best Star Wars RPG made to date in my opinion and getting rid of the Careers will not make it better. Good luck convincing your GM to do it. I think all you are looking for is to build the "best fighting guy" you can the cheapest XP way. 

 

Thanks for playing.

Next contestant please. 

Edited by R2builder
whafrog and 2P51 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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
You missed my point entirely, yet proved it at the same time. Thanks for playing.

Next contestant?

 

DUDE!!! I did not read your post at all!!! I was typing up mine and did not even see yours!! I swear it!! That is too funny!

Edited by R2builder
2P51 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I could have spent eons fiddling with all of the bits, bobs, and math, or take an hour, port the **** thing over to (insert system here) and call it crackers.

Normally I'd agree.

But GURPS isn't going to do what the dice mechanic in this game does. And I'm not going to do all the **** work to figure it out so I can port that piece over.

I can already run GURPS Star Wars (I've done it). What I can't do is get the Narrativist mechanics to port nicely... hence poking at the rules to see if I get them to line up the way I want.

 

 

There's a Move control upgrade (only about halfway down the power tree) that allows you to pull a weapon from an opponent's grasp. Just sayin.

So there is. I bow to your knowledge of the Force rules (I've mostly not read them yet - haven't needed to).

 

 

If gamers don't prefer class-based systems, why do class-based systems vastly outstrip classless systems in terms of sales figures?

Who says they don't?

Pathfinder is the 800 pound gorrilla right now. We'll see what D&D 5e does to it's "top dog" spot after it's been out another month or so. I suspect it might break even with it.

 

For that matter, why hasn't a free form system ever been a dominant RPG sales system.

There was. Briefly in the early and mid-nineties a classless, levelless system that rose up from the shadows and dominated the markets.*

White Wolf's Storyteller System, aka Vampire: The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalyspe, Mage: The Etc...

It was briefly a strong contender for unseating D&D as the "top rpg". And then 3.5 kicked sand in it's face and stole it's girlfriend.

* See what I did there? "Dominated". Eh, eh? No... yeah it was a lame inside joke.

 

Because freeform systems do not make things more fun, just more complex.

Lol. The "badwrongfun" is strong in you.

And I'd say FATE is a very fun system, it's about the most freeform system I've seen (serious system, I don't mean TWERPS). We'd be playing it if my group could take that much narrativism in their games.

 

You missed my point entirely, yet proved it at the same time. Thanks for playing.

If your point was "I had a hard time making D&D into something it can never be" and thus "No one should ever do this forever" then I did indeed get your point.  It's not a point, it's an opinion, but I still got it.

D&D is nothing like FFG SW. This game is almost classless now. It'll take but a few tweaks to see it there.

D&D would take a complete system rewrite. It would be easier to start from scratch and write a new system.

Which would be the same as trying to port the nifty dice mechanics into GURPS. I'd rather smack my head against a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0