srs business.

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).

The advantage I can see from removing the Specs and allowing players to just pick whatever Talent they wish is that they won't be forced to buy a Talent they don't want just to get one they do want. So, for example, if I wanted to be a melee focused bodyguard, I wouldn't have to buy a long range Talent before getting my melee Talent.

Consequently, and more importantly, this will reduce the character sheet clutter. Making it easier to keep track of the Talents you do have.

If you price the Talents right (and a bit higher than otherwise) you should be able to mix characters with the regular rules with those free picking. I, personally, wouldn't do it this way as I'd just make a new spec for any player that didn't find what he wanted among those that are already available.

I never said a system like Gurps or Hero was BAD WRONG FUN. Not at all. I've played in both systems, and enjoyed them.

I would quibble and point out that at no point did Vampire ever dominate the market. Did it become big? Yes. Did it topple D&D in the 1990's? Not even close. Was it because of the class-less system? Not at all. It was because the game was named Vampire and it came out in the 1990's. Plus, I would argue Vampire was not free-form, build-your-own-PC in the same way that Hero or Gurps is. There were classes in Vampire the Masquerade, but we just called them clans.

My point is that there are reasons some people like classes, and there is nothing that makes a class-less system better or superior in anyway. And judging from how people have voted with their wallets over the past 40 years, that's not a claim I have to spend a lot of time defending.

I would quibble and point out that at no point did Vampire ever dominate the market.

And yes White Wolf came close to unseating D&D. Though... I will admit that may have had more to do with Lorriane Williams and a massive upswelling in the "narrative" crowd.

All I know is everywhere I looked in the early and mid 1990's people were playing White Wolf. Not a D&D game to be seen.

There were classes in Vampire the Masquerade, but we just called them clans.

We won't even talk about how The Cammarilla (the LARP Club) consistently has a larger membership than any of the "Living D&D" clubs, to this day.

My point is that there are reasons some people like classes, and there is nothing that makes a class-less system better or superior in anyway.

A lot of this sort of of passive-aggressive nonsense has been floating around this thread (and this board), "Just learn to play correctly first" - as though dissatisfaction with classes comes from faulty play?, "You should learn the rules before trying to change things" - as though those talking about houserules haven't even played or delved into the rules (or that a discussion of what makes something work and not work isn't a learning experience), etc.

Yes, needless complexity rarely improves an already fun experience. Where you want to draw the line on complexity is up to the individual. FFG Star Wars is already fun, and I don't see adding needless complexity vis-a-vis removing the careers doing anything at all other than reducing fun.

Also, I have not been passive-aggressive. All I've tried to do is explain why some people like classes and why they're likely here to stay in lieu of very rules heavy, build-your-own-PC systems. I don't have anything against class-less systems, since I own a few iterations of Hero System and have a few hundreds hours (or more) in playing it.

If you'll check a few other threads I've been in, I've never condemned anyone for house rules even though I tend to dislike them. Why? Because, in my actual gaming experience at the tabletop, too many GMs knee-jerk some houserule with a new ruleset they've never played for any length of time, and the houserule usually ends up being deeply unbalancing or proven pointless in short order.

So, yes, I would, categorically, tell anyone that before they add a single houserule or remove a rule as written, they should have a solid understanding of the game system achieved through play. Yes, I constantly hear GMs say how "they know" how a certain ruleset is going to work, because they read the rules. I've yet to see any of them ever actually be right about such a claim.

I know, because I've made the mistake myself too many times to mention.

When have I seen good houserules? Pretty much only from D&D grognards who knew they system forward and backward or, ironically considering my position in this thread, by a DM thoroughly familiar with Hero System.

When have I seen good houserules? Pretty much only from D&D grognards who knew they system forward and backward or, ironically considering my position in this thread, by a DM thoroughly familiar with Hero System.

I would say a good houserule is one that improves the fun of everyone at the table. Balance is secondary to fun, especially since balance can greatly depend upon the style of the group. You can read the thread about healing to see a great example of how differing playstyles greatly change the balancing of the doctor tree.

Our current GM puts in a bit of prep work figuring out what Minions he's using, Rivals, Nemesis building, etc. So he's not flipping pages during game play, he keeps his lists with the stat blocks. I'm sure if/when I run I'll have to do the same till I have stronger feel for the Adversaries stats blocks (enough so I can just wing it). We all (my group) still consult the rulebook quite bit for skills and the charts for spending Advantages, Triumphs, Despair, and Threat.

That’s what the GM shield is for. All of those tables concentrated into one place. You don’t get any of the narrative text that goes along with explaining the tables, but that’s okay — the tables are really just there for quick reference when you already know the rules in general and you just need a reminder.

That’s what the GM shield is for.

When I run I'll just make my own like I always do. I've yet to find a GM screen that has the exact info I want.

That’s what the GM shield is for.

His love of "everything Star Wars" doesn't really enter into the realm of peripheral "utility items", in this case GM screens, Card Packs, etc.

When I run I'll just make my own like I always do. I've yet to find a GM screen that has the exact info I want.

Okay, well there is a free PDF file that was created by one of the forum members and it has everything that’s on the GM shield plus some extra stuff. It runs to something like six or seven pages if you print it out, and it’s all tables and stuff.

My point is that you’re playing this game … in a sub-optimal fashion … if you’re spending that much time flipping through the books and looking at standard tables like how to spend Advantages.

My point is that you’re playing this game … in a sub-optimal fashion … if you’re spending that much time flipping through the books and looking at standard tables like how to spend Advantages.

When I take the reigns and run (sounding like that'll in about a month) I'll be making handouts and such so the books can leave the **** table.

Well after reading all of the posts, all I can say is that although this is fantasy in real life there are trees for careers, i have just retire from the Air Force after 23 years. I had to follow basically a real life skill tree that can get complicated to the uninitiated but in simplified form. I was a trainee that new what I wanted to do and they were just getting me knowledgeable, then apprentice (I couldn't do any work without at least a journeyman looking over my shoulder), Journeyman, craftsman, and master craftsman. These positions went with time in job and experience plus classes required. It took me over 12 years to become a craftsman. Now that is in mechanic. Kids say I'm gonna grow up to be a surgion, not to be a smuggler. A good example is in the first aid that we in the Air Force learn. When came in it was basic first aid for trauma. Then we started learning about this nasal tube on the computer to help a victim breath easier. Well my thought on this was we are not EMTs and we don't have practical training in using this thing so stay away from me as i would rather be dead than have my brains scrambled. So there is a point to having classes and there is a definate difference between a Dr and a criminal smuggler but there are things that you need to learn in both that should take years. So with that being said take these facts into consideration before considering spacing the classes. Like i said this is fantasy but there is always a little realism to make it fun.

Part of the problem with removing the classes is that if you look at the specialty trees and the way they are put together. There is a reason they did things the way they did. there is a balance to the classes and specialties. they are also making character choose. If everyone can take every ability whenever they want you kind of ruin people having niches where they matter.

Look at the movies. all the main characters were different and complementary. They all mattered. removing classes leads to the potential of.removing that. You would have to rejigger all of the costs for things to try and get that back.

Part of the problem with removing the classes is that if you look at the specialty trees and the way they are put together. There is a reason they did things the way they did. there is a balance to the classes and specialties.

For Fringer to get to Dedication they have to spend 115 EXp.

For Scout it's 100 EXP.

Trader spends 125 EXP.

Is that balance?

Now explain why it will be easier for a Scoundrel to get their Smuggler special Base Ability than the 10pt Talent Convincing Demeanor from their own tree.

It should never be easier to get an end cap ability than a "second rank" ability.

If everyone can take every ability whenever they want you kind of ruin people having niches where they matter.

Look at the movies. all the main characters were different and complementary. They all mattered. removing classes leads to the potential of.removing that.

I've been playing classless rpgs for 30 years, trust me, every character will do their own thing, just as they do in rpgs where there are Classes.

Balance is more than how many XP it takes to get to dedication.

No one is saying you can't mix and match abilities. Just like in real life. but doing so costs you. Just like in real life. The point of the classes in this game is partially grouping likely abilities together. And making players make choices. Do they want to focus and be bad ass at one thing. Or do they want to spread out and be ok at a lot of things.

If you take out the classes you are going to have to rebalance all of the costs and are going to make a ton of work. As for example some very potent abilities are put where they are in trees so as to make getting those abilities expensive. If you are going to take out classes in the system it might behove you to know why they built the trees the way they did first.

If you are going to take out classes in the system it might behove you to know why they built the trees the way they did first.

However I doubt we'll ever see any such explanation, and I'm sure we won't see it in the next month... which is when I'll be starting my game and plan to have to finished making my house rules.

There are more ways than waiting for someone else to tell you. Mostly it involves looking closely at the trees and asking yourself. Why from a game standpoint did they do what they did. They did things for a reason. You don't have to have someone tell you what the reason is to figure it out. You just have to look closely and think like a game designer. If you are going to try and make the game classless you need to have that ability.

If you can't do that you will likely end up with a mess.

And you can find explanations for some things. Like the dice mechanic. Which is on the gaming security agency blog. a post was made by Jay Little explaining it. The Order66 Podcast has several episodes with devs on it where they discuss things.

Mostly it involves looking closely at the trees and asking yourself.

It tells me the designers didn't have a cohesive vision.

Now... it's just those two trees which hit me in the "What Were They Smoking?" spot. The other trees I can accept in the vein of "They want these Talents purchased in this rough order" nonsense.*

* Which I still dislike and would be enough on it's own to convince me to drop Careers after character creation. Scoundrel and Slicer are just the "WTF?" icing on the "Make It Classlees" cake.

They did things for a reason.

You'll also notice that they never did it again, aside from the cut-and-paste Slicer spec in AoR.

You don't have to have someone tell you what the reason is to figure it out.

Any pair of shmucks can come along and blather on how "they were smoking the crack" or "you just don't understand their BRILLIANCE! You should play by the rules until you love it like we do!1111!".

The Order66 Podcast has several episodes with devs on it where they discuss things.

Any chance the pods have been transcribed anywhere? I have a hard time listening to people talk with out a face to engage...

Transcribed? No. But they are on Justin TV I believe.

I haven't seen it personally, but I often hear posters on these and other forums talk about hyper-specialized characters ruining the fun of the game. Yet the core game design actually punishes characters for not specializing.

* Which I still dislike and would be enough on it's own to convince me to drop Careers after character creation. Scoundrel and Slicer are just the "WTF?" icing on the "Make It Classlees" cake.

You should make a classless version and post it. I'd be interested in seeing it.

You should make a classless version and post it. I'd be interested in seeing it.

I have no doubt people in here have hit walls in the rules in areas I haven't and have different workarounds.