Discussing a "classless" system…

By GoblynByte, in Game Mechanics

Posted at

Right.

Keeping the career skills is an option - I'm pro removing them, but I'm not going to make a big issue out of it. Its just that I find career skills to be limiting and more of an obstacle than anything else - with a few exceptions of course. I prefer the old WEG normal skill, specialisation of a skill - and then the real expensive and hard to get advanced skills (I think it was called that anyways). Akin of RMSS' occupational, everyman, normal and restricted skills…

Either way, I think non-career skills (if these are kept) should cost 5 x rank bought +5, as opposed to 10 x rank bought.

Additionally I think that specs beyond the first three could cost more, particularly if keeping career skills… and if we tie in talent tree combination "perks" or something… I like that idea, although I have no idea of how to implement it without breaking things.

Either way, keeping career skills or not, I think this idea - created by you guys not me I'm just plugging for it and trying to sum it up in some way - is really good. I have yet to read up on the overhaul of talents trees thread properly. Although it does address a related issue that is definitely needed, with this change or even if the game stays within its current box of careers and stuff.

Posted at

Jegergryte said:

I prefer the old WEG normal skill, specialisation of a skill - and then the real expensive and hard to get advanced skills (I think it was called that anyways). Akin of RMSS' occupational, everyman, normal and restricted skills…

I think in this system the easiest way to specialise in skills is to buy talents that allow you to do new things or to focus on things that you can already do? And the advanced part is for when you buy 25 point talents?

Jegergryte said:

Either way, I think non-career skills (if these are kept) should cost 5 x rank bought +5, as opposed to 10 x rank bought.


Additionally I think that specs beyond the first three could cost more, particularly if keeping career skills…

But do we need specs?

Posted at

lupex said:

Jegergryte said:

I prefer the old WEG normal skill, specialisation of a skill - and then the real expensive and hard to get advanced skills (I think it was called that anyways). Akin of RMSS' occupational, everyman, normal and restricted skills…

I think in this system the easiest way to specialise in skills is to buy talents that allow you to do new things or to focus on things that you can already do? And the advanced part is for when you buy 25 point talents?

Jegergryte said:

Either way, I think non-career skills (if these are kept) should cost 5 x rank bought +5, as opposed to 10 x rank bought.


Additionally I think that specs beyond the first three could cost more, particularly if keeping career skills…

But do we need specs?

Talents can certainly serve as further specialisations of skill I think yes - like stalker for example, it adds boost to stealth, skulduggery and surveillance. It's a specialisation through a talent I guess you could say.

As for needing specialisations in their current form? Perhaps not, but I think talent trees are nice. If these are tied to skills or concepts is a question that I'm not sure what I think of. I guess it depends on how you want to treat archetypes/careers of the players. I like it somewhat, to have specs - if only to supply a certain type of talents and not skills. It adds flavour you could argue…

If we tie talent trees directly to skills, we need more talent trees (although they could be smaller than the current form), and they should change substantially. Or what do you think?

Posted at

I think a lot of fantastic work has been done in the existing specializations, talent trees, and careers. While I enjoy the greater flexibility of a "pure" point-build system without the rails of classes, it can't be denied that classes - however mechanically superficial they may be - inject a lot of flavor from the setting. They also play very well with the generalized market of gamers. They're quickly digestible and make it accessible. It just looks sexy to have a full page "class" outline with a large, shiny, artist's rendering of what that class could look like.

So I don't see any value to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and completely scrapping the existing framework of categorizations. The specializations and talent trees can exist as they are. Simply changing the cost structure for non-career elements will open it up to unfettered flexibility.

Posted at

And, keep in mind, we may be much too far into the design process for any of this to be of any use. Modest, efficient changes are probably more likely… if even that is possible.

Posted at

I agree that what GoblynByte suggests is the easiest and perhaps the best solution. The talent trees vary in quality for sure, but they are interesting and cool. In addition if you could construct your own career/archetype by mixing and matching between all of them, your politico-assassin-thief is going to be really cool.

I would like to see career skills go out the window though, but even keeping them: add if at all possible, talent-tree combination perks (for the three first only) OR/AND add a starting item for each specialisation… perhaps a pick between two - the assassin could get the choice of disguise kit or a weapon he gets ranks for using… and with talent trees beyond the three first have increased cost (I really don't know WHY I want that, but I do… for some reason related to "fairness" or something…)… as the three first define you archetype, or is based upon an already existing archetype/career.

Posted at

GoblynByte said:

I think a lot of fantastic work has been done in the existing specializations, talent trees, and careers. While I enjoy the greater flexibility of a "pure" point-build system without the rails of classes, it can't be denied that classes - however mechanically superficial they may be - inject a lot of flavor from the setting. They also play very well with the generalized market of gamers. They're quickly digestible and make it accessible. It just looks sexy to have a full page "class" outline with a large, shiny, artist's rendering of what that class could look like.

So I don't see any value to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and completely scrapping the existing framework of categorizations. The specializations and talent trees can exist as they are. Simply changing the cost structure for non-career elements will open it up to unfettered flexibility.

This is a funny post in a thread that you started about having a classless system. partido_risa.gif

But as I said in a different post, I won't have a problem playing the system no matter how it develops. But it is good to be able to have discussions about this that might influence the design of the game. The main thing is that the core dice mechanics works well, anything else can be made to fit whatever style of play any of us are looking for.

And I agree the artwork is awesome.

Posted at

Jegergryte said:

I agree that what GoblynByte suggests is the easiest and perhaps the best solution. The talent trees vary in quality for sure, but they are interesting and cool. In addition if you could construct your own career/archetype by mixing and matching between all of them, your politico-assassin-thief is going to be really cool.

I would like to see career skills go out the window though, but even keeping them: add if at all possible, talent-tree combination perks (for the three first only) OR/AND add a starting item for each specialisation… perhaps a pick between two - the assassin could get the choice of disguise kit or a weapon he gets ranks for using… and with talent trees beyond the three first have increased cost (I really don't know WHY I want that, but I do… for some reason related to "fairness" or something…)… as the three first define you archetype, or is based upon an already existing archetype/career.

Posted at

lupex said:

This is a funny post in a thread that you started about having a classless system. partido_risa.gif

The thread is about everyone discussing a classless system. I never said I agreed completely with the idea. lengua.gif

in the end, I'm in favor of an "archetype" system rather than a "class" system. I know it may be a matter of semantics, but it seems that in an archetype system any prefabbed characters are suggestions only and character generations is otherwise completely fluid.

Posted at

I had a thought about skill progression and I think it ties into the idea of an archetype build, I originally posted this in the skill feedback thread but I though it worth reposting here for feedback;

lupex said:


I have had an idea about how skills can be separated from specializations and make it more worth buying into skills. The proposal will effectively get rid of the notion of non-career skills, replacing the two skill types with starting skills and learned skills

What I mean is this, at character creation we are given 8 career skills and then up to 4 more career skills with the first specialization. And then in character advancement we can buy ranks in career skills and non-career skills (at an inflated xp cost) or we can buy a new specialization that gives us access to up to 4 new career skills.

My proposal is that at character creation we are given 8 starting skills and then up to 4 more starting skills with the first specialization. And then in character advancement we can buy access to new learned skills, increase current skills , or buy a new specialization (but only to gain access to the relevant talent tree, no more extra career skills).

So to buy access to a new learned skill costs a flat rate of 5 XP and then you can buy ranks in this skill as per the current guidelines for increasing career skills. I think that this is a good compromise between the current inflated price of non-career skills and the need to have a distinction between skills that you start with and skills that you buy later.

It would also mean that any character that starts off with ranks in a non-career skill, because of racial bonuses, keeps that skill as an extra starting skill.

This would also solve some of the issues brought up in the classless system discussion.

Posted at

lupex said:

I had a thought about skill progression and I think it ties into the idea of an archetype build, I originally posted this in the skill feedback thread but I though it worth reposting here for feedback;

lupex said:


I have had an idea about how skills can be separated from specializations and make it more worth buying into skills. The proposal will effectively get rid of the notion of non-career skills, replacing the two skill types with starting skills and learned skills

…

So to buy access to a new learned skill costs a flat rate of 5 XP and then you can buy ranks in this skill as per the current guidelines for increasing career skills. I think that this is a good compromise between the current inflated price of non-career skills and the need to have a distinction between skills that you start with and skills that you buy later.

I like the idea, but I think there is a simpler way of doing this - just treat all skills as "career" but make the first rank of any skill cost 5Xp more.

So if you got the first rank of a skll at chargen - you've already got it covered. If you buy into the skill after chargen, you pay the extra 5XP with your first skill rank.

This does mean that skills which are theoretically in your starting career still cost more if you didn't take them at chargen - but I think that's actually reasonable.

It also means that you can do the whole thing with one table instead of having a career/non-career distinction.

Posted at

That makes a lot of sense and definately keeps it simple.

Posted at

So, if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that there is no "non-career skill" cost, rather that you buy the ability to increase a skill at the career cost for 5 XP? Otherwise you can't increase the skill at all?

Posted at

I am just happy they skipped levelbased system.

Posted at

You're over complicating a system thats meant to be simple…

The increased cost for non-class skills is moderate…and even that cost can be mitigated by purchasing the correct specs.

While a classless system works in plenty of games…and I'm almost always a fan…I think the flavors of classes just works very well for Star Wars. The movies, books, etc…deal with heroic archetypes…not generic supermen who can do everything. Take Han, Leia, Luke and Chewie out of New Hope and drop them into Crates of Krayts…we the viewers would know exactly which of them would be best able to handle each given challenge based on our knowledge of their characters. We've never seen Han barter for the best price on ship docking…but we know he'd be good at it. We've never seen Chewie have to haul a Hutt's malfunctioning hover chair…but we know he'd be more likely to pull it off than Leia…

By any classless system, these archetypes become useless…and suddenly there is no reason to assume that the Dilplomat (Politico) would be the best person to deal with red tape of gaining landing permits…the medical droid might be just as good at it.

Sure, with the loose system here these things can still vary…but with the xp rewards for sticking to archetypes, you can bet that exceptions will be fairly rare.