Author Topic: "Generic" Class?  (Read 2844 times)

Krensky

  • Control
  • ******
  • Posts: 8150
  • WWTWD?
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2010, 03:41:39 PM »
I really don't mean to sound dismissive or whatever here but...

As much as I love FC, why are you looking to reinvent the wheel?

If you want a 'classless' d20 it'd be far easier to use one of the existing systems instead of trying to hack up a series of modifications and house rules to make FC classless.
We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery

corey_s

  • Jr. Agent
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2010, 04:16:51 PM »
I really don't mean to sound dismissive or whatever here but...

As much as I love FC, why are you looking to reinvent the wheel?

If you want a 'classless' d20 it'd be far easier to use one of the existing systems instead of trying to hack up a series of modifications and house rules to make FC classless.

Hello!

It's not my intent to reinvent the wheel, or to drastically change FC/MC - I "simply" (scare quotes!) want a single, highly-flexible 'generic/meta-class' (for lack of a better term): for the express purpose of better fitting my campaign setting.  FC is a 'toolkit' rpg after all.

Perhaps rather than thinking it as 'classless', maybe think of it terms of me creating my own campaign-unique Class - instead of calling this new Class 'Hero', I could call it... 'Guardmouse' (my campaign will be based on the Mouse Guard comics), and PCs in this campaign must all choose Guardmouse as their Class - so this new Class I'm creating needs to be rather loose/flexible.

I absolutely want to play MasterCraft/FantasyCraft, and not something else.

So before I say, "Nah, definitely too much of a radical change - ain't gonna work; I'll just adapt (and restrict some of) the default classes"... I'd like to at least make an effort and try.


Rather than calling it classless, it's more strictly accurate to call it... idunno, mono-classed.

(after consideration, I decided for now that I'm not going to tackle the "PCs are generated using an adaptation of the NPC system" - so I just want to now focus on trying this mono-class idea)

Hope that at least makes a little sense, even if you still disagree that the concept is worth pursuing.


Cheers
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 04:36:32 PM by corey_s »

Krensky

  • Control
  • ******
  • Posts: 8150
  • WWTWD?
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2010, 04:48:36 PM »
Well, different toolkits have different uses. I mean, I could probably fix my car with what's in my tool bag in my trunk (electrical and computer tools), but the stuff in my father's garage would work better.

Also, I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference between a single class that everyone has to take, but that can be rejiggered into whatever the player wants differs from a classless system like M&M2.

Maybe if you explained how the class system in FC doesn't do what you want? I've found the system is rather flexible, and the don't have an issue seeing the guards as explorers or soldiers or scouts or assassins or what not. Heck, other then the Martial Artist, Mage, and maybe Priest I can see any of the base classes in the comics. If you can give some info on why it doesn't work for you maybe some of the info can be re-framed to help you or people can make sure you get what you want.

As for whether or not I feel it's worthwhile, that's immaterial. It scratches your itch, so it's good for you. It does seem to me that you're ripping a big and awesomely cool chunk of the game (the diverse and balanced class system) out and replacing it with something that's already been exceptionally well done elsewhere.

For what it's worth, if I wanted to run Mouse Guard with FC, I'd redefine the human talents as mouse talents and redefine the mouse as the baseline medium character and use the rest of the system largely unchanged.

But I'm lazy like that. ;)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 05:19:51 PM by Krensky »
We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery

Doublebond

  • Guest
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2010, 05:04:25 PM »
Also, I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference between a single class that everyone has to take, but that can be rejiggered into whatever the player wants differs from a classless system like M&M2.

There isn't a major difference. He's just trying to skin a classless format into language the system can understand, as far as I can tell.

Really I don't see a problem with this. Fantasy Craft consists of more than the class system. The class system is one of the easier things to mess with, now that I think about it: none of the other parts of the system seem to explicitly rely on specific classes outside of the class ability NPC quality (which really isn't a problem at all; the classes not being available to the players doesn't mean they can't be used by NPCs).

It's not like it's going to completely transform the system into something unrecognizable; there's still left untouched the rest of chapter 1 and the other 6 chapters besides. In total he's only discarding approximately 32 pages from an almost-400 page long rulebook (using core only).

I mean, sure the classless format might have been done well elsewhere, but that hardly means it's pointless to do it to Fantasy Craft. By that logic it would be pointless to use a class system anywhere else after you've played Fantasy Craft itself.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 05:06:51 PM by Doublebond »

corey_s

  • Jr. Agent
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2010, 05:20:57 PM »
Also, I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference between a single class that everyone has to take, but that can be rejiggered into whatever the player wants differs from a classless system like M&M2.

There isn't a major difference. He's just trying to skin a classless format into language the system can understand, as far as I can tell.

Really I don't see a problem with this. Fantasy Craft consists of more than the class system. The class system is one of the easier things to mess with, now that I think about it: none of the other parts of the system seem to explicitly rely on specific classes outside of the class ability NPC quality (which really isn't a problem at all; the classes not being available to the players doesn't mean they can't be used by NPCs).

It's not like it's going to completely transform the system into something unrecognizable; there's still left untouched the rest of chapter 1 and the other 6 chapters besides. In total he's only discarding approximately 32 pages from an almost-400 page long rulebook (using core only).

Thankyou!   I bailed on my own similar response to Krensky, you stated it far better than I did.   (c8=

Yep, I'm basically just ignoring pages 30 through 60 - which, ultimately, are just a collection of example default classes.

I'll replace those 30 pages with 1 or 2 pages that pretty much just restate the class creation rules... I'm replacing the "choose your class" step, with a "define your class" step.


Krensky, I'm getting pretty close to a first draft and outline - before responding to your questions and possibly embroiling us in a (friendly!) debate; let me get a post out to License to Improvise... probably sometime tonight, maybe in a few hours. Then possibly we can discuss the general worthiness of the idea. Don't get me wrong though, I definitely value your input and you raise good points, nor am I yet certain the idea will in fact work out in practice - but I'd like to try before getting too caught up in philosophy.  (c8=


Beers!
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 05:27:52 PM by corey_s »

Dimirag

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2010, 07:39:16 PM »
I really like the idea of a "non-class system" so I'll keep an eye on this!

Besides, its not changin all the game, just one aspect in order to fit it to a game style or setting. (I did something similar with the damage rules because my group like to use another type of damage system but really like ALL the rest of FC system).

So I see this way... Your not CHANGING the game, just making new options!!! Keep it comming!
Sorry for any spelling/text errors, I'm not a native English speaker

corey_s

  • Jr. Agent
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2010, 02:00:32 AM »

Ok, I posted my first initial attempt:  Unique Heroes

agent oni

  • Operative
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2010, 01:23:59 PM »
The Back to Basics is one way of importing generic type classes.  Each class is based on one aspect of a characters attribute such as the "Strong Hero".  The neat thing about this structure is that multiclasing is much more flexible.

Another rpg I recommend where you can gleam ideas from is True20.  It strips classes down even further to 3 broadly defined classes and like Back to Basics, multiclassing is very flexible.  Furthermore, building your own class is much more simple then Fantasy Craft.  All you decide is the BAB progression and the core ability.

Finally, there is Call of Cthulhu d20.  I love this version of CoC over the original.  It has absolutely no classes and instead uses just skills to define professions.  Unfortunately (in this instance) FC's skill system has been streamlined in such a way that several skills fall over an overarching skill.

aegis

  • Control
  • ******
  • Posts: 1057
  • A little dab'll do ya.
    • View Profile
    • le Scriptorium
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2010, 10:53:15 PM »
Don't know if it has been suggested yet, but the Adventurer from BESM d20 looks a lot like what you call a generic class. Maybe by applying its principle to Fantasy Craft, with a pool of points for column progressions and PC class abilities (with a different cost than NPC class abilities), you should come up with something nice. Otherwise, like others said ==> the Sage.

corey_s

  • Jr. Agent
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2010, 07:24:51 PM »

Major new update, see the new thread: Classless Characters


corey_s

  • Jr. Agent
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: "Generic" Class?
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2010, 09:04:21 PM »

I just made another major revision to the classless characters experiment:   3rd revision