Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Class Distinction

Over at B/X Blackrazor, JB makes some solid points about Class Proliferation that you should read.  There are multiple points he makes that I can't agree with, but none of those happen to be about the proliferation part of his post, so they're not important.  There is this little thing he missed, however, and I am inclined to write about it.

Admittedly, I had not been playing with the Little Brown Books very long when I encountered AD&D in 1979; about three months.  I asked for and was given the DMG, PH and MM for Christmas that year, so I moved onto AD&D almost as soon as I started playing.  I can't remember anyone who wasn't thrilled with the expansion; everyone in my circle immediately made the jump without hesitation ... I didn't hear a voice arguing OD&D over AD&D until the internet happened.

We loved the new classes.  All of them.  They brought in new ideas and new concepts, a rush of spells, characters that we all wanted to try and absolutely a rush for the thief, assassin, monk, druid, ranger and paladin.  We argued what was better, but of the ten fully designed classes there was no one in my circle between 1979 and 1983 did not want to try every class, nor one that we considered "didn't belong" or not worth playing.  Our only issue was that the bard was the worst possible design imaginable; we loved the idea of the bard, we wanted the bard, we tried desperately to play the bard ... but the character as written just sucked.

And then, the Unearthed Arcana.

I have it in my hands.  I bought it, of course.  This is the same copy I bought in '83.  The book wasn't bound as well as the original three, so that even though I've hardly used this book compared to the others, it is falling apart.  I remember reading the cavalier, the barbarian and the thief-acrobat and feeling a wave of utter repulsion and disgust for all three.  I talked it over with my players and explained that no, none of those classes would EVER be available in my world ~ and they haven't.

Right off the top, we were given long descriptions of what cavaliers and barbarians believed, or were willing to accept as characters, apart from what they did or what powers they had.  At 19 I could see plainly the dirty double-shuffle at work.  We'll let you have these extra fighting powers, but we're going to fuck you up the ass if you don't use them how we say.  And what powers are we talking about?

Thumping.

Yes, that's right kiddies, if your character wants to thump harder, do more damage, become a one-trick pony, we've got the answer for you ~ right this way to making your character as two-dimensional as it could possibly be.

The cavalier thumped from horseback and the barbarian thumped on foot.  We're not talking any NEW abilities or ideas, just the same ones ... only more so.  We could see clearly the kind of player these were catering to: players who bitched and whined that they couldn't hit harder, or in the case of the acrobat, that they could flip and jump and crawl around behind things better.

In other words, we made specialized classes that would enable these people to do the only things they really, truly wanted to do, better, and in exchange we took away powers they didn't feel like using anyway.  And that they called "balance."

Don't care about picking pockets and finding traps?  No worries!  You don't need to do that shit if you're an Acrobat!  Is all that ranger wilderness stuff boring to you?  Don't be down!  Be an Archer!  Does religion and all the accompanying character that goes along with that worry you?  Don't fret!  You can be a Healer!

With each new incarnation, do we get new ideas?  New character personalities?  No, we get cardboard cutouts that super-specialize in absolutely one skill only, to the point where as a DM you're ready to vomit.  Oh look, the Archer is getting out his arrows again.  The Healer is hanging back and doing fuck all while everyone else fights.  The Acrobat is inventing impossible ways to get out of fights.  Gee, I sure am glad all these classes were allowed to proliferate.

I'm ready to run by 5th level Kitten Tower Guard class.
I said in '83 that this class bullshit was going to be the death of good play, and yeah.  Here it is.  We invented a game concept purely for the purpose of selling out to a particular kind of wooden player and the result was munchkinism, skill lists and buys, wizard schools and ... well, you've seen it.

I'd accept double the classes that I use now, if they were distinct classes.  Not just a lot of one thing that another class also has and does less of.  And not a situation where two different classes do effectively the same thing by different methods, like magical healers and physicians.  I don't care how the character does something; I want the thing they do to be utterly unique, where they are the only class that does this phenomenally important and critical thing that the game desperately needs.

Since 1979, I haven't seen one such class.  Not one.  They're all derivatives of AD&D's 11 ... counting the bard.  And sorry, JB.  That goes for elven, dwarven and halfling "adventurers," too.  It's still just a fighter or a skill derivation of other classes.  I just don't see them as their own thing after you scour away the "we'll tell you how to think like a blank" motif that goes along with painting character classes as races.

21 comments:

  1. @ Alexis:

    I agree with you. My post was pretty stupid in general, though it gave me a good excuse to reminisce about AD&D and spew some thoughts that had been rattling around my head onto the page.

    I'm not even sure the topic is one that deserves me posting a modification/detraction of what I wrote. I'm pretty sure at this point that everyone has their own threshold for how many classes they can stomach in a game...me talking about MY threshold isn't very productive.

    Regarding your post: you wrote previously ("Let the Thief Do It") that there really isn't a great need for a great number of classes...not even the ones we've already got! You write here that you'd like to see new classes that do something "utterly unique" that does something "phenomenally important and critical" for something D&D "desperately needs."

    Is there a desperate need? I can think of one or two concepts that might do something different from other classes (that does NOT involve "thumping" in a new and fancy form), but is it needed? The game has always been about thumping to some degree...it was derived from a war game after all...and some of the classes that've evolved (like the thief) I see as evidence of the game moving away from "straight" thumping to "sneaky" (or "interesting") thumping. Moving farther away...say offering some sort of scholar or loremaster class that offers a way to gain additional knowledge withOUT thumping...would that be taking the game too far from its roots?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gawd, JB, your post was not stupid.

    I couldn't say what might be valuable. From a game standpoint, "lore" is merely exposition. I couldn't guess at what a new class might look like.

    But you know ... most times, you don't know you desperately need something until someone invents it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm working on a warlock class, based heavily on a "core" class from a 3e supplement. Let's see . . . Tome of Magic, I think it was. The idea is that the warlock obtains power by summoning vestigial remains of ancient, long-forgotten entities, and allowing them to inhabit his body for a brief period of time. Naturally, there's a lot of questions I have to answer still, but I love the idea of having a classic diabolist conjuring Lovecraftian horrors into the world.

    I'm also concerned about giving the player special powers with strings attached . . .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ozymandias,

    Explain to me how this is not a mage. Couldn't a mage just choose specific spells that would fit the character you're looking for? Does it need a new class, or just the addition of 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells that it could choose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's strange how the magical classes are allowed to be jack-of-all-trades in ways the martial classes are not. A big part of it is likely because of course magic isn't *real* and so there's no obvious limitations to use to divide it into sensible categories.

      You can be a burly warrior who's good at wrestling and fighting with an axe, but if you start also trying to pick locks or pockets then some eyebrows are going to be raised, especially by the Thief.

      Would it not make sense to divide magic use into more strictly defined classes in order to have a similar sort of "job security" as it were?

      Delete
  5. No, Slick, that would not make sense. That is the crude sort of game design that got us in the pudding in the first place.

    I always think it's funny that people suppose the "burly" warrior did not spend every waking hour of every day from age 8 on busting his ass to beat his body and his mental acuity into being able to use his axe. 14th century weapons are NOT learned by spending four weeks on a gun range; burliness in a 14th century nutrition-starved culture is not produced with vitamin pills and hot pockets, or even by being born that way. In AD&D, this burly fighter starts the game at 15 to 18 years of age. Just when do you suppose he had the time to learn how to "pick locks"? There's no school, no television, no book reading that lets him teach himself, plus there's a mentor that sees him screwing around with a door lock and whacks him on the side of the head saying, "Get back to your exercising, lout!"

    Like most designers, you propose that skills are just "picked up somehow," without any consideration of how, because obviously no one works in the 14th century, no one spends ungodly amounts of time plowing fields or collecting wood or hunting, and obviously this burly hunter is around door locks all day and all night out in the rural countryside because yes, EVERY peasant has a lock on their door.

    At any rate, AD&D built a rational, intelligent system for why your burly warrior MIGHT pick a lock. It was called "multi-class" ... and while the gods at TSR though Humans couldn't be that (that was a face-plant), we threw that rule out FIRST DAY, letting any race create multi-classes of any design for which they could provide the minimum stats. Then we put the number of years it took to become a thief together with the number of years it took to become a fighter, and BOOM, no one had any damn reason to raise eyebrows.

    But then people came along who had not read the book, or had read some other version of the book, who did not do their research, who did not THINK, who did not know anything about 14th century Europe or what it takes to be big and burly, and created a whole lot of dumbfuck point buy systems that created the 3rd Edition debacle and now we've completely pissed the pool yellow.

    So again, no. It does not make sense. Do your homework.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alexis, I will work on that and get back to you.

    I admit there's a certain "feeling" behind my choice. When I first read the description of the class ~ the original name is binder ~ I was captivated by the idea; but I admit that the nostalgia clouds my judgment. I'm going to mull it over and see if I can't come up with a rational explanation for its inclusion (or rejection).

    ReplyDelete
  7. You have misunderstood me. I am not arguing that the burly fighter SHOULD be able to pick locks without multiclassing, I think it's fine and sensible that a character would have to be a Thief in order to acquire those life skills.

    My point is that it's not weird to expect a magician to be beholden to those same limits. Just as learning effective melee combat would require years of intense training (with the opportunity cost of NOT learning to pick locks in the meantime), it follows that learning some kind of magical ability requires a similar amount of effort and study. Except the opportunity cost paid by a Magic User is much lower because they CAN learn Knock, or Sleep, or any kind of spell that allows them to fill in the roles of others, WITHOUT multiclassing: just by learning a spell. Introducing some other kind of magic that they're giving up to be a Magic User curtails that somewhat.

    Having a whole new casting class like Ozymandias is doing is one way to do it. A young magically gifted youth can choose to devote themself to tradition magic study (Magic User) or spend that time instead learning to channel inhuman power (Warlock). It's introducing a similar choice between magic options that someone debating between Fighter and Thief has to make about physical options.

    Presumably those two magic classes have features that make them as different enough from each other as swordfighting and lockpicking are. It's up to our imagination to define what those differences are. In this case we're talking about magic so there's no 14th century history to draw upon to argue otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Slick,

    Glad we're on the same side.

    Regarding understanding different spells, I'll propose that they're not as different as our non-spelled training understands. I see spells as an energy distribution; the mage takes the power in from the elements, then discharges it; the spell is the shape the spell is released. Think of it as different shapes in a play-doh factory. We simply ascribe too much importance to the shapes, where managing the power is the real skill.

    But, that's not actually important.

    What matters is that the new casting class materially affects the value of the game.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was about to comment on JB post (hope he see it here) but real life happened.

    The thing is... In the beginning of everything (Chainmail and before) doesn't only existed Fighters and Wizards?

    I think these two are the only classes needed because they are the only truly unlike each other. Thieves? Sneaky fighters. Clerics? Burly wizards.

    I disagree that every sword bearer should be a Fighter and every magic-user should be a Wizard. You can use classes to provide information about the world and improve immersion. That way you can have more than one kind magic user even if they are very similar. In a world with poor social mobility, the difference between the lower clergy and the higher clergy are pristine clear.

    On the other side, I agree that there is a limit where the amount of classes stops being relevant and become a kitchen sink.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can a thief be run like a "sneaky fighter"? Yes. But that would be ignoring a considerable nuance to the class, much of which steps out of the combat box that if in better hands turns out to hold a lot of campaign value.

    Because a lot of campaigns skimp and flee full religious implications of a world with gods and magic does not remotely allow me to think of clerics as "burly wizards."

    But I'll take a lesson from misunderstanding Slick's earlier point and not make the wrong assumption here.

    Are we also on the same page, G.B.?

    ReplyDelete
  11. So,

    Might be a bit of topic, but this reminds me of the tinker class I played for a bit.

    A 3rd party class for Pathfinder, but still, a game that suffers from HUGE class bloat.

    And in retrospect, based on what you have written recently, while my complaints were about the class, perhaps they were actually because the game is built around the classes.

    Aside from the money grab, I wonder what the gain of making these classes is? The main book has a ton, so it's not by it's nature padding it.

    Perhaps the angle of selling books based of the angle of happy memories of that one time you played warlock, or spellsword, or underwater basket weaver... Actually that last one would be unique, but probably not very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The angle of selling books is the ONLY angle to the company. The company has no ideas; no design plans; no motives to improve the game; no creative ways to expand on the technology of 1977 when the first game was released.

    The company has NOTHING ELSE.

    Other companies, Pathfinder, Paizo, the rest, have nothing new to offer either. Except ... New classes! New spells! New adventures! New races!

    And their audience keeps paying for it. Pathfinder went bloat because it was keeping the company afloat.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Easy content is easy, I suppose.

    I wonder how a game company whose books instead expanded meaningfully upon a setting would do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes we are. When calling thieves sneaky fighter and clerics burly wizards, I was oversimplifying things. Maybe a less absurd comparison is that barbarians could be just fighters in a badger thong but it may not be enough for your game. My point is that you can have many types of fighter with very similar mechanics as long as they have meaning in the world being played.

    Example: If you are playing an Oriental Adventure, you would like to choose between samurai, wu jen and ninja even if they are same fighter, wizard and thief except in different clothes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. First part of my thought process: On the range of player options.

    Second part will probably go up tomorrow morning. It's a process, making sure I establish a foundation and build upon it.

    Still not convinced that I will justify a new class. To your point, there might not be enough to warrant it, beyond making a few unique spells and skills.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I could be missing something, but isn't the illusionist class just a mage with a more restrictive spell list? If so, why does that get a pass, but the idea of breaking the mage up into classes with a more focused spell list reacted to with such vitriol? Or why not remove it and just expand the mage spell list?

    If it is truly different I apologize for my misremembering.

    To be clear, I don't super care one way or the other and I'm on board with wanting classes to actually allow different playstyle/focuses rather than just "imma fighter who hits even HARDER!!"

    ReplyDelete
  17. I concede, Maliloki,

    The illusionist as originally written in the player's handbook is nearly junk. The spells above 3rd level are tacked on and poorly thought out ... and for a time, I did consider dumping it.

    The Unearthed Arcana saved the illusionist, with better spells and the introduction of cantrips. Since then, I've worked to build the class into something unique outside of the spell book; I have an 8th level illusionist in my game and she would be very, very angry at the notion of my dropping the class now.

    Thing is, the fundamental difference between the mage and the illusionist is physical, elemental magic vs. thinking, creative magic. An illusionist is a sort of spell artist; I've redesigned numerous spells and added more of my own that specifically enable the illusionist to be more visionary than the mage can be, as the mage spells are far more functional and less cerebral.

    The chief limitation on the illusionist is not the spell list, but that so many of the spells require, as my illusionist player often points out, eyeballs. If the enemy isn't intelligent, or has no eyes, the illusionist is very limited. I like that this drives at least one member of the party to show interest in climbing out of the muck and adventuring in civilized, uniquely urban settings.

    So, your complaints noticed, I am keeping the illusionist.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lol. Wasn't so much a complaint as a "I can't see how this is different than that." Been looking forward to your response since I hit 'publish' to see the reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The second post is up. Working on a third, I think, because your work touched on another point worth discussing.

    ReplyDelete