When I look at modern D&D, Pathfinder, etc. (not OSR games), classes seem to represent a set of specific abilities that are tied to a theme and restricted by level. For example. Rogues get Sneak Attack. No one else gets Sneak Attack unless they multiclass into Rogue. Niche protection is important, though it often degrades into “who’s going to play the Cleric?”), but it’s really about the cool abilities. With multiclassing, you turn those class abilities into Lego that you can then arrange as you want. Class-less games can capture some of these class-based abilities, but they don’t quite hit the mark or they lose some of the flavor that keeps D&D (and similar) so popular.
1 Like
I also think that classes feed into people’s natural tendency to want to classify and categorize things into well-defined boxes. See also Personality Tests, Buzzfeed Quizzes, Hogwarts Houses, or Buzzfeed quizzes that use a simplified personality test to determine which Hogwarts house you belong to. Even when not restricted by game mechanics, we still categorize characters into rolls like Face, Shooter, Hacker, Tough, etc. (as RogerBW mentioned in the podcast) or Brick, Speedster, Blaster, Mentalist, etc. (for superheroes).
3 Likes
Perhaps the late Artist Formerly Known as Prince was actually revealing his True Name to the world.
1 Like
I looked at Caltrop Core and it had this interesting option toward the end of the rules:
Classes are always fun, so let’s make some here. But classes aren’t the only way of doing things. You can also develop a “pick list” of abilities that a character can use to build out their own custom kit.
At the risk of generalizing, there definitely seems to be a degree of “fun-ness” associated with classes even when there is acknowledgement there are other, more flexible, ways of defining characters.
This is clearly something I’ve missed – though I’m all in favour of systems that let a new player have a PC who will be a good fit for the campaign with minimum effort.