When should your RPG be point buy instead of class based?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:59 am

Are there certain kinds of stories or genre conventions that work better for one vs the other?

It seems like most combat heavy games where characters are expected to have different roles tend to be class based, while games with less emphasis on combat or where combat is not too mechanically complex go towards point buy.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:29 am

Something like a superheroes game that supports a massive variety of character backgrounds and ability sets is much easier in point buy.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:49 am

Horizontal advancement <-> Point buy
Vertical advancement <-> Class+Level

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:34 am

More like...

The more you like player and GM customizable options, the more you are points based.

While people go for class/level based systems in order to...

1) Prevent Unwanted Synergy : which is a joke with the majority if not ALL designers, if you aren't flat out perfect you'll have unintended synergy in your prepackaged combos anyway, and if you lack some pretty inhuman discipline on preventing player choice you are going to permit SOME level of player controlled customization (like feats etc...) and it WILL come with unintended synergy consequences.

2) "Protect Roles" : For the most part just in other words inflicting your own flavor choices on individual gaming tables, because why not? And this one is a mixed bag. Sure occasionally it lets you pretend you are crafting iconic recognizable... things... that are somehow desirable... but most of the time you are just being a giant dick hole inflicting stupid ideas on people that you didn't need to inflict them on.

3) To reduce time and complexity costs : Choosing one class is quicker than individually selecting one class worth of stand alone abilities. This one has a strong argument, but it DOES come at a direct cost of competing pretty much blow for blow with the benefits of customization and choice.

Over all I don't think either points based or class/level based systems (or the very common class/level with pseudo points based customization options galore) are necessarily bad options, but they have different implications, different strengths and different weaknesses.

But I still like points based solutions better. And increasingly find I dislike design processes and designers that lean towards constrictive class/level based alternatives.

spongeknight · Post by **spongeknight** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:24 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:Stuff

Uh, you forgot the actual reason why class based games are preferred over point buy- the concept of level-based power and level appropriate challenges. In a point buy system there is no such thing as a "challenge rating" because you have absolutely no idea how good someone is at combat based solely on how many points they have spent. They could be combat monsters who drop fools in one hit, they might be rogues that can take guys out one at a time if they are sneaky about it, or they might be a goddamn tax accountant computer hacker who will lose to a hobo with a rusty pipe. You just don't know. In a level based system, you have forced increases in power (BAB, base saves, hit points, ect) that are supposed to at least marginally keep you on an expected power curve.

So in a class based system you fight level 1 enemies at level 1 and level 20 enemies at level 20, and your class provides a framework to keep you level appropriate. As opposed to a point buy system where you can spend all your points on sailing and talking and never have the ability to fight off an angry kitten in your life.

codeGlaze · Post by **codeGlaze** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:09 pm

I've wondered if any game going forward should be designed/weighted by some.sort of rough point-buy guidelines. Then "simplified " outward as you get closer to product release.

Meaning the core would be designed using points and point-like packages by official writers/designers. Codified in a design codex or "Bible".

The next step would be yo package feats/ACFs/races/etc from the point buy system. Those feats and stuff would be the building blocks that get published just like in 3e dnd.

But ON TOP of that you might lead in to the game with even-further simplified character creation to bring in new players.

So mayber a story based CC flow chart like Frank posted in the classplosion thread. Combined with pre-gen'd archetypes and stuff for people to plug-n-play with.

The pre-gen'd stuff would just be collections of feats/skills/etc published in the rest of the handbook, just laid out in a stupid-simple format.

"I'm a [strong] [Knight] who is was [raised up from the peasantry]."

People comfortable with minmaxxing or custom gen'ing would simplymove last the first chapter or "basic" section and.create theieme own characters as per normal.

For real tinkerers (like the Den) the codex.could be published.in.its own.supplement.

(Sorry for the mobile typing errors)

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:11 pm

Note that it is possible to make a mix of C+L and PB that isn't total ass.

For example, vancian spellcasters in D&D have a PB subsystem for spells (slots and/or spells known) that exists inside a C+L system.

You could also do C+L inside PB where the things you buy with PB level up to some "Level" property of your character (Or maybe Level is a property of your party, because that seems like a smarter idea as far as balance goes)

Foxwarrior · Post by **Foxwarrior** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:27 pm

Yes, the thing Spongeknight is neglecting is that points and levels are both equally arbitrary measures of pricing, and you can choose your pricing algorithms for (approximately) whatever balance you like.

Warhammer, Heroclix, etc, are point-based, and they manage to have fair combat challenges occasionally.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:31 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Note that it is possible to make a mix of C+L and PB that isn't total ass.

For example, vancian spellcasters in D&D have a PB subsystem for spells (slots and/or spells known) that exists inside a C+L system.

You could also do C+L inside PB where the things you buy with PB level up to some "Level" property of your character (Or maybe Level is a property of your party, because that seems like a smarter idea as far as balance goes)

After some more of the books come out, I plan on doing a Class/Level/PB mix adaptation for Stormlight Archives. The core system being point buy based, but the actual class being what Order of Knight Radiant you are, and the level being how many oaths you've spoken (since each oath is presented in universe as an explicit major power up).

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:35 pm

Foxwarrior wrote:Yes, the thing Spongeknight is neglecting is that points and levels are both equally arbitrary measures of pricing, and you can choose your pricing algorithms for (approximately) whatever balance you like.

Warhammer, Heroclix, etc, are point-based, and they manage to have fair combat challenges occasionally.

Thing is, in point-buy, you can have a lot of points and spend all of them on things which are not punching dudes, or you can spend them all on punching dudes. In a class-based system, your level will correlate to your combat power. It won't inherently do so between classes, but higher-level people in a given class will be better fighters.

Personally, I find that whenever I'm using any sort of point-buy, I tend to make incredibly skewed characters.

codeGlaze · Post by **codeGlaze** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:55 pm

name_here wrote:Thing is, in point-buy, you can have a lot of points and spend all of them on things which are not punching dudes, or you can spend them all on punching dudes. In a class-based system, your level will correlate to your combat power. It won't inherently do so between classes, but higher-level people in a given class will be better fighters.

That's one of the reasons I think PB could/should be lleft in the core/framework.

You could do things like designate different point pools that each [whatever] has to draw from. You can add as much granular accounting as you think is required. And even design restrictions. (Every character has to pick a combat skill and [other] skill.) While the end result, or C+L "layer" on top would be user friendly.

So you could have designers working with (or buying) things with hundreds of points or many options with fractions of a point. But the normal gamer never has to see that.

All they see is a spell or scaling feat or group of skills.
They pick whatever they feel slots into their ccharacter sheet best and (ideally) don't have to worry about trap.options.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:31 pm

Point buy games tend to actually have classes, but the classes are designed by the players and MC by mutual agreement. So in Champions, you play a Brick (which is your class), and that determines how much Strength and Defenses your MC will let you buy. And also, with the defenses and attack you are swinging around, the MC will also have opinions on what kind of OCV, DCV, and possibly Speed and Recovery they would find reasonable for your character to have. If you were playing a Martial Artist (a different class), your MC would probably greenlight significantly higher OCV and DCV, and maybe even speed, but the cap on your defenses and damage dice would be lower.

How much lower? I don't fucking know. Because in Champions, you negotiate your class and its limits with your MC while you are making your character. Champions has some pretty robust discussions about what class limits you might have, but what specific limits your game actually does have are up in the air. I've tried bringing characters from one game of Champions to another, and I've always gotten apoplectic responses because whatever numbers my characters happened to have were always way outside the limits of whatever classes the people had negotiated in their own games. Not all of them, but something was guaranteed to be an outlier and the character would be rejected out of hand.

And I often make fun of GURPS because its class design guidelines aren't as extensive or helpful as Champions. Like, not even close. If I make a GURPS character, I don't know what classes my MC thinks exist and I don't know what kinds of numbers and powers are going to be limited by that "choice."

-Username17

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:44 pm

How much lower? I don't fucking know. Because in Champions, you negotiate your class and its limits with your MC while you are making your character. Champions has some pretty robust discussions about what class limits you might have, but what specific limits your game actually does have are up in the air

This rabbit hole is even deeper - it's not merely "classes" that are subject to negotiation and gentlemen's agreements, in Champions: it's individual powers and their buy costs. Some groups are cool with putting your super stats inside a power framework, some groups make you use adjustment powers to do that, some groups disallow frameworks entirely.

In 3e D&D terms, this is how some groups play with Tome scaling feats, where one feat gets you up to 5 different abilities, some of which scale with level while other groups make you pay four feats for "+2/+2 when attacking with Spiked Chain" - but there are also a bunch of in-between values, and all feats are like that and so are all spells and so are all skills.....

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:15 pm

To answer the question: whenever the group challenges in the game cover a numerical spectrum that exceeds one RNG's length, i.e. whenever group challenges will push non-specialists off the same RNG as the specialists, you probably need to convert to levels, and tier your group challenges accordingly.

If the difference between the biggest opponent in the game and the smallest is within one RNG, you can go level-less and allow straight point buy, again, assuming the point-buy possibilities are capped the same way. You can have a level-less game where characters really can start out most of the way up a narrow totem pole, like being an expert swordsman, and they will do well at all but the most challenging of the game's combat encounters. This game, though, would have to have equal parts combat, social, stealth, exploration, etc., other mini-games, in order for that combat superiority to have a real opportunity cost. IOW, for a game like D&D where combat is usually more than 50% of the game, that's probably not wise.

Then, as others have mentioned, you can have a mixed system, where you have a level that fixes a mechanical floor and ceiling which both shift upwards as you level up.

The old TNE threads (at least, from what I can tell of what remains here) contemplated two parts of the game: combat abilities were strictly level/class-based, the numbers were very tight and largely dependent on level and class rather than individual customization. Non-combat abilities, OTOH, were independent of level and much, much more flexible. Because non-combat challenges were independent of level, what was near impossible for a level 1 non-specialist was still near impossible for a level 15 non-specialist.

However, people could go off the RNG on non-combat skills, because those challenges weren't group challenges. Diplomancers could leave the rest of the party many RNG-lengths in the dust, because Diplomacy is not a group mini-game, so the rest of the party doesn't have to contribute anything. I actually don't agree with this approach; I think non-combat, non-group abilities should still remain on the same RNG, even if the mini-game only requires one character, for the simple fact that it becomes a game breaking lack if either 1) the party has no dedicated Face, or 2) the party's Face is somehow neutralized for the encounter. Those are both common enough scenarios that I think it's important to let the other characters have a chance to play the same game, even if the odds are against them.

But whatever, that's neither here nor there. The answer is you need levels if everyone in the party is expected to face challenges that eventually leave a +0 unable to participate. If the challenges do cover such a wide spectrum, you can either go full-on class/level framework, or you can find something a little looser like level-based point buy.

Classes are kind of orthogonal to the level/level-less axis, actually. You can have classes in either one, or you can not have classes in either one. Classes are convenient for playing out of the box and for establishing combat roles, which first requires a tactically rich combat engine. But you can have all combat roles covered in point buy systems, too, it just takes more understanding and coordination on the players' parts. Classes are just pre-packaged builds of a theoretically infinite number of options. They exist for speed of chargen, thematic representation, and to fill tactical niches, of which only the first is impossible in a class-less point-buy game. So while point-buy is the opposite of both class and level, it's not necessarily the case that class and level address the same thing. I think they are two separate axes that point-buy happens to be able to replace both of, that's all.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:54 pm

codeGlaze wrote:I've wondered if any game going forward should be designed/weighted by some.sort of rough point-buy guidelines. Then "simplified " outward as you get closer to product release.

Meaning the core would be designed using points and point-like packages by official writers/designers. Codified in a design codex or "Bible".

The next step would be yo package feats/ACFs/races/etc from the point buy system. Those feats and stuff would be the building blocks that get published just like in 3e dnd.

But ON TOP of that you might lead in to the game with even-further simplified character creation to bring in new players.

So mayber a story based CC flow chart like Frank posted in the classplosion thread. Combined with pre-gen'd archetypes and stuff for people to plug-n-play with.

The pre-gen'd stuff would just be collections of feats/skills/etc published in the rest of the handbook, just laid out in a stupid-simple format.

"I'm a [strong] [Knight] who is was [raised up from the peasantry]."

People comfortable with minmaxxing or custom gen'ing would simplymove last the first chapter or "basic" section and.create theieme own characters as per normal.

For real tinkerers (like the Den) the codex.could be published.in.its own.supplement.

(Sorry for the mobile typing errors)

GURPS (4e) has some supplements that basically do that. Dungeon Fantasy and Monster Hunter, for example, have set point allocations and various templates that take up basically all of that allocation, making them basically classes. And then they require that you take one of the templates, and then you get to customize things a little, and you're all set. This then gives everyone (theoretically - I haven't really looked at the classes from either in any great depth) a similar "level" in that all characters are roughly equally equipped to handle the primary challenges (fighting in both cases) in their ways and then have their niches for minigames or whatever comes up. I think MH even has you take a "class" template and a "background" template.

Obviously this sort of supplement removes the whole "play anything and everything all together" thing that some people tout as a selling point of GURPS (I've never actually played a game like that but I mean it is their default "setting" so I guess it's a thing) and instead uses it as a toolbox to make a specific genre game with the same mechanics your group already knows, but I'm pretty cool with that as much as it works.

Dogbert · Post by **Dogbert** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:09 pm

If you ask me, the only reason I can think of for needing classes in a game is if I'm working on an entry-level or otherwise pickup-and-play game.

Benchmarks for the opposition? Roles? Narrowly-scoped gameplay? PB games already do that, they have been doing so for decades (Gumshoe, Hero, oWoD, etc). It's like a box of legos, you can achieve whatever results you need depending on how much work you're willing to put on it.

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:47 pm

Frank is rigtt in that HERO kind of has things that are like power caps or gentleman's agreements. Things like, no more than 60 points in a combat power, putting hard caps on damage dice with 12d6 being a typical limit.
Nobody can have an OCV or DCV above X and caps on Speed are also common.

Point Buy Systems, like d20 systems, typically have break points, exploitable system aspects that can make certain point expenditure or class and feat and equipment choice synergize and get out of hand quickly. Gentleman's Agreements about cheese (no purchasing Speed with bullshit limits like "only in combat," no 2000 GP slotless permanent True Strike items) are absolutely VITAL in point buy. If you cannot negate break points, you've got to at least tell people, "Look out! This can get really out of hand!"

HERO is great in that things like DANGER warnings and Exclamation points are explicitly pointed out with powers that can be problematic in game.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:07 am

spongeknight wrote:
PhoneLobster wrote:Stuff
Uh, you forgot the actual reason why class based games are preferred over point buy- the concept of level-based power and level appropriate challenges.

The actual actual reason why class based games are preferred over point buy is to remind people of D&D.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:16 am

No kidding re: Hero.

When I had a chance to play that a few years back, my group did no communication at all for character generation. We were given a point total, given a character gen program, and told to make it work. So we each developed our characters independently with no more feedback than that.

I made a character who I honest to god thought was going to be a glass cannon. I put a much smaller amount of points into defense than I would have for almost any other super hero archetype, because I was making a psion.

However, nobody else in the group thought that having any defensive abilities at all except maybe 1 or 2 points into armor or whatever was in any way necessary. So I wound up with a character that was practically invulnerable by their standards, because I built what I considered was a minimally durable super hero. The GM then had to choose between not being able to hurt me at all and one shotting any other player in the group. It was absolutely ridiculous. The campaign didn't last very long, and we haven't played again since.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:54 am

I've never seen a balanced point buy game. Part of that is because all of the point buy games I've seen have glaringly bad balance mistakes in them. Part of that is because all of the point buy games I've seen at some point just throw their hands up in the air and declare they aren't going to try so ask your DM. And part of that is because the idea that everything you could ever buy for your character should be bought using the exact same pool of resources is insane.

The actual actual actual reason people use levels is because those are the only games that make any attempt to set balance benchmarks and tell you what characters should be adventuring together and what they should be doing. And while the world's most popular level-based system, D&D, has failed spectacularly at that in every single incarnation, every single one has still been a fuckton closer than HERO or GURPS. Because HERO and GURPS are games where everything is made up and the points don't matter. And I say that as someone who likes HERO (and can't be assed to remember how to play GURPS when I'm not being subjected to it). But HERO is just a how-to manual and a bunch of LEGO pieces. If you want an actual game out of it, assembly definitely fucking required.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:38 am

So can Shadowrun be setup as a level system?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:58 am

Shadowrun (and V;tM, and After Sundown, and so on) are games where you can very nearly start the game at maximum awesome for whatever it is you chose to do and all your advancement points are spent diversifying. Actual power level advancement might happen, but it's usually an arbitrary plot point. A level-based system genuinely wouldn't mean much in Shadowrun. But Shadowrun would benefit immensely from the V;tM/After Sundown treatment where they stop pretending that a point is a point and divide shit into categories and put a much tighter leash on how many points you're allowed to spend where (but not priority gen, priority gen is fucking retarded and just gives you brand new ways to fail character creation).

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:41 am

The actual actual reason why class based games are preferred over point buy is to remind people of D&D.

There's value in restricted choice sets.

Not just in having a nominally balanced set of minimal defences off the bat (even when games fail to give you that, like 3e and 4e and 5e D&D), or limiting your ability to one-shot every possible problem in the game (again, even though class and level systems fail at that). But simply in being the Wizard or the Cleric or the Rogue or the Bard and having that mean something because there's only a dozen classes and people know what they do.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:45 am

not that I have played in a superhero game (sadly) but I would be very skeptical of any superhero game that was not point buy. Part of the awsome of such a game is putting together your own hero with your own powers ("behold I AM MILLIPEDE MAN, BOW BEFORE MY GRAPPLING MIGHT") I can not imagine a class based system doing that.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:28 am

CaptPike wrote:not that I have played in a superhero game (sadly) but I would be very skeptical of any superhero game that was not point buy. Part of the awsome of such a game is putting together your own hero with your own powers ("behold I AM MILLIPEDE MAN, BOW BEFORE MY GRAPPLING MIGHT") I can not imagine a class based system doing that.

The Superhero genre actually does have broad archetypes that characters fit into. Any game or setting is going to have a limited number of powers in it.

So let's talk about a specific character: Rampant. He has the power to summon live lions at high velocity. His catch phrase while shooting lions at people is "Feel My Roar!" Obviously, this character is not going to be buildable out of a D&D style pre-made powers list. That is not going to happen. No spell list is going to be long enough to have a pre-made "lion beam" on it. But in a sufficiently deep point system, you should be able to make that. In Champions, Rampant's Lion Beam is a Physical Blast linked with a Summons that creates an angry injured lion. That part is easy.

But here's the thing: assuming that you're playing at the level where enemies do have to care about injured lions and can't effortlessly swat them out of their path with a move-through and their casual strength, that's a pretty good power. It's a Blaster character with a built-in area denial, which makes him a Controller. And because he's a Controller, the GM will want to put some pretty harsh limits on what kind of damage the Lion Beam can generate, and what kind of defenses that Rampant is allowed to have (presumably much smaller than if he was a Brick and felt the need to charge into melee himself rather than hanging back and keeping enemies from closing by throwing lions at them). Champions is a point based system with very robust power creation rules, and that makes creating the Lion Beam easy, but figuring out fair numbers for the characters to have based on their assumed classes is actually pretty hard.

But let's look at this from the standpoint of being in a class-based system instead. We have a number of character classes to choose from, and we can instantly ignore most of them. Obviously Rampant isn't going to be a Brick, a Speedster, a Cape, a Martial Artist, or a Suit. We then look at the specifics of how the game handles Blasters, Psychics, Sorcerers, Controllers, and Gadgeteers. One of them should presumably have the ability to do damage and summon minions at the same time. Then you have to find that class, and reskin things to be specifically lions. So maybe you take the powers that were intended to make plant controllers off the Controller list or maybe you take powers that were intended to make homing missiles for the Gadgeteers, or maybe you take powers that we intended to summon fire demons for the Sorcerers. Or whatever. Obviously that is a lot more difficult and may involve some MC-approved tradeoffs as compared to Champions, but once you do that the defenses and attack damage and shit should just rattle out the system because your class and options should generate those.

It's a trade-off. But the Supers genre doesn't really need more than 10 character classes for players to have. I have been roundly unimpressed with the class based Supers games that have come out (in table top format, I rather liked City of Heroes/Villains for what it was). But there's nothing stopping it from doing the job.

-Username17