# Game Design 114: Flaw Finding



## Fetfreak (Jun 17, 2013)

I like the opening, very honest. 
"Only when we try to fix the flaws do we end up seeing them more clearly." - This is very true and you probably shouldn't try to fix it unless you start seeing it clearly.

As for no levels? I'm already there  
My player's are divided when it comes to levels. One player loves them because they give him a sence of acomplishment while the other hates them becase he feels he is labeled and he hates the fact that the game often changes because of higher levels. Other players were indifferent but loved the fact that now they can do something with their character right after the battle or a quest.
I like going the level-less and classless way. Not only do I prefer it but it is going hand in hand with my campaign setting. There is something awesome when all the molds are broken, no class cutouts but you create a character exactly the way you want him.

In level-less and classless system my only concern comes with balance, but if all abilities are balanced with each other, then there isn't much problem.


----------



## Fletchyr (Jun 17, 2013)

I very much prefer class-less and level-less systems (L5R rpg, WoD, M&M).  For starters, as a player I find it far more realistic that a character grows bit by bit, as dictated by his actions and environment as opposed to "Boy all those social challenges sure did teach me how to swing a sword better!"

I am also not convinced that classes and levels make something easier to balance, although to be fair, I find balance far less important in rpgs than in competitive games.  However, one my issues with Exalted, for example, is that martial arts are so overpoweringly good that if you have a monk in your group he dominates the fights.

In the end, with rpgs all you can do is play it, and make sure all the players feel like they can contribute, no matter what their build is.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 17, 2013)

I have found that classes and levels are by themselves neither great nor terrible but intricately linked to overall abstraction level for games that I enjoy. One of the first decisions I try and think about when kicking around ideas for a new game is the overall abstraction level. This informs all kinds of other major decisions such as the granularity and importance of stats, the existence of classes or a skill system and the overall complexity of the system as a whole. 

Every game needs a main focus to be the foundation of its strength. Some systems place detailed character creation and development at the forefront. Such a system would benefit more fom a highly simulationist, less abstract system. All the little moving parts of the PC will be highly customizable and able to improve individually based on player focus. A class based system would be comparatively clunky for this design goal. 

A great many flaws that I have run across (and keep in mind that one person's flaw could be some else's selling point!) come from mixed signals at the abstraction level. Either the game is supposedly fairly abstract and attempts to add too much simulationist complexity, or the game is supposed to be complex but fails to cover something fairly important.


----------



## Fetfreak (Jun 17, 2013)

I think I know what you mean ExploderWizard. It probably is a good idea to weigh abstract to complex first. I guess a game that is focused on roleplay should be more abstract while the one that is focused on combat, manuvers and special actions should be complex. The trick is to create a good game that can serve both for roleplay and combat since there are many groups that like both aspects of tabletop gaming, I know my group is.


----------



## Challenger RPG (Jun 24, 2013)

@_*Fetfreak*_ : That's awesome. It never occurred to me to go both classless and leveless but I think that would be fantastic! Kudos on such a cool game. I bet the role-playing and character development are pretty epic.

  @_*Fletchyr*_ : I agree. Ha ha, I like the social challenges equaling sword swinging reference. It always seems like that crops up over and over again in some of the games I run.

  @_*ExploderWizard*_ : Excellent points. I've actually seen that happen all too many times. The game will have a complex system but attempt to be abstract or it will be super abstract and mix some key things you need to understand to play the game properly. I really like your point about considering the abstract vs. complex issue first and then working on classes and the rest afterwards. I'll have to remember to add that to my to-do list when designing RPGs. I personally favor the abstract to some extent, but there's almost nothing I hate more than a missing or vague rule. I tend to err on the side of a bit more complex just to make sure things are explained properly.

Thanks for all the great posts, everyone! I really enjoyed reading them.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 24, 2013)

Challenger RPG said:


> From a game design standpoint, levels really play havoc with the rules of a game. From the perspective of a player, I love to gain power. I still think a game without levels would be really cool, but I know now that it’s a lot trickier to do than what I once thought.



I think that's probably the take-home message when it comes to houseruling and homebrewing. It's easy to say "gee, why don't we get rid of hit points" but very difficult to implement when you start considering the ripple effects, but still worthwhile to try and do.


----------

