[Malifax]

Originally Posted by In that case "vampire" can't be a race, because the character still needs to retain aspects of its former race (unless you say that only humans can become vampires, or create a separate vampire version of each existing race, or add some sort of dynamic on-the-fly race generation system).

Why not make a separate vampire parent for each race or build dynamic race generation? It's just lines of code and wouldn't cost much at all in terms of resources.

Originally Posted by They are only "regular" skills if you're a human (assuming humans are capable of learning spellcraft).  For a race of sentient wolves, one-handed weapons and lockpicking would certainly not be "regular" skills - but for a pixie, flying would be.

They're still "regular" skills in terms of the game's design. The wolves just have a very low aptitude for learning them. If something's physically impossible for a member of a certain race, that's different, but those kinds of barriers are logical, in-character and simple to implement. If sentient wolves couldn't learn "regular" skills, I'd give them more natural abilities to balance it out. But that would be the exception to the rule.

To me, the ability to fly is an ability pixies are born with. The inherent ability to swing a sword isn't limited to any race. Some races have different traits which make them better at using certain weapons and attacks, but they aren't limited to those. It's no different than real life. People are born with natural aptitudes for doing some things better than others. Some of that comes from heritage, some of it's the luck of the draw. But just because I'm born a clutz doesn't mean I can't play basketball. It just means I can practice a lot and never be very good.

I could design a game based on classes, but I really don't want to. I'd rather base stuff on racial traits than the races themselves and go with an open skill system. Doesn't mean I hate classed systems. I don't. I've played a lot of games with classes and had a ball. I just want something different and a little more flexible.    

I haven't bought a RM book since the late 80's. Maybe I need to.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Why not make a separate vampire parent for each race or build dynamic race generation?

You could, but in most cases it's much easier to handle supernatural afflictions such as vampirism separately from the race itself.

Originally Posted by They are only "regular" skills if you're a human (assuming humans are capable of learning spellcraft).  For a race of sentient wolves, one-handed weapons and lockpicking would certainly not be "regular" skills - but for a pixie, flying would be. They're still "regular" skills in terms of the game's design.

Well we're talking about the design here - they're only "regular" skills if you choose to make them such within the scope of your design.  And my argument is that the design should take your race into consideration when determining what "regular" skills are available.

Originally Posted by The wolves just have a very low aptitude for learning them.

Sorry, but no - a wolf simply cannot learn to use one-handed weapons, any more than a human can learn how to fly, or how to use four-handed weapons.  As I said before, you're basing your assumptions on a human perspective.

Originally Posted by To me, the ability to fly is an ability pixies are born with. The inherent ability to swing a sword isn't limited to any race.

A creature with (flight-capable) wings can fly, just as a creature with legs can walk, and a creature with hands can hold weapons.  These are natural abilities, but they can also be trained.

From a human perspective it's easy to think of running and wielding weapons as being "regular" skills that anyone can learn - but if you were a lindworm with wings but no arms or legs, you wouldn't be able to do either.  However you'd probably consider it fairly normal to learn skills related to flying, tail-usage, etc.  Equally, if you were a Thri-kreen you would probably consider four-weapon fighting styles to be pretty standard, but it doesn't make sense for a human to be able to learn such a skill (unless they are somehow able to grow an extra pair of arms).

Originally Posted by I could design a game based on classes, but I really don't want to. I'd rather base stuff on racial traits than the races themselves and go with an open skill system.

The point I'm trying to make is that by designing your races flexibly enough to support their natural abilities (such as running skills, flying skills, tail skills, breath skills, 1-4 (or more) handed weapon skills, innate magical skills, etc) you're effectively turning your races into classes, at least from a game-design perspective.

[Malifax]

Originally Posted by The point I'm trying to make is that by designing your races flexibly enough to support their natural abilities (such as running skills, flying skills, tail skills, breath skills, 1-4 (or more) handed weapon skills, innate magical skills, etc) you're effectively turning your races into classes, at least from a game-design perspective.

Then we can call them classes. That's just not how I generally look at it. To me, "classless" means choice of skills determine "profession" instead of choice of "class" determining skills. I think we're arguing semantics.

[Jazuela]

I don't mind classes so much, as long as they include enough diversity that the player isn't stuck "being" that "profession."

For example...

A necromancer who can make jewelry on the side, could be secretly practicing magic spells, and passing herself off as a jeweler. Being hired as a "professional" jeweler, even though it isn't her primary "thing." Maybe even becoming known throughout the world as a highly skilled talented jeweler. And in the meantime she's secretly plotting the demise of Lord Captain So And So who picked on her when they were kids.

Or another example:

A ranger, who gets himself hired as a Temple Priest's personal aide, and uses his stealth skills from the ranger skillset to eavesdrop on conversations with the Temple's opposing factor, and visit enemy territory to bring back news of their dastardly plots against his employer. No "hunting" involved in that, no mob-killing - no "rangering" as far as the primary ranger skillsets go - no need to ever own a bow, let alone use one. And - no need to "advance" or "level up" or script-hunt for hours and hours on end. He could even have a hobby of whittling arrows, if fletchery is part of the ranger skillset (makes sense that it would be), and providing them to the Temple's archers.

Those are the kinds of classes I like to see. Classes in which it isn't necessary to feel "stuck" in a hard-coded role, just because you happened to pick a certain skillset. Where the classes support the roleplay, rather than the roleplay happening in spite of the class.

[Malifax]

I don't mind classes at all if they don't restrict my skill set. The old GS III setup was pretty good. As KaVir has pointed out, races can be classes if you give them enough features.