The Fantasy Trip

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Regarding classes and classless systems, I’d add that I consider TFT to be functionally classless. The Hero vs. Wizards distinction could be replaced by making a Wizard talent that would let wizards buy spells a lot cheaper, but it’s a much easier and cleaner solution to have the Wizard and Hero distinction.

This is a good thing in my opinion. I think that mechanics and systems should be selected because they work. I don’t mind harmonized systems, but I don’t think there’s that much virtue in harmonization in and of itself. That’s why I don’t object to 5 levels of Unarmed Combat, when most other weapon talents have 1 or 2 levels. Yes, it’s inconsistent with the treatment of other weapon talents. Yes, it works (in my opinion). And no, I don’t care about the inconsistency. (Not trying to reignite the debate on Unarmed Combat; just using it as an example).

That may be one of the qualities of Old School gaming - use whatever it takes to get it done. And yes, needless inconsistency can, at some point, be a bad thing.

As you say, the system is functionally classless, so I decided to make it completely so. This was, in large part, because I was introducing a third character type - the Devoted, and rather than create a third set of distinctions seperare from attributes/talents, I decided to put everything into the talent system. This for me was much simpler.

Whether it's simpler to distinguish between characters beyond Attributes and Talents, as presently happens, is debatable. I also don't agree with your idea that "whatever it takes to get the job done" is acceptable. That's what happened with Dungeons and Dragons - a huge morass of inconsistent rules, and why I moved on to something much more logical like TFT.

I do agree however, that the unarmed combat talents always worked for us, and I see no reason to change them. I don't think anyone got beyond UCIII in any case.