Looking at making a “classless version” and the same problem popped out for me. You can already pick up the special abilities and items from other playbooks; I don’t think anything breaks with completely going with make-your-own-lists. Friends and advancement can’t be acquired, but similarly I think opening it up doesn’t wreck anything.
And then there’s the Cutter’s heavier loads. It’s the one completely mechanical edge that one playbook has and no one else can possibly get. I still think either it should become a regular special ability or a built-in perk with equal built-in perks for other playbooks. Or something. It bugs me that Cutters get this unique thing that no one else does.
And gear lists still have something leaving me scratching my head. Everyone has everything on their playbook’s item list, but they’re not going to carry everything. Fair enough! But let’s say the crew’s going up against ghosts. The Whisper has ways to deal with those, so he’s happy to hand his lightning-hook off to the Cutter. The Cutter eagerly distributes rage essence vials to everyone. (Or, if they’re limited, to the Slide, who intends to use it as poison.) The Lurk and the Hound trade spyglass and goggles. Everyone dumps gear on the Cutter to be their beat of burden.
I get the feeling this isn’t intended. Is it? What’s the justification for not having it happen? Some things could reasonably require training, but it seems like a spyglass or rage essence vial or a better weapon should be easily transferred from one character to another.
.
I’m very intrigued by these ideas, and they relate to the earlier thread by Kai Tave about possibility of more robust/vivid playbook-specific abilities. Technically, using the Veteran ability allows you to gain a max of 2 abilities from other playbooks, but yes they could end up getting every other item onto their list eventually.
Also, while a classless system where every ability, item, and friend is grab bag may be feasible, it loses the fictional guidance that dividing them allows. It’s often easier to expound creatively or chase inspiration within some thematic constraints rather than just with wide-open direction: “Make an interesting scoundrel character of any kind that combines any of these options.”
That said, I hear what you say about this and curiosity with the items list or the impact of load. I like the Cutter load effect as a subtle but meaningful fictional uniqueness, but yeah, perhaps it could be a starting special ability, or other play books could have equivalent mechanical perks.
I guess I consider that any character using an item not on their list would probably impact their position with its use. If the cutter uses her own fine large weapon, she might be controlled in a given context, while handing it off to the Hound to use might render that a risky position in the same context. Same with a Whisper’s lighting-hook or other specialized gear. Even things like rage essence could be something that’s more risky to use if you’re not accustomed to it. If it’s the first time the Lurk has been under that influence, it may even render a Desperate situation. Even the Slide may not properly administer it or anticipate it’s outcome to the best effect. So while I probably wouldn’t prevent any gear swapping like that, I think those cases are also ripe for narrative opportunity. It’s like in Leverage when crewmembers have to operate outside their specialty. It’s not impossible, and they might even succeed, but it’s definitely worthy of more dramatic spotlight.
While everyone could dump gear on the Cutter, that prevents him from carrying his own, and who says he’s interested in having to hand out everyone’s pistols when things turn violent?
Right, there are a lot of cases where training matters, but some where it’s really hard to say how it would. Carrying your own weapon vs. borrowing the Cutter’s fine weapon. A better knife’s just not going to make shanking anything but a easier and more pleasant experience. From the shanker’s side, at least; the shankee may beg to differ. (Also beg to stop being shanked.)
I’m just interested if the book will address this, if there are any thoughts on it already, or if this is all left to table-specific adjudication.
Interesting point, after my second session I assume my group, or well at least potential players, could be interested in the answer,..
.
.
.