Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #2: Classy Classless Class

Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #2: Classy Classless Class

First i'd like to state what this thread is about. For those of you that remember, i had made a thread some time ago about the importance of roleplaying (it was fairly well received), entitled RPG Roundtable #1: The Role and the Play. I was planning to make a second one about combat, but Feargie stole my sunshine. I considered talking 'bout magic, but Human Shield did it quite well.

Anyway, aside trying to give it some sort of ongoing series feel, i decided to also bring up another aspect, this time around, Classes. Usually classes in CRPGs only serve to stereotype characters, and are far too restrictive when it comes to skills and possibilities. On the other hand, classless (or skill-based) systems allow for a wider range of customizing possibilities. But sometimes, classless systems tend to make characters become jack-of-all-trades, and the possibility to focus on whatever we want dilute the character's possibilities. While a skill-based system works, and is better than a class-based system in theory, oftentimes when operating on a skill-based system you have to focus on a given set of skills to succeed in a game, and the kind of focus usually resembles that of a class-based system, as you usually have to specialize in something, not spread out.

And while we're at it, why not support a single system thats both class-based and skill-based, where you have starting classes, with their high and low points, but still can invest in other skills which are outside the class' initial skills? A character that goes with the class of Fighter could still invest in a skill which isn't covered by the class. Kind of like 3E, focusing on other skills would be possible, but it would take spending more skill points.

So what do you think is the best way to create and customize a character? What systems did you particularly liked?

I will always and forever love the way Daggerfall did things. Being able to mold my character the way I want to without any restrictions other than those I set for myself. Fallout was another good system for this. I definitely prefer the classless route where you make your own path and not have to ride a predetermined one.

Depends on a system and a game. Imo, class-based work well with party based games, skill based with games focused on one character. We all know how awesome skill-based systems and the powah of customization are, so I will talk about classes. A class is not such a bad thing as long as it's well developed and allow skill-level customization within a class. Take D2 for example, the classes are well developed and allow at least 3 subclasses to ensure higher degree of customization. A class should represent knowledge of a trade your character specializes in. It should be flexible enough to create any character you want within a class without ever needing to multiclass. A class should be flexible enough to support skill-level customizaion (you should be able to make a thief who can handle himself in melee) and at the same time support narrow specialization classes are known for.

Somewhat like Prelude to Darkness (PtD did have classes), I would like to see a level-less, classless system where you can pick from from a few different pools of characteristics that open and close different paths or skill trees or strengthen or weaken different skill or even affect stats and attributes. "Fate points" and special events/encounters/dialogue choices/puzzles provide all advancement, and thus reinforce role-playing.

I'd also like to see a system where magic weapons level up with the user, and perhaps along with the results of quests, become more powerful. This would be a nice alternative to phat l3wt. Maybe magic users could research more deeply into learned spells or spell schools to gain more powerful results. Maybe this could somehow be combined with the way in which stategy game-style researching of technologies is done.

XJEDX said:

I'd also like to see a system where magic weapons level up with the user, and perhaps along with the results of quests, become more powerful. This would be a nice alternative to phat l3wt. Maybe magic users could research more deeply into learned spells or spell schools to gain more powerful results. Maybe this could somehow be combined with the way in which stategy game-style researching of technologies is done.

Click to expand...

How about a system where higher skills/stats allow you to get more powah from magic items? It makes sense that a lvl 1 noob should not be able to fully realize the potential of a magic item and should spend a considerable amount of time (levels) understanding and mastering it. May be a warrior should invest in some basic magic skills, something like lore but deeper, to be able to gain the full power of a sword, instead of learning some master-level fighting skills thus balancing the power of phat l3wt. What do you think?

I like that idea. I also like something someone said elsewhere on the forum about having unexpected effects (the gem conversation on one of the Blade & Sword threads)--and not necessarily bad--from failures. Pick up a wand and try to use it with little skill, maybe it works and you get a magic missle, maybe it explodes and you loose take a temporary hit to your perception stat, but you gain experience (or maybe something else, like learning a new spell from the experience). Randomness is a good thing. This is a characteristic from rogue-likes that I would like to see more of in "full" CRPGs.

Definitely. There should always be some side effects that would make you reconsider hitting that reload button. Randomness totally rulez! A spell blew up in your face? You've managed to avoid getting hit and developed a slight damage resistance to this particular spell.

My preference runs towards classless with some restrictions. Although like VD said it depends on the game. With single player games especially your character usually needs to be a "jack of all trades".

For example the restrictions could be built in by making skills stat based and/or limited. If you make character a big dumb ox in stands to reason he's going to have a hard time grasping nuclear physics.

Other options would be simply limiting number of skills you can have, requiring trainers with perhaps some schools in opposition. Along the same lines giving the player one time ingame choices i.e. you can learn skill A or skill B but never both.

If done well it also gives you a reason to play the again to try the different choices.

Pick up a wand and try to use it with little skill, maybe it works and you get a magic missle, maybe it explodes and you loose take a temporary hit to your perception stat, but you gain experience (or maybe something else, like learning a new spell from the experience).

Click to expand...

That kinda reminds me of the original Gamma World's "flow chart of doom" for attempting to operate an artifact for the first time.

Either way si fine with me. If it's done well like D&D with classes, or done well with no classes like Fallout I'm game for it. They both have their advantages, and disadvantages.

Role-Player said:

But sometimes, classless systems tend to make characters become jack-of-all-trades, and the possibility to focus on whatever we want dilute the character's possibilities. While a skill-based system works, and is better than a class-based system in theory, oftentimes when operating on a skill-based system you have to focus on a given set of skills to succeed in a game, and the kind of focus usually resembles that of a class-based system, as you usually have to specialize in something, not spread out.

Click to expand...

I've noticed classless systems tend to make jack-of-all-trades, too. Or either you're heavily enouraged to meta-game and pick the game's uber-skills and don't waste time with the neglected ones. Yeah, in an ideal world, that wouldn't happen, but it usually does. It makes me tend to doubt how far you can push it.

And while we're at it, why not support a single system thats both class-based and skill-based, where you have starting classes, with their high and low points, but still can invest in other skills which are outside the class' initial skills? A character that goes with the class of Fighter could still invest in a skill which isn't covered by the class. Kind of like 3E, focusing on other skills would be possible, but it would take spending more skill points.

Click to expand...

Rolemaster did that pretty extensively. It was okay, but in the end, you still ended up specializing in what your class was good at. Only a few classes were meant to be jack-of-all-trades, choosing a specialty definitely had its advantages. The main benefit of having open-ended creation was you could be sorta good in other areas and also you had a good bit of flexibility in rounding out your character. Spending time doing a certain job (long story) was the cheapest way skill point wise to get compentent at something outside your normal area of expertise.

XJEDX said:

I like that idea. I also like something someone said elsewhere on the forum about having unexpected effects (the gem conversation on one of the Blade & Sword threads)--and not necessarily bad--from failures. Pick up a wand and try to use it with little skill, maybe it works and you get a magic missle, maybe it explodes and you loose take a temporary hit to your perception stat, but you gain experience (or maybe something else, like learning a new spell from the experience). Randomness is a good thing. This is a characteristic from rogue-likes that I would like to see more of in "full" CRPGs.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, when I read this, the thought that immediately pops into my head is save/reload bonanza. I'm actually not a big fan of randomness in CRPG's. It's one of the PnP things that translates over the worst IMO.

I think randomness discourages the save/load thing. If you get a result that is both good and bad (nothing very severe either way) plus experience, why would you want to reload?

Similarly, if everything were deterministic then there's no reason not to reload if you screw something up. The entire game becomes a process of memorizing behaviors.

Am I right to translate that as you agreeing with me?

I think randomness discourages the save/load thing. If you get a result that is both good and bad (nothing very severe either way) plus experience, why would you want to reload?

Click to expand...

I disagree. If anything the randomness will encourage you to save/reload in an attempt to get the results you want. Yes you may get a good result but as long as there's chance of getting a better result people will try it.

Put it another way, say through experimentation you've learned failure has a chance of giving a resistance to effect A, B, C, and D. In this hypothectical game a lot of the bad guys attack with effect C. Therefore getting a resistance to effect C would be the desirable result.

XJEDX said:

I think randomness discourages the save/load thing. If you get a result that is both good and bad (nothing very severe either way) plus experience, why would you want to reload?

Click to expand...

I think of it in terms of saving/reloading to get optimal failures. Ooh, boss X is too tough, better see how many times I can jam my gun shooting at rats. Yeah, I'd actually be just freakish enough to consider that.

If it's pretty moderate and positives and negatives are pretty balanced, though, sure it might work. It wouldn't really be much more than a novelty then, though. PnP stuff I've seen with this philosophy doesn't tend to be moderate, though, what happens is often a big deal. But hey, that's how the dice come up, your buddies get a good laugh at your misfortune, a nice DM might throw in a bit of fudge factor to mitigate the result if it's too disruptive, and life goes on. Every computer game I can think of that emulated something like that turned into a save/reload fest.

Psilon said:

Similarly, if everything were deterministic then there's no reason not to reload if you screw something up. The entire game becomes a process of memorizing behaviors.

Click to expand...

Sure there's a reason to reload, if you do the wrong thing. That's not always that much fun either, though. I'm not really saying no randomness at all, you just have to consider things in terms of the unique environment of a computer game.

I like being competent in many areas, I don't like the fact that a 18 INT wizard could never learn how to use a med-kit because only 'healers' can use that item. No one on the planet can use musical instruments unless they are a bard, my fighter can't take lockpick classes on the side.

Multiclassing or switching around doesn't help much, you have to waste a level taking everything about the class (my Great-Axe barbarian has to learn how to lockpick and backstab in order to use stealth).

Classes many times turn into restrictive shells limiting (many times illogically) skills and abilities from certain people. Classes can be good if they just set aptitude and give a higher maximum level but not when they limit items and crosstraining.

I think classes are most useful in online games, giving advantages to focusing on niche skills without being put on the same level as others (a merchant shouldn't have to hunt goblins).

I'm "working" on a pnp system with a sort of reversed class system.

Imagine setting up your level zilch clueless n00b farm boy without any real experience or special properties (as spells, prayers et c) and let the player shape the character through actual gameplay. Wanna play a fighter sort of char, pick up a sword and engage in combat. A spellcaster? Talk the recluse hedge wizard into teaching you a spell or two et c. How this actually works is down to raising skills through use - akin to games like DS, but with a lot more variety of course, and when certain criteria are met get the opportunity to level up in a "class" or "path", as seems more correct here. First step on the path of the warrior would require some sort of fighting skill to a certain skill level as well as some basic combat experience, the next step would require some more skill and possibly having to had defeated a enemy in single combat. Every step would require certain skills as well as some sort of in-game action having been conducted. Every step of the path would also work akin to a Fallout perk - for instance give a small initiative bonus to a P1 warrior (due to actually having foght for your life), a small bonus to amount of mana that you can channel as a P1 mage et c. There is no limit to how many paths there can be (except creativity), and if a player can dictate how he believes his char is suitable for a path that doesn't yet exist - so be it. It's a mix and match as you go.

Just for clarification, I meant the randomness thing to be infrequent--the result of critical failures, not something that happens every five or ten minutes. Maybe the save function should be more limited like ToEE's "ironman" mode, or maybe after the initial load when sitting down for another session, it should cost a chunk of XP for each reload.

I like Ironman/Hardcore options in games, makes them fun. INCLUDE MORE PLZKTHX.

What about the player starting within certain fractions? Like paladins?

This brings up starting aligment issues. Should the player be able to start as good or evil or should everyone be neutral at start (this made sense for PS:T and Fallout but arriving in a town can leave a lot out).

If there are no classes what about special roles and jobs?

I agree with the comment that class-based systems work better when there is an advanturing party, whereas classless is better if there is a single protagonist.

One of my issues with "Class" is simply this: what is it? Sometimes the class is just a general description of the skills that a character has, such as Fighter, Rogue, Mage, Arcane Archer, Spellsword and so on. Other times it seems to be describing the occupation of the character: Paladin, Cleric, Assassin, Necromancer, Dread Pirate, Purple Dragon Knight. Yet other times the class strays perilously close to being akin to race: Barbarian, Dragon Disciple. And finally there are class names that do not really mean anything, except for a general alignment and weapon/armor preference: Sorcerer, Blackguard.

My own preference would be to totally get rid of the concept of "Class". Instead a character would have skills, special abilities, personality traits and an occupation. The occupation (or previous occupation) would be based on whatever background fits the character's skills and abilities. The only place where the concept of "Class" would exist would be the archetypes, which are basically template occupations that show the sort of skills an occupation could have.

The problem with not having class restrictions is that you can end up with unbalanced characters, or jack-of-all-trades. This is always pointed to as the big problem with classless systems. The thing is, if it is such a big problem then how come most class-based systems allow multi-classing, which pretty much leads to the same issues. In my view, a system based on skills alone is much easier to use, and to balance, than one with complex multiclass rules.

Balance is by no means easy, but I do think that rpg system developers need to give it more thought. When dealing with a skill-based classless system, here are some ideas that could be applied:

1. Some skills are easier to learn than other skills, which means that they take less time. There is only so much time characters can spend learning skills.

2. In general, skills that take more time tend to be more powerful and/or generally useful. At the same time, it is important not to have uber skills that, although expensive and time-consuming to learn, eliminate the need to learn other skills. A good example of a too-powerful skill is a general magic skill that allows the player to cast many different types of spell that have similar effects to many other skills.

3. Characters have good mental abilities or good physical abilities. It is impossible to be excellent at both because there is only so much time you can spend practicing.

4. Characters can only be excellent at a few skills, and merely good or average with others, because there is not enough time to be excellent at everything.

5. Long-lived or immortal races are an issue because they would be more skilled than other races since they have more time. Personally, I would get rid of them. The alternative is to find a reason why they do not have more skill training than other races. Possibly they are only able to remember so much at once.

6. Experience penalties are a crap way to achieve balance across difference races and special abilities. Everyone just chooses the most powerful race/abilities with the sure knowledge that the game/DM is still going to give out enough XP for them to level up sufficiently.

7. There should be a time balance between different groups of related skills. For example: If swords are better weapons than spears then learning to use swords should take longer. The amount of time needed to sufficiently master melee combat should be about the same as the amount of time needed to sufficiently master magical combat.

8. Skills need to be more specific than simple skills like "Melee combat" and "Magic". Becoming a melee combat expert should require the mastery of several related skills such as "Sword", "Shield", "Armor use", "Evasion". Becoming a magical combat expert should require the mastery of several related skills such as "Fire magic", "Spell aiming", "Quick casting", "Counterspelling". A character that wanted to be good at melee combat and magic combat would have to make sacrifices in some areas, such as not wearing armor, being less accurate with spells, being hopeless at counterspells. Note that the character must still be viable.

9. All skills that require a certain amount of time to learn should be equally useful. Utility skills need to be cheaper than combat skills to make them worth learning. An alternative would be to separate skills into different categories (e.g. combat vs utility) and then give characters separate training points to spend on each. This would ensure that each character is fleshed out with some utlity skills rather than focusing totally on combat. (The "Everyone needs a hobby" argument.)

10. Spells are just skills. Like skills, a character can become an expert in chosen spells. These spells can be cast more times without rest, can be cast quciker, and are more powerful. With a skill, it is often possible to act faster at the expense of accuracy, or act slower (e.g. take 20) to increase accuracy. Spells should be no different. Within the limits of the character's skill, a spell can be cast faster but with a greater risk of mis-casting or less power; or cast slower with less chance of fizzle or more power.

11. Specialization has its uses, but too much specialization has diminishing returns. Players should be encouraged to specialize to some extent, but not over-specialize.

12. Increasing skills in-game should require some degree of realism. A character can increase a skill she has been using with experience, but cannot simply dump experience into an unused skill without seeking training in that skill. So a melee fighter can raise melee fighting skills while adventuring, but needs to seek a wizard trainer in order to suddenly learn how to read runes.

13. Special abilities are what usually distinguish classes. In a class-less system characters should be able to buy special abilities at character generation time as long as the character meets attribute, skill and campaign background requirements. I believe that characters need special abilities and flaws. If the player wants the character to have a special ability then the character must also come with one or more flaws. The abilities and flaws need to be carefully weighted to ensure that the player cannot pick a very useful ability at the cost of several weak flaws.

14. Characters need an occupation of some sort, or a previous occupation, that explains where the character's skills come from. Ultimately, the occupation is whatever the player chooses for roleplaying purposes. For example: A character that has lots of illusion-like magic abilities may be a "Thief" because that is how the character uses her skills. A dwarf who is great a bar fights and drunken stories but cannot sing a note or play the lute may still call himself a "Bard".

This thread kind of faded away, there haven't been design topics in a while.

Human Shield said:

What about the player starting within certain fractions? Like paladins?

This brings up starting aligment issues. Should the player be able to start as good or evil or should everyone be neutral at start (this made sense for PS:T and Fallout but arriving in a town can leave a lot out).

If there are no classes what about special roles and jobs?

Click to expand...

Human Shield said:

This thread kind of faded away, there haven't been design topics in a while.

Click to expand...

I was just thinking that.

What about the player starting within certain fractions? Like paladins?

This brings up starting aligment issues. Should the player be able to start as good or evil or should everyone be neutral at start (this made sense for PS:T and Fallout but arriving in a town can leave a lot out).

If there are no classes what about special roles and jobs?

Click to expand...

I had a discussion related to this topic here, but basically, for my game I've decided to go with invisible classes or professions, whatever. They are not used to limit or force char development in any way, but to "define" a char in the game world. For example, a thief would start with contacts with the underworld, bonus to reputation with some factions, and penalties with other, etc. There is a number of quests where having such contacts opens up a new way of solving quests (smugling goods into a town, hiring thugs to back you up, etc). So that's the role of professions as I see it.

Imo, there is no reason or logic to start "neutral" as your char had been doing something before, (unless there are special situations like you mentioned) and that background should be reflected in games. That leads to a whole new topic: factions in games. Usually a faction represents 3 proverbial quests to join and a chance to buy faction-only items. Doesn't sound like much to me. I want to feel that my "membership" means something, I want to see "I didn't know who you were with" reaction, I want some help when I'm in trouble, etc. Any thoughts?

I definitely prefer a classless approach to single-character RPGs, but don't mind classes in party-based games. The latter gets a fair amount of love on the Codex, particularly in blobbers, so I'd like to hear a bit more about how people prefer classes to be implemented.

My own preferences, in no particular order:

• Unique abilities that help make a class distinct, e.g., a typical cleric's turn undead. Relatively recently, games like PoE have also given additional interfaces/combat attributes to classes, e.g., the Chanter's perpetual buffing, which are nice but can make combat harder to define on a universal basis.
  
• Inherent specializations in certain skills, e.g., bows/survival for rangers, that can still be "tagged" or maxed by other classes.
  
• While I don't hate multi/dual classing, or upgrading to epic classes, I prefer sub-class progression and specialization such as the different elemental foci for a Sorceress in Diablo II.
• I don't particularly like restrictions on equipment, but I understand that this can be problematic from a game-asset perspective. In the end, I'm typically OK with these handicaps as they can make combat more varied and interesting.
• No composition restrictions. This doesn't happen often -- Uurkul is the only title I can think of off the top of my head -- but in both console and PC RPGs, it's always fun to replay a game with a different makeup or a special, self-imposed challenge, e.g., an all-thief party.
  
• Class specific quest and areas like in Baldur's Gate II are always nice as well.

Overall I find that class-specific abilities help to define character-roles and party compositions, and these only mean anything if there are elements to each class not found in other classes. However, these can also become rather stifling if there aren't enough customization options on a micro level.

You must be a Cleric, as no other class could resurrect a thread that died twelve years ago.

;-)