Hello all, It seems that one of the hot topics for anyone trying to create an RPG is whether or not to use classes. I can see it causing weeks upon weeks of discussions during brain storming sessions and really not much else can be done on the project until this decision is made. I wanted to get other peoples experiences of going through this process, how did you determine the choice? Do players benefit from having the freedom to portray the character they wish to be? Or do players prefer to have set classes? I can see advantages and disadvantages for both. Having set classes, gives the player a feeling of direction and ultimate goal. On the flip side, having set classes makes it restricting. The choices! I will be going to varius message boards and doing some votes from players to get their feedback, I thought I would make a post here to talk about it some more and see if anyone has gone through the same process and how the outcome was. I appreciate any feedback. Darren Bridle LoreNET Entertainment dbridle@attbi.com

i am using classes in my RPG... but i am trying to keep the good parts while avoiding the bad ones.
for example, specific classes have different strengths and weaknesses (such as their stats, skills they can learn, weapons/armor/magic they can use, etc), but it is not completely restrictive. the player can learn any skills they like though, although some of the really specialized ones are class-specific only, such as powerful magic and the ability to master two-handed combat. also, some of them are easier to learn for certain classes.
so, the player''s chosen class does give them direction as well as defining the characters experiences and strengths up until the game starts. but, it does not prevent them from trying to be a well-rounded person. the only true limit is that someone can''t make a player who excels at their declared class, and also is better than average at everything else.

I use classes in a different sense. Usually, I use classes as evolutions, so you lose nothing, but rather gain a particular something. I commonly leave it up to the player to choose which section of the class they would prefer to fall into. For instance, if they have an option to advance in class based on 4 attributes, they get to decide which attribute (or sometimes attributes) they want to advance towards, making them stronger in that area, but their previous skills still remain.

Don''t know if that helps you any.

-Sage13


Liquid Moon Team

Project X2

I think you should take a look at your game and decide whether classes fit the game or not. Yes, classes are restrictive, and force the player to play in a certain way, but look at the rest of your game. Does it make up for that fact? Are there NPC''s who come in and out of your control who offer a variety of play styles? Or does the player control a party of people, all of whom he controls from the beginning and they can complement each other and their weaknesses.

Look at the rest of your game and make an informed decision as to whether it would help or hurt the *fun factor*, as that should be the governing factor. If having classes will hurt the FF, don''t do it. If they won''t, then go ahead. I think you can make a game successful either way though.

Looking for an honest video game publisher? Visit www.gamethoughts.com

Depends... which of these two does your RPG fall under:

1) The action / combat RPG, where statistics, numbers, and random rolls are prevalent. The player can easily determine how to min/max capabilities.

2) The communication / event RPG, where the character''s personality (controlled by the player) and twitch-skill determines outcomes of actions. Numbers could be represented by titles, ambiguous unnumbered bar-graphs, or not at all.

Personally, I prefer #2, where the game is more a simulation of reality with a mix of fiction, rather than #1 which is more a strategy-RPG than anything. This type of game is a sort of extension of the player''s personal capabilities, rather than a test of statistical luck.

If you''re going for #1, by all means permit class definitions. They''re almost a necessity (though Ultima Online does without them, players usually choose a few skills for their characters and excel at these, thus end up making up their own classes, or following guidelines for preconceived ideologies of particular classes, on the fly).

If you''re aiming for #2, I would avoid classes at all cost. The game should focus more on how the player interacts with the world, what actions he/she takes, and manual skill/dexterity on the mouse/keyboard/joystick/gamepad/whatever. Skills should be present, however, for certain things that cannot be determined by the player''s personal ability (i.e. being able to read Goblinoid or Elven languages, or how to handle plasma weapons).



MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.cjb.net

Use classes ! Because 90% of your players will love it.

I think classes are the best way to represent yourself the kind of character you are playing. It adds something to the athmosphere, to the background and to the immersion in your game.

For example: If you are a MAGE, or a WARRIOR, you know what you're supposed to do, how you are supposed to dress, but if you just say "I have +2 in magics and +5 in fighting", you're just a new player with some stats (and I think it's in this case your game could be less interesting, your background and your history will be more difficult to determinate in the game).

MatrixCubed: the fact to use classes is not incompatible with a focus on how the players will interact will the world.

Classes may NOT be restrictive, they're just a symbolic way to "mark" the player in order to see what he's best at, even if it can change during the game (by developping weakers stats for example).

[edited by - Cahaan on August 6, 2002 9:55:59 AM]

As I''ve said repeatedly in other threads, I loathe classes, personally, unless you can change them at will (like in Dragon Warrior 3/7).

I prefer the SPECIAL system (Fallout/Arcanum/Lionheart) due to its incredible flexibility. Want to learn energy weapons? Slap some points into it. Want to be really, really good with energy weapons? Tag the skill at the beginning of the game, and every point you put into it counts double. Want some special stuff, like a way to gauge someone''s reaction? Get the Empathy Perk. And so on.

Look at Diablo II. I hated that game, because it was far too restrictive. The original was better. You could have a sword-swinging sorcerer or a fireball-tossing warrior. In D2, you had a close-combat barbarian, a long-range sorceress/necromancer, and such. Very little flexibility in customization - you have to have some skills in that game or you''re meat.

AP: I think you are a bit out of topic just because having CLASSES does NOT imply to be restrictive. It's just a way to mark your preferences. (If you like magic you will choose a Mage or a Sorcerer, but that doesn't force you to use magic every time, you could as well fight if you want to).

(btw I think the Arcanum character generation is not really a model since a lot of players would have exactly the same character on their hard-drive: less diversity that is).


[edited by - Cahaan on August 6, 2002 10:18:40 AM]

I personally prefer classless systems. Every implementation of classes that I have seen has been restrictive, and I am never able to play the kind of character I want. That is partially because I want to play a character, and C''RPG'' usually involve nothing but fighting and clicking options in dialogs (for the better games. Most are like diablo where you just listen to people and cant influence what they say.) I much prefer systems like GURPS over AD&D. In gurps, you get character points to buy different advantages, disadvantages, attributes, and skills with. You can still simulate a class if you want. For example, if you want to be a mage, you take some points out of strength(though spells use strength to cast, so you dont want to loose to much. There is also the option to buy extra energy as an advantage so you can be weak and still have energy to cast a lot), dexterity, and health, and put some points into IQ(which is what spell skill is based on). You then take the advantage magery, and as skills you but spells. Its also a lot more flexible than that though. You could take magery level 2 instead of level 3, and spend the 10 less points that costs on all kinds of different weapon skills. Or you could spend those extra 10 points on the advantage "Comfortable Wealth" to get double starting money, or several other things. In AD&D, if I wanted to be a fighting mage, I would have to multiclass and advance much slower in both classes to do so. In GURPS, I would advance at normal rate and be able to advance whatever skill by exactly how much I wanted to. If I wanted to get better with the sword and my fireball spell, I wouldnt have to ''waste'' a bunch of levels in fighter to get a feat(for +1 to hit for ex), and I wouldn''t have to then stop using fighter skills to get levels in wizard. In GURPS, I would just spend 1 skill point on sword and 1 skill point on fireball and I''m better in both, no problem.

It is a little harder for new players to understand the concept of freedom, but once they get the hang of it, its a lot more fun in my opinion. It took me a few weeks of reading over the gurps books to get over being overwhelmed with the choices, but now that I have, its hard to play in the AD&D campaign of one of my friends because it feels so limited.

"The Requested Information Is Unknown Or Classified" -Anonymous

Classes doesn''t imply AD&D rules...
And the freedom you''re talking about is totally possible in a class system (That''s what I''ve implemented in my game).

"Every implementation of classes that I have seen has been restrictive"

Perhaps that''s because most the commercial games uses the AD&D rules.

But look at those games (which are references for most players):

Ultima Underworld: Used classes, but you were still able to boost any of your skills whith earned skill points.

Daggerfall or Morrowind: There are classes but you can create your OWN class, or answer to 10 questions to see which class suits you the best. (And during the game you can improve any of your skill simply by using it, which is kind of realistic).

I''m sorry but I can''t see any limitation in those games.

(And an out of topic little remark: perhaps the fact to FIGHT, then GAIN XP, and then distribute your gained XP in your intelligence is not really coherent).