I''m using a style similar to Sage''s. You gain but you don''t lose. The game is primarily skill based and instead of changing classes you choose a profession. THe profession comes with perks like special training, armoury access and such. Losing your job you only lose primarily material things like special weapons or your paycheck. You would keep skills gained though. A former thief taking on the job as a soldier would still be able to pick locks and hide in the shadows. In short professions only really affect skills, statistics are defined some other way and what not, you probably get the idea.

Bleu Shift - www.bleushift.tk

There are benefits to each. I will list the benefits and detriments of each, as I see them.

Classed system benefits:

Greater structure for progression
Simple guage for power/ability
Creates a personality ''template'' for the character
Easy to balance characters

Classed system detriments:

Too restrictive on abilities
Not enough room for growth
Not realistic

No Class system benefits:

Allows the character to become whatever the player wants
Higher level of realism
Unlimited growth (assuming no skill cap)

No class detriments:

Hard to guage power for any particular character
Much more difficult to balance all skills than it is a group of skills
No structure for character progression
Potential for character being under-specialized or over-specialized

Each of them has a benefit. With a classed, level-based system, you can pretty much predict where someone will be on power at 10th level.

With a skill system, you can easily over generalize and lose a lot of power to where a 10k exp wizard can out melee a 10k exp warrior because the wizard specialized in staff and the warrior has developed his weapon skills equally.

Then you have the other situation, where a warrior-type over specializes in swords and runs out with a group to kill stuff. They run into a group of undead with fragile bodies, but his slashing weapons matter little because they don''t bleed and the group gets slaughtered because he can''t deal with the situation.

This may make it seem like I''m advocating a classed, level-based system, but far from it. I prefer the flexibility of the classless system. People want to create the ultimate fighting machine? Fine. They want to create a warrior-poet? Cool. Create a system for extrapolating class and level based upon their skills, so that there is a way to easily guage their abilities.

Example:

Someone gets sword skill up high, he''s a swordsman, he keeps sword and blunt relatively equal, he''s a footman, he keeps sword, blunt and piercing equal he''s a warrior. Extrapolate level based upon his highest skill + a percentage of his lesser skill. He goes out and gets good with weapon and channeling (magic) he gets the ''class'' warrior-mage.

Solinear: I agree with you on most of the points but not when you says that classes are not realistic.

Here''s a realistic example:
- A Lawyer (class) is good at laws (skills) because he''ve been learning them during his studies.

IS the same that:

- A Mage (class) is good at magics (skills) because he''ve been learning them during his studies.

quote: Original post by Cahaan
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).

Not in Diablo II, which is what I referred to. The magic classes (necromancer and sorceress) were worthless in fighting and the fighting classes (with the exception of the Paladin, which did everything but nothing well) could use little or no magic. Kindly know what you're talking about if you're going to attempt to refute my claims, please. And most of the time, clases end up being restrictive, with the exception of Final Fantasy V and FFX.

And I assume you've never played Fallout, which was the original version of the SPECIAL system. Go play it, then try saying that again. Arcanum was just a reference, as that game was quite poor compared to Fallout. There are more different types of characters in Fallout than you can ever find in Diablo II.

And what you say about classes being realistic is far off, I think. What you choose to learn denotes what you are, not what you are denotes what you learn.

[edited by - Anonymouse Poster on August 6, 2002 4:29:08 PM]

Read again what I wrote.

I said that classes does not imply to have restrictions. I didn't say that all games which use classes are not limited (You're making a logical error there). (BTW Diablo 1 & 2 suck, and they aren't RPG).

And I've played Fallout (which was originally designed with the GURPS system, but due to Steve Jackson and licences problems they had to change it)
and I know what I'm talking about, thanks

[edited by - Cahaan on August 6, 2002 4:32:31 PM]

By enumerating classes, your setting restrictions on how the game is played. By being told from the very beginning that you have to pick out what your going to be at the end, the player will neglected the benefits of other classes and forced to focus on only the class he picked. HOWEVER, this isn''t neccessarily a bad thing if done with care. For example, Final Fanasy Tactics does a great job with classes. But note in that case you can change class. If you look at FFX as a class system, they give you the opportunity, albeit a bit difficult, to change classes. Bear in mind, jobs, class, its all a matter of training, and if you want a class system and want to do it an alternative way, try giving the player some control over the training aspect. The SPECIAL idea is worth note, but if you want it to be more automatic, have the player equip characters with TextBooks/ZodiacStones or something and keep track of how much experience they''ve accumulated while carrying each one. Their class can then be picked out of a string table based on what set they have the most in. Example: Call them a Mage if they''ve been carrying the Magic textbook longer.

-> Will Bubel
-> Machine wash cold, tumble dry.

I agree D2 sucks, but Diablo 1 was pretty good. And no, they''re more accurately denoted as adventure-RPGs, if I may borrow a console term.

And I know about Fallout and GURPS. However, you still haven''t answered the direct point of mine. Most games have it set up so if you''re in classes, you /can''t/ learn some skills. Which I find to be rather stupid, except in the possible sense of magic. I mean, why, using a 3E D&D example, can''t a fighter learn Use Magic Device? It doesn''t take any extraordinary skill, but it''s arbitrarily forbidden to him.

AP: I agree with you there (except on Diablo 1 perhaps lol) I agree with you when you say that most of the actual CRPG have restricting use of classes but I'm trying to show that in fact, a class system without restrictions IS possible, and could eventually be a good deal.

You could imagine starting with let's say a "fighter", and later choose to raise your magic skills in order to be - let's say - a BattleMage. In such a system you will have classes, but you will still get the advantages of a free system.


[edited by - Cahaan on August 7, 2002 10:53:23 AM]

I personally prefer classes as do a majority of RPGers. They are meant to be a little restrictive due to the nature of that class. A mage DOES NOT realistically learn how to use a broadsword. He doesn''t have time for such things. A thief DOES NOT learn how to use a lance. Such things are not part of their normal activities. When it''s appropriate such cross-training is fine (paladin, cleric, ranger, etc) since it''s part of that class''s nature. Maybe I''m just strange to prefer playing a class the way it should be played. The system I use is similar to the Rolemaster system. A mage can learn the basics of swordplay but it will be very difficult and costly and he''ll never be good enough at it to use it effectively. It''ll will also take away from his main focus - spellcasting.

I like the classless idea.

Not all theifs know how to pick a lock and climb walls (those that do are cat burglers), what about the theifs that wait for the occupents to leave then kick in the back door? How bout the armed robbers. All theifs of a kind with different skills and approches.

Not all fighters run head first into a battle. Some are garilla fighters. Lets not forget the need for a reconsasance team.

Sure let the magic user wear plate mail armor and wield a boradsword with expert persision, but the "cold metal" effect will give him a significant penalaty to any spell casting, heaven help him if he comse across a full blown magic user specializing in "call lightning".

Traveling entertainers, bards and whatnot, could earn a bit of cash if they know summon rain spell during a drout, assuming the locals don''t run him out of town for using "Dark Magic".

You could also have a "class" system where Theif, Figher, etc, are more suggestions and templates.

Kars