Eh, the socialization thing was mostly a knee-jerk response to a quip that I can't seem to locate anymore. In any case it wasn't the important bit [smile]


I don't like the concept of an artificial class system and a set of designer-imposed restrictions on how players behave. I don't think that's the only way to design a game. If these are really, as you say, "the only meaningful parts" of a game, is EVE Online meaningless with its classes skill-centric system? Part of the problem with modern RPGs is that designers have gotten obsessed with the numeric systems, apparently laboring under just this opinion - that it's the only "meaningful" theoretical way to construct a game system.

Skill-based systems clearly prove that this is not the case. In my mind, this suggests that there are other design possibilities that could be available, and possibly (likely, IMHO) superior to the class system or even skill systems.

I don't have any such design "realized" yet. If I did, I'd save a lot of work and just describe the alternate design [wink] However, I'm confident that such systems will eventually appear, and I suspect that their development will be led by people with just the sort of complaints about class-based systems as we've seen in this thread.

EVE online must include opportunity cost if it is an "interesting" game (and we can assume it is, because people enjoy playing it).

From what I have read, spending time developing a skill 'X' in EVE has the opportunity cost of not developing other skills during that time. You choose what skills to spend your time on in EVE, just as you might choose what skill point to increase after time spent (eg. level gain) in some other RPGs. The choice in character development is part of what makes RPGs interesting and addictive.

If we can agree on that, then consider the design decisions behind conventional RPG 'classes'. The choice of a class (and perhaps race) right at the start of a game immediately provides some interesting strategic decisions, which helps provide impetus for the player to play enough that they break past the learning curve. Interesting initial character creation also adds replayability for experienced players.

In addition, classes help to provide weaker role-players with a basis for their character, especially where the game world/story/cinematics can provide role-playing hints for particular classes/races. Forming a role from a blank slate is much harder than being provided with a few significant choices initially, and working from there. Remember that players can always 'reroll' as a different class if they find it not to their taste.

Class-based systems do have a lot to offer, and as designers we should consider their strengths before writing them off. Classless systems can work well too, but consider that designers have never been limited to classes: classless systems are not new technology, yet class-based systems have had far more success in the gaming world (consider WoW and AD&D).

- Of course opportunity cost is vital. The point isn't to remove character development, it's to quit putting contrived boundaries all over the playing field and pretending that they make sense. D&D says that wizards don't use swords, so dammit, you better not want to use a sword! So what that this isn't D&D (or even using a D&D derivative system) - D&D said no swords!

- A lot of players (the so-called casual market segment) won't reroll more than once or twice. This means that if your class system doesn't match their expectations (aww, I wanted a priest who could swordfight) and fails to do so repeatedly, they probably won't play at all. Anecdotal evidence of this abounds in class-heavy systems.

- It's a fallacy to conclude that class systems have any inherent benefit over classless systems on the grounds that there are a lot of classed game systems out there. The proportion of classed to classless systems is very skewed, so naturally the number of successful classless systems is much smaller. Classed systems also have a long tradition - if you'll recall, CRPGs basically grew out of D&D players exploring a new medium. Never underestimate the weight of tradition. Finally, class systems are much easier to design and balance - the artificial restrictions and limitations make balance a breeze, and the strict, logical rule framework makes implementation fairly straightforward.

- Distributed, non-physical communities are a remarkably new creation, in the scheme of human history. We can't even begin to claim that we understand the dynamics of such systems. If they're going to go anywhere, we have to get away from this traditionalist obsession with mutated versions of D&D. Real life communities don't work like D&D. D&D managed to succeed with a class system because it was a unique formula: the imagination of the GM and players was the real gameplay, and the game system was just a way to make sure it all tied together. Nowadays, the art and world of the design team is the gameplay, and the game system just gets in the way of forming a society more often than not.

- You do make a good point that a class system gives a player some clue as to what they should do. However, that presupposes that they know what class to pick. In any case, games in general need to work on exploring alternative ways of giving the player a "purpose" without being legalistic and stubborn about it. Incidentally I've done some thinking on the matter, and you can read more of my view on that in my journal if you're interested.

Quote:

Original post by ApochPiQ - Of course opportunity cost is vital. The point isn't to remove character development, it's to quit putting contrived boundaries all over the playing field and pretending that they make sense. D&D says that wizards don't use swords, so dammit, you better not want to use a sword! So what that this isn't D&D (or even using a D&D derivative system) - D&D said no swords! - A lot of players (the so-called casual market segment) won't reroll more than once or twice. This means that if your class system doesn't match their expectations (aww, I wanted a priest who could swordfight) and fails to do so repeatedly, they probably won't play at all. Anecdotal evidence of this abounds in class-heavy systems. - It's a fallacy to conclude that class systems have any inherent benefit over classless systems on the grounds that there are a lot of classed game systems out there. The proportion of classed to classless systems is very skewed, so naturally the number of successful classless systems is much smaller. Classed systems also have a long tradition - if you'll recall, CRPGs basically grew out of D&D players exploring a new medium. Never underestimate the weight of tradition. Finally, class systems are much easier to design and balance - the artificial restrictions and limitations make balance a breeze, and the strict, logical rule framework makes implementation fairly straightforward. - Distributed, non-physical communities are a remarkably new creation, in the scheme of human history. We can't even begin to claim that we understand the dynamics of such systems. If they're going to go anywhere, we have to get away from this traditionalist obsession with mutated versions of D&D. Real life communities don't work like D&D. D&D managed to succeed with a class system because it was a unique formula: the imagination of the GM and players was the real gameplay, and the game system was just a way to make sure it all tied together. Nowadays, the art and world of the design team is the gameplay, and the game system just gets in the way of forming a society more often than not. - You do make a good point that a class system gives a player some clue as to what they should do. However, that presupposes that they know what class to pick. In any case, games in general need to work on exploring alternative ways of giving the player a "purpose" without being legalistic and stubborn about it. Incidentally I've done some thinking on the matter, and you can read more of my view on that in my journal if you're interested.

Actually thanks to the 3.5 rules, its fairly easy for a wizard to start using swords. (I'm a D&D geek from way back and have a group of friends that I play with each weekend) And in fact the new rules use a class system to do exactly what you want. They added the ability to multi class. When you level you just pick a new class. Say you start as a cleric, just add rogue next level and you can pick pocket (then again you can do that with a cleric anyway...). So class systems can be the same as a classless one (in terms of allowing players to go their own route). Most MMOs however don't do this and force people into a single role.

Sadly that is one of my main complaints in most MMOs (the inability to customize my character). However I don't see it as hurting social interaction or hindering the formation of social circles. I'm rather confused by that statement. In fact I'd say it has the same problems as a classless one. If I spend all my time perfecting my sword skill but I can't heal, I'm still going to need a healer. But then again in a classless system, I can learn to heal and use my sword and not need anyone. Thus I can just go about doing my thing and ignore everyone. I'm confused how a classless system helps over a class system in this respect.

Really the points your making have nothing to do with social interaction. It has more to do with customization. You make it sound as though if people who can pick what they're going to be will roleplay more, which has been proven time and again to be false (AC, EVE, etc. do or did have roleplayers, as some of the classless games have now closed, but only a small percentage). And personally I don't think roleplaying has much to do with the overall social aspect of games. When I'm playing online with my friends, I'd prefer to talk about their children, work, etc. with the game just being a way for us to unwind and communicate.

I may have missed the point of your post, but it really did read as though your complaint is more with basic class systems than anything else.

As far as the orginal post, I disagree again. Well, sort of anyway. I've always based atleast some of my beliefs off of a couple philosophers. One such man is Herbert Spencer, although I've always found his theories to be incomplete. But he does bring up the point that the only reason we interact with each other is because we need something from each other (it may not be a physical need). I personally agree with this to an extent. Take for instance Star Wars: Galaxies. I played this way back for about a month, but the one thing I liked about it was the fact that I needed other people in the game. My character had the ability to skin creatures, other characters needed my skins to create items. They in turn gave me weapons, etc. Just from that I met quite a few people and gained some friends, not because I gave him stuff and he gave me stuff but because we enjoyed the same things. So to me it was a great way to meet people.

Most other games where the economy isn't that interconnected, I found that I didn't talk to anyone. I found that I could just go about my business and just do my thing without ever talking to anyone in game (WoW is a perfect example of this, I got to level 40 soloing the entire way before I realized that the game was boring [smile] ).

The only way to not make it the economy that interconnects everyone would be to allow PvP or you can combine the two (which is what EVE does), but then you still have the original poster's complaint. The real reason EVE has the socialization that it does, in my oppinion, is due to both the PvP and the economy.

Unless you make it a single player game with a chat room feature or a game where having 200 people on your side can't help you, I don't see a way around the current systems. Either you force them together to do a common goal or most likely no one is going to talk.

Interesting that you mention SWG (Star Wars Galaxies). Second time in this thread.

The economy in SWG is now completely fubar. Trader and non-combat classes are marginalised, and contrary to the 3.5 D&D point, class mixing is no longer possible, so people are leaving the trader classes in droves, either by deleting their characters or by using (very rare) class-change items.

This would be fine if the game were designed from the outset with a fixed NPC trade based economy, but given the lack of available supplies for traders (creature harvesting has gone) things are drying up very rapidly.

What was a vibrant virtual economy, with true centres of commerce, friendly rivalry and competition between suppliers, has become a ghost town of individuals solo'ing quests. The socialising that arose from trade (chatting while waiting for buffs from entertainers / doctors, shopping at player vendors) has gone.

If you want an example how _removing_ material (and service) interdepdency ruins the social aspect of a game, check out SWG. A good example of how not to handle things.

Quote:

Posted by ApochPiQ It's a fallacy to conclude that class systems have any inherent benefit over classless systems on the grounds that there are a lot of classed game systems out there.

I already addressed this point in advance. "Classless" systems are not new - if they offered significant benefits there would be more of them. Class-based systems certainly offer a number of design advantages, but considering the resources of large production companies, this cannot be the only reason for the success of the class-based RPG paradigm.

Here's a more functional description of class-based systems:
In a class-based system, you make some decisions that significantly affect character development at the start of the game. This is not the case in classless systems.

These are simply two different design standpoints. Designers are not stuck on "mutated versions of D&D", as you claim, it is simply that they choose to provide character development choices at different points in the game. If you agree that character differentiation is important in RPGs, then evidently it is not necessarily a bad thing to let players start to differentiate their character right at the start of the game. You did not adress the fact that this is an interesting strategic choice with considerable gameplay benefits vs starting off as character 'X'.

Quote:

Nowadays, the art and world of the design team is the gameplay, and the game system just gets in the way of forming a society more often than not.

I think that pretty much sums up your standpoint, and I brought this up before: perhaps you are not really after a *game*, because a game system is the heart of any RPG - the system dictates the interesting choices to be made during gameplay, not the "art and world".

When I talk of class-based systems inhibiting the development of deep social interactions, I don't mean to imply that the class system is directly causing this. There is, in my opinion, definitely causality - but the link is a few steps long. Sure, people socialize in classed RPGs, and people play classed RPGs, so clearly classed RPGs are not some kind of dysfunctional evil.

(As for multiclassed systems - I'm aware of these, and I think they're a great step in the right direction. All the good GMs I know basically ripped up the rulebook after a couple of dungeons and allowed multiclassing anyways. Unfortunately, the existence of multiclass systems isn't directly pertinent to the CRPG discussion, because multiclass systems are in the extreme minority. In fact, the only CRPG I know of that really does proper multiclassing is FF5, and that's pretty old. New games don't seem to be taking this road.)

What I'm getting at here is that I believe class systems have deeper effects than we've really taken the time to understand, as an industry. As I see it, the causality is fairly straightforward, but not trivial nor direct. Here's my basic line of thinking:

- Class-based systems encourage two types of play: heavy experimentation, and numerical calculation. Experimentation is where I start 30 characters to test all the races and classes. Numerics is where I sit down with a chart and figure out the "best" character for my play style. These are often seen in combination.

- These styles of play are more likely to be seen in hardcore gamers, who are able and willing to make significant time and thought investments in their games.

- These styles of play are likely to be intuitive and familiar to hardcore gamers, because they've been used heavily in the CRPG realm for years, and hardcore gamers have probably seen them before, or heard about them. This means that there is very little learning curve to classed systems for some, but not all, players.

- For casual gamers, heavy experimentation and heavy calculation may not be appealing. For others, they may be appealing, but not practical (see the recent thread in this forum titled "Enough time to play?") and therefore essentially are a negative point for gamers looking at new titles to play.

- Casual gamers, by virtue of not having played in these systems for hundreds of hours, may not feel that it is all that intuitive or compelling. Even hardcore-gamers-in-the-making may find these systems very confusing and opaque. In fact, some systems may be highly opaque even to players who do have a lot of gaming experience. See, very importantly, this thread on choice-paralysis.

- Therefore, statistically, there will be a significant number of gamers outside the hardcore market that will have reasons not to play heavily classed systems. If they do play, they are likely to not enjoy the game for the same reasons as hardcore gamers who are compelled by experimentation and calculation (or powerlevelling, etc.)

- Casual gamers and hardcore gamers tend (although there are exceptions) to represent different portions of the "personality spectrum." Heavily social players are likely to not be hardcore gamers. (As much as I find the stereotype distasteful and inaccurate, the hardcore gamer is often not socially active in the real world.) Casual gamers are often casual for one of two main reasons: their personality does not lend itself to spending hours in front of a game, and/or they have a busy Real Life and thus don't have time to spend hours in front of a game.

- These factors mean that a large number of potential players - members of the societal network of the game - will not participate, or will do so in a very limited quantity. This limits the diversity of the player population, because the loss of the casual market by extension removes a large number of representatives of certain personality types.

- The lack of personality diversity (i.e. most players involved in the game are likely to be compelled by - or at least willing to tolerate - the game mechanics) means that certain types of social interactions within the game context will be vastly more prevalent than others.

- I posit that the types of interactions which manifest are primarily mercenary and/or utilitarian, and for the most part, the only social interactions which run deeper than this are ones which have strong real-world counterparts (i.e. me and Joe from Accounting already are friends, so we have a friendly and more meaningful interaction in-game).

- Classed RPG systems are not the only design decisions which can have this type of effect. In fact, I believe that every single design decision in the game fundamentally impacts the type of players who will be attracted to the game, and thereby impacts the types of social interactions which will develop in the game itself. See _winterdyne_'s excellent example from SWG for reinforcement of this point.


I'm not saying that class systems are the sole evil behind the way MMORPGs tend to work, but I do think that classing is a huge component of that, and I think there are a lot of design decisions that could be made differently to promote different types of social interaction.

Quote:

Original post by Argus2 Quote: Nowadays, the art and world of the design team is the gameplay, and the game system just gets in the way of forming a society more often than not. I think that pretty much sums up your standpoint, and I brought this up before: perhaps you are not really after a *game*, because a game system is the heart of any RPG - the system dictates the interesting choices to be made during gameplay, not the "art and world".

You're looking at my quote in the wrong context [smile] The "world" (by which I meant to include the underlying numeric system, classed or otherwise) of the game designers is the game. Even in games that support mods, the designed world (mod) is the world in which players must play. The original RPGs did not have this limitation; the game setting (and, to a lesser extent, the game rules) was entirely under the control of the GM and the players. The imagination of the players could guide the game in ways wildly defying anyone's expectations. That is not possible in a CRPG because the player's interaction with the world is defined by art, interface, scripts, etc. - and we cannot produce that content at a high enough rate to keep up with imagination. In a tabletop RPG, it's perfectly reasonable for the world to be transformed from a medievel land of orcs and elves into a futuristic realm of laser guns and The Force. Maybe a portal between realms opens, and the two realms do battle, or something. That kind of scenario is not feasible in a CRPG. You'll never see a WoW-SWG crossover week.


Yes, what I'm looking to design here is very much so a game. You seem to be hinting that I'm looking for Online Life 2.0 or something similar, wherein the "game" is just a facsimile of real life. I don't. Real life is boring and annoying.

Remember, "games" and "gameplay" are a heck of a lot more diverse than just RPGs. Even in the RPG genre, after decades of experimentation, I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface of rule systems that could create compelling and fascinating gameplay environments. What I'm looking for doesn't exist in any current game, and if the attitude that "what we've already done is good enough" continues to prevail, maybe it never will be. The industry is coming perilously close to killing itself by strangling this very kind of creativity. As soon as we stop looking for new ways to bring people into our worlds and enjoy them, we doom ourselves to perpetually recreating the same stuff. No matter how cool it was the first time, by the tenth iteration, it's boring crap. Look at any movie series that has run beyond 4 installments. You'll see what I mean. The "goodness" of any individual installment is meaningless when you reach the point where everything has been done.



Character differentiation is another matter entirely. Again I'll recommend the first draft of my thoughts on the matter if you'd like my views on that.

To state my opinions quickly, I think that character differentiation is vital, but that classed systems are a bad way to encourage it. Systems should allow players to play as they see fit, and allow them to change over time with a minimum of penalties. Systems must give starting players the ability to make differentiating choices immediately, but these choices must be easy to ignore (and without dire consequences) for players who don't want to make them. See again this thread on choice-paralysis.

Quote:

Original post by ApochPiQ - Class-based systems encourage two types of play: heavy experimentation, and numerical calculation. Experimentation is where I start 30 characters to test all the races and classes. Numerics is where I sit down with a chart and figure out the "best" character for my play style.

Please explain how class-based systems involve less experimentation than the equivalent classless system. In both cases one needs to spend time developing skills in order to see how they work out. And how exactly do class-based systems require more "numerical calculation"? Under either system, one wants to spend their limited resources efficiently, and if anything, class-based systems make calculation easier by *virtue* of the delimited classes.

Note that the "choice paralysis" thread you refer to presents bigger challenges for a free-style classless system than a class-based system. So unless you can show why a classless system must involve less experimentation/calculation than a class-based system, your following conclusions on "styles of play" are void.

It's simply a fact that any game with opportunity costs provides an advantage to those who make calculations. You can only reduce calculation advantages by reducing the effect of decisions. You can remove calculations by taking away all decisions. But class-based or classless makes no difference.

Quote:

The lack of personality diversity (i.e. most players involved in the game are likely to be compelled by - or at least willing to tolerate - the game mechanics) means that certain types of social interactions within the game context will be vastly more prevalent than others.

I agree. Games tend to attract gamers, which does affect the frequency of different interactions that take place. But I haven't yet seen a reason to suggest that a classless game would resolve this issue.

Quote:

Character differentiation is another matter entirely. Again I'll recommend the first draft of my thoughts on the matter if you'd like my views on that.

I read that draft, and you've obviously put a bit of thought into it. So perhaps you could answer my question regarding your proposals:
(using your example)
I am Joe, currently playing a Wizard. I have chosen to become pretty good at magic, but I'd like to be handy with a blade too. In this new game, I can do that - but I have to go back to square one, right? As in, I have to start training with a blade as a novice. In that case, don't I have this problem:

Quote:

Once they start building a pipeline, they have to follow it a long ways before they get to the Good Stuff. Yet once they arrive, they discover that their chosen pipe only lets them get to part of the Good Stuff. To see the rest, they have to build another pipe – and travel along a (usually pretty boring) road to get back to the Good Stuff again. After a couple of pipes, most players lose interest in this. As a result, the designer loses.

So this is similar to starting a character of a different class, with the exception that I'm still a pretty good wizard. But hang on a second.. If I only have 1 hour a week to play, and I can be good with swords and magic, then what stops players with 20 hours a week to play being experts with swords and magic and maces and hunting and healing and trading etc? If I was playing a class-based game, and I was a fighter, I could at least be assured of being better at fighting than 99% of non-fighters. But in your classless system I'm going to be worse *at everything* than any player with considerably more time on their hands.

So it seems that not only would this system fail to avoid the "new pipe" problem, but has the additional problem of reducing differentiation. Classes guarantee at least some differentiation - how does your system do this?

Quote:

Original post by ApochPiQ [...]My point is that the materialistic, selfish, and horridly finite "socialization" of MMORPGs is not sufficient socialization. [...]

Did you know that MMOs generally have a chat feature, and some people use it to take in-game events beyond the game's mechanical representation? For example, people have 'significant other'-level relationships in MMOs that they take very seriously, despite the game itself likely being limited to hacking and slashing.
Game mechanics limit choices, but games almost never have any mechanics relating to socialization, which means socialization is nearly as free as it is in the real world. The fact that the game mechanics don't enforce or encourage meaningful socialization doesn't prevent meaningful socialization from happening.

Quote:

Original post by ApochPiQ <snip>(As for multiclassed systems - I'm aware of these, and I think they're a great step in the right direction. All the good GMs I know basically ripped up the rulebook after a couple of dungeons and allowed multiclassing anyways. Unfortunately, the existence of multiclass systems isn't directly pertinent to the CRPG discussion, because multiclass systems are in the extreme minority. In fact, the only CRPG I know of that really does proper multiclassing is FF5, and that's pretty old. New games don't seem to be taking this road.)<snip>

I think I understand where your coming from now. And I do agree with some portions of what your saying (namely its better to let a player define their own path). But I disagree in terms of the amount of impact it has on the social aspect. It definately effects interactions but I believe its not as severe as your making it sound. Then again I'm just basing this off of my experiences. But you do bring up some good points now that I understand what you mean a little better.

Anyway, I did want to bring up the fact that NWN, Ruins of Myth Drannor, and a bunch of other games have used multi class systems. But I'm not sure that I would call any of those the "proper" way of doing it.