What are the purpose of different Classes

[Zach Morris]

What are the purpose of different classes in RPG's and how many different classes should there be in a typical RPG?

[Darque]

Variety, depth, strategy.

 

Lots.

[jaguars4ever]

What are the purpose of different classes in RPG's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To roleplay.

 

 

and how many different classes should there be in a typical RPG?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How long's a piece of string?

[Zach Morris]

I mean how many unique classes are there really? Are there just Tanks, Mages, and in-between? Or are there more varieties out there?

[Child of Flame]

I mean how many unique classes are there really?  Are there just Tanks, Mages, and in-between?  Or are there more varieties out there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

There's diplomats, and theivey people, those are useful.

[Monte Carlo]

What are the purpose of different classes in RPG's and how many different classes should there be in a typical RPG?

 

Hmmm. Personally I think classes are there to provide straight-outta-the-box archetypes to enable a player to make an easy choice concerning the type of character they are dealing with. The mage/ healer/ rogue/ healer archetypes have become so ingrianed now that classes have become part of the RPG landscape whether we like them or not (I don't, to be honest).

 

Third Edition D&D tried to (quite elegantly) square this circle by satisfying the demand for classes with a more lateral skills and multi-classing system. Still, I prefer class-less systems (SPECIAL is great; would work perfectly well in a fantasy CRPG...the otherwise dreadful Lionheart gave us a glimpse how).

 

So, to answer your questions:

 

1. The purpose of classes is to feed the default assumption on the behalf of the player that there will be classes.

 

2. There should be as many character-build options as the wider game can realistically and viably support....if it is a combat heavy game why be able to build a pacifist healer savant who won't make it out of the first level? What would be the point of having an omni-skilled brute warrior in a game like Planescape?

 

Cheers

MC

[Ellester]

I understand MC

[NeverwinterKnight]

how many (and which) games actually play a different way depending on your classes? most games seem to allow you to use different classes, but in the grand scheme of things the game and story plays out pretty much the same (except in terms of how you strategize for combat).

[omnimutant]

If every character generation system were the same then the gaming systems would be a bore as they would all be so darn similar

You mean like the D20 system

 

how many (and which) games actually play a different way depending on your classes

Thats what was so cool about Fallout. Even though it was a classless system the game changed depending on how you played your character and which stats you used more. It physiclly flet like a different game if you tried different stat options the next time through.

[Ellester]

If every character generation system were the same then the gaming systems would be a bore as they would all be so darn similar

You mean like the D20 system

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL! You got me on that one. :D

[Loof]

What are the purpose of different classes in RPG's and how many different classes should there be in a typical RPG?

 

Hmmm. Personally I think classes are there to provide straight-outta-the-box archetypes to enable a player to make an easy choice concerning the type of character they are dealing with. The mage/ healer/ rogue/ healer archetypes have become so ingrianed now that classes have become part of the RPG landscape whether we like them or not (I don't, to be honest).

 

Third Edition D&D tried to (quite elegantly) square this circle by satisfying the demand for classes with a more lateral skills and multi-classing system. Still, I prefer class-less systems (SPECIAL is great; would work perfectly well in a fantasy CRPG...the otherwise dreadful Lionheart gave us a glimpse how).

 

So, to answer your questions:

 

1. The purpose of classes is to feed the default assumption on the behalf of the player that there will be classes.

 

2. There should be as many character-build options as the wider game can realistically and viably support....if it is a combat heavy game why be able to build a pacifist healer savant who won't make it out of the first level? What would be the point of having an omni-skilled brute warrior in a game like Planescape?

 

Cheers

MC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good respons altho I would go even farther and say that:

1. Classes serve no real purpose except giving players archetypes so they don't have to think about who their character is and can instead concentrate on mini-maxing him...

 

2. Here I would add that there should be no classes at all, but if we realy must have them your awnser is perfect

 

Finaly I would like to add:

3. While we are at it why dont we just toss levels out the window to since they just encurage xp hunting and serve no real purpose...

[Spider]

3. While we are at it why dont we just toss levels out the window to since they just encurage xp hunting and serve no real purpose...

 

Because gaining levels is fun?

 

The again, as Bloodlines showed, just gaining experience to spend on skills is equally fun.

 

So the true answer has to be balancing. If you don't have levels a characters hit points remain static which makes it harder to properly balance a game. Enemies in the later parts of a game tend to be tougher than their early counterparts and one way of showcasing this is by having them deal more damage. But enemies that kill you in one shot aren't really fun, so having the player gain hit points makes it easier to portray their badness. It's not impossible to do it in other ways, just harder.

 

Another reason so many cRPGs uses levels is that a lot of them are based on D20 rules (which makes sense in a way since it is the largest P&P ruleset). Even those who aren't based on D20 have to strongly consider using levels simply because so many other games do which means a majority of RPG players are used to it.

 

Personally I could go either way. In P&P I prefer classless and level-less systems but in computer games it's different. Whatever works best for a particular game is what I prefer there.

[Shadowstrider]

Mreh - I developed my own classes, leveless system. Everyone who plays it loves the freedom, loves the potential, but dislike the way experience is recorded and how long combat can take.

 

Essentially it would be great for a CRPG, but stinks for PnP because of how the XP system works.

[Loof]

3. While we are at it why dont we just toss levels out the window to since they just encurage xp hunting and serve no real purpose...

 

Because gaining levels is fun?

 

The again, as Bloodlines showed, just gaining experience to spend on skills is equally fun.

 

So the true answer has to be balancing. If you don't have levels a characters hit points remain static which makes it harder to properly balance a game. Enemies in the later parts of a game tend to be tougher than their early counterparts and one way of showcasing this is by having them deal more damage. But enemies that kill you in one shot aren't really fun, so having the player gain hit points makes it easier to portray their badness. It's not impossible to do it in other ways, just harder.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would say that balanceing is easier if you know roughly how many Hit points a character will have. But yeah I think you are correct in that a classles system is a bit harder to balance, but since any player is free to use his exp in any combination of skills and abilities I think balanceing combinations of skills/abilities becomes less inportant, as long as you make sure the skills are balanced against each other in a vacume so to speak...

 

In other words with the greater freedom of classless levelless systems comes a greater risk of makeing totaly useless/overpowered characters, but since if we want to stop players from makeing said characters we have to reintroduce the silly classes or some other kind of packages. Something that costs more then it tastes in my opinion, therfore I prefer a less then perfectly balanced classless system to a perfectly balanced and controlled system without freedom of chioce.

 

Also as I indicated in my original post I think levelbased systems have a subcocious effect on any player that makes them more interested in gaining experience at all costs, something that can distract from the story and the roleplaying.

 

Also just because you don't have classes doesn't mean you cant have a way to increase hit points, one way that I have been thinking about would simply be to have a skill that helps determin how many hp you have, another route would be the cyberpunk 2020 route where characters dont have any hp at all instead they have a damage resistance tolerance and for every x damage points they take they have to check vs a difficulty or fall uncocious/coma/die...

Actualy hp/level is one of the things I hate most about levelbased systems....

[Drakron]

*Sign*

 

Classes are part of the rule system balance point.

 

People said Morrowind (well The Elder Scrolls games) dont have classes but that is false, there are classes in the game since the system is set that level up is based on the class major (and perhaps ninor) skill progression but the classes exist only to set the character skills type (major, ninor, misc.) are.

 

In VtM system there are no levels and so there are no classes, XP is used intead to raise skills.

[Darque]

Those aren't really "classes" so much as skill sets and skill priorities though.

 

Morrowind is a skill based system.

[pregethwr]

Don't mind the four major archetypes in DnD: Warror, rogue, healer, mage. They serve a purpose and in an system like 3E are flexible enough.

 

I don't really like the inbetween classes - ranger, bard, paladin, sorceror, druid, barbarian, monk.

 

None of them really serves a purpose that couldn't be achieved with a wider range of feat or skill choices, or alternatively (if you prefer it) through PrC.

 

They seem to constrain and limit more than they enable.

[Ellester]

Good respons altho I would go even farther and say that:

1. Classes serve no real purpose except giving players archetypes so they don't have to think about who their character is and can instead concentrate on mini-maxing him...

 

Finaly I would like to add:

3. While we are at it why dont we just toss levels out the window to since they just encurage xp hunting and serve no real purpose...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It

[roflolocopter]

I don't really like the inbetween classes - ranger, bard, paladin, sorceror, druid, barbarian, monk.

 

While I dont like druids and pure class bards, these classes all have a massive role to play.

 

Games which use a class system are always far more indepth and interesting, the skill system works for a fps/rpg like Vampire and Deus Ex but its a pretty shallow system for a party based RPG system like BG type games.

 

Morrowinds combat is dull anyway and there are classes whatever you say.

 

Class based system is just more fun because you can have more specialised characters.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The original purpose of classes was to give you some idea of what role you would play. Both as a character and within the group as whole.

 

If you give someone the class "fighter" it's very clear what they do.

 

If you give someone a set of skills then it's not as easy because they have to have at least some knowledge of how those skills and the levels they have relate to the game as a whole.

 

Originally D&D (and class based in general) character generation was very fast. You roll dice you assign stats you think up a concept and away you go. Champions (the one that sticks in my mind) The first time I DM'd that I had no idea just how long everyone would pour over the books before we could play. As it was it took two regular sessions just for people to create characters.

 

Same with GURPS and GURPS was something everyone was familiar with anyway. There is just something about having a blank slate and a number of points that encourages people to think more mathematically.

 

The other nice thing about classes is it gives everyone a distinct purpose during the game. Where as people with overlapping skill sets are sometimes lost at what to do.

[Phosphor]

I pretty much concur with MC's assessment. Classese are there to give a framework or point of reference to a character, and gives it a name. Names are very important to a lot of RPGers; look at how popular the AD&D kits were, and how popular 3.xE D&D PrCs are. Gamers like to have an "official" name to describe their character; they prefer to say "I'm a Ranger" as opposed to "Well, I do outdoorsy stuff".

Classes also allow a balance or on-track pattern to be in place; with classless systems it's too easy to "screw up" a character by spreading it too thin, but with the boundaries of a class the player is largely assured their character will develop properly and be effective.

Now that classes are, as pointed out, ingrained in the fabric of RPGs, players can get a feel for what their peers are like; there are implications as to what each character is capable of, so there's less uncertainty about other players.

 

As far as which is better, classless or class-based, I don't have a preference; either can work provided the game mechanics of the system are balanced. I like D&D classes as much as I like the open-ended structure of Fallout's SPECIAL system for example. As long as there's balance, I'm happy.

[Ellester]

I agree people are enamored with titles, there

[Loof]

I pretty much concur with MC's assessment. Classese are there to give a framework or point of reference to a character, and gives it a name. Names are very important to a lot of RPGers; look at how popular the AD&D kits were, and how popular 3.xE D&D PrCs are. Gamers like to have an "official" name to describe their character; they prefer to say "I'm a Ranger" as opposed to "Well, I do outdoorsy stuff".

 

This is one of the reasons I dislike classes, I dislike just picking the package ranger and not haveing to think as much about who my character is and why he has the exact skillset he does. Also the description "ranger" doesnt realy say very much about who the character is...

 

Classes also allow a balance or on-track pattern to be in place; with classless systems it's too easy to "screw up" a character by spreading it too thin, but with the boundaries of a class the player is largely assured their character will develop properly and be effective.

I think this is one of the reasons that classbased systems are so popular with cRPG's since the developers don't have the option a normal GM has of fudgeing the dificulty of the game based on. So I will admit that in a cRPG a classless system has it's advantages, in that it makes balansing easier, but I still maintain that you can balance classless systems well enough and given enough time and thought they would still be preferable.

 

Now that classes are, as pointed out, ingrained in the fabric of RPGs, players can get a feel for what their peers are like; there are implications as to what each character is capable of, so there's less uncertainty about other players.

But thats my main point the class doesn't give you any idea of what a character is like, it just tells you what he is good at in a rulestatistic meaning.

[Loof]

Good respons altho I would go even farther and say that:

1. Classes serve no real purpose except giving players archetypes so they don't have to think about who their character is and can instead concentrate on mini-maxing him...

 

Finaly I would like to add:

3. While we are at it why dont we just toss levels out the window to since they just encurage xp hunting and serve no real purpose...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It

[Zach Morris]

But if you give the player many differenent choices in what classes they can pick, aren't they thinking about what they want and creating their own character by just picking that class?