Isn't it ironic?

[Monte Carlo]

And lo, in the beginning there was 2nd Edition AD&D, which were the holy tablets of lore from which early cave-dwelling developers crafted CRPGs using sticks and animal hides (if there is a 1st Ed. AD&D, or even basic / expert rules CRPG out there please let me know, I failed my Lore check when I was thinking about it).

 

Verily, it came to pass that new brethren introduced 'Kits' into AD&D. And so it was that the flock was divided. Some loved kits. Some saw them as heresy. Others saw them as an optional tweak in a game and got over it.

 

Then the angels Greg and Ray (cue celestial music) gave unto us BG2. Which had kits. People generally liked them. They didn't require much thinking, and all the base classes sort of levelled up in the same way. Customization was down to weapon styles, equipment choices and spells. Now I think of it, games like NWN2 has less "kit collecting" appeal than BG2 for some reason, but that's not important right now.

 

Meanwhile, in pen and paper land, the seers and sages createth 3rd Edition D&D. Base classes and almost unlimited multi-classing. Again, the flock were divided (I remember one person almost having a breakdown at the idea of a gnome paladin - it genuinely offended every sensibility about D&D they ever had).

 

Then came prestige classes.

 

And there was discord.

 

Seriously, I decided to crack on with MotB, went online for some character tips and was blown away by the builds people have come up with. Hey, I admire their ingenuity but I'm just getting confused by some of the levelling requirements to squeeze and extra +1 out of some arcane attack bonus.

 

It's all got just too darn complex. And some of the prestige classes are even crappier than some of the really desperate kits from 2E. It's the epitome of Pokemon gaming, which I'm led to believe has reached it's apogee with 4E D&D.

 

Now, this is the ironic bit.

 

Dragon Age is one of the most anticipated CRPGs for a few years now. And it has three base classes. OK, apparently there are 'advanced' classes, but the core of the character system is relatively few classes augmented by skills. Strangely, I find myself very atteacted to the simplicity, although I love 3E (if not prestige classes).

 

Now, I know people will say "don't use the prestige classes" which is fair enough. It's just that I feel like I'm missing out.

 

What do other people think. Do they like lots of fairly fixed classes with kits (2E) unlimited multi-classing with base classes (3E), lots and lots and lots of possiblities with PRCs or are they looking forward to the back-to-basics of DA? Or, like me, do you just wish that someone would make a classless fantasy CRPG with a Fallout SPECIAL type system?

 

Discuss.

 

Cheers

MC

[Slowtrain]

I've never played a better crpg system than SPECIAL. Whether it was luck or good design, it is a stunningly simple system that has huge amounts of depth and creates hugely different characters. I played Fallout so many times simply because I kept coming up with new character to builds to send off into the wasteland and they all played out differently. Credit should also go to the gameworld that allows different characters to play out differently. Classless skill-based xp systems are the best way to go in crpgs in my opinion.

 

D&D in all its flavors and mutations is functional in crpgs but I've never really liked it.

[Starwars]

More classless systems plz.

 

On the classystems though, it sort of depends for me. I'd rather have fewer classes if this means that there will be a great reaction from the game to them. And if the playstyles and how the game develops depend on the class.

But at the same time, I admit that I've actually replayed NWN2 (which has what I consider a mediocre campaign) several times due to the fact that I do enjoy trying out the various classcombinations etc.

 

So if a game doesn't have much in the way of class recognition and stuff like that, then I'd rather have them pile on the classes.

 

But yeah, classless systems where you can really "branch out" is where it's at for me personally.

[Magnum Opus]

Not entirely sure whether I like class-based or class-less systems more. TES/SPECIAL has its advantages, but without some fairly sophisticated game-play/weapon-use vs spell casting checks it would be hard(er) to get any sort of in-game recognition about just what type of character you're supposed to be, and that's one of the things that I like in games, the idjit masses of NPCs going "ZOMG! MAGIK USER! RUN FOR TEH HILLZ!" 3rd Ed DnD (NWN) gave me enough versatility with the classes and skills and feats that I didn't feel restricted with the class system the way I did in BG2, so that was really good... although it didn't give me much in the way of class-based feedback, either. Bit of an opportunity lost, perhaps, but with the sheer number of classes available, including something for everyone there would have been a real b*tch. This one's probably a toss-up for me.

 

Within class-based systems, though, I generally find kits pointless, with the most appealing aspect really being the special name on the character sheet. Not just any old Paladin, an Undead Hunter!. Beyond that, the differences are generally reflected only in combat, and even that to a limited extent. Not really worth it, IMO. Nice to have, perhaps, but not something I'd miss if it wasn't there, as I generally play closer to the archetypes anyway. Vanilla ranger over Archer, vanilla Wizard over Conjurer, etc.

 

This is something that I have relatively high hopes for WRT Dragon Age. They've covered the basic styles of game play with their Warrior/Rogue/Wizard selection, and I'm happy with that, and (hopefully) the lack of other classes will mean a little more in the way of feedback regarding the type of character that I'm playing. That'd be a nice change from the usual "million customization options that don't impact the game" model.

[Moatilliatta]

I'm in the "let the devs do what they do and cross your fingers that it'll be good" camp.

[Slowtrain]

I'm in the "let the devs do what they do and cross your fingers that it'll be good" camp.

 

I'm in the "let the devs do what they do because they are going to do it anyway but don't pay much attention to their promises or give them any money until you can how it all turned out" camp, but I still have a preference for a classless system anyway.

[Moatilliatta]

Ok.

 

I just meant that the devs will know which system fits the game/world best and can as such choose the best system. I have never seen any good arguments pro classless systems that are anything more than "I like it better".

[newc0253]

i think the class/classless rules decision is a ultimately matter of taste & has a lot to do with the kind of adventuring style the developers want to promote.

 

both systems can be done well & both can be done terribly. the boundary between the two can also be blurred considerably.

 

prestige classes, for example, seem like the worst of both worlds. 1e offered classes with a very clear sense of identity, but were highly restrictive. 3e kept the base classes but made for a lot of customisation through lifting racial restrictions, multiclassing, feats, skills etc.

 

prestige classes, though, i don't know what the frak they were supposed to acheive, except making both classes and customisation appear ludicrously silly.

[mkreku]

(if there is a 1st Ed. AD&D, or even basic / expert rules CRPG out there please let me know, I failed my Lore check when I was thinking about it).

Pool of Radiance

 

Isn't that first edition AD&D? Still the rule-set I've enjoyed the most of all the D&D's I've tried. It felt so pure compared to the convoluted mess that's today's version.

[RangerSG]

I love the Special System. I love 1st Ed D&D. And yeah, I still have 1st edition books tucked away someplace. I've never given them up, and I've never bought another D&D product other than a CRPG. To me 1st ed. is still the best system for a class-based game. FO2 the best for a classless. I love both. Either done well is great by me. Either done poorly can break the game. I don't get the attachment some have to one or the other, other than I guess some people want the illusion of freedom, though in truth, the environment of the setting will almost always force their hand if they want to be effective in a classless setting anyway.

[Monte Carlo]

newc and Ranger, seeing as you both know 1st Ed:

 

Would you agree that the 1st Ed. Bard (i.e. tri-classed Ftr/ Thief / Druid) was actually the first prestige class? And, furthermore, it was better implemented and you felt like you'd actually achieved something?

[Kaftan Barlast]

I dont see any reason to use a class-based system in a modern RPG. Its residue from the old days of barbarian/wizard/thief boardgames, and only serve to restrict player freedom.

[Slowtrain]

Ok.

 

I just meant that the devs will know which system fits the game/world best and can as such choose the best system. I have never seen any good arguments pro classless systems that are anything more than "I like it better".

 

 

Maybe the devs know better; maybe they don't. I don't think its a foregone conclusion either way. I'm played enough bad games to know that a lot of times developers don't seem to have any clue what they are doing. But regardless, I thought the point of this thread was to state a preference and discuss why you liked it and what other systems there are. Simply stating that the devs must know best doesn't add much.

 

I recognize this sounds harsh tonewise but I'm not meaning to be. I'm just saying what I think as directly as possible. Please don't take any offense.

[RangerSG]

newc and Ranger, seeing as you both know 1st Ed:

 

Would you agree that the 1st Ed. Bard (i.e. tri-classed Ftr/ Thief / Druid) was actually the first prestige class? And, furthermore, it was better implemented and you felt like you'd actually achieved something?

 

Nah, I don't feel like bard and paladin and cavalier (which was in dragon back then) and such were 'prestige classes.' I know many do, but I've never had that feeling. The only requirements were starting requirements, so in the end, they're a different concept. I think 1st ed was the best done system, period. And honestly, I do like the prestige class concept, though I'm not sure of it's implementation. I think PrCs would be better if rather than "blending" aspects of one class into another, they made it so that they amplified a particular trait of a class.

 

And I could not disagree more strongly about class systems being unnecessary in a modern game. That's simply rubbish. If you want your PC to be a jack-of-all-trades, then great, have a classless system. But the classless system leads to all players doing everything by nature.

 

As a result, that system is entirely unsuited to a party-based game. So if you're a primarily SP game/PC do it all game; which, let's not kid ourselves, FO was about the PC, and only the PC, the companions were comedy relief and meat shields, the end game was intended for the PC and the PC alone; then a classless system makes sense.

 

If you're a party-based game, where every player should contribute, or NPCs are closer to equals, then absolutely you need a class-based system. What's more, honestly, I think class-based (with maybe some limited multi-classing) is the most believable method. People tend to refine a given skill set as they become more experienced, not branch into a jack of all trades. Renaissance men are rare. And usually fail to be as effective in any area as a specialist.

Edited August 2, 2008 by RangerSG

[Pidesco]

And I could not disagree more strongly about class systems being unnecessary in a modern game. That's simply rubbish. If you want your PC to be a jack-of-all-trades, then great, have a classless system. But the classless system leads to all players doing everything by nature.

 

As long as there's a level cap, and the levelling up is properly balanced, a classless system doesn't turn all characters into jacks-of-all-trades.

[Slowtrain]

And I could not disagree more strongly about class systems being unnecessary in a modern game. That's simply rubbish. If you want your PC to be a jack-of-all-trades, then great, have a classless system. But the classless system leads to all players doing everything by nature.

 

 

That's simply not true. A BAD classless system in a poorly designed game will definitely tend to that (Hello Oblivion!), but a well done classless system will force you to make choices as you create and build your character that preclude you from being able to be awesome at everything.

 

Additionally, a jack-of-all-trades may actually have some strengths and be an effective build, but as a trade off such a build will not allow a character to achieve the levels of expertise that a highly specialized build would.

[newc0253]

newc and Ranger, seeing as you both know 1st Ed:

 

Would you agree that the 1st Ed. Bard (i.e. tri-classed Ftr/ Thief / Druid) was actually the first prestige class?

feh, i always hated bards.

 

yes, 1e had specialised classes: paladins, rangers, druids, illusionists, assassins and monks (which i always think of as an unarmed fighter plus some mystic element) plus (after unearthed arcana) cavaliers and acrobats.

 

i don't there's any point in being doctrinaire about classes, or arguing that there's some kind of logical coherence to having paladins but not epic divine chevalier pooh-bah toe-tappers, etc. After all, if Gygax had been more open to human multiclassing in 1e, for instance, we'd never have needed paladins (fighter/clerics) or rangers (woodsy fighter/theives).

 

I believe strongly in parsimony and against the unnecessary proliferation of classes for classes sake: that's why i hate prestige classes.

 

But i also recognise that classes reflect the setting and that it's entirely a matter of judgment when and how they should be implemented. Ever noticed, for instance, that despite Tolkien's massive influence on D&D there's not a single recognisable cleric in Middle Earth? You could no doubt play a Middle Earth campaign using D&D rules but if you were designing a LOTR game, would you even bother to include clerics? Similarly, if you're making a Star Wars CRPG, for instance, Jedi seems like a must. But kinda hard to argue that Jedis should therefore be a class in every similar kind of science fantasy CRPG. I imagine, for instance, you could have a fantasy CRPG without magic users. Seems like it might be kinda dull, but who's to say it couldn't work. All this shows there's nothing objective about which classes there should be, other than what the setting requires.

 

And when i say that classes reflect the setting, i don't mean that every setting requires classes. This goes back to my earlier point about the decision whether or not to have classes reflects the choices of the developers or the designers as to the style of the game and the world. RuneQuest is probably the best example of a classless system i can think of and Glorantha was one of the best settings too...

 

Part of my reason for hating bards in 1e D&D was because their progression was so arbitrary compared to other classes: first they were one thing, then another, oh look, now they have spells, and so on, etc. But i accepted them as part of the setting. Nobody pretended that AD&D made sense, and bards were just one more example of this.

 

But the main reason i hated bards was because bards are so bloody hey nonny nonny and precious to begin with. I mean, bloody hell, who came up with the idea of a fearsome adventurer who kills his enemies by singing at them?

Edited August 2, 2008 by newc0253

[Volourn]

Meh. Class or classless systems doesn't bother me. As long as they are deisgned well. *shrug*

[Kaftan Barlast]

And I could not disagree more strongly about class systems being unnecessary in a modern game. That's simply rubbish. If you want your PC to be a jack-of-all-trades, then great, have a classless system. But the classless system leads to all players doing everything by nature.

 

As long as there's a level cap, and the levelling up is properly balanced, a classless system doesn't turn all characters into jacks-of-all-trades.

 

 

Yeah, exactly. A free system just gives the player alot more options when creating and levelling his character. Some builds can be quite general, some specialised, some effective others not so effective. I grew up with classless pnp rpgs and its never been a problem.

[Monte Carlo]

I've been banging on about the utter brilliance of RuneQuest / Glorantha on these forums for years. I've been playing pen and paper games for almost thirty years now*, and RuneQuest was the one we played and loved the most.

 

Then what happened? It got made into a bloody D20 game setting.

 

Meh.

 

Cheers

MC

 

 

 

 

* Yes, I feel old.

[Gromnir]

each class needs necessarily possess some unique attribute or ability that is unique. such a notion goes 'gainst the general concept o' freedom o' player customization. if open and free customization ain't a goal, then no big loss.

 

have a small handful o' classes ain't necessary a bad thing, but the da approach shows the stoopidity o' some o' the class approaches. why 3 classes? da is gonna have some kinda skills customization open to all classes, so what is point o' the rogue class? d&d 4e, for all its weirdness, recognizes that previous thiefy/rogue concepts were busted... so made their 4e rogue a "striker." 4e rogue ain't simply a gimped combatant with sneak attack and extra skill points. anybody can choose skills, but what genuine distinguishes 4e classes is combat viability. da warriors does combat with weapons. da spell casters use magic. da rogue does... what? is a pointless class. has high/low intelligence, or some other factor, determines capacity of warriors or spell casters to acquire non-combat skillz, and simply flush rogue. is an antiquated rpg convention that serves no genuine purpose... save for fact that it fulfills expectations.

 

btw, the thing that is most wrong with prestige classes and kits is balance. some 2e kits is woefully unbalanced. more kits you get and the greater the balance is likely to be busted. prestige classes is even worse 'cause o' the multi-class combinations. is impossible for any game designer to anticipate every combination o' classes and prestige classes. what is the most popular prestige classes and kits? the ultra-powerful.

 

anecdote: when iwd2 were in early development, and it looked like it were still 2nd edition, josh offered up some possible kit choices. you peoples HATED 'em. the overwhelming negative feedback were amusing. so josh offers up some alternatives... but most o' the board clowns didn't realize that his new suggestions were tongue-in-cheek munchkin bait. fans really liked the kewl newer kits. people wants kits and prestige classes with Awesome Deathmaster Powhaz.

 

oh, and as an aside, prestige classes, with sill prerequisites which usually ain't any kinda a burden, simply results in greater uniformity as 'posed to greater diversity. bob's red wizard is likely to look very much like tim's red wizard.

 

freedom o' customization creates its own problems, so often hard defined and limited classes is an easier and often more elegant approach. that being said, schizophrenic developers often tries to achieve freedom and multiple, specialized and unique classes... which leads to a whole host o' problems.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Kissamies]

For me, classless system all the way, levelless too. I tend to think that the main reason for coming up with classes in the first place is keeping it simple and manageable, which is somewhat necessary for PnP rules. However, I used to wonder why so many CRPGs insist on having classes and levels even when they are not using D&D system even though a computer is capable of handling complex rules. Well, they still need to be simple for the player and levelups are good for the reward aspect. Still, the rules could be complicated 'under the hood' while the things player really needs to know are kept relatively simple. I'd like to see a good learn by doing experience system, if such thing is even possible. Keep trying, says I.

[mr insomniac]

For me, classless system all the way, levelless too. I tend to think that the main reason for coming up with classes in the first place is keeping it simple and manageable, which is somewhat necessary for PnP rules. However, I used to wonder why so many CRPGs insist on having classes and levels even when they are not using D&D system even though a computer is capable of handling complex rules. Well, they still need to be simple for the player and levelups are good for the reward aspect. Still, the rules could be complicated 'under the hood' while the things player really needs to know are kept relatively simple. I'd like to see a good learn by doing experience system, if such thing is even possible. Keep trying, says I.

 

I played Dungeon Siege for awhile, and your character got better, in terms of bonuses etc., with different skills based on how often they were used. For example, if you always charged into combat with sword or axe swinging, you became a better melee fighter more quickly than you improved in your other skills. If you stayed back and shot the enemies full of holes with arrows for as long as you could, resorting to melee combat only when the enemy got too close, you became a better ranged fighter much more quickly than you did a melee fighter. Same goes for magic use, combat vs non-combat magic. It wasn't that bad a system, in my opinion.

[Zoma]

For me, classless system all the way, levelless too. I tend to think that the main reason for coming up with classes in the first place is keeping it simple and manageable, which is somewhat necessary for PnP rules. However, I used to wonder why so many CRPGs insist on having classes and levels even when they are not using D&D system even though a computer is capable of handling complex rules. Well, they still need to be simple for the player and levelups are good for the reward aspect. Still, the rules could be complicated 'under the hood' while the things player really needs to know are kept relatively simple. I'd like to see a good learn by doing experience system, if such thing is even possible. Keep trying, says I.

 

I played Dungeon Siege for awhile, and your character got better, in terms of bonuses etc., with different skills based on how often they were used. For example, if you always charged into combat with sword or axe swinging, you became a better melee fighter more quickly than you improved in your other skills. If you stayed back and shot the enemies full of holes with arrows for as long as you could, resorting to melee combat only when the enemy got too close, you became a better ranged fighter much more quickly than you did a melee fighter. Same goes for magic use, combat vs non-combat magic. It wasn't that bad a system, in my opinion.

 

A similar system is implemented in Wizardry 8 which I think is executed much better and complex. The system is also expanded to other branching skills that may be related to the action performed in combat as well.

 

For example using melee combat often will increase your PC's Close combat skill, the skill of the weapon he uses be it dagger, axe or sword, exclusive skills such as Critical hit skills for Samurais, Ninjas ect, the increasing of shield skills and so on.

 

Basically, all of the skills(Which is ALOT of them) in the game including magic will increase based on the degree of use. Thus providing the addictive factor in the game knowing that after every single combat, some of your party members will have their skills improved, watching them grow stronger with every baby steps they take.

 

The only stats that are dependant on pumping points given per level up would be the basic attributes like strength, intelligence ect. Heck, if you max out one of the attributes, it opens up a new skill for your character to pour more skill points into.

[Tigranes]

Heh. For classes I'd probably point at BG's verison of AD&D (never played it pnp); for classless, Fallout's SPECIAL (or Arcanum system, if somebody spent 20 years fixing all the balance issues).

 

I have to agree with MC that all those prestige classes, coupled with endless cross-customisability, in NWN2/MOTB really was a pain. I like planning my characters and thinking about how to optimise them or develop a particular specialisation, but if you want a system that does that, then what's important is ensuring that there are visible and significant benefits to all this system-gaming. In MOTB, you stit there levelling a character all day and you end up with +4 BAB as opposed to +3 BAB, or I don't know, +1 to save vs. death when there is a jellyfish in the room eating coconuts and singing Michael Jackson. In the end I just chose whatever 'felt' right with my imagination of the character - except all those mazes of prerequisites and pre-pre-requisites really screws you over that way (if I hadn't looked at the manual, I wouldn't have even known MOTB had epic spells).

 

I really enjoyed playing AD&D IE RPGs with kits, mainly because I didn't dual-class, I didn't sit there planning and thinking too hard about all the numbers behind the scenes - I still don't really know how some of them work exactly. I just knew I wanted X character to do certain things and have certain cool abilities that corresponded to what I imagined about him/her, and then picked what seemed right... and generally, you would get somwhere close, and you would get visible and significant effects fairly regularly.

 

Which leads me to why I like classes... theres real fun about replayability because the game cuts off some gameplay options/moves/whatever from you when you are a specific class; and tactically it creates more fun set pieces as well (you know, oh crap the cleric just got beholder-ray'd, how many potions do we have? As opposed to... well we have this guy with War Priest prestige class, or all of us put a few points into Doctor skill remember...). You can still do this with well-made classless systems of course, but I find it harder to discipline yourself into making those categories - and classes also come with clear aesthetic styles. Theres always something missing, for me, when you create a 'class' of your own in a classless system.