Isn't it ironic?

[Monte Carlo]

Taking Gromnir's points on board, I would say that the appeal of classes is that I suppose it helps immersion. Presumably the gamer wants immersion via an easily identifiable archetype - i.e. "I'm a warrior" or "I'm a wizard" (etc). I'm perfectly happy with this, but would argue that lots of games have actually achieved this without actually having classes.

 

The Elder Scrolls: Lots of 'classes' that just bundle skill packages together. Dungeon Siege: As pointed out, a very simple system that merely develops the skills you use (I actually like it a lot). Even NWN2 allows you to choose an archetype within a class and the game will automatically level up for you.

 

In pen & paper RuneQuest (which was completely classless, but had a sort of bronze age / druidical / pagan feel to it) you chose backgrounds (i.e. mercenary) which gave you a modest bundle of skills at the start of t he game, and everybody could use spells. If, however, you wanted to be a dude who'd been a mercenary to the age of twenty then decided to develop as a Rune Priest (i.e. a magic user with access to Rune Magic as opposed to Battle Magic - which everybody could use) then there was nothing stopping you. You could join cults - warrior cults, undead cults, nature cults (etc) tied to the setting that established the class meme for you. V. cool.

 

But, at it's most basic, I think people like a character generation screen that gives them some archetypes, an idea of who and what their character is. Classes aren't the worst way of achieving that, but they ain't the best either and if DA uses three base classes to 'trick' us into a more lateral system then I'm cool with that.

 

Cheers

MC

Edited August 3, 2008 by Monte Carlo

[newc0253]

In pen & paper RuneQuest (which was completely classless, but had a sort of bronze age / druidical / pagan feel to it) you chose backgrounds (i.e. mercenary) which gave you a modest bundle of skills at the start of t he game, and everybody could use spells. If, however, you wanted to be a dude who'd been a mercenary to the age of twenty then decided to develop as a Rune Priest (i.e. a magic user with access to Rune Magic as opposed to Battle Magic - which everybody could use) then there was nothing stopping you. You could join cults - warrior cults, undead cults, nature cults (etc) tied to the setting that established the class meme for you. V. cool.

This is what i meant about classes reflecting the setting. Runequest didn't have classes but, if you think about it, the cults in Glorantha a lot of the same kind of work. Each cult had some or other special skill or spell that was accessible only to followers, and the RunePriest or Rune Lord division were like prestige classes to the extent that, once you met the requirements, you could access the special powers available to a Rune Priest of Orlanth or whatever.

 

But the cults in RuneQuest didn't tie you down to a particular skill set, so e.g. the followers of Orlanth didn't all resemble one another. Rune Priests and Rune Lords of a particular cult would tend to resemble each other more, but could otherwise still have massively different skill sets. And there were plenty of other ways to develop characters without going the Rune Lord or Rune Priest route.

 

The great thing about RuneQuest v D&D was that, despite the importance of cults, there was no silly game mechanic like alignment regulating your conduct. Cults remained part of the setting, not something intrinsically given like classes. The PC might stop being a RunePriest for some entirely non-gameplay reason and might even end up changing cults, but it was played as part of the setting, not as a matter of character skill and levels.

Edited August 3, 2008 by newc0253

[Slowtrain]

I'd like to see a good learn by doing experience system, if such thing is even possible.

 

Is this possible in a crpg though? Well, I mean I'm sure its possible but it would require a lots of checks and balances to avoid exploitation and having all characters end up the same.

 

An XP system is not "realistic" of course, but it is a workable abstraction that is concrete enough to build a game around. Unless there is some huge advantage to a learn-by-doing system that I am not aware of, it seems an unneccesarily clumsy way to do the same thing that can be done much more easily in an XP-based system.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If you don't like exploitation, then don't exploit it. You can build your character any way you like, I don't see why you'd be concerned that it might be the same as someone else's.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I also like the idea of learn-by-doing systems; they just always seem to fall apart in CRPGs. I had a tabletop game in college that used a learn-by-doing system. It worked very well, but I was always there to adjudicate how it worked/didn't work.

 

As far as the "number of classes" -- I think people get too hung up on this and on "number of" other things. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I don't think there are magic numbers for these things.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I wouldn't agree it fell apart in Oblivion. Not the best, most balanced system certainly, but perfectly workable.

[Slowtrain]

If you don't like exploitation, then don't exploit it. You can build your character any way you like, I don't see why you'd be concerned that it might be the same as someone else's.

 

 

A game developer has to take that into account when balacning a game. How should a game like Oblivion be balanced? SHould the devs assume that everyone will use a rusty dagger on mudcrabs and raise their blade skill to 100 without even reaching level 2 and so make combat really hard? Or should they assume that everyone will play it straight and use their most powerful weapons and only fight when they need to so the should make combat easier? Or should they assume that half will do it and half won't?

 

Being able to increase your skills at will, and even worse, increase them without any corrsponding leveling, makes a game difficult to balance.

 

Its the same thing with the unlimited dice rolls in BG1 and BG2. DO the developers assume that everyone wil roll for hours until they have uber characters? Or do they assume that people will roll once or twice?

[Slowtrain]

I wouldn't agree it fell apart in Oblivion. Not the best, most balanced system certainly, but perfectly workable.

 

 

Oblivion is so weirdly designed its hard to know what to make of it.

 

One the one hand, the game has the level scaling system which basically matches the entire gameworld, monsters, loot, rewards, everything, to the player character's level. Its the ultimate in total control of the gameworld for the developer.

 

One the other hand its totally possible to have a level 1 character with a 100 combat skill. With mutiple 100 skills in fact. WHich to me is the ultimate in broken as far as game systems go.

 

Strange game.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

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.

 

 

That's alot of people you're shoveling **** upon. Here's a story for you...

 

There once was a game called worms, and some lead designer thought that they had a really good idea, and so it was that a game called, worms : forts, was made. While the game was being made, many people informed said lead designer of the games many flaws, but he didn't care and stubornly stuck to his guns, QA said it was broke, designers said it was broke, everyone knew it was broken, but he refused to allow the game to be fixed because he thought he knew better and as he was in a position of power the game was released broken, and with some of the dumbest design desicions ever.

 

My point is simple, sometimes, a person in a position of power asserts something which most sane people thinks requires changing, but due to deadlines, arrogance, and plain stupidity it never gets changed. Don't go assuming that dev's are idiots, usually, it'd be some arse in a position of power who makes a stupid decision.

 

Too many people place poor design at the feet of people who ain't responsible, why should QA, programming, and art teams suffer because some egotistical designer, or inane manager has delusions of grandure? Or are just plain deluded?

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Crashgirl

It's not broken unless the player decides to break it, and he certainly has that choice. As far as balancing, you balance it for the way it's meant to be played of course, i.e. playing without any exploits, making the skills you use most your major skills, letting leveling happen whenever you increase your skills enough, as intended. If that's not enough, there's also a difficulty slider.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Wrath of Dagon

[Slowtrain]

Don't go assuming that dev's are idiots, usually, it'd be some arse in a position of power who makes a stupid decision.

 

 

No, no. I would not assume that. Twas not my point. My guess is that computer game developers are pretty much like any other skilled job force: some work really hard and are really good at what they do; some don't work hard but are still good enough to get by; some work really hard but still aren't very good; some don't work hard and aren't very good but they are the son of the CEO.

 

My point was that developers do not always make games that work. For whatever reason. SO to trust that they will always know and do the right or best or even a workable thing is a crapshoot. Nothing more than that.

[Slowtrain]

@Crashgirl

It's not broken unless the player decides to break it, and he certainly has that choice.

 

But is putting your blade skill in a minor slot and using it exclusively "breaking" the game? I'm playing completely within the system if I do that, given the rules that have been set forth. By the same token, someone who puts blade as a major but only uses it when they need to, is also operating within the rules. But you end up with 2 vastly different results: a character who has a 100 blade skill at level 2 or 3 and a character who has a 50 skill at level 11. Don't you think that is a bit of an issue?

 

Same thing with the dice rolls in BG. Rolling a thousand times and ending up with a Paladin of 18/00 12 18 18 15 18 or roll twice and end up with a Paladin of 17 8 12 14 8 10, either way its legit, but those characters aren't in anyway comparable.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Don't go assuming that dev's are idiots, usually, it'd be some arse in a position of power who makes a stupid decision.

 

 

No, no. I would not assume that. Twas not my point. My guess is that computer game developers are pretty much like any other skilled job force: some work really hard and are really good at what they do; some don't work hard but are still good enough to get by; some work really hard but still aren't very good; some don't work hard and aren't very good but they are the son of the CEO.

 

My point was that developers do not always make games that work. For whatever reason. SO to trust that they will always know and do the right or best or even a workable thing is a crapshoot. Nothing more than that.

 

Sure, that's logical, but a development company can only make the game that they're making, it won't ever be another game... Also, one person's pile of poo is another persons shining jewel.

[Slowtrain]

Don't go assuming that dev's are idiots, usually, it'd be some arse in a position of power who makes a stupid decision.

 

 

No, no. I would not assume that. Twas not my point. My guess is that computer game developers are pretty much like any other skilled job force: some work really hard and are really good at what they do; some don't work hard but are still good enough to get by; some work really hard but still aren't very good; some don't work hard and aren't very good but they are the son of the CEO.

 

My point was that developers do not always make games that work. For whatever reason. SO to trust that they will always know and do the right or best or even a workable thing is a crapshoot. Nothing more than that.

 

Sure, that's logical, but a development company can only make the game that they're making, it won't ever be another game... Also, one person's pile of poo is another persons shining jewel.

 

 

Everybody produces broken results sometimes. I'm not singling out game developers.

[Tigranes]

It's not broken unless the player decides to break it, and he certainly has that choice.

 

Yes, because choice is good! Freedom is good! Right?

 

Giving player 'choice' about anything and everything is the quickest path to broken balance.

 

It's about discipline anyway. Many players come to believe that the rules given in a game system should make sense, should stop them from doing anything ridiculous or breaking, but should let them do a lot of cool things: there is a tacit understanding and expectation ont he part of most gamers that the rules are tightly geared to promote a way of playing that will be 'fun' most of the time, and will not be too easy or too difficult. In other words, they want the rules to guide them in a specific way. They don't want to sit there and think, "Oh but I just realised putting my most used skills in minor is actually better! Is this supposed to be this way?" "Am I supposed to play this way or not? The game lets me, but it seems to be too easy / exploity/ etc..." In fact, it's usually the most hardcore of players who go down either path - of totally gaming the system or of respecting its intent even when the system does not / cannot restrict them.

 

It's never good design to just give choice and freedom anywhere, and it's never good design to allow players to break your system. That doesn't mean you have to straitjacket them into watching the equivalent of MGS cinematics, but there's a limit and balance that can't be overcome by just saying "freedom>*".

[Monte Carlo]

I also like the idea of learn-by-doing systems; they just always seem to fall apart in CRPGs. I had a tabletop game in college that used a learn-by-doing system. It worked very well, but I was always there to adjudicate how it worked/didn't work.

 

As far as the "number of classes" -- I think people get too hung up on this and on "number of" other things. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I don't think there are magic numbers for these things.

 

RuneQuest had two main ways of increasing skills:

 

Training (yep, you could buy an extra +10% in broadsword attack if you had the time and money)

 

Experience (you noted down the skills you'd used in the session, then did an inverted d100 check to see if you improved by a 5% increment - it got progressively tougher the higher the skill level)

 

It worked pretty well.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think that's a good mechanic, and it seems similar to how Darklands worked, but the problem is that the frequency of opportunities to use a skill can become problematic. That and players wind up going to "just use" a skill for the sake of advancing it. It's not a big issue in tabletop because the GM can just tell the player to stop meta-gaming.

 

I really am a fan of quest-based XP (only) and standard leveling.

[Xard]

I really am a fan of quest-based XP (only) and standard leveling.

 

 

I truly hope this is the approach you've taken in Aliens and Alpha Protocol

[Gromnir]

I also like the idea of learn-by-doing systems; they just always seem to fall apart in CRPGs. I had a tabletop game in college that used a learn-by-doing system. It worked very well, but I was always there to adjudicate how it worked/didn't work.

 

As far as the "number of classes" -- I think people get too hung up on this and on "number of" other things. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I don't think there are magic numbers for these things.

 

RuneQuest had two main ways of increasing skills:

 

Training (yep, you could buy an extra +10% in broadsword attack if you had the time and money)

 

Experience (you noted down the skills you'd used in the session, then did an inverted d100 check to see if you improved by a 5% increment - it got progressively tougher the higher the skill level)

 

It worked pretty well.

 

in a pnp game, a gm can tailor the campaign so that each player has appropriate & proportional opportunities to increase skills. in a crpg, the developer gotta account for any and all potential players. is a daunting task. typically there is gonna be far more combat encounters in a standard crpg than there will be thiefy opportunities, or diplomatic opportunities, or... whatever. so how does developer balance? is easier to write lots o' multi-tiered dialogue heavy encounters that gives opportunities to use social skillz... or throw in a few monster respawns so that players can battle and gain 1007?

 

so why do it? why goes through effort o' trying to balance and keep proportional? quest based xp awards avoids all the nasty complications. kill 1000 monsters or kill 1 and you still get same xp points. use diplomacy or thiefy or some unforeseen approach that the developer hadn't considered? no worries, 'cause regardless o' your approach you is gonna get fixed xp for completion o' tasks.

 

simple is not always best, but simple is often a time-saver. developer saves big 'mount o' time by using simple quest-based awards... means they gots more time to be spending on other aspects o' game.

 

crpgs is not same as pnp. must keeps that fundamental difference in mind as one contemplates relative strengths o' different approaches.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Crashgirl

It's not broken unless the player decides to break it, and he certainly has that choice.

 

But is putting your blade skill in a minor slot and using it exclusively "breaking" the game? I'm playing completely within the system if I do that, given the rules that have been set forth. By the same token, someone who puts blade as a major but only uses it when they need to, is also operating within the rules. But you end up with 2 vastly different results: a character who has a 100 blade skill at level 2 or 3 and a character who has a 50 skill at level 11. Don't you think that is a bit of an issue?

 

I'm not saying it's great design, just that it doesn't need to diminish your enjoyment of the game. It's pretty clear to me what the intended way to play is, and it's not having 100 skill at level 2. Plus you can select a pre-build class which is balanced for a certain play style. What Oblivion lets you do isn't that different from providing cheat codes or a debug console, so I don't see why people are constantly making such a huge deal out of it.

[mkreku]

I really am a fan of quest-based XP (only) and standard leveling.

I'm not. Usually when you only get experience from quests and/or when the developers lets you, the game becomes to controlled and "progression linear". Also it tends to make combat seem like a chore rather than a fun part of the gameplay with a reward at the end. It would work in a free-roaming game with hundreds of side-quests, but in a game like Bloodlines it's just another factor that makes the game un-replayable for me.

 

Wasteland still has the best character progression system I've seen. It was a hybrid of learn-by-doing and levelling up. The way it worked was that you gained experience from the usual fighting, exploring and solving quests. When you gained a new level, you radioed in to headquarters and they gave you a new military rank (level) and you gained two skillpoints (or something like that). You were free to spend those skillpoints as you saw fit. But you also had hidden experience points for each and every skill, and the more you used your skill the more experience points you got and seemingly at random your skill would level up by itself. It was deeply satisfying.

 

Anyone who've gone head to head with the Scorpitron, armed only with AK-47's, know how satisfying it was when your full auto blast damaged the machine for like 2 hp, but your skill went up from level 2 to level 5.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I'm not. Usually when you only get experience from quests and/or when the developers lets you, the game becomes to controlled and "progression linear". Also it tends to make combat seem like a chore rather than a fun part of the gameplay with a reward at the end.

If you don't like the core gameplay, why do you play the game?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why is combat core RPG gameplay? To me combat is secondary.

[Xard]

well, RPG's started as tactical combat simulators with dices & increasable stats

[mkreku]

I'm not. Usually when you only get experience from quests and/or when the developers lets you, the game becomes to controlled and "progression linear". Also it tends to make combat seem like a chore rather than a fun part of the gameplay with a reward at the end.

If you don't like the core gameplay, why do you play the game?

Some games are worth playing despite their flaws. I'm a fan of the Gothic series and Boiling Point..

 

If combat doesn't give the player anything, except a chance to die, combat becomes a road block; nothing but a nuisance. If you have a chance to at least gain a level every once in a while, it'll lessen the road block syndrome and make the combat feel more meaningful. Add in the off chance you're going to find a new piece of equipment and you're even one step higher on the reward ladder.