Thoughts On Roles, Classes, And Diversity

[Lephys]

I want my classes to play differnt and not only have different animations.

If this is in direct response to "I want my Wizard to be distinct by doing things in a super Wizardish fashion," then I fear you severely underestimate the available tools to make that happen. I didn't say I want my Wizard to LOOK like he does things differently. But, you don't have to do not-damage, or damage in a non-AOE manner to do things differently. That's what's silly about this whole "NO, YOU'RE THE DPS CLASS" bologna.

 

This means, not all classes can do the same task wtith the same efficiency. e.g. a priest's main task is supporter/stamina healer, you could try to make an attacking priest but he would never do as much damage as a rogue, because he still has the abillity to cast healing/support spells. And you can never make a rogue supporter/stamina healer because he doesn't have healing/support spells/abillites.

There's a HUGE difference between "my priest will never be as effective as my Rogue/Warrior at taking down baddies" and "Oh no, a baddy! My priest better flee and hope someone comes along for him to heal/buff to take down this baddy, because priests don't take down baddies AT ALL!."

 

You can have all classes perform the same task, and still do so with varying efficiency. But, beyond that, they'll have unique factors at play for each of them. A priest's main task can still be supporter/stamina healer without that "main" meaning "99.9% of what you're even able to do is just support and heal stamina."

 

I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting such an extreme. I'm merely emphasizing my own point that we don't need to be scared of Priests possessing offensive capabilities. I just think some people need to think farther outside the box when it comes to this, instead of thinking "but if the priest is ABLE to do damage, then how is he different from a Warrior?". You can even go so far as to base a priest's offensive effectiveness (which is STILL never going to top a Fighter's, but can still contribute to the taking down of baddies) on his support/healing. Maybe he heals/buffs his allies, and this builds his favor up to the point of wielding a direct boon from his god, which could be some spectacular heal/buff for the whole party, OR a smiting beam of godly power on his enemies. There's no reason for the people coding his class to condemn any and all ability designs that have anything to do with feasibly effective combat damage in any capacity.

 

When it comes down to it, with the prevalence of combat in a game such as this, no matter what class you are, everybody fights. Even though they all do it in different ways, and they're not all Warriors, they all fight.

 

Just because a pawn isn't a queen doesn't mean it can't take down pieces.

[Sacred_Path]

No, you misunderstand me. I could create my character in any of the mentioned classes in a way, but the class always seems to overrule my own idea of what kind of character he is. I want him to be a swashbuckler - but the class says he's a bard, or a fighter. The class dictates how I should think of this character, and I don't like that.

So I was talking about the names in this case. My general problem with classes is, of course, that I want to create a specific character and mostly feel punished when I deviate from the archetype I'm supposed to play.

No, I got that. But apart from names, many class based systems allow for quite a lot of breadth in that direction. Pickpocketing or whatever it's called now (in D&D) is a skill that you can choose to invest in or not. 'Backstabbing' indeed conjures quite a specific image of a character, but an attack that hits especially hard if your opponent is immobilized like 'sneak attack' goes with a lot of different characters and certainly a swashbuckler IMO. A worse example may be the Bard, as he's always bound to be a musician, much like the Chanter in P:E. But overall, I find that even a system with things like alignment restrictions allows for quite a lot of roleplaying and customization.

[JFSOCC]

While a variety of styles of play for the player is obviously a good thing, I get rather uncomfortable when players suggest that Rogues should be able to tank, or Clerics dps. It stems in part from me being a massive Grognard, but it also comes down to 'if everyone is special then no-one is'.

 

In other news, classes being able to perform a variety of roles is something that matters far less when the player controls the whole party, than it does when they command a single character.

I think it's not a case of

"all classes should be able to do everything" but rather a "Despite being asymmetrical, classes can be played in several ways"

 

I hope that's true anyway. I don't want to make a DPS character of my rogue, I want her to be a stun-lock debuffer.

[Kjaamor]

I think it's not a case of

"all classes should be able to do everything" but rather a "Despite being asymmetrical, classes can be played in several ways"

 

I hope that's true anyway. I don't want to make a DPS character of my rogue, I want her to be a stun-lock debuffer.

 

[grognard]My feelings, specifically, are that classes should be able to play a variety of roles, but not all roles. So a rogue could be a debuffer or a dps, but not a healer, for example. Equally, while a paladin could be a healer, he will never be as good a healer as a cleric.

 

That's not a commentary on what I think the PE system will be, just my general tactical rpg preference.

 

Seriously though, the problem I have with this is: What mandates that the ability to dps, or tank, or heal is the source of a class's specialness?

 

*shrug*. Just seems like pretty weak class distinction criteria, to me. If you can't give both a Fighter and a Cleric each a single-target, direct-damage ability and still have them feel like two distinct classes, you probably need to rethink your ability designs. But, things like damage, attack range, and area-of-effect are not really the best factors to use to distinguish class roles with. Not that they might not vary a bit, in overall capacity. But, just because a Rogue has the potential to be built for the highest-possible DPS doesn't mean that some other class's potential must be limited to "sucks at dps" just to be not-a-Rogue.

 

At a risk of stating the obvious, the fact that we are playing a combat-based rpg.

 

See, the problem with that point of view is we're not playing a full party. We're controlling a full party, but we have a single character as OUR character (unless, of course, we only use Adventurer's Hall companions). This means that not only should we feel that we're not gimping ourselves by choosing some different class for our representation in the world.

 

But it also means that we can choose and build our companions in such a way that we don't have to sacrifice one of our favoured companions for the purpose of a well-balanced party. Alternatively we could build our party around a favourite character, but that is also too restrictive on us as players I think. I feel we should be free to choose our party from the companions we enjoy, not from the classes we need.

 

Because of this, diversity in classes is good. It allows us to play games with companions we enjoy more.

 

*shrugs* I've stated before that I love rpgs most when my favoured companions in terms of personality don't necessarily match up with my favourite companions tactically. Obviously you feel differently about this. Realistically, I concede that you're probably far from alone.

 

-

 

Class sytems have been the bread and butter of tactical rpgs. Obviously it's not a logical extension that class sytems make a game good or bad, but in terms of existing examples and systems it has been shown to work well. Off the top of my head, the only party-based rpg that I can think of that does the opposite remotely well is [standard disclaimer for referring to jrpgs again]FFVII, and I would argue that for all its merits the combat was done much better in other FFs that had a class system. If anyone can point me in the direction of party-based rpgs that do this well I would genuinely appreciate it (as much because I need new rpgs in my life).

 

Throwing a classless system in might create a wonderful new style that makes trpgs better. To me, however, it seems like you're fixing a system that is known to work with a system that has a very bad track record of working.

 

The distinction I do make, and I understand that PE is heading in this direction, is that combat classes and non-combat classes being linked is a bad thing.[/grognard]

 

Edit: Forgot to close grognard tags.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Kjaamor

[Lephys]

At a risk of stating the obvious, the fact that we are playing a combat-based rpg.

Wait... so is the "obvious," perchance, supposed to be that DPS, DPS-mitigation, the ability to restore hitpoints, and the ability to alter factors (buff) are the only things comprising the entirety of our combat-based RPGs tactical system?

 

You can't choose, for example, WHEN to heal, or HOW to heal, or have things affect how effective that heal was under the circumstances, etc. So that, if a priest can summon holy light to care-bear stare people back into better health, a Rogue cannot possibly have any healing capability, whatsoever, beyond also holily care-bear staring people back to health from a distance? We couldn't, for example, possibly allow that Rogue to, say, inject someone with a concoction to keep them going in an adrenaline-like fashion, or use soul power to clamp an artery and stop the bleeding, or have some single attack that "steals" some life essence from a foe, via dagger, then passes that life essence on to another party member?

 

Would a Rogue and a Priest then be ludicrously identical in nature, rendering the class system completely moot? "Oh snap... that Rogue, under very specific circumstances, and in a very particular way, just provided some Stamina to that Warrior who was in trouble. Now I don't even know why I have a priest firing healing beams left and right all day."

 

Because, in tactical combat, there's simply healing, or no healing. That's where the "tactics" comes in. You know, "Hmmm... I was thinking of healing, but then I'm considering the only other option -- not-healing -- also... such a tricky, tactical decision."

 

I'm not even advocating Rogue-healing as something that needs to be in the game. I'm just making a point.

 

Second point: It's not about everyone being able to do everything. It's about everyone being able to contribute to the taking down of a foe. Why should you ever have a class who JUST heals, for example? Or, even if he can technically fight, sucks so badly at it that he might as well not even be able to? Or, why say "You there, Wizard... I know you can kill things, but you can ONLY do it from range, and only with lots of AOE. If you were to strike something at melee range, EVEN WITH SOME CRAZY SPELL, you would obviously be exactly like the Warrior, u_u..."?

 

Are there not more factors at play in "tactical" combat than "How many damages can you produce in a given amount of time? Okay, you're the guy who produces lots of damages, then. How many healings can you produce? Okay, you're the guy who produces healings then. No, no THIS other guy has high defense. You can't possibly have any kind of decent defense. That 'role' is already taken, u_u.", etc.?

 

No one's suggesting making a Priest who abandons what makes him a Priest and just starts fighting exactly like some other class. I just don't think a Warrior or Wizard gets to patent feasible damage output, or attack range, or any entire given factor. That's kind of the point of a factor range.

[AGX-17]

Given the fact that the answers are already out there (i.e. choosing to be a fighter with high charisma won't make you a "bad fighter" by default,) I'd just say that I prefer flexibility. I'm glad they've decided to design it with the idea that rolling non-standard/ideal builds for a given class will make the game more challenging, but it won't make the game unplayable or unwinnable. I'm not expecting to go all knight of flowers and seduce every enemy into submission by tossing a single rose at them and sparkling, but I would like to see some unique interactions as a result of such a build.

Edited September 15, 2013 by AGX-17

[Lephys]

Given the fact that the answers are already out there...

The simple answers, but not the specifics/methods. Granted, I think some people get a little overly worried about a sheer lack of specificity in answers, and start making unnecessary assumptions regarding the truth of the simple answers in the first place.

 

You know, like "Wait, my Wizard won't be prevented from possessing some basic training with a sword? OMG, MY WIZARD'S GONNA BE ABLE TO BE A WARRIOR -- THE CLASS, SPECIFICALLY!"

 

Really, it almost seems like just telling the dev team "You're telling me what your goal is, but I only believe you'll make terrible decisions and fail at that goal, because possibility."

[Kjaamor]

Wait... so is the "obvious," perchance, supposed to be that DPS, DPS-mitigation, the ability to restore hitpoints, and the ability to alter factors (buff) are the only things comprising the entirety of our combat-based RPGs tactical system?

 

You can't choose, for example, WHEN to heal, or HOW to heal, or have things affect how effective that heal was under the circumstances, etc. So that, if a priest can summon holy light to care-bear stare people back into better health, a Rogue cannot possibly have any healing capability, whatsoever, beyond also holily care-bear staring people back to health from a distance? We couldn't, for example, possibly allow that Rogue to, say, inject someone with a concoction to keep them going in an adrenaline-like fashion, or use soul power to clamp an artery and stop the bleeding, or have some single attack that "steals" some life essence from a foe, via dagger, then passes that life essence on to another party member?

 

Would a Rogue and a Priest then be ludicrously identical in nature, rendering the class system completely moot? "Oh snap... that Rogue, under very specific circumstances, and in a very particular way, just provided some Stamina to that Warrior who was in trouble. Now I don't even know why I have a priest firing healing beams left and right all day."

 

Because, in tactical combat, there's simply healing, or no healing. That's where the "tactics" comes in. You know, "Hmmm... I was thinking of healing, but then I'm considering the only other option -- not-healing -- also... such a tricky, tactical decision."

 

I'm not even advocating Rogue-healing as something that needs to be in the game. I'm just making a point.

 

Second point: It's not about everyone being able to do everything. It's about everyone being able to contribute to the taking down of a foe. Why should you ever have a class who JUST heals, for example? Or, even if he can technically fight, sucks so badly at it that he might as well not even be able to? Or, why say "You there, Wizard... I know you can kill things, but you can ONLY do it from range, and only with lots of AOE. If you were to strike something at melee range, EVEN WITH SOME CRAZY SPELL, you would obviously be exactly like the Warrior, u_u..."?

 

Are there not more factors at play in "tactical" combat than "How many damages can you produce in a given amount of time? Okay, you're the guy who produces lots of damages, then. How many healings can you produce? Okay, you're the guy who produces healings then. No, no THIS other guy has high defense. You can't possibly have any kind of decent defense. That 'role' is already taken, u_u.", etc.?

 

No one's suggesting making a Priest who abandons what makes him a Priest and just starts fighting exactly like some other class. I just don't think a Warrior or Wizard gets to patent feasible damage output, or attack range, or any entire given factor. That's kind of the point of a factor range.

 

 

Choosing a working group is a tactical decision with consequences. When party members become less specialised (and indeed, when they become extremely specialised) the tactical decision has less impact (or is no decision at all). Removing or severely watering down roles removes an enjoyable piece of gameplay that was a staple of many of the IE games.

 

Is everything all right, Lephys? That post sounded rather hysterical.

[AGX-17]

 

Given the fact that the answers are already out there...

The simple answers, but not the specifics/methods. Granted, I think some people get a little overly worried about a sheer lack of specificity in answers, and start making unnecessary assumptions regarding the truth of the simple answers in the first place.

 

You know, like "Wait, my Wizard won't be prevented from possessing some basic training with a sword? OMG, MY WIZARD'S GONNA BE ABLE TO BE A WARRIOR -- THE CLASS, SPECIFICALLY!"

 

Really, it almost seems like just telling the dev team "You're telling me what your goal is, but I only believe you'll make terrible decisions and fail at that goal, because possibility."

 

I don't need Obsidian to publicly release every algorithmic detail of their (still-tentative) game system to believe what they've said about how much flexibility there will be for different classes. To suggest they'd make a TES-style system in which every class can be the most bestest at everything is hyperbolic, if not hysterical.

Edited September 16, 2013 by AGX-17

[J.E. Sawyer]

In general, I find that DnD class-based systems slightly suffer from having their metaphorical heads too far up the figurative rear ends of their heavy abstractions. For a long time, I have been undecided when it comes to this question, but I think I'm finally coming around to the fact that I prefer classless systems. I'll be able to tolerate classes in PE, but I think it's fair to say that there aren't too many advantages to class-based systems outside of tacticool party-based combat.

 

Tactical party-based combat is one of the three stated pillars of PE which is one of the reasons we're using them.

[mcmanusaur]

 

In general, I find that DnD class-based systems slightly suffer from having their metaphorical heads too far up the figurative rear ends of their heavy abstractions. For a long time, I have been undecided when it comes to this question, but I think I'm finally coming around to the fact that I prefer classless systems. I'll be able to tolerate classes in PE, but I think it's fair to say that there aren't too many advantages to class-based systems outside of tacticool party-based combat.

 

Tactical party-based combat is one of the three stated pillars of PE which is one of the reasons we're using them.

 

Of course, and I might add that I believe that alone is reason enough to use classes in PE. That said, if you think class-based systems inherently have additional advantages (over all other systems, including but not limited to skill-based systems) beyond party-based combat, I would definitely be interested in hearing them. (My post was simply intended to address the singleplayer RPG genre in general, for which I believe a classless system is usually- but not always- somewhat preferable. Such general conjecture seems to be something of a habit for me, even though one could easily make the case that this forum isn't the place for it, so I apologize for any confusion it may cause. )

Edited September 16, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think classes can be easier for players to "get" than a sea of potential skills/abilities/etc.  With a lot of classless systems (especially really rules-intensive ones like GURPS), you may have to hunt around to figure out if you can build a certain character concept.  Classes present you with rough character archetypes up front so it's easier to just drop in for newer players (IMO).

 

When I play, I prefer to use classless systems.  However, in my experience with classless systems, I've still found that if tactical combat is "a thing" of the game, it needs to receive a lot of design attention so players can make use of it.  GURPS pays a lot of attention to combat mechanics and leans more heavily on simulationism (albeit, sometimes in odd ways) so building a combat monster is not too difficult.  However, a lot of the tactics for those combat monsters wind up looking pretty similar, so it doesn't necessarily encourage particularly diverse gameplay (again, IME, and GURPS is very large).  In a game like Vampire, tactical combat really isn't "a thing" so having light rules doesn't matter that often IME.

[Wombat]

Tactical party-based combat is one of the three stated pillars of PE which is one of the reasons we're using them.

What would the other two pillars be?  Off the top of my mind, they are (dungeon) exploration and interactive dialogue choices, which personalize the story, but am I right here?

 

Also, do you mean you cannot make a good tactical combat game with a skill-based system?  Or it's another resource issue?  Means, presuming I am right about the other pillars, while you could make something combat-focused such as classic Jagged Alliance series or something more interactive like old Fallouts, it's hard to make a game which excels at both areas.  With the former, the players will get only one of the pillars while the latter offers them more or less a watered-down combat.  I agree with your opinon about PnP rulesets but, here, I think you are desigining CRPG.  So, I placed my quesions in such a way.

[mcmanusaur]

I think classes can be easier for players to "get" than a sea of potential skills/abilities/etc.  With a lot of classless systems (especially really rules-intensive ones like GURPS), you may have to hunt around to figure out if you can build a certain character concept.  Classes present you with rough character archetypes up front so it's easier to just drop in for newer players (IMO).

 

When I play, I prefer to use classless systems.  However, in my experience with classless systems, I've still found that if tactical combat is "a thing" of the game, it needs to receive a lot of design attention so players can make use of it.  GURPS pays a lot of attention to combat mechanics and leans more heavily on simulationism (albeit, sometimes in odd ways) so building a combat monster is not too difficult.  However, a lot of the tactics for those combat monsters wind up looking pretty similar, so it doesn't necessarily encourage particularly diverse gameplay (again, IME, and GURPS is very large).  In a game like Vampire, tactical combat really isn't "a thing" so having light rules doesn't matter that often IME.

 

Ah... yep, learning curve is definitely one aspect that I overlooked, and it makes sense that class-based systems might perform better in that regard. Many implementations of classless do seem somewhat lacking in diversity of experience, but I like to think that this is something that can be mitigated in a cleverly designed classless system, especially a more holistic (i.e. not exclusively combat-focused) one. There's conceivably a finite limit to the number of ways that you can kill something, and perhaps when that comprises an RPG's entire scope a more firmly delineated (i.e. class-based) system can be preferable, but otherwise "the possibilities [for diverse experiences] are endless".

Edited September 16, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

Tactical party-based combat is one of the three stated pillars of PE which is one of the reasons we're using them.

What would the other two pillars be?  Off the top of my mind, they are (dungeon) exploration and interactive dialogue choices, which personalize the story, but am I right here?

 

Also, do you mean you cannot make a good tactical combat game with a skill-based system?  Or it's another resource issue?  Means, presuming I am right about the other pillars, while you could make something combat-focused such as classic Jagged Alliance series or something more interactive like old Fallouts, it's hard to make a game which excels at both areas.  With the former, the players will get only one of the pillars while the latter offers them more or less a watered-down combat.  I agree with your opinon about PnP rulesets but, here, I think you are desigining CRPG.  So, I placed my quesions in such a way.

 

 

The three pillars are environment exploration, interactive story/dialogue, and tactical combat.

 

No, I don't mean that you cannot make a good tactical combat game with a skill-based system.  As I wrote, if you have a classless system and you want a tactical focus, you really have to give a lot of attention to the combat mechanics/skills.  JA2 clearly had a heavy focus on it and it worked very well.  Of course, JA2's combat also had a pretty narrow focus.  That's not a bad thing, but it's something to consider when things like magic, melee, and ranged combat are present.

[Lephys]

Is everything all right, Lephys? That post sounded rather hysterical.

*Listens*... It did? Hmm... *shrug*

 

You didn't really answer my question. I figured providing a menagerie of examples and re-iterations would provide as much clarity as possible in what it is I'm wondering.

 

What dictates where the "not specialized enough" and "too specialized" lines lie? If it's factors as simple as "you're capable at melee range," or "you have 90% more AOE-targeted abilities than other classes," then why? If not, then I fail to comprehend what's problematic about the idea of typical facets of class restriction being handled differently in P:E.

[Kjaamor]

Just in case anyone reading this topic hasn't read this yet, Josh talks extensively about the nature of classes and abilities in page 5 of this thread. Highly informative and I, personally, find it quite comforting.