RPG system : Classes vs Skills
by Gareth Fouche · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 02/22/2006 (2:49 am) · 31 replies
I thought I'd get some input from the community on this subject. I've been thinking a bit about this recently, and I'm still not sure which system I like more.
On the one hand : Classes : Characters in this system tend to conform to archetypes (depending on how strict the class system is), but this is both a good and bad thing.
On the good side, it creates strong theme in your world. Not only that, characters have different and unique playstyles. Think about Diablo 2, the necromancer played differently from the Paladin, etc. On the bad side, it limits players, and sometimes feels way too constaining, unnecessarily so. For example, you are a mage so you cant even pick up that sword. It can also create generic characters, for instance every Mage at 40th level in World of Warcraft is pretty similar. You see a character coming, you can generally tell what class he is just by what weapons and armor he is wearing.
On the other : Skills : Characters in this system have more freedom to develop in their own unique style, but also lose thematic coherance (they feel more like a mish-mash of skills than a logical character). Except for a small core of rabid roleplayers, people generally pick skills that they think are "best". A perfect example is one that commonly happened in Morrowind. Players wanting to play thief-types would choose to trade Lockpicking skill for the Alteration magic skill. Because Alteration offered a lock opening spell, and some other benefits, like water breathing and levitation spells. Theres no roleplay reason for it, and it doesn't make sense really. The other thing I don't like about it is that it makes certain skills less "special". Take for instance divine magic. In the class system priests are characters who have such a deep spiritual bond with their God/s that they can manifest some of his power. A paladin is a crusader for their God, his faith so strong it shields and strengthens him. A skills system simply turns all this into a bunch of different skill trees, which a player mixes and matches as he feels. Maybe he wants healing magic and conjuration spells, cause he likes to summon fire elementals and demons, but would like to heal himself when he gets in trouble. It simply removes the uniquesness of the characteristic, IMO.
The other thing to add to the mix is multi-classing. In a class system I'd allow multiclassing, so long as there is a corresponding game action. Say your thief wants to learn magic, then he needs to seek out a powerful mage and pay him for apprenticeship, which might involve quests/tasks. A warrior might feel the call of faith, and petition a church to become an initiate etc. It allows flexability, but it still keeps the general traits of a class in one package. You can't just decide you want to be able to cast fireballs, pick locks, and shapechange into a bear for combat. However, allowing multiclassing is pretty close to being a skill system anyway, maybe it would be better just to go that direction?
Both sides have their positives and negatives, at the moment I'm leaning towards a class system like in Vampire : Bloodlines, each character (vampire clan) had unique abilities, but the bulk of skills could be taken by anyone, so a Brujah (warrior vampire) could be good at computer hacking and a Tremere (Blood Mage vampire) could be good with melee weapons (A Brujah focused on melee would still be better though). It avoids that "you can't wear this plate armor, because you are a rogue" problem, while still keeping the theme of the different classes.
What do you guys think?
On the one hand : Classes : Characters in this system tend to conform to archetypes (depending on how strict the class system is), but this is both a good and bad thing.
On the good side, it creates strong theme in your world. Not only that, characters have different and unique playstyles. Think about Diablo 2, the necromancer played differently from the Paladin, etc. On the bad side, it limits players, and sometimes feels way too constaining, unnecessarily so. For example, you are a mage so you cant even pick up that sword. It can also create generic characters, for instance every Mage at 40th level in World of Warcraft is pretty similar. You see a character coming, you can generally tell what class he is just by what weapons and armor he is wearing.
On the other : Skills : Characters in this system have more freedom to develop in their own unique style, but also lose thematic coherance (they feel more like a mish-mash of skills than a logical character). Except for a small core of rabid roleplayers, people generally pick skills that they think are "best". A perfect example is one that commonly happened in Morrowind. Players wanting to play thief-types would choose to trade Lockpicking skill for the Alteration magic skill. Because Alteration offered a lock opening spell, and some other benefits, like water breathing and levitation spells. Theres no roleplay reason for it, and it doesn't make sense really. The other thing I don't like about it is that it makes certain skills less "special". Take for instance divine magic. In the class system priests are characters who have such a deep spiritual bond with their God/s that they can manifest some of his power. A paladin is a crusader for their God, his faith so strong it shields and strengthens him. A skills system simply turns all this into a bunch of different skill trees, which a player mixes and matches as he feels. Maybe he wants healing magic and conjuration spells, cause he likes to summon fire elementals and demons, but would like to heal himself when he gets in trouble. It simply removes the uniquesness of the characteristic, IMO.
The other thing to add to the mix is multi-classing. In a class system I'd allow multiclassing, so long as there is a corresponding game action. Say your thief wants to learn magic, then he needs to seek out a powerful mage and pay him for apprenticeship, which might involve quests/tasks. A warrior might feel the call of faith, and petition a church to become an initiate etc. It allows flexability, but it still keeps the general traits of a class in one package. You can't just decide you want to be able to cast fireballs, pick locks, and shapechange into a bear for combat. However, allowing multiclassing is pretty close to being a skill system anyway, maybe it would be better just to go that direction?
Both sides have their positives and negatives, at the moment I'm leaning towards a class system like in Vampire : Bloodlines, each character (vampire clan) had unique abilities, but the bulk of skills could be taken by anyone, so a Brujah (warrior vampire) could be good at computer hacking and a Tremere (Blood Mage vampire) could be good with melee weapons (A Brujah focused on melee would still be better though). It avoids that "you can't wear this plate armor, because you are a rogue" problem, while still keeping the theme of the different classes.
What do you guys think?
#2
Just because you were born a cleric doesn't mean you can't be a thief, life has many twists and turns.
It may not make for balanced gameplay however. ;)
Ari
02/22/2006 (4:01 am)
Personally I prefer a system that conforms to me and doesn't force me to conform to it.Just because you were born a cleric doesn't mean you can't be a thief, life has many twists and turns.
It may not make for balanced gameplay however. ;)
Ari
#3
In more modern RPGs, I think skills are more appropriate than classes, because they better reflect the 'mish mosh' that is modern (and future) society. In modern or space RPGs, it doesn't seem as plausible for someone to single mindedly devote all their time to learning only one type of skills.
In the Shooter/RPG I'm working on, I've taken a page from the old Traveler game system, where you choose an initial background/career (much like a class), and then decide whether your character serves a term of time (or more than one) in that background before beginning 'adventuring' or trading, etc... After that point, they are 'classless', and can learn any type of skill, depending on their various aptitudes.
For example, in Traveler, you could choose to have your character start out as a trader, roll some dice representing the outcome of a 2 year term as a trader, and either acquire some skills, items, money or even a ship during that time, or encounter some bad luck and lose some goodies. You can keep choosing to serve subsequent terms until either a bad dice roll makes you retire from the trade, or you decide you have enough (or that your character is old enough). Then you actually 'start the game' and start using this character.
You could also switch careers while rolling the character. For example, you could serve a term or two in the Military background to gain some combat skills, then switch to Trading or some Corporate career to acquire some money or initial starting equipment. It makes gameplay a bit more diverse, since you never start the game with the same character, equipment or set of skills, and also provides some 'RPG-depth' to the character, because they're not all 18 year olds fresh from the farm (or academy, or what have you). These 'backgrounds' also give the designer lots of hooks to hang minor and not so minor 'quests' upon, since you can refer to 'events' that the player rolled up during character generation.
I'm happy to say I mostly have this working right now -- I just need to fill my database tables with many more items and skills to 'earn' during this process. One thing I've noticed, however. It's easy to think up types of skills. It's much harder to figure out how to implement those skills in-game. :)
02/22/2006 (6:02 am)
I think classes work better in a Tolkeinesque/D&D-themed RPG, since 'worlds' based around that theme tend to be more sectarian. Most of the classes in those RPGs seem like things that require a character to devote their whole life to their pursuit, ie., sorcery or something 'genetic' like being an elf or dwarf character.In more modern RPGs, I think skills are more appropriate than classes, because they better reflect the 'mish mosh' that is modern (and future) society. In modern or space RPGs, it doesn't seem as plausible for someone to single mindedly devote all their time to learning only one type of skills.
In the Shooter/RPG I'm working on, I've taken a page from the old Traveler game system, where you choose an initial background/career (much like a class), and then decide whether your character serves a term of time (or more than one) in that background before beginning 'adventuring' or trading, etc... After that point, they are 'classless', and can learn any type of skill, depending on their various aptitudes.
For example, in Traveler, you could choose to have your character start out as a trader, roll some dice representing the outcome of a 2 year term as a trader, and either acquire some skills, items, money or even a ship during that time, or encounter some bad luck and lose some goodies. You can keep choosing to serve subsequent terms until either a bad dice roll makes you retire from the trade, or you decide you have enough (or that your character is old enough). Then you actually 'start the game' and start using this character.
You could also switch careers while rolling the character. For example, you could serve a term or two in the Military background to gain some combat skills, then switch to Trading or some Corporate career to acquire some money or initial starting equipment. It makes gameplay a bit more diverse, since you never start the game with the same character, equipment or set of skills, and also provides some 'RPG-depth' to the character, because they're not all 18 year olds fresh from the farm (or academy, or what have you). These 'backgrounds' also give the designer lots of hooks to hang minor and not so minor 'quests' upon, since you can refer to 'events' that the player rolled up during character generation.
I'm happy to say I mostly have this working right now -- I just need to fill my database tables with many more items and skills to 'earn' during this process. One thing I've noticed, however. It's easy to think up types of skills. It's much harder to figure out how to implement those skills in-game. :)
#4
If I use heavy armor and a big sword they'll call me "Steadtler the mighty warrior", but if later I start using light armor and a crossbow they would start calling me "Steadtler that archer who wasnt such a good warrior anyway" after a while.
03/01/2006 (9:50 am)
You know what I would like? A system based on skills, but where the world tag me a stereotype based on what I actually do and use.If I use heavy armor and a big sword they'll call me "Steadtler the mighty warrior", but if later I start using light armor and a crossbow they would start calling me "Steadtler that archer who wasnt such a good warrior anyway" after a while.
#5
Sounds like Dungeon Siege.
Open skill system where as you use skills you increase your proficiency with them and your highest couple of skills determine your class designation.
03/01/2006 (10:48 am)
@MathieuSounds like Dungeon Siege.
Open skill system where as you use skills you increase your proficiency with them and your highest couple of skills determine your class designation.
#6
03/01/2006 (11:04 am)
Skills. I like to play my way.
#7
Another thing is that I think the game should suggest you learn specific skills, and not force you to.
Lee-Orr
03/01/2006 (11:57 am)
I'd like to have a system that gives you both. What I mean is that you have a class, or proffesion, but can learn most of the skills that come outside of it, except those that are opposing your class, but have to learn them in a slower rate. Lets take a warrior that wants to know to use magic. He will be able to learn magic, in any level, but it will take him more time that getting to the same level in his craft.Another thing is that I think the game should suggest you learn specific skills, and not force you to.
Lee-Orr
#8
Each profession has many skills.
So you could be the best at one profession or just good at all of them, kind of like a jack of all trades.
Each faction has their pros and cons as well
Kind of like each race have their special abilities and disabilities.
03/04/2006 (2:36 pm)
In my game I'm designing you will at first have 3 factions that you can be part of and each have different professions that you can change at any time. Each profession has many skills.
So you could be the best at one profession or just good at all of them, kind of like a jack of all trades.
Each faction has their pros and cons as well
Kind of like each race have their special abilities and disabilities.
#9
Another idea is skills that can be improved, but also skills that will suffer if not used. If you use a sword all the time, then your bow skills suffer. A kind of snooze you lose arangement.
I have played both fixed characters: Eye of Beholder, Dragon Warrior Series
I have also played skills based: Morrowind, Fable
I really enjoyed playing both types, but I have played Morrowind the most due to the freedom it allows. One thing about Morrowind I do not like is that you cannot be purely a magic user to my satisfaction. Magic users are way too weak in my opinion to other types of class types. I would say if you choose skills based then make sure it is balanced so that you can plausibly play each class of player and be successful.
I too have been thinking along these lines and trying to come up with a good system. I think the proof will be in the pudding. Get it working and see if it is any fun.
03/08/2006 (8:35 pm)
You could make skills behave within a class structure. If you select a certain class then you can excel at certain skills. Other skills outside the class can be improved, but to a maximum proficiency or at a much slower rate or both. Another idea is skills that can be improved, but also skills that will suffer if not used. If you use a sword all the time, then your bow skills suffer. A kind of snooze you lose arangement.
I have played both fixed characters: Eye of Beholder, Dragon Warrior Series
I have also played skills based: Morrowind, Fable
I really enjoyed playing both types, but I have played Morrowind the most due to the freedom it allows. One thing about Morrowind I do not like is that you cannot be purely a magic user to my satisfaction. Magic users are way too weak in my opinion to other types of class types. I would say if you choose skills based then make sure it is balanced so that you can plausibly play each class of player and be successful.
I too have been thinking along these lines and trying to come up with a good system. I think the proof will be in the pudding. Get it working and see if it is any fun.
#10
I have yet to see a class system (both digital and pen-and-paper) where one class does not outshine the others. You can see this in evidence in EQ, WOW and any of the other myriad MMO's that are class based.
Of course, if it's a single player game, then balance really isn't a concern.
I'm more of the opinion of skills over class, let the players play as they wish, they'll develop their own "classes" based on their skill selections and play styles.
03/16/2006 (5:07 pm)
Another thing to consider when you deal with a class-based system is balance. In my experience and my own humble opinion, class-based systems are unbalanced by definition.I have yet to see a class system (both digital and pen-and-paper) where one class does not outshine the others. You can see this in evidence in EQ, WOW and any of the other myriad MMO's that are class based.
Of course, if it's a single player game, then balance really isn't a concern.
I'm more of the opinion of skills over class, let the players play as they wish, they'll develop their own "classes" based on their skill selections and play styles.
#11
Try the Geneforge series from Spiderweb Software. You have a class, but when you go up a level you choose skills. Which class you are determines how many skill points the different kinds of skills cost.
Geneforge is nice because there's never anything that you CANT do if you want to badly enough. Any character can use any skill. If you're a Guardian (a fighter type) and want to use that spray attack spell, you'll just have to use a whole lot of skill points to get to that point. You'll never be as good at as an Agent (an attack magic type), but it might be nice to have handy for creatures who are resistant to physical attacks. (Actually, in Geneforge, you find items that duplicate the same spell effect, so it's kind of a moot point, but you get the idea.)
And what it is it with "classes vs. skills"? What about perks (e.g. Fallout 1-2, Fallout: Tactics, and Lionheart)? When you gain 3 or so levels, you gain a perk that improves your character in some way. Most perks (the good ones, anyways) feel sort of "special" when you play the game. For instance, the "Slayer" perk automatically upgrades your melee attacks to critical hits if you also make a Luck roll. It helps you out alot if you're a melee fighter, but the important thing is that you're excited to get that perk.
The Fallout series also uses a skill system that you put points into when you level up, but it doesn't have classes. Lionheart is similar, but you can choose a species and a magical spirit at the beginning of the game. Choosing a species modifies your character, but you can still become anything. You just start out better at some things than others.
If you want to have a class system, then have a class system. But don't set it up so that you pick a class before you start the game. Instead, start out as a class-less character (or a character with some default class). Then have several decision points in the game where you can select a general class (e.g. fighter), then a specific class (e.g. ranger), and then maybe specialize in something (e.g. dragon slayer).
This is much better. First, you don't have to select a class before you have any idea what the game is like. Second, you have some more variation. Maybe it doesn't make much practical difference whether you're a dragon slayer or a unicorn lord, but at least it can give you a goal to work towards. Warlords Battlecry (an RTS with RPG-like character development) did this, though it only gave you two class choices (one at 2nd level and one at 3rd).
There's also "jobs" systems (like in some old Final Fantasy games that may never have been released in the U.S.), and you could make a game where the only character development is what items you have (like in Legend of Zelda).
03/16/2006 (7:58 pm)
Lee-Orr Orbach: "I'd like to have a system that gives you both"Try the Geneforge series from Spiderweb Software. You have a class, but when you go up a level you choose skills. Which class you are determines how many skill points the different kinds of skills cost.
Geneforge is nice because there's never anything that you CANT do if you want to badly enough. Any character can use any skill. If you're a Guardian (a fighter type) and want to use that spray attack spell, you'll just have to use a whole lot of skill points to get to that point. You'll never be as good at as an Agent (an attack magic type), but it might be nice to have handy for creatures who are resistant to physical attacks. (Actually, in Geneforge, you find items that duplicate the same spell effect, so it's kind of a moot point, but you get the idea.)
And what it is it with "classes vs. skills"? What about perks (e.g. Fallout 1-2, Fallout: Tactics, and Lionheart)? When you gain 3 or so levels, you gain a perk that improves your character in some way. Most perks (the good ones, anyways) feel sort of "special" when you play the game. For instance, the "Slayer" perk automatically upgrades your melee attacks to critical hits if you also make a Luck roll. It helps you out alot if you're a melee fighter, but the important thing is that you're excited to get that perk.
The Fallout series also uses a skill system that you put points into when you level up, but it doesn't have classes. Lionheart is similar, but you can choose a species and a magical spirit at the beginning of the game. Choosing a species modifies your character, but you can still become anything. You just start out better at some things than others.
If you want to have a class system, then have a class system. But don't set it up so that you pick a class before you start the game. Instead, start out as a class-less character (or a character with some default class). Then have several decision points in the game where you can select a general class (e.g. fighter), then a specific class (e.g. ranger), and then maybe specialize in something (e.g. dragon slayer).
This is much better. First, you don't have to select a class before you have any idea what the game is like. Second, you have some more variation. Maybe it doesn't make much practical difference whether you're a dragon slayer or a unicorn lord, but at least it can give you a goal to work towards. Warlords Battlecry (an RTS with RPG-like character development) did this, though it only gave you two class choices (one at 2nd level and one at 3rd).
There's also "jobs" systems (like in some old Final Fantasy games that may never have been released in the U.S.), and you could make a game where the only character development is what items you have (like in Legend of Zelda).
#12
I know a lot of people like levels because it gives them a sense of their character's power. I think it would be better if you had something like titles, based on quests that the character had finished (i.e. Dragonslayer), and verbal descriptions of skills and professions. For example, Apprentice Firemage, or Master Weaponsmith.
05/04/2006 (6:05 pm)
I like skill-based, without the concept of levels. I think skill increases should be based purely on skill use, plus have say a few "practice points" every so often to allow skills that you want to bump up, but maybe aren't fun to work on, to be improved. For instance, perhaps you want to make an Alchemist/Mage type, but don't want to spend much of your gametime in a laboratory. The practice points would allow increasing your Alchemical skills without actually playing them.I know a lot of people like levels because it gives them a sense of their character's power. I think it would be better if you had something like titles, based on quests that the character had finished (i.e. Dragonslayer), and verbal descriptions of skills and professions. For example, Apprentice Firemage, or Master Weaponsmith.
#13
People by nature like to put things into catagories. The problem with open based skill systems is it makes it very difficult to place people and their utility into these 'catagories' or 'archtypes' in a MMORPG environment. People like to feel 'wanted'.
Here is my view, mostly pertaining to MMORPG systems on skill/vs class based:
A catagory is the role your game mechanics revolve around. Most RPG systems have three catagories or archtypes that designers craft the content around.
Tanks - Those you take damage
Healers - Those that heal damage
Damage Dealers - Those that give damage.
(Utility)* Mostly seen in single player RPG(s) - ie pick locks, npc barter skills, etc, crafting skills.
An open ended skill system makes it difficult to put labels on these people if your game requires this holy trinity for hack and slash. How do people find other people to fill a group role if they are not in one of these catagories? How do you balance your content on a skill based game if your mechanics involve the trinity? (Tanks,Healers,Damage Dealers?)
People by nature have a broad spectrum of interestes and gaming knowledge. Some will pick every skill in the game and be lack luster in them to try them out (And figure out what skills you really made your content revolve around) The jack of all trades types. There will always be min/max people who put all their points into skills that advance them faster through your content.
How can one player consider themselves a 'healer' character and let others know that is his primary skill focus? What if his view of a healer (skills chosen) do not match what majority of players consider a typical healer? (ie, sit back and heal the tank view). How do you design a "Looking for group feature?" on a pure skill based system?
Skill based systems work best in paper and pencil ,Where you know your friends and each tailor their skills with each other based on the type of content they are expected to overcome by the DM. They also work best in sandbox games that like to create virtual worlds which do not focus on hack/slash/advancement and more social building.
IMHO the best system for a RPG is:
1) Makes it easy for a players to understand their role in the world and make that role fun.
2) Make players feel needed and wanted by other players.
3) Make it easy for players to group together and understand what each brings to a group.
4) Make it so their choice in the begining is easily changed if they desire to try a new gameplay style.
(This is more or less for online MMORPG concept)
I think the perfect system is actualy a combination of classes and skills. Make the classes your template for which skill costs are, but do not limit the skills a player can pick. This gives players an idea and you about the content you can create and balance.
Put the limits in your game content / world story than in the skill system. Prevent people from picking Plate armor and fire ball (ie magic can't be cast with metal armors) not making those skills exclusive from picking them but with game mechanics.
- Dennis
05/09/2006 (8:30 am)
I think it depends on the type of game your planning on and the content / challenges you want to create. People by nature like to put things into catagories. The problem with open based skill systems is it makes it very difficult to place people and their utility into these 'catagories' or 'archtypes' in a MMORPG environment. People like to feel 'wanted'.
Here is my view, mostly pertaining to MMORPG systems on skill/vs class based:
A catagory is the role your game mechanics revolve around. Most RPG systems have three catagories or archtypes that designers craft the content around.
Tanks - Those you take damage
Healers - Those that heal damage
Damage Dealers - Those that give damage.
(Utility)* Mostly seen in single player RPG(s) - ie pick locks, npc barter skills, etc, crafting skills.
An open ended skill system makes it difficult to put labels on these people if your game requires this holy trinity for hack and slash. How do people find other people to fill a group role if they are not in one of these catagories? How do you balance your content on a skill based game if your mechanics involve the trinity? (Tanks,Healers,Damage Dealers?)
People by nature have a broad spectrum of interestes and gaming knowledge. Some will pick every skill in the game and be lack luster in them to try them out (And figure out what skills you really made your content revolve around) The jack of all trades types. There will always be min/max people who put all their points into skills that advance them faster through your content.
How can one player consider themselves a 'healer' character and let others know that is his primary skill focus? What if his view of a healer (skills chosen) do not match what majority of players consider a typical healer? (ie, sit back and heal the tank view). How do you design a "Looking for group feature?" on a pure skill based system?
Skill based systems work best in paper and pencil ,Where you know your friends and each tailor their skills with each other based on the type of content they are expected to overcome by the DM. They also work best in sandbox games that like to create virtual worlds which do not focus on hack/slash/advancement and more social building.
IMHO the best system for a RPG is:
1) Makes it easy for a players to understand their role in the world and make that role fun.
2) Make players feel needed and wanted by other players.
3) Make it easy for players to group together and understand what each brings to a group.
4) Make it so their choice in the begining is easily changed if they desire to try a new gameplay style.
(This is more or less for online MMORPG concept)
I think the perfect system is actualy a combination of classes and skills. Make the classes your template for which skill costs are, but do not limit the skills a player can pick. This gives players an idea and you about the content you can create and balance.
Put the limits in your game content / world story than in the skill system. Prevent people from picking Plate armor and fire ball (ie magic can't be cast with metal armors) not making those skills exclusive from picking them but with game mechanics.
- Dennis
#14
Nicely put! However, I disagree about not limiting skills. Without specialized skills, it's *extremely* difficult to balance a game so that all classes are welcome (or needed) in a party. If every fighter can cast a decent healing spell, who needs a cleric? If mages can melee strongly with weapons, why be a fighter?
05/19/2006 (10:57 am)
Quote:IMHO the best system for a RPG is:
1) Makes it easy for a players to understand their role in the world and make that role fun.
2) Make players feel needed and wanted by other players.
3) Make it easy for players to group together and understand what each brings to a group.
4) Make it so their choice in the begining is easily changed if they desire to try a new gameplay style.
(This is more or less for online MMORPG concept)
I think the perfect system is actualy a combination of classes and skills. Make the classes your template for which skill costs are, but do not limit the skills a player can pick. This gives players an idea and you about the content you can create and balance.
Nicely put! However, I disagree about not limiting skills. Without specialized skills, it's *extremely* difficult to balance a game so that all classes are welcome (or needed) in a party. If every fighter can cast a decent healing spell, who needs a cleric? If mages can melee strongly with weapons, why be a fighter?
#15
05/19/2006 (11:27 am)
I was thinking for of ICE's skill system. Where if your a fighter, sure you can learn healing but costs you 8 skillpoints per 'rank' as apposed to a 'cleric' which would cost 2 skills per rank.
#16
Still, IMHO, exclusivity can be a good thing!
05/19/2006 (11:27 pm)
Ah, I understand. That might work well, provided the "penalty" for nonstandard skills is large enough.Still, IMHO, exclusivity can be a good thing!
#17
Irrespective of the graphics which were doom quality (because of when it was developed) it is one of the only true skill based games there was. You could learn any school, any spell set (melee skills were considered a spell set). The more you concentrated on one school the better you could get in that school.
If you concentrated on one schoool, you could get to 6th level in that school with a max of level 4 in a.n.other or you could get 2 schools upto 5th level but never get 6th in one, or 3 schools to 3rd level etc etc.
At any time you could take a potion and forget all of a schools teaching and restart learning in another, or advance an existing one.
Finally all spells/skills only improved by using them, there were no levels in the traditional sense in the game, although there was experience gained, it was used for other things and for bonuses.
Stunning system, and, I have to say, one that I am trying to emulate in my game.
Regards
Graham Evans
(Project Endeavour)
05/20/2006 (4:58 am)
I would commend anyone who has never tried it to have a look at the basis of one of the first ever MMO games called meridian 59.Irrespective of the graphics which were doom quality (because of when it was developed) it is one of the only true skill based games there was. You could learn any school, any spell set (melee skills were considered a spell set). The more you concentrated on one school the better you could get in that school.
If you concentrated on one schoool, you could get to 6th level in that school with a max of level 4 in a.n.other or you could get 2 schools upto 5th level but never get 6th in one, or 3 schools to 3rd level etc etc.
At any time you could take a potion and forget all of a schools teaching and restart learning in another, or advance an existing one.
Finally all spells/skills only improved by using them, there were no levels in the traditional sense in the game, although there was experience gained, it was used for other things and for bonuses.
Stunning system, and, I have to say, one that I am trying to emulate in my game.
Regards
Graham Evans
(Project Endeavour)
#18
From a multiplayer viewpoint, I used to like classless skill based advancement. But the problem many games had was that the majority of the player turned out the same while trying to make the "best" type of character. It got boring to me.
I didn't like pure class base, because it felt limited. Level based advancement didn't make sense to me. Especially if playing against other players. Just because someone is a higher level doesn't mean he should automatically win.
What I found I liked was a combination of all three.
The player started with no class and basic newbie skills. Later, he chooses a path (class) to follow.
The class opens up more skill options while at the same time focusing on only certain sets of skills.
Leveling provided training points, but did not automatically raise a person's stats making him better.
Basically, it goes like this.
When a person picks a class, they then focus on specific skill sets. They still have options, but can't learn "everything."
Training points received when leveling are spent at the trainer to advance some skills. Again, there aren't enough points to learn everything.
The trainer can only advance a person's skill so far. The player then must go out and practice with that skill before the trainer can help anymore. Think of this like learning martial arts. Someone can learn the moves, but until they practice they'll still suck at them.
So now our player goes out into the world and practices his skills. As he uses them, they advance. If he uses one skill more than the other, then that skill will advance faster. But...skills only advance through practice to a certain point. After a while, we must go back to our trainer for more advanced training. Again, think of it like learning kung fu from a book. Without a real trainer, you're not going to become an expert.
That's where the leveling comes in. You've been out practicing/fighting/whatever to advance and you suddenly level up. Now the trainer will see you again.
The levels don't really make you better, they pretty much force you to actually go out and use the skills to become better. Also, a level/rank system can psychologically give the player a sense of advancement.
What this system does is prevent everyone from becoming the same in the end, but still leaves open more choices than a pure class and level system.
That's the system I've always liked anyway.
05/24/2006 (4:34 pm)
One of the systems I've liked in a past game I played was a combination of class, skill, and level.From a multiplayer viewpoint, I used to like classless skill based advancement. But the problem many games had was that the majority of the player turned out the same while trying to make the "best" type of character. It got boring to me.
I didn't like pure class base, because it felt limited. Level based advancement didn't make sense to me. Especially if playing against other players. Just because someone is a higher level doesn't mean he should automatically win.
What I found I liked was a combination of all three.
The player started with no class and basic newbie skills. Later, he chooses a path (class) to follow.
The class opens up more skill options while at the same time focusing on only certain sets of skills.
Leveling provided training points, but did not automatically raise a person's stats making him better.
Basically, it goes like this.
When a person picks a class, they then focus on specific skill sets. They still have options, but can't learn "everything."
Training points received when leveling are spent at the trainer to advance some skills. Again, there aren't enough points to learn everything.
The trainer can only advance a person's skill so far. The player then must go out and practice with that skill before the trainer can help anymore. Think of this like learning martial arts. Someone can learn the moves, but until they practice they'll still suck at them.
So now our player goes out into the world and practices his skills. As he uses them, they advance. If he uses one skill more than the other, then that skill will advance faster. But...skills only advance through practice to a certain point. After a while, we must go back to our trainer for more advanced training. Again, think of it like learning kung fu from a book. Without a real trainer, you're not going to become an expert.
That's where the leveling comes in. You've been out practicing/fighting/whatever to advance and you suddenly level up. Now the trainer will see you again.
The levels don't really make you better, they pretty much force you to actually go out and use the skills to become better. Also, a level/rank system can psychologically give the player a sense of advancement.
What this system does is prevent everyone from becoming the same in the end, but still leaves open more choices than a pure class and level system.
That's the system I've always liked anyway.
#19
And if you overlay a profession or "specialization" grouping over the skillsets, you can have players be able to take up jobs that help them increase a specific set of skills while slowing the learning of others. If the player was able to switch professions after predetermined amounts of time (say, a 3+ months), then it would prevent them from switching every few days to try and rapidly "skill-up".
My own opinion on this, but I think whatever system is put in place in an MMO, if you want to tack an "RPG" on the end of that acronym, would have to allow for the player's freedom to expand their character's horizons, and not just lock them into doing things one way or another. In other words, we should not be tweaking the old rulesets that were limited, but be creating new ones that allow for true RPG's...
05/24/2006 (5:15 pm)
I like the skill-based systems myself. Allowing people to level individual skills as they use them allow them to actually play their character. Fight to be a better fighter, mine to be a better miner. WoW implements this in a way, though it doesn't auto-level the core stats of the game, except through experience points. In the end, players are still stuck on treadmills, watching numbers. Basing it all on skills, and doing away with classes will grant your player the complete freedom to create a character with unique skillsets.And if you overlay a profession or "specialization" grouping over the skillsets, you can have players be able to take up jobs that help them increase a specific set of skills while slowing the learning of others. If the player was able to switch professions after predetermined amounts of time (say, a 3+ months), then it would prevent them from switching every few days to try and rapidly "skill-up".
My own opinion on this, but I think whatever system is put in place in an MMO, if you want to tack an "RPG" on the end of that acronym, would have to allow for the player's freedom to expand their character's horizons, and not just lock them into doing things one way or another. In other words, we should not be tweaking the old rulesets that were limited, but be creating new ones that allow for true RPG's...
#20
MMOs are a different breed altogether. The bottom line with these involves the Wizard's First Rule. If you give the players a choice, there will always be a number of them that will do the absolute most bone-headed thing you can possibly think of, and it will be All Your Fault for giving them that option. The game I can think of that best illustrates this issue would have to be Asheron's Call - Everyone has a list of skills they can attempt to do, but some that you have to specifically say "I wanna do that", but you can specialize and list skills as "focus skills" that you get more points in and can learn faster. Keeping this in mind, there are skills for 'jump' and 'run', so I bet you know where I'm going with this. City of Heroes originally was going to be a bit like that, where they'd allow you to choose any power sets you want. Later on this changed and the different archetypes were formed, and when you look at it from that light it's obvious why they did it.
Testing is easier to do when there are fewer variables anyway, so having classes is the easiest way to do that. Lots of players like doing weird @#*$ and prefer the maximum amount of freedom. In my mind, a mixture of both is the best way to go, whether it be the 'class plus spec lines' thought behind Dark Age of Camelot and World of Warcraft or the 'here are some skills, knock yourself out' thought behind Ultima Online and Asheron's Call. If I designed a game (and at some point, I'd like to) I would go with something like the AD&D 3rd Edition "classes plus prestige classes" idea or the Warhammer "Here's my career, after I learn these traits and get this stuff I can go to another branching career" or perhaps a mix. I like the idea of being able to maneuver to a 'special' class, as that's something I haven't seen successfully done (granted Shadowbane did try).
06/01/2006 (3:08 pm)
Developing a system for a single-player (or even multi-player but non-MMO) isn't that bad - you go with what the world expects of you. Are there schools for combat/magic, or do they pick it up as they go? Are there some skills/spells/attributes that are only attainable through a specific lifestyle/decision? The game can easily be played and handled either way as long as the story and game itself allows for it.MMOs are a different breed altogether. The bottom line with these involves the Wizard's First Rule. If you give the players a choice, there will always be a number of them that will do the absolute most bone-headed thing you can possibly think of, and it will be All Your Fault
Testing is easier to do when there are fewer variables anyway, so having classes is the easiest way to do that. Lots of players like doing weird @#*$ and prefer the maximum amount of freedom. In my mind, a mixture of both is the best way to go, whether it be the 'class plus spec lines' thought behind Dark Age of Camelot and World of Warcraft or the 'here are some skills, knock yourself out' thought behind Ultima Online and Asheron's Call. If I designed a game (and at some point, I'd like to) I would go with something like the AD&D 3rd Edition "classes plus prestige classes" idea or the Warhammer "Here's my career, after I learn these traits and get this stuff I can go to another branching career" or perhaps a mix. I like the idea of being able to maneuver to a 'special' class, as that's something I haven't seen successfully done (granted Shadowbane did try).
Torque Owner Jason Farmer
Strict Role playing systems where you choose a class and your options are limited from that point on can be dones quite well.. Neverwinter Nights had a good example of this. I chose a Fighter, but also had some Ranger elements. Once I'd specialised so much, I couldn't change to something else, but at least I had the choice to start with. So my Fighter, Ranger was born. Good in scraps and good with locks but can't use Magic beyond wands.
Other games where the world is more open ended may suffer from such a rigid structure. The world is open ended so why isn't their character. Some people don't like being told that they Can't do something. Most MMORPG's fall into this category. They're mostly skill based where everyone stuggles to be as generic as everyone else, usually opting for some minor specialisation.