Class Based vs Skill Based Character Syetems

[Azael]

Tough call really. I'd say that both systems have their merits and drawbacks. Classbased system as they are done in D&D suck, simply because the way they're constructed with tons of classes and prestige classes pretty much encourage players to multiclass which I believe defeats the point of classes in the first place.

My preference would be a system where a class is treated as a background for your character, what you've been doing with your life before you decided (or were pushed) into an adventuring life, the accumulated knowledge and experience you've gathered so far. Each class should represent an archetype that's fitting in the game world and you should be able to customize your class with different traits as well as choosing areas where you've focused your training so that two level one fighters aren't automatically the same. As you advance, you don't gain levels as a fighter, nor can you suddenly decide to become a wizard or scholar. Advancement would be skill and perk based, but what skills and perks are available and how easy it is for you to learn them depends on your class, just as your starting attributes is also influenced by your choice.

Basically, a system that isn't as free form as a purely skill based one, nor as restrictive as most class based ones.

 

[Lord Rocket]

Where exactly is this implied, and in what form? I've yet to see anything remotely similar in any rpg type, and almost anything remotely similar in any other form of media.

My point is that a vampire has very specific rules he must follow that are more than just simple modifiers on existing gameplay. A vampire would act completely differently than any other type of character both in terms of social interaction, lifestyle, and combat. Yes, this could be represented in a form of a "character trait" or something apart from the list of skills. But, really, that's just another name for a character class, isn't it?

Dear numbskull,

The AD&D 1e Player's Handbook came out in 1978, and pretty much did away with the 'race as class' thing forever. Pretty much only GURPS and Hero, in terms of skill based systems, requires players to 'construct' their PC's races. Things like BRP/Runequest and even the WoD/nWoD have quite happily demonstrated that race and species can be separated from skills without impinging the 'purity' of the system.

Also, as for the bolded stuff, why? The vampire gets a bonus to persuasion rolls when one on one due to hypno vision and may be faster or stronger than your typical human. Conversely, they are easily noticed in sunlight due to the diamond-y sparkling. In what way does that require a 'character class?'

Yours,

Lord Rocket

 

[Don]

Class + Skills + Perks + Race. ToME has the coolest character creation ever. Or it would if it were fleshed out and balanced a bit more. The basic framework is gold though. Classes determine learning rates for various skills, which are modified by stats and race and class flat bonuses as well. Special abilities like extra attacks per round, treewalking, and turning into a friggin lich when you die can be purchased for various sums of skill points as well, if you meet the skill requirements. Most classes also get a slew of free abilities like this; warriors start with extra max number of hits/round for example, while elves start with the walk through trees ability. But anyone can purchase them with the right skills. To top it all off, you can find a guy who teaches you random skills you may or may not have access to as that class normally. He's an optional feature and you can increase your chances of encountering him but it makes the lategame a lot more dangerous and a pita.

ToME?

 

[Damned Registrations]

A roguelike. Screenshots. Check the skills screen and character sheet. Also includes choice of deity, which has a major impact on the game. Gender, height and weight don't do anything, and social standing determines your random generated background (which you can just rewrite yourself) and starting gold to some extent. Pretty much everything else fulfills a role in the game. Screenshots also don't show the abilities screen, which is a lot like the skills screen but has prices and requisites listed instead of values.

The biggest problem I have with ToME is the loot table being so bloated. You literally get dozens of completely worthless item drops for every potentially useful item, and hundreds for every one you'll actually equip. And you have to identify them all if you want to find the random gems. There are ways around this like setting up a good automatizer (Built in loot collecting/destroying bot) or just ignoring most drops and only picking up guaranteed items and looking through the loot of bosses that have much higher chances of dropping good stuff. But even that can be a pain, as bosses often have giant escorts, and by the time you can stop and look through the loot the boss' drops are mixed in with those of his 30 underlings.

 

[FeelTheRads]

in the end, the freely developed characters always end up the same, unless the player has a LARPing disease.

So let me get this straight... if I don't always play with the same character, same skills and everything (say a mage in Arcanum) it makes me a LARPer.

I suppose all RPGs should have just one uber-character then with which to own everything, because hey... why try different if weaker ones... it would only be LARPing.

The way you and some here talk about RPGs it would seem the recent ones, like The Witcher and so on would be just perfect if they'd also have a tactical combat system.

Interesting.

 

[Rorschach]

So let me get this straight... if I don't always play with the same character, same skills and everything (say a mage in Arcanum) it makes me a LARPer.

I suppose all RPGs should have just one uber-character then with which to own everything, because hey... why try different if weaker ones... it would only be LARPing.

The way you and some here talk about RPGs it would seem the recent ones, like The Witcher and so on would be just perfect if they'd also have a tactical combat system.

Interesting.

How many gambling rapairmen who have a knack for the outdoors do you see in Fallout?

None, except for the faggot LARPers.

In a skill based system, unless you can become a jack of all trades without grinding for the next century, most (smart) people are always going to end up in a certain specific class. That class is going to be made up of all the usefull skills that have decent synergies. So if you want to kill shit you'll have the killing shit skills, if you want to persuade shit you'll have the persuading shit skills, and if you want to magic shit you'll have the magic-ing shit skills. And as I said before unless you can be a magic-ing, killing, persuading machine (and at that point what is the fucking point?) you're going to fall into a class anyway and the only way to avoid that is to purposfully gimp your character.

And when you gimp your character for no fucking point other than to make him more 'realistic' then your a fucking LARPer.

 

[mondblut]

So let me get this straight... if I don't always play with the same character, same skills and everything (say a mage in Arcanum) it makes me a LARPer.

When the system allows for some superior build among inferior ones (and they typically do), opting for inferior due to superficial "roleplaying" considerations IS larping at its purest.

You know, eschewing powerful twohanded swords in favor of shitty daggers (which offer none of the realworld virtues of this weapon and just suck at damage) because of "i play a charming rogue of great finesse, and that huge sword looks ugly with my new shoes" bullshit.

 

[FeelTheRads]

How many gambling rapairmen who have a knack for the outdoors do you see in Fallout?

If the game would be completable with such a character, WITHOUT using any exploits, I don't see the problem. But obviously I wasn't talking about this.

You know, eschewing powerful twohanded swords in favor of shitty daggers (which offer none of the realworld virtues of this weapon and just suck at damage) because of "i play a charming rogue of great finesse, and that huge sword looks ugly with my new shoes" bullshit.

Why do you think everybody who plays different types of characters also imagines little stories for them? If I play a melee character in Fallout for example, which is obviously inferior to a fire-arms expert one, I'm not imagining I'm some descendant of Bruce Lee or what have you. It's simply trying different types of characters to see how they work.
Because, if I ALWAYS play the same bestest character... "what is the fucking point?"

eschewing powerful twohanded swords in favor of shitty daggers

And also that's fucking stupid. Even in a skill-based system, if you're going for rogue skills you most likely couldn't use twohanded swords anyway because you wouldn't meet the requirements. It would not be a matter of "oh, my rogue would never use a huge sword because he's like so delicate"

But then... everybody should play the awesome dual-wielding barbarian and own everything, right?

I don't know, for me this is what RPGs are... different builds, some weak, some strong and doing your best to work with them.
There is no point if all characters are the same. You might as well be playing The Witcher.

 

[Krash]

My preference would be a system where a class is treated as a background for your character, what you've been doing with your life before you decided (or were pushed) into an adventuring life, the accumulated knowledge and experience you've gathered so far. Each class should represent an archetype that's fitting in the game world and you should be able to customize your class with different traits as well as choosing areas where you've focused your training so that two level one fighters aren't automatically the same. As you advance, you don't gain levels as a fighter, nor can you suddenly decide to become a wizard or scholar. Advancement would be skill and perk based, but what skills and perks are available and how easy it is for you to learn them depends on your class, just as your starting attributes is also influenced by your choice.

Basically, a system that isn't as free form as a purely skill based one, nor as restrictive as most class based ones.

You must be a mind reader, or just have great taste

I'm working on a pnp rpg for shits and giggles in my free time, and you've pretty much nailed exactly how it work. Even most of the names you use for things, such as archetype, show up.

 

[Hory]

So let me get this straight... if I don't always play with the same character, same skills and everything (say a mage in Arcanum) it makes me a LARPer.

For mondblut, there's no such thing as "personal taste". All his decisions are derived from the superiority of numbers. His barbarian PC would gladly wear high heels if it gave him a 0.01 stat advantage. Mondblut doesn't "choose" character types, he just tries to determine what developers chose to be the most powerful path (intentionally or unintentionally) and go with that. He's obsessed with practical considerations but doesn't consider that his obsession is impractical. Most RPGs can be finished with even with a 25% decrease in stats / efficiency / items. His compulsive perfectionism just makes the game easier, perhaps too easy to be fun, not to mention the time lost for a unneeded task. Or, perhaps, this is what he takes pleasure in - overcoming weak and unintelligent foes. Perhaps the computer is the only source of power in his life. Could we blame him? Sure, anyone with half a brain in his head can finish a RPG without having to powergame - which is what makes powergaming retarded. And we can have fun doing it the way we like, in the process. If I think that hammers are cool, I'll pick them over a more efficient but faggy sword - but to mondblut this too is LARPing. At times, he wishes he could go on a different path, try something new, for once, but he always succumbs to the tyranny of efficiency. When you ever think you're going through hard times, consider what this unfortunate soul, mondblut, has to go through even when he's just trying to play a game.

 

[Wyrmlord]

The idea behind a strictly class-based system would be that you make one decision and commit to it till the end of the game.

Not fun, even in the old Might And Magics (which I do enjoy), and that was why it was a good decision in MM6 to put the focus more on the broad range of skills you train.

Of course, even with a skill-based system, I have a preferences.

I like use-based systems over point-buy systems in RPGs with skills. Point buy is the most rudimentary and basic form of skill progression. You have a set of free skill points, and it successively costs more to increase a single skill. So it comes to down to a very basic decision of focusing on one skill, or spreading between many.

That's a bad dichotomy. And it also means there is a limited number of points with a limited number of ways to be alloted. Nah, the real fun is in the use-based system, where you can be equally powerful in a wide range of skills provided you make the extra effort in training with them.

Use-based system means that your character adapts to how you play the game. Instead of you adapting to how your character already is. Like Daggerfall, where coming into contact with alot of imps slowly makes you more prone to understanding them, hence improving your Impish skill.

 

[mondblut]

Most RPGs can be finished with even with a 25% decrease in stats / efficiency / items.

Hence the new industry rules that players of all ages and skill must be able to finish the game. Otherwise all that amazing storytelling would go to waste!

A confirmation of Castanova's statement. Hailing a difficulty decrease on the KKKodeks, that's novel. But, as noted, unescapable for storyfags.

Me so inteligunt me loves cliks links in fantasy on compuhter

Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Mondblut, maybe he did not mean to refer to difficulty so much as settling for less. Supposedly that even harder games can be finished with a rusty spoon, provide you wanted to.

Of course, I have never been a man for self-imposed difficulty. I find that it can be a little unsatisfactory, although no more unsatisfactory than having an overkill amount of high level equipment.

Bleh, a game would need an adequate mechanics to support such elements. If you choose to leave your monk unequipped with weapons and armour, he should get appropriate bonuses in speed, attack, and defense for it. And maybe also give him high rep with certain factions for it. Self-imposed difficulty does need to be given incentive by the game itself and bring some rewards, possibly later in the long run.

Of course, whether you feel a monk should be unequipped for being in line with his character as monk is a whole different matter, but atleast support those things within the game itself.

 

[Hory]

A confirmation of Castanova's statement. Hailing a difficulty decrease on the KKKodeks, that's novel. But, as noted, unescapable for storyfags.

I think you misunderstood. What I'm saying is that even if you played 25% less effectively, you'd still finish the game. And since you crawlers are so fixated on "beating" the game, rather than getting something more meaningful out of the experience of playing it, the additional effort you put into it seems wasted to me. I didn't say that games should be easier, I said they ARE too easy, including dungeon crawlers.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Any game is "too easy" for a determined player with all the time and effort for it, and complete knowledge of the mechanics.

But the thing is that's what games are about anyway.

 

[Hory]

But the thing is that's what games are about anyway.

But it's silly to play a game just for the challenge when it's not really challenging. Yes, very few single-player games are, but at least other genres offer something extra.