Classes or classless, which system is better in RPGs?

[mondblut]

Classless is more delightfully exploitable, but any classless can do with classes in form of predesigned archetype combos (Thunderscape, TES starting with Daggerfall).

 

[Glop_dweller]

That's why you create a system where specialization is not only incentivized but almost mandatory for success.

That kind of system invariably creates homogeneous PCs. That's the kind of system Elderscrolls uses.

This won't be a problem as long as there are appropriate trade-offs in place. Perhaps this Barbarian Mage is less skilled than his other Barbarian tribe-mates due to the time he spent reading and learning versus training, and he is similarily less skilled at casting Magic and learning complex spells then a full-time mage would be due to his split priorities.

Where would a barbarian get the books; or learn to read at home? Why would he (or indeed she) even do this, and ostracize themselves from their social group——and yet remain living there. If they moved to a city (or dark tower) for an education in the occult... how would they remain a barbarian?
(Why would they be allowed to? What teacher would permit that in their home? ——And why would the PC even want to?)

The argument doesn't hinge on the barbarian, it's just an example. Sure, there can be a game with a Barbarian Mage class... one has to [really should] concede that it's an unusual vocational choice, and damned peculiar for a veteran barbarian to elect to become an apprentice spell caster—and even more so for case of the reverse. What wizard would join a tribe of screaming berserks—what tribe would trust and accept him?

When you roleplay such a character——well seriously what cRPG does anyone know of that could support roleplaying a personality like that; outside of just treating the PC as a generic protagonist with bolt-on optional talents?

The example in film of this kind of PC is Lord Greystoke: Tarzan. That is a complex character for a cRPG, and I don't know of any cRPG
that could handle him with any depth.

When you look at Underrail and Age of Decadence, games that balance this "classless" system to near perfection, I find it hard to compare any class-based system to the level of simultaneous specialization and utility that is allowed. All of your arguments are situational, and dependant on a system that manages to get everything wrong.

The usual problem with classless systems is that the PC has no formal education, and has the [unbelievable] option to continually improve their skills during the game.

In Fallout's case... the PC is classless, but the education is vague and abstract. The PC is a pinch-hitter who knows a little bit of everything, but is not a professional at anything—and not quite a Jack-Of-All-Trades; with the exception being the Doctor skill... having that skill developed actually makes them a doctor in the game, and they are treated as such by knowledgeable NPCs.

 

[J1M]

Classes create better choices. I also enjoy games that allow for multi-classing when it introduces interesting choices. Final Fantasy XI and the subjob system is probably the best example of sub-jobs done well.

"Classless" systems, especially ones that don't involve party customization, lead to characters with really similar capabilities. Usually some form of melee attack, some form of ranged attack, and some form of healing.

 

[luj1]

Classless

Why isn't this a poll you potato

 

[Glop_dweller]

A poll would only show the ratio of roleplayers to empowerment fantasists here on the forum.

—Perhaps that could be useful; but it won't answer the question of the topic.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

Best: Classless combined with stat/skill investments that matter tremendously.
Runner up: Good class system with lots of multiclassing.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

For party-based RPGs - classes. For single character RPGs - classless.

Great observation, I never thought of it like that, but it's exactly how I prefer it. I guess with single-protagonist we just want freedom above all, while with party-based it's preferable to have some structure to contain all the chaos.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

You faggots insisting Class > Classless should play stuff like Underrail, AoD, Arcanum and Dark Souls.

Ultimately it depends on competence of the dev team though.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

I liked class a lot in games like Morrowind and Oblivion. It seems to work well when there are a huge amount of skills and classes to differentiate those skills.

I appreciate a good classless system too. Depends on the game's ruleset imo.

 

[Shinji]

For party-based RPGs - classes. For single character RPGs - classless.

Agree

For single player games usually what matters most is player skill rather than character skill, so it makes sense to make it classless.
For party-based you can balance things out with other characters (unless you create a party of a single class, but that's your problem if you risk doing that)

 

[Sinatar]

Single character: Classless
Party based: Classes

With a single character you want to be able to focus on whatever you need, you usually need to diversify a fair bit. With a party, each party member is a tool and should have a specific purpose.

 

[Sigourn]

When I play class-based RPGs I get a sense of comfort and enjoyment I don't get from classless RPGs. It makes me feel like I truly am a "thief", or a "fighter", or a "mage", as opposed to someone who decided to train those skills but aren't any different from another character who may raise those skills in the future. So I vote "classes".

 

[Alienman]

Classless for more simulation-esque games, where you pick something up and learn from use. Though, I do like some restrictions in this, like if you are dumb as a brick you might not have the aptitude for magic. But I guess you could get your INT up by reading a lot of books

Otherwise I prefer classes in RPGs... gives a more distinct feeling to each character instead of everyone can learn everything, aka Original Sin games.

 

[Strange Fellow]

This post is so BALANCED even the buttons are BALANCED.
Congrats Yosharian for knowing the teachings of Zerthimon.

 

[Grauken]

I tipped the hand of fate

 

[Strange Fellow]

I tipped the hand of fate

Nice try, but your feeble chaotic alignment is no match for

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

I hate classless games that still include classes.

 

[Diggfinger]

Classless, no about.


Although Dark Souls and Pillars are awesome as well (lots of freedom).

 

[Dodo1610]

Both systems can be good though I prefer the freedom a classless system offers.

 

[mondblut]

You faggots insisting Class > Classless should play stuff like Underrail, AoD, Arcanum and Dark Souls.

Arcanum is literally a poster boy why classless sucks. Its character system is plain retarded.

 

[Reinhardt]

Classes>Classless

Classless > Classes

yes

 

[JarlFrank]

Classless > Classes

Specifically why? More specifically... Why is is better for role playing—as opposed to digital cosplaying?

See... a class is what the character has aspired to be, trained to be—this is what they spent their life doing before the game begins.

This is also why they not only have little to no experience with skills outside their purview, but they are also biased against them. A wizard would scoff at having studied all their life to cast spells, only to resort to beating something on the head with a club—ie it's as insulting to them as for a warrior resorting to magic tricks instead of one on one combat.

Also: The real [under the hood] reason is that mechanically each class needs a set of exclusive abilities—or there is no incentive not to play the spellcaster. Why would anyone choose to play Conan when they could choose to play a Barbarian mage who is Conan plus lightning & fireballs. The solution is that you cannot train to do both.

A big [really big] deal in the concept of roleplaying, is to play the limitations of the role—what would Conan do; what would [THE] Gandalf do... and how would that be handling things differently?

When you have a classless system where the PC can elect to learn anything... that devalues what they have already learned—and anything they can learn. This is who they are...and yet in a classless system, a master thief who spent years becoming a cat burglar/ pickpocket, can on the whim decide to learn spell casting, and within minutes be able to turn invisible, or cast a charm on their mark—who then just hands over the money.

In period settings [and fantasy] skill knowledge is a guarded secret, to have learned at it all, is a treasure all its own, and one likely to be withheld from outsiders. So it makes the perpetual multi-classer a bit lacking in credibility. Why is it worth the teacher's time to bother with someone so indecisive, and who might abandon the craft for some other profession—or worse... reveal its secrets.

A classless system is typically better for the ego-players, rather than the roleplayers.

At the OP: The witcher IS a class, and Arcanum has discipline based detriments in place so that one cannot become a master of both technology and magic, and hurts both disciplines for trying. Shadowrun does the same thing... The more cybernetics the PC gets, the less and less essence they retain for spell casting.

But can the player really learn anything in a classless system?

Can the player become proficient at everything in Fallout? In Arcanum? No, definitely not.
In Fallout, tagged skills are much easier to increase than non-tagged ones so the player character will be a specialist in those by default. Also, the SPECIAL stats are quite important in determining what the character will be good at overall, and they can't be increased later on, so you have to pick them based on what kind of character build you wanna go for.

In Arcanum, the level cap is 50 and you only get 1 skill point per level up (2 every 5th level), and that 1 point can be invested into anything. Skills, stats, health, fatigue, techological schematics, magic spells. You don't nearly get enough skill points to be a master of everything. Heck, you don't even get enough points to completely max out all the different spell schools, so even if you paly a wizard you have to specialize on three schools or so. Furthermore, magic and technology are inherently incompatible. If you become a great wizard, technological implements will constantly fail around you. If you become a great technologist, magic spells won't have an effect on you.

And yet, you can try to go for unorthodox character types. Dwarves in Arcanum have a natural technological aptitude, making them shit-tier mages, yet there is one NPC who can even become a player companion who's a dwarven wizard, because he's a dwarf who felt like he wanted to be a wizard. In a more rigid class-based system, such unorthodox characters would not be possible. In a classless system, they are.

Classless systems are better for roleplaying because they don't artificially restrict the roles a character can play. The player can play an elven wizard who becomes disillusioned with magic and decides to become a techie halfway through the game in Arcanum. It will be a shitty, botched, barely playable character, but it is possible.

Classless systems only restrict the player in natural, inherently systemic ways. Is there a level cap in the game? If yes, there is a limited amount of skill points, so no character can ever become a master of all trades and specialisation pays off. Is there a system where base stats can't be raised after character creation, like Fallout and Age of Decadence have? If yes, it means that specializing on the skills that fit well with your base stats is a much more effective way of spending skill points than trying to become a jack of all trades.

 

[Reinhardt]

Just remove "magic" and you don't need classes.

 

[mondblut]

You don't nearly get enough skill points to be a master of everything. Heck, you don't even get enough points to completely max out all the different spell schools, so even if you paly a wizard you have to specialize on three schools or so.

A wizard should also be dumb as a brick to maximize his spellcasting knowledge

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I liked class a lot in games like Morrowind and Oblivion. It seems to work well when there are a huge amount of skills and classes to differentiate those skills.

Arena is the only Elder Scrolls game with a class-based system; starting with Daggerfall, the player can choose any combination of skills and other abilities for his character, with a list of "classes" present only to serve as presets for players too lazy to customize their characters.


As to the question posed by this thread:

Class-based character customization works well for party-based games, where the player can decide which combinations of archetypes he wants to use to formulate his party. Less so for games with a single player-character where choosing one archetype means constraining yourself to a certain set of abilities and excluding everything else.

Skill-based character customization works well for games with a single player-character, where the player can fine-tune his PC's skill selection to determine exactly what he is and is not proficient at doing. Less so for party-based games, where the party collectively will be proficient at almost everything.

Class-based character customization was established in Dungeons & Dragons for character archetypes derived from fantasy literature and works well in fantasy settings where the classes correspond to archetypes that make sense for the setting and its inspirations. Less so for science-fiction settings, where the inspirational literature generally lacks clearly-defined archetypes in terms of character ability.

Skill-based character customization corresponds to characterization in science-fiction literature where individuals have knowledge of specific areas and have aptitude at specific tasks due to their prior education and training, and thus works well in science-fiction settings where the skills available make sense for the setting and its inspirations. Less so for fantasy settings, where the inspirational literature rarely includes characters with a disparate set of discrete skills (rather than more general ability to fight, use magic, etc.).