Epiphany about the nature of RPGs

[Jason Liang]

So tell me exactly how a classless system can't provide for a role?

Character class is a specific gaming concept that shorthands the creation of a role. Think of it like gaming design technology. Class isn't the same as a character's profession. It's a shorthand definition of a character's primary relationship to the game's story, world and gameplay.

While it's true that you can use other character systems to create roles, such as race, alignment, gender, reputation and age, modern games also have moved away from those systems as well. Wasteland 2 doesn't have an alignment system and it doesn't have any sort of developed race or gender system as well. Yes, you can customize your character's race, gender and age in these games, but the game doesn't do anything meaningful with them and the world doesn't react to these things in a meaningful or naturalistic way. It's all just cosmetic.

So when you have a classless system, along with no alignment system, and no race system, the only thing that really individualizes characters are skills and equipment. But as I explained in the premise, using the skill system for role is fundamentally flawed design.

 

[Jason Liang]

Actually it does. Character creation and customization vis selection of feats and skills is generally considered a core feature of RPGs.

Wrong. That's the design mistake made by D&D 3E. It's a flaw, not a feature, and it fundamentally contradicts the premise of RPGs.

I see your problem now. You are trying to define a good RPG as a game that does things like BG/2.

Sure, BG2: EE does a lot of things great. It's one of the epitomes of computer role-playing experiences. I think we are all still learning from meditating on what BG2: EE achieved compared to where Pillars failed miserably to achieve.

I suggest playing table tops as a medicine.

You have to be more specific. The whole point is about how 3.x is a fundamentally flawed system. And 4E... lolz. 4E design philosophy is how we ended up with shit like Pillars.

 

[Sigourn]

Being a priest, a carpenter, a lawyer or a doctor defines how other people treat you. That's a class-based system. Knowing a lot about religion, about making wood, about laws or medicine doesn't define how other people treat you. It's just things that you know about. That's a skill-based system, and doesn't define how people treat you.

In the former scenario, you will be "Peter, the doctor" and will be treated as such. In the latter scenario, you will be "Peter, the guy that knows different stuff", which may as well mean "Peter, the guy" because none of them amount to anything. Is this what you are trying to say, Jason Liang ?

If so, I agree with you.

 

[Alkarl]

Your entire argument seemingly highlights one of my biggest gripes with AD&D/2ed in that after you pick your class, you're basically done making your character. A fighter will only ever have as much utility as a fighter will ever have and etc for each class. If you ever get in a bind, then gain a level or two until you access your next PIP or APR or more thief skill points or spell level for priest/mage. That is why it is more fun to roll a kensage or berkmage, you get more utility and, seemingly, character growth.

Not that I'm saying Pillars is particularly good or that I hate BG/2. I think you are just misrepresenting an otherwise shallow gaming experience.

 

[vivec]

Wrong. That's the design mistake made by D&D 3E. It's a flaw, not a feature, and it fundamentally contradicts the premise of RPGs.

Its wrong because you say so and yeah because 2E is so popular wrt 3E right?

Sure, BG2: EE does a lot of things great. It's one of the epitomes of computer role-playing experiences. I think we are all still learning from meditating on what BG2: EE achieved compared to where Pillars failed miserably to achieve.

BG2's only greatness is content and the spell system, latter of which is the one of two saving graces of D&D; the other being monsters. The rest of BG2 is mediocre at best.

The whole point is about how 3.x is a fundamentally flawed system. And 4E... lolz. 4E design philosophy is how we ended up with shit like Pillars.

So I assume you never played table tops and if you did nothing but D&D?


Let me explain why the class system is the *same at best* and mostly inferior as a feat based tree system,. What is a class? Its a class feature and skills tied to it. By taking a class in D&D you basically become the archetype of that role. A fighter can do little other than "fight", the wizard can do little other than cast spells (not really true because of how spells work, but that is beside the point). There are some badly designed but fun classes such as Druids and Clerics that do everything. But that's D&D. A classless system would rather build upon the idea of being proficient. Like having the healing skill at rank 1, for example, would allow you to perform CPR and having it at rank 4 would allow you to do surgeries. Since you'd have *limited* resources as you play the game you would have to choose which role you want to play. Do you become a dedicated healer? Or you pick up basic bandaging and invest into warfare instead? This will give you more flexibility which is reminiscent of the multiclass system. This is essentially stripping the class features of the D&D and giving them instead to everyone but at a resource cost. It generates more diversity in the builds and provides an access to create hybrid playstyles that are more representative of what the player really has in mind for a role, making the class system less appealing.

 

[Jason Liang]

Being a priest, a carpenter, a lawyer or a doctor defines how other people treat you. That's a class-based system. Knowing a lot about religion, about making wood, about laws or medicine doesn't define how other people treat you. It's just things that you know about. That's a skill-based system, and doesn't define how people treat you.

In the former scenario, you will be "Peter, the doctor" and will be treated as such. In the latter scenario, you will be "Peter, the guy that knows different stuff", which may as well mean "Peter, the guy" because none of them amount to anything. Is this what you are trying to say, Jason Liang ?

If so, I agree with you.

I mean, I agree with that and you're making great points. But there's a fundamental difference between profession and class. Like, Jean Valjean is a thief, a rogue. That's his character, not his occupation. Yes, he broke into a bakery. But when he went to prison, his class didn't change from rogue class to prisoner class. He was still a thief. Later when he became a mayor, he didn't change into a Mayor class, he was still a thief. When in trouble, his first impulse was still to run away, hide and lie. That's the same with Don Draper. Draper was a soldier in the Korean War, but he was a rogue, not a fighter. Later when he became a car salesman, he acquired merchant skills like Bartering, but he was still a rogue. Later he becomes a partner at an advertising firm, but he is still a rogue, since that's his relationship to the story.

Think about it this way. One might think that in real life, we are classless, so it is more realistic for RPGs to be classless. But that thinking doesn't really understand the nature of class. What does class reflect from real life? Class in some ways encompasses both a character's background and his destiny. It's past, present and future all in one. It's the fundamental aspects of the character and the relationship of that character to story and world. A character changing their class isn't that person deciding to change summer jobs. Class change reflects a radical change in a person's life - perhaps a good example would be Walter White in Breaking Bad becoming Heisenberg. By the end of the story, he's left behind his old life and become a completely different person. But his original destiny was to die of cancer, and he changed since he wanted to change his destiny.

But also class isn't supposed to be a reflection of real life at all. It's a reflection of life represented in literature, folk lore, myth and history. Class in real life is who the person is in society, but class in an RPG is who the character is in a story.

 

[ga♥]

Pillars char creation/progression is boring and uninteresting.
It also made the "mage" pretty crap by design.
Let's hope in pathfinder: kingmaker, even though I don't have much faith.
Anyway, it is time to start calling it IWD:EE, Jason.

 

[AdolfSatan]

It encourages the player

That's the thing: it encourages, it doesn't force. You can assign the points as soon as you earn them if you want, and if for the sake of maintaining the idea of a class-oriented character, you oughta put them into a specific set of skills, nothing stops you. What are the possible outcomes? You will fail some skill checks. Big deal, work around them, you don't need to explicitly pass every single one to finish the game, neither is it obligatory to min-max attributes.

 

[Marquis de Lirium]

The classic and greatest RPGs - BG2: EE, PST: EE,

Oh for fuck's sake. Enough!

 

[vivec]

It encourages the player

That's the thing: it encourages, it doesn't force. You can assign the points as soon as you earn them if you want, and if for the sake of maintaining the idea of a class-oriented character, you oughta put them into a specific set of skills, nothing stops you. What are the possible outcomes? You will fail some skill checks. Big deal, work around them, you don't need to explicitly pass every single one to finish the game, neither is it obligatory to min-max attributes.

People forget the role-play part of the game when they play RPGs. A behaviour that is even more encouraged by cRPGs which due to their limited content and bad economy allow "max-maxing". AoD was a refreshing diversion from that and so was underrail. Blackguards is also my favorite in this regard. I like the Gothic/Risen character system where you *train* stuff. It is overdone (in the sense that you can't at all train yourself) but it is still excellent none the less.

 

[Jason Liang]

Wrong. That's the design mistake made by D&D 3E. It's a flaw, not a feature, and it fundamentally contradicts the premise of RPGs.

Its wrong because you say so and yeah because 2E is so popular wrt 3E right?

It's wrong because, if you understand what RPG class represents to the character, it's idiotic that characters can take any class they choose and switch classes willy nilly every level. So it's wrong on a theoretical level. But it's also wrong on a gut/ intuitive level. Yes, 3E rules are fun and cool. But when you go back and play the IE games (there, better?), instead of feeling that AD&D rules are outdated, you instead start to see the reasoning and design behind things that used to seem nonsensical about AD&D.

I know it's harder to see with D&D but let's use VtM as an example. Imagine both
a) Bloodlines using a VtM ruleset where, there are no clans. You just have a list of vampiric powers and you can choose whichever ones you want to make characters.
b) Bloodlines using a VtM ruleset where characters can switch clans willy nilly. "I'll start my character as a Tremere to learn Thaumaturgy and then switch to Gangrel to learn Protean!"

Both games would be inferior RPGs. Game b) might be fun and cool, and so might game a), but they would be much worse roleplaying experiences than the real Bloodlines.

BG2's only greatness is content and the spell system, latter of which is the one of two saving graces of D&D; the other being monsters. The rest of BG2 is mediocre at best.

I'm talking about things that make BG2 special like the class stronghold quests, compared to Pillars' generic stronghold which was terrible. Even Romances at least acknowledge your PC's gender. Or the way that your companions bantered with eachother, which DEPENDS on those characters being defined by their class, race, alignment and gender.

Let me explain why the class system is the *same at best* and mostly inferior as a feat based tree system,. What is a class? Its a class feature and skills tied to it.

Wrong. That's like saying an airplane is a large, expensive object made of titanium that has chairs, windows and wheels.

By taking a class in D&D you basically become the archetype of that role. A fighter can do little other than "fight", the wizard can do little other than cast spells (not really true because of how spells work, but that is beside the point). There are some badly designed but fun classes such as Druids and Clerics that do everything. But that's D&D. A classless system would rather build upon the idea of being proficient. Like having the healing skill at rank 1, for example, would allow you to perform CPR and having it at rank 4 would allow you to do surgeries. Since you'd have *limited* resources as you play the game you would have to choose which role you want to play. Do you become a dedicated healer? Or you pick up basic bandaging and invest into warfare instead? This will give you more flexibility which is reminiscent of the multiclass system. This is essentially stripping the class features of the D&D and giving them instead to everyone but at a resource cost. It generates more diversity in the builds and provides an access to create hybrid playstyles that are more representative of what the player really has in mind for a role, making the class system less appealing.

It's more fun but clearly you don't see why it is also a move away from the point of role-playing. Or that feeling you get when you play NWN, you've planned your awesome min-maxed character to level 40, and yet when you actually start to play the character it's no fun to play. The fun is increased in planning, customizing and creating the character, but it's been reduced in actually playing that character.

You might say that it's the player's own fault for min-maxing, but come on. Does anyone ever play NWN to level 40 as a Rogue? Or even level 20? Even the concept of "prestige classes" and "epic classes" encourage powergaming and clearly does not understand what character class is.

I'm not claiming AD&D was a perfect ruleset. Like I said, AD&D doesn't have a well-designed skill system, and games do need a skill system as they move away from tactical combat to open-world exploration and interaction, especially when those rules are being implemented in a computer game. But it's time to figure it out since skill systems are the gaping asshole of modern RPGs. I can list EVERY computer RPG that has a skill system and point out why it's retarded.

Wizardry 7 - the skill system encouraged players to abuse class-changing to max out skill points. Also, swimming training in Munkharma's dungeon...
Fallout 1/2 - "don't take x, y and z skills since there's magazines for those" but also imagine having to manage the character progression of a party of 6 under Fallout's system
NWN/ ToEE - Gah, my Paladin is going to start as a level 1 rogue for the extra skill points and to get Tumble as a class skill. Also - A LOCK! Gloves of lockpicking + Potion of Mastery Thievery + Bard song GO!
Bloodlines - even worse that Fallout 1/2 "take Brawl up to 3 so you can get free training to 4"
Age of Decadence - really the best example of a decent rpg that is nearly ruined by its terrible skill/ skill check system
Wasteland 2
Pillars - respec! respec! get your respec!

I could go on and on. These systems are all stupid and retarded, and it's time to stop making games saddled with them. Someone please design a skill system that isn't retarded. It's not that hard, and should have been done 15 years ago but WotC and BioWare fucked it up. Assigning skill points at level up is retarded, and straight skill checks or attribute+skill checks are also retarded.

 

[Cael]

I could go on and on. These systems are all stupid and retarded, and it's time to stop making games saddled with them. Someone please design a skill system that isn't retarded. It's not that hard, and should have been done 15 years ago but WotC and BioWare fucked it up. Assigning skill points at level up is retarded, and straight skill checks or attribute+skill checks are also retarded.

It sounds like a Morrowind/Quest for Glory style skill increase would be right up your alley...

 

[Jason Liang]

I have my own ideas about how to design and implement a skill system but so far no game has implemented them yet.

It's obviously not a completely simple issue, since for example you have to design the skill system around the magic system. Why would a character invest in stealth when a wizard can cast invisibility or drink a potion of invisibility? Why invest in disarm traps when clerics can cast Find Traps? Why invest in Lockpicking when a wizard can cast knock? Why invest in Lore when a wizard can cast Identify? How do you make skills useful in a world with magic?

Or even more basic... hey, Swimming sounds like a good skill to implement! Cool. So what happens when you fail a Swimming check? Uh... fuck. Riding sounds cool! So what happens if 5 characters have Riding, and one does not? Uh... fuck.

 

[Cael]

I have my own ideas about how to design and implement a skill system but so far no game has implemented them yet.

It's obviously not a completely simple issue, since for example you have to design the skill system around the magic system. Why would a character invest in stealth when a wizard can cast invisibility or drink a potion of invisibility? Why invest in disarm traps when clerics can cast Find Traps? Why invest in Lockpicking when a wizard can cast knock? Why invest in Lore when a wizard can cast Identify? How do you make skills useful in a world with magic?

Or even more basic... hey, Swimming sounds like a good skill to implement! Cool. So what happens when you fail a Swimming check? Uh... fuck. Riding sounds cool! So what happens if 5 characters have Riding, and one does not? Uh... fuck.

Well,

1. Invisibility only cloaks sight. They can still hear you. That is what stealth is for. Plus, it only lasts 1 minute/level, which is peanuts for a stealth mission. Stealth is forever if you keep making the opposed roll.

2. Find Traps don't disarm them, or rather, it is not supposed to. That is a NWN add-on. Second, that is a spell slot you can use for something else, which means you don't want to cast it willy-nilly everywhere. In fact, Find Traps is damned stupid spell to have memorised in a game where you have no clue where the traps are. Doubly so when someone else can do it for free.

3. Knock doesn't work on all locks, but it does work on things that lockpicking can't open (e.g., bolted doors). Still, you are using a spell slot for a one time thing that someone with the skill can do for practically free. Is it an efficient use of a spell slot when you are the only wizard in the party?

4. Lore, again, is free. Identify is 100gp per cast, plus the spell slot.

Everything you have listed is INFERIOR to the skill version. That is as it should be. Yes, the casters can do the same role, but at a vastly reduced efficiency AND at a far greater opportunity cost. Spell slots are a very limited resource, especially at lower levels, and should not be used for things that other people can do better. This is where most OMFGHAXXOR screams about casters are wrong. They assume level 20 casters with their casting stat in the 30s that have unlimited spell slots and are ready to cast any spell in their repertoire on demand. Patent BS stuff.

Casters are the ultimate class in many ways, but only so long as their spell slots/mana hold out, and THAT is a limited resource that should be highlighted, not swept under the carpet like in NWN or any cRPG other than Realms of Arkania. Every single spell a caster casts has an opportunity cost in that they cannot use that spell slot to do anything else. In the meantime, the fighter can swing his sword and the rogue can picklocks until the cows come home with no reduction in effeciency or the ability to do other things. And if you are playing a game that has you picking and choosing your spells in advance (e.g., Vancian system or skill trees like Diablo or skill point investment like RoA), good luck to you if you need some other spell at that point in time.

 

[Raghar]

I mean, I agree with that and you're making great points. But there's a fundamental difference between profession and class. Like, Jean Valjean is a thief, a rogue. That's his character, not his occupation. Yes, he broke into a bakery. But when he went to prison, his class didn't change from rogue class to prisoner class. He was still a thief. Later when he became a mayor, he didn't change into a Mayor class, he was still a thief. When in trouble, his first impulse was still to run away, hide and lie. That's the same with Don Draper. Draper was a soldier in the Korean War, but he was a rogue, not a fighter. Later when he became a car salesman, he acquired merchant skills like Bartering, but he was still a rogue. Later he becomes a partner at an advertising firm, but he is still a rogue, since that's his relationship to the story.
But also class isn't supposed to be a reflection of real life at all. It's a reflection of life represented in literature, folk lore, myth and history. Class in real life is who the person is in society, but class in an RPG is who the character is in a story.

You are mistaking classes with backgrounds. For example in famous book about Krym, an ex-warrior retired to become a smith.That's perfectly understandable, in fact he become fat and his skill was shit.

Now of course class bound system like DnD doesn't well represent real life. What would happen when someone would start to learn magic? Starts as warrior and persevere until he learns a basics. In Drakensang a Battle mage is a starting class. A mage that casts fortify body, and is not wimp to use two handed sword.

But of course this's bit bad example, a classless system would also require proper attribute system to suggest which activity is easiest for a person, which Drakensang kinda has, and it need to have sufficiently detailed skill system, and talents. When classless system has talents, each character mainly do what it has talent, and when they are not completely stupid, they learn cross class skills just in case they'd become separated.

 

[Raghar]

I'm a Californian stuck in the middle of China in a snowstorm. I have no fucking clue what to do. My door and windows are iced shut, I can't even leave my house. At least I have the toilet as a water supply.

In what town?

Also you should play this:

Lot of snow in this game. You know a hint in this game is you shouldn't allow roof fall on you from too much snow. You should dig yourself up and remove snow from roof. Aside of that, rule n. 1 in China is to have healthy edible food for 3 days. (and water) But if you are Chinese origin, you probably will not get Diarrhea, that happens only to white people.

 

[Jason Liang]

I'm a Californian stuck in the middle of China in a snowstorm. I have no fucking clue what to do. My door and windows are iced shut, I can't even leave my house. At least I have the toilet as a water supply.

In what town?

Also you should play this:

Lot of snow in this game. You know a hint in this game is you shouldn't allow roof fall on you from too much snow. You should dig yourself up and remove snow from roof. Aside of that, rule n. 1 in China is to have healthy edible food for 3 days. (and water) But if you are Chinese origin, you probably will not get Diarrhea, that happens only to white people.

I'm in Wuhan, Hebei. But I'm ok now. The sun showed up yesterday and I finally forced my door open. My washer's fucked up since it's outside on the balcony but otherwise I'm ok. I don't have to wash my strawberries in the toilet anymore.

 

[Azarkon]

Whether you agree with Jason Liang's conclusions, he is spot on about the degree to which combat abilities dictate the modern CRPG definition of what a character represents. In modern CRPGs, you are not a Warrior, Priest, or Wizard. You are a guy who knows how to Leap Attack, Whirl Wind, and Cleave; or you are a guy who knows how to Mass Heal, Protection Against Poison, Prayer of Defense; or you are a guy who knows how to Fireball, Ice Lance, Meteor Storm. Classes don't determine who your character is, they determine what abilities he has. The system becomes even more confused when multi-classing - or taking abilities from outside of your primary combat specialization - is allowed. Then you have a guy who can Mass Heal, Leap Attack, AND Fireball - and that's supposed to show that the system is versatile and awesome.

The lack of class definitions was one of the most common criticisms against Pillars of Eternity, and the reason there as here is the same - your class choice didn't feel like it mattered, even though from a mechanics perspective, it did. This is because the classes were simply bundles of abilities and talents. Not even the role the character would play in combat, was determined by his class. Instead, Paladins could be armored tanks, or they could be fragile damage dealers. Wizards could be fragile damage dealers, or they could be armored tanks. Again, this was considered a positive even by Codex veterans.

Such design essentially misses the goal of what a class system was supposed to represent, back in the day. Like Jason Liang says, a wizard in Dungeons and Dragons was a character archetype - the medieval high fantasy equivalent of a nerd who spent most of his life buried in books, with a corresponding personality, though that personality could obviously also be influenced by other factors. He was not just a guy who knew how to Fireball, and in pen and paper, it was presumed that a wizard character fit a certain idea of what a wizard should be, even when the player himself might attempt to subvert that idea. Narratives and opportunities could then be developed around the archetype, and Baldur's Gate 2 is an example of this process in how it gave different classes, different strong holds, class quest lines, and experiences. A martial class took over De'Arnise Keep and acted in the capacity of a feudal lord, while a wizard took over the Planar Sphere and recruited apprentices to further his study of magic.

The marriage of character system, game play experience, and narrative was central to the old school Dungeons and Dragons design, and this feature was gradually lost in the shuffle towards what we have today: CRPGs were player class, game play experience, and narrative are fundamentally decoupled. You don't experience the narrative or principle game play differently due to picking a different class in Pillars of Eternity, or Divine Divinity: Original Sin, or Tyranny. Only what you use in combat changes, and possibly a few dialogue checks. So instead of clicking Fireball, you click Whirl Wind; and in party based games, the difference is even more insignificant as you simply switch from having your guy be the tank to having a companion be the tank - either way it's the same.

Thus we have a situation in which people would rather play action games dedicated to a specific character archetype - like Thief, or Call of Duty, or Archmage Rises - than an actual CRPG, because the actual CRPG has such generic implementations for all its classes that you can barely tell the difference between their experiences outside of what abilities they click in combat. It's no longer a roleplaying game in the traditional sense, but a game in which your role = "nice guy" or "dick." The modern CRPG role is strictly a moral dichotomy. Sure, certain games still have skill or attribute checks, here and there, but those checks are no longer organized in a coherent way - you no longer role play a warrior, but a guy with high strength, who might have chosen to have high strength just to pass that specific check, but whose personality and place in the world is otherwise completely generic.

It is often said that creativity often thrives under constraints. Perhaps it is the lack of constraints, the lack of structure, that make modern day role playing experiences so generic and boring.

 

[Raghar]

Actually role-playing games were games where player controlled avatar, and used skill and ides of avatar. This didn't mean he was strictly playing an archetype. These who were not able to think outside box were quickly dead.

 

[Azarkon]

Actually role-playing games were games where player controlled avatar, and used skill and ides of avatar. This didn't mean he was strictly playing an archetype. These who were not able to think outside box were quickly dead.

You don't have to strictly play an archetype, but your background, personality, choices, goals, place in the world, etc. should be heavily influenced by that archetype.

It's like being a soldier in life. Everyone arrives in the military differently; but there's still an archetype, or rather a set of archetypes, for what a soldier is.

In order to subvert an archetype, there has to be an archetype in the first place. The issue with modern class definitions is that they are so detached from the narrative and the game play that we don't even have an archetype, except as much as you're able to imagine the game is Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[vivec]

It's wrong because, if you understand what RPG class represents to the character, it's idiotic that characters can take any class they choose and switch classes willy nilly every level. So it's wrong on a theoretical level. But it's also wrong on a gut/ intuitive level. Yes, 3E rules are fun and cool. But when you go back and play the IE games (there, better?), instead of feeling that AD&D rules are outdated, you instead start to see the reasoning and design behind things that used to seem nonsensical about AD&D.

Here's the issue which I am having a hard time understanding. WHY the heck do you think only classes can represent character? Did you check my earlier example? Classes act like straight jackets for the character. Also, who said anything about switching classes willy nilly? I specifically mentioned a feat/talent tree which sets prerequistes to what feats/talents you can pick. So if you really wanted be expert at something, you'd have to invest into the concept. Just like *gasp* in real life.

I know it's harder to see with D&D but let's use VtM as an example. Imagine both
a) Bloodlines using a VtM ruleset where, there are no clans. You just have a list of vampiric powers and you can choose whichever ones you want to make characters.
b) Bloodlines using a VtM ruleset where characters can switch clans willy nilly. "I'll start my character as a Tremere to learn Thaumaturgy and then switch to Gangrel to learn Protean!"

Both games would be inferior RPGs. Game b) might be fun and cool, and so might game a), but they would be much worse roleplaying experiences than the real Bloodlines.

Were you conscious while playing Bloodlines? It has no classes. It has backgrounds in form of vampire *bloodlines* which only determine your powers and an excellent world design that actually acknowledged those backgrounds. You can actually choose *any* skill for *any* character outside of powers.

I'm talking about things that make BG2 special like the class stronghold quests, compared to Pillars' generic stronghold which was terrible. Even Romances at least acknowledge your PC's gender. Or the way that your companions bantered with eachother, which DEPENDS on those characters being defined by their class, race, alignment and gender.

That has nothing whatsoever do with the class per se. It has to do with the game acknowledging what choices you made in game and during char creation. And no doubt, it is a good thing. In a classless system it would be tantamount to the stronghold being representative of what background you chose i.e. soldier, priest, etc.

Wrong. That's like saying an airplane is a large, expensive object made of titanium that has chairs, windows and wheels.

But isn't it though? You can take the pieces and make a car, a ship or even a spaceship. Isn't that a better framework to pay with than to be stuck in a straightjacket?

It's more fun but clearly you don't see why it is also a move away from the point of role-playing. Or that feeling you get when you play NWN, you've planned your awesome min-maxed character to level 40, and yet when you actually start to play the character it's no fun to play. The fun is increased in planning, customizing and creating the character, but it's been reduced in actually playing that character.

You might say that it's the player's own fault for min-maxing, but come on. Does anyone ever play NWN to level 40 as a Rogue? Or even level 20? Even the concept of "prestige classes" and "epic classes" encourage powergaming and clearly does not understand what character class is.

I'm not claiming AD&D was a perfect ruleset. Like I said, AD&D doesn't have a well-designed skill system, and games do need a skill system as they move away from tactical combat to open-world exploration and interaction, especially when those rules are being implemented in a computer game. But it's time to figure it out since skill systems are the gaping asshole of modern RPGs. I can list EVERY computer RPG that has a skill system and point out why it's retarded.

Wizardry 7 - the skill system encouraged players to abuse class-changing to max out skill points. Also, swimming training in Munkharma's dungeon...
Fallout 1/2 - "don't take x, y and z skills since there's magazines for those" but also imagine having to manage the character progression of a party of 6 under Fallout's system
NWN/ ToEE - Gah, my Paladin is going to start as a level 1 rogue for the extra skill points and to get Tumble as a class skill. Also - A LOCK! Gloves of lockpicking + Potion of Mastery Thievery + Bard song GO!
Bloodlines - even worse that Fallout 1/2 "take Brawl up to 3 so you can get free training to 4"
Age of Decadence - really the best example of a decent rpg that is nearly ruined by its terrible skill/ skill check system
Wasteland 2
Pillars - respec! respec! get your respec!

I could go on and on. These systems are all stupid and retarded, and it's time to stop making games saddled with them. Someone please design a skill system that isn't retarded. It's not that hard, and should have been done 15 years ago but WotC and BioWare fucked it up. Assigning skill points at level up is retarded, and straight skill checks or attribute+skill checks are also retarded.

Stop making assumptions. I do not think powergaming or min-maxing is bad. I am not a crazy sawyerite. Min maxing and powergaming are *playstyles* which as DM for my own games I always encourage. These not only lead to novel solutions to old problems but also bring out the issue in the game which need plugging (but not too much!).

You should take that head of your from BG2 and actually realize what you are saying: that the Paladin can never have tumble as a class skill *even* if he trains for it. He has to take a *class level* to get it. While I would understand why a paladin would not be *willing* wo use a wand, I would not understand why he can't jump through hoops. That tends to happen when you imagine a Paladin that sleeps. eats and shits in a stainless steel chamber pot.

 

[Jason Liang]

Were you conscious while playing Bloodlines? It has no classes. It has backgrounds in form of vampire *bloodlines* which only determine your powers and an excellent world design that actually acknowledged those backgrounds. You can actually choose *any* skill for *any* character outside of powers.

Vampire clan *is* the equivalent of character class in VtM. If you don't believe me, I worked for White Wolf and had Justin Achilli explain it to me during lunch. In fact I worked for White Wolf right around the time that Troika was making Bloodlines.

Sorry but you clearly don't understand the issues that I'm trying to address and I don't know how else to make it more clear to you.

AD&D did not have a formal skill system. When AD&D was translated into computer games, no real skill system was implemented. Nevertheless, classic computer RPGs worked fine without skill systems. When WotC updated AD&D to 3E and BioWare implemented those changes in NWN, one thing they tried to create was a formal skill system, but they fucked it up. But it still heavily influenced the design of RPGs that came after it and so we've had 10+ years of RPGs with retarded skill systems. Obviously it would be good to have a skill system where Paladins could learn to Tumble or Barter. But for the past 10+ years skill systems in computer RPGs have been trash.

If I designed a character system for a computer RPG, I would have class, race, and alignment systems like in AD&D, but I would also want some form of a skill system. But that skill system would not be directly be tied to class as it is in 3E. It would be tied to and complement the character's attributes, sort of like a mix of the HBS Shadowrun skill system (where skills are capped by their associate attribute) and White Wolf's Storyteller system (where skill checks involve a flexible pair of an attribute + a skill). I would not implement a stupid skill point system where characters gained skill points when they level up. I would use a simple skill package system similar to FASA's Mechwarrior RPG, and skill growth would be extremely limited after character creation and not tied to character progression, similar to Darklands.

 

[vivec]

Vampire clan *is* the equivalent of character class in VtM. If you don't believe me, I worked for White Wolf and had Justin Achilli explain it to me during lunch.

You are a moron. Vampire clan system is indeed *like* a *class* but the entire point is that it is not as restrictive as a class in D&D. It does *not* beyond disciplines restrict your choices of skills. And it only restricts disciplines because that is how the game world is designed and I respect that aspect of it; clans should be differentiable and VtMTB does a great job of that. I already tried to explain that a classless system generalizes class with backgrounds. But I guess you are too stupid to understand the difference between the general system and its specific instances. The class system is a special case of classless character creation where you tie in the skills that belong to a class with the class. Even D&D realized under some instances how stupid it was and allowed feats like Able learner for Faerun. Still as a half-assed solution in D&D as any.

Sorry but you clearly don't understand the issues that I'm trying to address and I don't know how else to make it more clear to you.

Oh, Don't worry about that. I understand what you are saying all right. I just think its stupid.

AD&D did not have a formal skill system. When AD&D was translated into computer games, no real skill system was implemented. Nevertheless, classic computer RPGs worked fine without skill systems. When WotC updated AD&D to 3E and BioWare implemented those changes in NWN, one thing they tried to create was a formal skill system, but they fucked it up. But it still heavily influenced the design of RPGs that came after it and so we've had 10+ years of RPGs with retarded skill systems. Obviously it would be good to have a skill system where Paladins could learn to Tumble or Barter. But for the past 10+ years skill systems in computer RPGs have been trash.

If I designed a character system for a computer RPG, I would have class, race, and alignment systems like in AD&D, but I would also want some form of a skill system. But that skill system would not be directly be tied to class as it is in 3E. It would be tied to and complement the character's attributes, sort of like a mix of the HBS Shadowrun skill system (where skills are capped by their associate attribute) and White Wolf's Storyteller system (where skill checks involve a flexible pair of an attribute + a skill). I would not implement a stupid skill point system where characters gained skill points when they level up. I would use a skill package system similar to FASA's Mechwarrior RPG, and skill growth would be extremely limited after character creation and not tied to character progression, similar to Darklands.

I have no beef with classes beyond the idea that I find them *too* restrictive. You *can* make a good game with classes too. Why not? I consider even PoE a *good* game. Just a boring one. All I am saying is that the classless system can be less restrictive in terms of role play.

 

[Jason Liang]

Oh, Don't worry about that. I understand what you are saying all right. I just think its stupid.

No you clearly don't. You responded as though I was defending 3E and its design decision to make skills dependent on class (Paladins and Tumble). In fact in the original premise I state CLEARLY that it's WotC and 3E that fucked things up. I gave the example of Midnight using Persuasion, although she's a Wizard class character. That would work under AD&D since AD&D didn't have a formalized skill system, so you would just make some sort of Charisma check (or rather, the target would make a savings throw roll vs. Midnight's CHA score).

Nothing you've written has shown that you understand what character class is. You seem to think that class is just a set of skills and feats, the *mechanics* of class. That's knowledge, but that's not undertsanding.

Class - the word comes from classification. Classification is an artificial way of grouping similar things. In real life, social class groups people with similar social circumstances. But in an RPG, character class is not social class. Class instead groups characters with similar roles in stories from literature, folk lore, myth and history. It's a useful device in storytelling and gaming (and in games that tell stories). Class does not represent just one thing, but many things about a character's past, present and future.

Warriors like Achilles, Leonidas and Boromir
Rogues like Odysseus, Bilbo Baggins, Jean Valjean and Daniel Plainview
Priests like Moshe, Jesus, Turpin and Martin Luther King Jr.
Wizards like Medea and Gandalf
Barbarians like Conan, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane and Khal Drogo
Bards like Orpheus, Merlin and Fleudur Flam
Paladins like Roland and Galahad

3E fucked up by creating "prestige classes" and "epic classes." Champion of Torm and Harper Scout are NOT true character classes. 3E is stupid.

Were class just a collection of skills and feats, then Archer could be a class. Pikeman could be a class. But they aren't. Archery is just a skill. It also represents a role in battle, or on a team, but it doesn't represent a role in a story or in a world. That's why Archer isn't a class.

 

[vivec]

Where am I saying anything that pertains to 3E? Did I in any way mention that? All of that is in your head because of your fondness for BG2. You are literally putting words in people's mouths. Paladin and tumble is an example to show that classes are silly. It has nothing to do with 3E. BTW as an aside even TSR realised that 2E was inadequate just in case you are deluded into thinking that 2E is perfect as it is. Also, your childish explanation of what a class is inadequate for a game. Classes have been done quite in a variety of ways in game systems starting from D&D to the dark eye. Maybe play more games?

Also, your examples are silly. Think of Odysseus in your example as the archetypical greek hero. The guy is *also* a warrior and not just a "rogue". In fact, he is a diplomat/warrior and under no circumstance would perform a literal backstab. Just to show that archetypes too are not restrictive; they allow expansion and variation, something a class cannot always adequately provide. Merlin too was not just a lore master but also the prototypical wizard. I particularly find paladin as a class utterly stupid. Its a warrior with an ethos for heaven's sake! He does not have any divine powers. He need not even be a pious man. He is just chivalrous. I would totally classify Roland, or galahad as a warrior with certain codes of honour.