Classes or classless, which system is better in RPGs?

[Glop_dweller]

The purpose of the activity is efficiently killing shit for xp.

No sane player is going to gimp himself and rob himself of content and options: ergo, yay to identical jack of all trades who can use all equipment, cast all spells and dabble in thieving and fasttalking when needed. Expecting anything less is the same as expecting someone to make a party of all fighters in party-based RPG.

This is absurd. The point is to tackle the given situations in the manner best suited, and in keeping with the personality, aptitudes, and ethics of the current PC, or PCs—not ego-fantasy; playing superman in each and every game.

Content SHOULD be missed if inappropriate for the PC.; especially if the PC killed off the gateway NPC to access that content.
(That's what playing the game with a different PC is for. What an absolute waste for the developer to painstakingly facilitate different approaches to problem solving by differing individuals—of different skills-sets and personalities... if they have to force-feed all of it to the player regardless of character design; yuk! )

 

[mondblut]

keeping with the personality, aptitudes, and ethics of the current PC

Do you put on your robe and wizard hat when you sit to play a computer game?

especially if the PC killed off the gateway NPC to access that content.

That's what reloading is for, silly.

 

[Glop_dweller]

That's what reloading is for, silly.

Baby-stepping is an insult; both to the designer, and one's self.

 

[J1M]

"All players must see all content" is one of the pillars of modern game design that has brought us the current sorry state of gaming.

 

[Beastro]

I like the concept of classless systems but am often disappointed by them in practice. While in theory they allow players more freedom to design a character that exactly fits their role-playing concept or is not one of the usual boring archetypes, too often what actually happens with them is the exact opposite: all characters end up being more or less the same either because it is possible to become a master of all trades or because certain skills or builds are so clearly superior to the alternatives there is no good reason to bother with anything else. Even in the better designed versions, instead of having special content for a wide range of classes, one often only gets several paths for a handful of very broad archetypes (here's an option for combat-focused characters, one for stealthy characters, another for diplomatic characters...and I guess that's it). Ultimately of course it comes down to the details of how they are implemented, but classless systems tend to put a greater burden on the designers of the game to actually know what they are doing.

So it seems that class systems tend to be easier for the developer: with clearly defined classes it is easier to balance them, set up encounters with an appropriate level of challenge for them, set up reactive features to the game that benefit particular classes and not others, etc. (you more or less know what capabilities the player will be able to deploy and can design around them), while classless systems tend to be easier for players: easier to break the game and do anything you want. I am not sure it always works this way though. I think one of the reasons classless systems tend to be preferred for single-character games is precisely because that makes things easier on the developers. Having rigid classes in games of that type would require that there be a viable path to completion for every class, and ideally something that makes the path for each class interesting and distinctive. Like a good classless system, that would be great if one could pull it off, but is very hard to pull off: easier to just give every character access to any skill that might be needed.

This.

What it comes down to is how well the classes/classlessness is made and classes seem easier for most devs to pull off.

 

[mondblut]

"All players must see all content" is one of the pillars of modern game design that has brought us the current sorry state of gaming.

A developer who thinks his game is entitled to be played more than once should stop sniffing his farts and work a few years flipping burgers at mcdonalds to get a taste of reality.

What is average percentage of consumers who played a game to the end on steam, 0.3%? LMAO. If you plan to gate content, you might just as well not implement it altogether, nobody would notice it either way.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Barbarians are a class without any class whatsoever, so I dunno.

 

[Garbage]

"All players must see all content" is one of the pillars of modern game design that has brought us the current sorry state of gaming.

A developer who thinks his game is entitled to be played more than once should stop sniffing his farts and work a few years flipping burgers at mcdonalds to get a taste of reality.

What is average percentage of consumers who played a game to the end on steam, 0.3%? LMAO. If you plan to gate content, you might just as well not implement it altogether, nobody would notice it either way.

Just because the amount of people who like to experience all content is small, doesn't mean that market doesn't exist.
I happen to like gated content, it makes a second playthrough actually different.

 

[mondblut]

Just because the amount of people who like to experience all content is small, doesn't mean that market doesn't exist.

Small it is - and pretentious dickwads who expect you to endure through the same 100 hours of boring garbage thrice in order to see a couple of quests and locations they have gated make it smaller still.

I happen to like gated content, it makes a second playthrough actually different.

These games barely deserve one playthrough at best, so the joke is on you.

 

[JarlFrank]

The real benefit of classes that isn't commonly mentioned in discussions is the flexibility it gives designers to create unique, coherent, and thematic mechanics packages.

Consider a simple example class like "Demon Sworn":

Ok let's see.

* At character creation, you choose a greater demon as your liege

Sure, why not. That sounds cool. But why does it have to be a specific class? Wouldn't a demon accept anyone's soul? A strong soldier's. A powerful wizard's. A devout cleric's would be even tastier.
Just have it be a character background or trait or whatever you wanna call it, like Fallout's jinxed or bloody mess, rather than making it a class. I don't see how choosing a demon lord as your liege determines which skills and abilities you can gain during levelups (which is what classes determine).

* Each month, you must make a minimum of blood sacrifices to your liege corresponding to your level

The idea of offering blood sacrifice to your liege is very cool. Dunno if I like the idea of making it correspond to your level, because level is a gamey abstraction of overall ability score of the character, rather than an actual in-world thing people have (people can see your strength by how muscled you are, but nobody can actually see what level you are). Still, good idea.

But I don't see how this is in any way class related. Any character can offer blood sacrifice. This is kinda like becoming a werewolf in Morrowind's Bloodmoon expansion. You have to kill and consume innocent NPCs on a regular basis to keep the hunger from fucking with you. It's a game mechanic that doesn't require you to be a specific class for it to work. It works no matter what the skillset of your character is, why tie it to class?

* For each sacrifice, you gain points to spend on gifts from your liege - such as demonic abilities, followers, treasures, information, knowledge, etc.

Again, why does that need to be tied to a specific class? In a classless system, the player could choose his rewards more freely. Wanna have a magical power or a powerful demonic weapon? The player can choose based on his build!

* Occasionally, your liege may send you on a quest to advance its agenda

Yeah. Again, absolutely no reason to class-restrict this.

* At level 20, you gain the attention of a demon prince, who'll send you on an epic quest to defeat your liege and claim its place as a greater demon

Why base it on level? Level is an abstraction, it's weird to tie such important story steps to levels. I'd much rather tie it to actual in-game achievements of the player (number of sacrifices performed, number of enemies killed, number of quests completed, ranks in influential factions gained, etc... something actually tangible).

How do you realize this in a skill-based system? The answer, more often than not, is you can't, because the core class mechanics aren't interchangeable.

What do any of the features you listed for that "class" have to do with class in the D&D sense? Wizard = can't use heavy armor, gets lower HP bonus on level up, can cast spells. Cleric = can't use edged weapons, gets medium HP bonus on level up, can cast divine spells. Fighter = can use all weapons and armor, gets a high HP bonus and attack bonus on level up, can't cast spells.
Demon Sworn = ?????
How does any of the stuff you described above determine which role the character plays mechanically in the game? Melee dude? Ranger dude? Magic dude? All of these are possible for your concept of the Demon Sworn.

It would absolutely work in a classless system. In fact, not one of the features you listed above even remotely imply class.

I would implement this as a background choice during character creation. Think Fallout's traits, except with more of an impact on the character. Maybe you can choose your character's background, the thing he did before he started the game, and that has effects on how the character plays and what opportunities he gets. Nobleman = he's got connections to other nobles and gets special dialogue choices with them; Sellsword = he once was part of a mercenary company that committed genocide in a small town and the survivors are now trying to get vengeance, leading to special random encounters on the world map; Prostitute = she gets a bonus to all seduction attempts but her low reputation means that the upper class doesn't want anything to do with her. Etc.

That doesn't turn these backgrounds into "classes". Backgrounds + classless system is in fact one of the best systems for roleplaying, much better than a rigid class system because it allows greater flexibility and therefore a greater amount of character types you can play.
A classless system allows you to, say, make a wizard character for whom you only raise combat skills on level ups, deciding to roleplay as a wizard's apprentice who got fed up with magic and decided to study combat instead. A rigid class-based system doesn't allow that. Scarcity of skill points means that he'll never be as good at either magic or fighting as a pure character, but he'll still be viable.

 

[J1M]

Just because the amount of people who like to experience all content is small, doesn't mean that market doesn't exist.

Small it is - and pretentious dickwads who expect you to endure through the same 100 hours of boring garbage thrice in order to see a couple of quests and locations they have gated make it smaller still.

I happen to like gated content, it makes a second playthrough actually different.

These games barely deserve one playthrough at best, so the joke is on you.

It is important that players experience fun and challenging content, not that they view every art asset and dialog that Timmy and Sally worked on.

Modern designers seem to think they are running a children's talent show instead of crafting a fun and challenging experience worthy of the audience's time.

 

[JarlFrank]

Just because the amount of people who like to experience all content is small, doesn't mean that market doesn't exist.

Small it is - and pretentious dickwads who expect you to endure through the same 100 hours of boring garbage thrice in order to see a couple of quests and locations they have gated make it smaller still.

I happen to like gated content, it makes a second playthrough actually different.

These games barely deserve one playthrough at best, so the joke is on you.

The easiest way of avoiding having to play through 100 hours of samey crap just to see one different quest ending is not to include 100 hours of samey filler crap in the first place.

Not only will that make the game more replayable, it will also make the first playthrough more enjoyable.

 

[mondblut]

The easiest way of avoiding having to play through 100 hours of samey crap just to see one different quest ending is not to include 100 hours of samey filler crap in the first place.

Not only will that make the game more replayable, it will also make the first playthrough more enjoyable.

So, make two short games for the price of one. Why not make two short games for the price of two, then?

 

[mondblut]

It is important that players experience fun and challenging content, not that they view every art asset and dialog that Timmy and Sally worked on.

Modern designers seem to think they are running a children's talent show instead of crafting a fun and challenging experience worthy of the audience's time.

Fun and challenge have been out of the picture for about 25 years now. Now I could just as well look at Timmy and Sally's work while I am killing my time, but I am only interested in doing that once.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

The easiest way of avoiding having to play through 100 hours of samey crap just to see one different quest ending is not to include 100 hours of samey filler crap in the first place.

Not only will that make the game more replayable, it will also make the first playthrough more enjoyable.

So, make two short games for the price of one. Why not make two short games for the price of two, then?

I'm buying them at 50% off, so it's the price of one game anyway.

 

[Dorateen]

With classes, you can have those neat title ranks for each level, like a first level magic-user is a "Prestidigitator"; a second level thief is a "Footpad", and a sixth level fighter is a "Myrmidon".

 

[Siobhan]

You guys are looking at class VS class-less with respect to a single character, but I don't think that's what matters mechanically. As others have mentioned, class-based systems are usually used for games with a full party, and class-less for single-PC games. But then what is the gameplay difference between the two?

- In a single-PC classless system, you pick your traits to create an entity you control and that can handle the challenges the game throws at you.
- In a party-based class system, you pick your classes to create an entity you control and that can handle the challenges the game throws at you.

A class-based party system is mechanically a single-PC classless system where the PC's traits have their own resource pools (HP, mana, equipment), as if you were flying a single spaceship whose components can be fueled and targeted individually. Swapping out party members is like respecing your PC. Different stat distributions between party members are either meta-attributes for traits or trait-specific modifiers of your PC's stats. The most significant difference arises in games with non-blobber combat, where a party gives you the option of positioning your PC's traits independently of each other --- but few RPGs actually have the tactical depth to make positioning an important factor. Most of the time, a class-based system with a party is just a different way of presenting a classless system with a single, abstract PC.

tl;dr There doesn't seem to be a significant difference between classes and class-less once we remove the window dressing of how those traits are reified in the game.

 

[Azarkon]

What do any of the features you listed for that "class" have to do with class in the D&D sense? Wizard = can't use heavy armor, gets lower HP bonus on level up, can cast spells. Cleric = can't use edged weapons, gets medium HP bonus on level up, can cast divine spells. Fighter = can use all weapons and armor, gets a high HP bonus and attack bonus on level up, can't cast spells.
Demon Sworn = ?????
How does any of the stuff you described above determine which role the character plays mechanically in the game? Melee dude? Ranger dude? Magic dude? All of these are possible for your concept of the Demon Sworn.

It would absolutely work in a classless system. In fact, not one of the features you listed above even remotely imply class.

A background is a set of past events that had some effects on your character. A class is a set of skills, abilities, mechanics, backgrounds, and motivations that define how your character functions in the present. There is an overlap, but they are hardly equivalent. In my example, the lore was merely a side show; the main feature I was trying to illustrate was the unique mechanics. Gaining demonic attributes isn't something you can simply label as a "skill," as skill implies that it is a proficiency, which you can learn, train, improve with experience, etc. But much of the time, class features are not skills. A ban on using edged weapons, for example, is not a proficiency. Neither is channeling your draconic ancestry to grow claws and wings. Neither is fealty to a god or demon. Classes package many more aspects of a character than skills do.

The trouble with skill-based game systems is that they try to fit everything into a box - the box being skill trees, graphs, or whatever it is that they use to represent skills - even when they just don't fit. Being able to shoot lasers from your eyes isn't a skill. Having the natural ability to fly isn't a skill. Having a contract with a devil isn't a skill. Now, there are human aspects of these abilities - like aim, flight control, etc. - that can be modeled as skills, and which could modify the effectiveness of the powers, but the powers themselves aren't - as in, you cannot learn them, you cannot train them, nor do they necessarily improve with experience. If your skill-based system can neatly represent these "traits" as primary aspects of a character's identity, then fine, but by then, you'd already have the equivalent of a hybrid system.

A classless system allows you to, say, make a wizard character for whom you only raise combat skills on level ups, deciding to roleplay as a wizard's apprentice who got fed up with magic and decided to study combat instead. A rigid class-based system doesn't allow that. Scarcity of skill points means that he'll never be as good at either magic or fighting as a pure character, but he'll still be viable.

Multi-class rules easily accommodate what you're saying - 1 Wizard 5 Fighter is totally viable - so it's really a straw man to say that you can't do this in a class-based system. But I'm not arguing for a class-based system. Rather, I think classes are a very useful organizing principle for packages of skills, abilities, mechanics, backgrounds, and motivations. Of course, you can always remove the "package," so to speak, and work only with the nuts and bolts, but in practical settings, that doesn't necessarily make the system better - often only more complicated.

 

[DraQ]

While I generally like the idea of having the player choose their professions via a quest, depending on the game, it's not necessarily appropriate. For adventuring scenarios, it doesn't always make sense to define functional identity during the game. "A group of adventurers head north to defeat the giants" can't wait for members to pick their special vocations, and games with many and varied classes can't afford to have an initiation quest for each.

For anything that is as involved as your idea - yes, it is necessarily appropriate and the only way to bring in enough reactivity to not make mockery out of the whole concept.

Disagree. Demon Sworn is no different from the way Clerics work in most fantasy settings. Are Clerics not supposed to be a class? Classes are defined by their relationships with third parties all the time. This is one of the flexibilities class-based systems provide, which make a lot of sense when reproducing classic characters.

Figures. I have never liked cleric class and there are fantasy games that don't have that class or don't have anything particularly cleric-y about it.

The more involved the mechanics, the harder they are to generalize.

You have it the wrong way around. You can generalize your high concepts better if you break them down into more basic mechanics.

Imagine fitting in archetypes like shapeshifter, dragon disciple, and psionicist all into the same skill-based system - they'd have practically no over laps, and each "skill" would effectively be a class.

Psion is defined by psionics. Shapeshifter by shapeshifiting.
It's better to have such specific abilities in the framework of others to build your character from rather than have them as one trick pony classes.

Archetype is just a specific build in a skill based system.

 

[DraQ]

Do you put on your robe and wizard hat when you sit to play a computer game?

Cackling to yourself while babystepping through a broken system is much sadder in a way.
It's like going to a shooting range, putting gun in a vice and enjoying your flawless marksmanship by holding the target to the muzzle.

 

[DraQ]

tl;dr There doesn't seem to be a significant difference between classes and class-less once we remove the window dressing of how those traits are reified in the game.

There is and you have described it:
Granularity and level of detail.

There is no arguing that skill based isn't in all ways superior to class based, just like there is no arguing that proper aerodynamics modeling makes for a better flight simulation than aerial submarine model.

There are however situations, in real life where you don't have infinite time and budget for development, where classes or aerial submarine might be just about good enough and a reasonable compromise:
Namely if mechanics in question doesn't form as much of the core gameplay. For example in party based RPG what happens with single character's development is only 12.5-25% of how this same character development impacts a single character game - which is precisely what you have described.

 

[Moonrise]

You start with a class that represents the skills you've developed up to the point where the game begins. Then it's classless. The archetype is important as a foundation. After that, your character's experiences should take precedence. And you would differentiate this from background fluff because, at least in the early game, the choice meaningfully affects gameplay. That's how I like it.

 

[V_K]

the powers themselves aren't - as in, you cannot learn them, you cannot train them, nor do they necessarily improve with experience.

Multi-class rules easily accommodate what you're saying - 1 Wizard 5 Fighter is totally viable

You're kinda contradicting yourself here. The powers cannot be learned nor improved with experience, yet you can multiclass into the required class and gain levels in it.
(not to mention that 3.5 classes are, for all intents and purposes, skills by any other name - precisely because of how they are designed with multiclassing as a core mechanic in mind)

 

[Azarkon]

You have it the wrong way around. You can generalize your high concepts better if you break them down into more basic mechanics.

The minimal decomposition required to codify every archetype is the English language.

If you don't accept this, you are welcome to try and define a minimum set of basic mechanics that generalize to every archetype.

No designer, to this date, has succeeded, which is why in practice, no skill-based system has ever escaped the curse of cookie cutting.

 

[ItsChon]

I think another important thing we're not looking at is the fact that certain games are better optimized for one system over the other. D&D was created with a class-based system in wide, and while it's still entirely possible to theoretically convert everything into a classless system, I don't see any point in this. A better argument would be to compare something like IWD and ToEE, with their class system, to something like Underrail or Age of Decadence, with their classless systems. From there, we can move forward and talk about which system is more enjoyable to play, and for what reasons. This is very interesting because when we really think about it, it's difficult to find any real singleplayer class-based games with the level of depth and options that we see in AoD and Underrail; similarly, I can't really think of one party based game that utilizes a classless system which can compete to the likes of IWD and ToEE.

We're sitting here talking about whether or not we can make D&D work without classes, and vice versa for other games, but what it really comes down to is that all the amazing singleplayer combat RPGs I can think off are class systems, while all the really good party-based combat RPGs I can think of are class systems.