Game News Dave Gaider on DA classes design

[jiujitsu]

I like classes. I like being forced to be something specific. Unlike Morrowind where you can be everything if you want to. Of course, being allowed to choose different paths within that class is a must. Like in Diablo 2.

 

[Section8]

Ideally I like to see a compromise between freedom and restriction, but they both have their place.

Morrowind's "ultimate freedom" doesn't do it for me, because I never feel like I've made any critical choices, and most character archetypes play very similarly in gameplay terms. But also, I'm not a big fan of arbitrary restriction if it's over done.

Daggerfall was a good compromise, since it allowed me to define my archetype with hard restrictions, advantages and flaws. I'm not being arbitrarily restricted, and I'm being compensated for choosing specific character weakness by also gaining an advantage of my own choosing.

Games like System Shock 2 and Mount & Blade with a considerable skill component, benefit from tight restrictions, because otherwise its a simple matter for the player to overcome the soft restrictions like increasing error on weapon traces.

For more RPGish games, I think softer restrictions are better, but they still should be persuasive towards sticking to an archetype, like Fallout's tag system for skills, or a portion of Fable's experience coming from use of the three distinct skill sets.

As far as Dragon Age goes, I really know very little about the game, so I can't comment on it specifically.

 

[jiujitsu]

We should know more. It's been in developement for a long time.

BioWare is being a poopyhead and won't give us info.

 

[RGE]

I think obediah convincingly rebutted this argument above. In a party-based game, classes are just an expression of the division of labour that a party is meant to accomplish in the first place.

So you're saying that I could make a melee-necromancer and then let the rest of the party be his stereotypical bodyguards, since stereotypes would be powerful while alternatives would usually be weak? I guess that could work, but then I'd still have a mostly stereotypical party, and how is that significantly different from playing one character who's a jack of all trades? I mean, apart from the group vs single differences in battles? I don't consider Diablo II more of a roleplaying game when I hook up with four other players of different classes.

Getting to decide who and what to play is half the RPG experience for me. When I'm not in charge of that, it becomes more of an adventure game. And the "what"-part is constantly being compromised for the bondage-loving hordes who keeps asking for the Dungeonmaster to chain them up and constrict them. And now I'm reminded of what Locke said in Lost: Something about babies wanting to feel constricted, and that it's only when we grow up that we learn to enjoy freedom. I wish babies would stop playing the games I play, so that the people who make those games wouldn't have an incentive to cater to their wailing.

 

[kris]

Getting to decide who and what to play is half the RPG experience for me. When I'm not in charge of that, it becomes more of an adventure game. And the "what"-part is constantly being compromised for the bondage-loving hordes who keeps asking for the Dungeonmaster to chain them up and constrict them.

Or you could want to be the master of everything if that is your wish and seemingly what all TES forumers want. Personally I would never forbid one class from learning a skill, but I would restrict them in how easily they could improve it. No restrictions and you just have corny phony powergamer wet dreams.

 

[Atrokkus]

I don't consider Diablo II more of a roleplaying game when I hook up with four other players of different classes.

It is not a roleplaying game, goddamnit. It's one of the greatest games in existence, but it's not a pure RPG. So I find it quite difficult to compare it to RPGs.

 

[AnalogKid]

I'm going to compare class-based vs. skill-based to a debate VD had over his game's combat system: grids vs. distance-based.

One method gives clear choices that are easily identifiable and lets the player "get on with the business" of playing. It doesn't have to be any less complex, but is certainly different than the alternative.

The other method opens up the whole canvas of choices and could allow for as much "pixel hunting", or mining for particular skill combinations, as the player wants to engage in. Players willing to do the extra "work" will benefit over more casual players that just want bang heads or throw fireballs.

VD preferred grids, but doesn't like classes. I prefer free movement but am OK with classes. In the end, I think it's clear that classes and grids are just arbitrary restrictions that are introduced to facilitate gameplay and game design. Both are acceptable to me as long as they're done well.

A lot of arguments so far have been about specific little details of this or that particular class feature (e.g. mages and armor), but I think that in any particular game-fiction, class distinctions can be accepted without suspending disbelief. It could even be as simple as just saying "that's just the way the <game name> world works, it's different than our world" There's no rational defense of why characters can't move in less than 1 square distances, but very few people really complain that such a limitation inherently ruins the game. It's all about the how the system works with the rest of the game to produce something fun to play.

In conclusion: Complex, thought-provoking, interesting classes good. Shallow, 1-dimensional, boring classes bad.

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD preferred grids, but doesn't like classes. I prefer free movement but am OK with classes. In the end, I think it's clear that classes and grids are just arbitrary restrictions that are introduced to facilitate gameplay and game design. Both are acceptable to me as long as they're done well.

Correction: I'm ok with classes. Classes work best with a party-based setup. Skill-based systems work best with a single character setup, which explains my choice.

A lot of arguments so far have been about specific little details of this or that particular class feature (e.g. mages and armor), but I think that in any particular game-fiction, class distinctions can be accepted without suspending disbelief.

Arguing about magic from the position of logic is silly, I agree. I look at that "mages and their armors" dilemma from "is it a good and interesting way to play a class or a stupid attempt to railroad my character into a stereotype" point of view. In many cases, it's the latter.

In conclusion: Complex, thought-provoking, interesting classes good. Shallow, 1-dimensional, boring classes bad.

Goes without saying.

 

[AnalogKid]

Correction: I'm ok with classes. Classes work best with a party-based setup. Skill-based systems work best with a single character setup, which explains my choice.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, thanks for the clarity.

In conclusion: Complex, thought-provoking, interesting classes good. Shallow, 1-dimensional, boring classes bad.

Goes without saying.

I get the impression many people automatically discount any form of classes. So I didn't think it could go without saying.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I meant it in a "good is always better than bad" way.