Epiphany about the nature of RPGs

[Jason Liang]

Haven't read the entire thread, but congratulations for reinventing the Theory of Lhynn. He could have told you all that stuff years ago.

Ah. No wonder Lhynn gave himself +200 skill points to playthrough AoD. Now that makes sense.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

This isn't the first epiphany I've ever had. I know what they feel like.

It’s probably too much work but a skill based system doesn’t inherently demolish the idea of a role.

Yes it does. That's actually the epiphany, and the hardest part to explain. It's what most of you guys aren't getting. A skill system DOES fundamentally detract and distract from Role. A character class system and a skill system can exist together, but they also fundamentally oppose each other like yin and yang. That's the epiphany. And the more modern RPG design moves toward skill systems, the more it moves away from role.

If someone came to you and said, “bro, I just had an epiphany while I was washing berries in my toilet and drinking Chinese toilet water,” you would be justly skeptical.

More seriously, there are two threads here and I’m not sure they necessarily have that much to do with each other. There’s how the world reacts to the player and how the player interacts with the world—not the same thing. Does the thing that defines your character for NPCs also have to define your gameplay? Why?

I see your point that a skill system CAN make the differentiation between classes meaningless. But that’s not a problem with skill systems, it’s a problem with game designers not adequately building class based reactivity into the system and not differentiating enough between classes. There’s no reason a skill system and a class system can’t be complimentary so long as the classes are designed correctly (divine revelation is not a reason). Play the Stygian demo.

In AoD your class defines what problems you get to solve; each one is effectively a different campaign. Your skills define how you solve them. I didn’t love skill point hoarding as gameplay, but AoD’s one real flaw is that VD didn’t have enough money and so there wasn’t enough to do in the game world. The skill system would have worked much better if you’d had more to do outside the main quest.

In Pillars, the skill system barely does anything. You could cut it from the game and you’d lose very little. I don’t see how it can really be detracting from class, aside from the fact that anyone can disarm traps. Pillars is reactive to lots of little things in lots of little ways; it would have been better served to react to one big thing in big ways. But the skill/class dichotomy doesn’t apply when the skill system barely exists. PoE’s classes were poorly designed in terms of differentiation, which would’ve remained true even if only rogues could do disarming/lockpicking.

 

[Jason Liang]

I already have, several times. It can't be formulated like a thesis since it's an epiphany, not a deduction. It's a revelation, not an argument or opinion.

No. Just no. You have in fact formulated it like a thesis and then underlined it. It’s simply that your thoughts were very disorganized when you started this thread. You had a thought; calling it a revelation makes you sound like you’re having delusions of grandeur.

I just went back and reread what I wrote on the first page. It's ALL there, in the first two posts. Right there, why AoD is good and why AoD is bad.

I think the problem is that the first half of the original premise is not the epiphany itself. Although I do make it pretty clear the point where the epiphany actually starts. And from there it's pretty easy to follow, but it has to be read closely, not just skimmed over, since the writing is dense.

 

[Delterius]

And from there it's pretty easy to follow, but it has to be read closely, not just skimmed over, since the writing is dense.

There's nothing dense about your argument. Its been made a thousand times before. You're just not the target audience of this genre. Get over it.

 

[Silva]

...Bloodlines also shows that class doesn’t have to be “class.” It can just as easily be tribe. I know some of them map onto DnD style classes very well, but others less so: WTF is a Malkavian in DnD? Sure, a Nosferatu is a stealthy thief, but that’s way less important than the fact that you’re hideously deformed. Ventrue are clerics? Okay, but what really matters is that they’re aristocrats. Honestly, this is much better than “pick your class—you’re a rogue because you’re a sneaky little fucker.”

Like I said, the real issue is consistent reactivity to something and you seem to be admitting that. What matters is that there’s one particularly salient aspect of character creation.

You could do the same thing in a high fantasy style world with reactivity to race. The issue is that the game needs to take this decision seriously. Hell, if someone ever makes a game set in, say, the European wars of religion, you would have twelve basic permutations: three religions (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist), two social classes (nobility, commoner), and urban/rural. These are what people would care about; they would change how the world approaches you and how you approach the world. Theoretically, you could do be same with a skill based system: 25 skills, you tag two to create your vocation, that’s 600 vocations. A lot of these would be very similar so the developer could probably simplify down to, say, 20-30 odd archetypes. As long as the game reacts to that, you’re good. It’s probably too much work but a skill based system doesn’t inherently demolish the idea of a role.

Agree 100% with this.

But when the game tries to react to everything in your build, it ends up feeling like you have no definition—I agree with you here. There needs to be some focus. He who defends everything defends nothing. I give Sawyer credit for attempting to do this in Pillars, but it would be a better game of he’d designated some part of character creation as all-important.

I think this is more or less the idea he is trying to make, but is having difficulty expressing.

From my part, frankly, I would like to see games ditching this Stats/Skills template and instead coming up with their own ideas to depict their central themes and roles. Nier Automata discarded skills altogether in favor of chips with different effects that you may recombine for distinct situations, and it totally fits the theme of being a combat android. Pendragon the tabletop game created a set of virtues and vices and made it the central element of play, reflecting what's important in Arthurian stories. THAT'S the kind of thing I wish to see, instead of yer olde stat+skills repeated ad nauseum.

 

[aweigh]

bradley's decision to break apart class abilities from real-Wizardry into granular skill point dumps (which end up achieving the same results while managing to exclude variety) is one of the main reasons I consider real-Wizardry (1-5, Empire, Gaiden, etc) to be mechanically better than wiz6, wiz7 and wiz8.

skill point dumps can co-exist with a founding class system, however, if the skill point dump ends up achieving less or the same result as having the class without the skill point requirement (as is the case in Wizardry) then we have the clearest example of what Jason Liang is talking about.

A real-Wizardry fighter can use any melee weapon because that is what his class is good at (among other weapon-related feats); however in wiz6, wiz7 and wiz8 that very same fighter, i.e. a fake-Wizardry fighter, needs to dump skill points into the specific weapon he or she wants to use.

the end result? the player's fake-Wizardry fighter (wiz6/wiz7/wiz8) ends up having less versatility than the real-Wizardry fighter who requires no skill points dumped in order to play his role.

Why does a thief need to dump points into skullduggery when in a real-Wizardry game a thief simply becomes better at picking locks or disarming traps the higher his character class level rises while having the skill also tied to the AGILITY and LUCK attributes?

What exactly is gained, from the player's perspective, by ditching the level/attribute system and marrying the skill to a skill point dump?

This is just a very basic example of the how and the why wiz6, wiz7 and wiz8 present the illusion of broader advancement options while being in practicality more exclusionary than the regular system from previous and future Wizardry games.

 

[Jason Liang]

In AoD your class defines what problems you get to solve; each one is effectively a different campaign. Your skills define how you solve them. I didn’t love skill point hoarding as gameplay, but AoD’s one real flaw is that VD didn’t have enough money and so there wasn’t enough to do in the game world. The skill system would have worked much better if you’d had more to do outside the main quest.

In Pillars, the skill system barely does anything. You could cut it from the game and you’d lose very little. I don’t see how it can really be detracting from class, aside from the fact that anyone can disarm traps. Pillars is reactive to lots of little things in lots of little ways; it would have been better served to react to one big thing in big ways. But the skill/class dichotomy doesn’t apply when the skill system barely exists. PoE’s classes were poorly designed in terms of differentiation, which would’ve remained true even if only rogues could do disarming/lockpicking.

These two games seem different and flawed in different ways, but their flaws are just different manifestations of the same error.

Pillars' flaw is a more extreme flaw than AoD's.

AoD's flaw is it made the skill system too central to gameplay. Not only is the gameplay outside of combat completely reliant and gated by attribute+skill/ skill checks, but AoD also made skill points the character progression system. As you progress in the game, your character progresses by... gaining more skills and skill points. When character progression should be tied to class, not skill. AoD wanted to have classes without actually having classes. But the principal error is the desire to move towards a classless system in the first place.

Pillars' flaw is as you stated the complete annihilation of class differences. So in fact it's the oppostie of AoD where while Pillars explicitly has classes, it implicity gets rid of class distinctions both in world reactivity and in gameplay. Again, the principal error is also the desire to move towards a classless system in the first place.

Both games have the same erroneous design desire. AoD explicity claims to be classless but actually retains class reactivity. Pillars explicity claims to have classes but actually got rid of what class does, which is restrict.

But that doesn't mean the games are completely disimilar. For example, in both games, characters can wear any armor and learn to use any weapon. So both games are trying to get rid of restrictive classing that was used in BG2. But by moving equipment selection/ restriction from being CLASS based to SKILL based (AoD) or FEAT based (Pillars), both games move away from the essence of role-playing.

Think of it this way. Equipment is a part of the world. By allowing any character to use any equipment, equipment is no longer reacting to your character role. Hence the games are both moving away from a computer role-playing experience.

The error is manifested in completely opposite ways in both games, but it's still the same error. It's like one student answes 5-7= -12, and another student answers 5-7=2. Both are wrong, but make the same error. (ok that's not a great analogy but that's what I mean)

 

[Jason Liang]

Fuck, now I'm talking about world and equipment. Maybe you guys need to read Heidegger's Being and Time.

 

[Bocian]

At least I have the toilet as a water supply.

LARP-ing Fallout 3.

 

[Delterius]

Not only is the gameplay outside of combat completely reliant and gated by attribute+skill/ skill checks, but AoD also made skill points the character progression system.

That's what is called being central to a game. Not 'too central'.

You just don't like this genre.

As you progress in the game, your character progresses by... gaining more skills and skill points.

Yes, you gain more power as you progress through the game. In this game that is expressed via skill points.

You just don't like this genre.

When character progression should be tied to class, not skill. AoD wanted to have classes without actually having classes.

It is sometimes called a vocation or job system, where classes are either a means to gain versatility or broad guidelines for development.

You just don't like this genre.

Pillars' flaw is as you stated the complete annihilation of class differences.

This is ludicrous and is based on hearsay. You most likely didn't even play the games you're talking about.

You just don't like this genre.

So in fact it's the oppostie of AoD where while Pillars

As I said, the games are very different and you don't know what you're talking about.

You just don't like this genre.

it implicity gets rid of class distinctions both in world reactivity and in gameplay. Again, the principal error is also the desire to move towards a classless system in the first place.

AoD is classless. PoE is not.

You don't even play this genre.

AoD explicity claims to be classless but actually retains class reactivity.

Yes, the game reacts to a mixture of choice of background and skill development. Yes, RPGs are games about character creation and development that takes place in a multitude of levels.

You just don't like this genre.

For example, in both games, characters can wear any armor and learn to use any weapon.

Guess what? The equipment system is another layer on top of skill development. If you make a character with a high attribute of DEX, you are working with an equipment system that allows you to trade speed for defense. Which in turn is a decision that is made in every battle.

This does not eliminate classes in any way.

You just don't like this genre.

So both games are trying to get rid of restrictive classing that was used in BG2.

Untrue. Pillars of Eternity is very much class based.

You just don't like this genre.

The error is manifested in completely opposite ways in both games, but it's still the same error. It's like one student answes 5-7= -12, and another student answers 5-7=2. Both are wrong, but make the same error. (ok that's not a great analogy but that's what I mean)

You are insane.

 

[Kutulu]

Behead all magefags.

magefags cant even rp being an actual man, gotta go to hogwarts to study LMAO...

 

[Master]

bradley's decision to break apart class abilities from real-Wizardry into granular skill point dumps (which end up achieving the same results while managing to exclude variety) is one of the main reasons I consider real-Wizardry (1-5, Empire, Gaiden, etc) to be mechanically better than wiz6, wiz7 and wiz8.

skill point dumps can co-exist with a founding class system, however, if the skill point dump ends up achieving less or the same result as having the class without the skill point requirement (as is the case in Wizardry) then we have the clearest example of what Jason Liang is talking about.

A real-Wizardry fighter can use any melee weapon because that is what his class is good at (among other weapon-related feats); however in wiz6, wiz7 and wiz8 that very same fighter, i.e. a fake-Wizardry fighter, needs to dump skill points into the specific weapon he or she wants to use.

the end result? the player's fake-Wizardry fighter (wiz6/wiz7/wiz8) ends up having less versatility than the real-Wizardry fighter who requires no skill points dumped in order to play his role.

Why does a thief need to dump points into skullduggery when in a real-Wizardry game a thief simply becomes better at picking locks or disarming traps the higher his character class level rises while having the skill also tied to the AGILITY and LUCK attributes?

What exactly is gained, from the player's perspective, by ditching the level/attribute system and marrying the skill to a skill point dump?

This is just a very basic example of the how and the why wiz6, wiz7 and wiz8 present the illusion of broader advancement options while being in practicality more exclusionary than the regular system from previous and future Wizardry games.

Why can't it be like in Fallout, if you tagged Steal you just need to dump less points.

This is good because what if in the middle of a game I say; fuck this thieving shit, I'm gonna become a scientist! and start pumping Science. Why not, it's just going to be harder than for someone who already tagged Science. Makes sense doesn't it.

But in Jason's RPG that cant happen, a thief who became a scientist can't exist.

 

[Delterius]

But in Jason's RPG that cant happen, a thief who became a scientist can't exist.

That you'd want something like that just means you haven't read that book about how Zarathustra spoke to Heidegger about a Razor, that was gifted to him by Occam's noble savage friend from Descarte's novel on the true essence of RPGs.

Maybe one day you'll also have an epiphany.

 

[Brancaleone]

Five pages of thread, and I'm still looking for any kind of epiphany.

By nature, epiphanies are difficult to explain and not easy to understand. When someone has an epiphany, they see a hidden connection between things that on the surface don't seem to be related to each other. In this case the connection is between skill systems and rpg decline. That link is the epiphany.

Thus spake Zarathustra, yadda, yadda.

Yes, it's such a deep understanding of the matter that only the best and brightest can appreciate it. To a lesser mind, it would instead appear as retarded drivel. Checkmate, Codex!

 

[vivec]

Also, Jesus Christ. What person invokes Heidegger, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche while talking about RPGs? Let me tell you, a blowhard. Taking games too seriously taken too far...

 

[Silva]

10 years from now Jason will release his own crpg that has spells in place of skills and classes that define race sexuality and philosophical look on life and will be huge succes and praised as the second coming of black isle, and we all will bite our tongues.

 

[Brancaleone]

Also, Jesus Christ. What person invokes Heidegger, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche while talking about RPGs? Let me tell you, a blowhard. Taking games too seriously taken too far...

You are just jealous because you've never experienced a brainfart an epiphany like the OP.

 

[vivec]

That explains why there's a fanny in epiphany.

 

[Azarkon]

Entertaining as this is, I think the class/skill dichotomy kind of misses the point. Or rather, there are lots of distinct issues here and lumping them all into classed vs classless tends to obsure more than it illuminates.

I think we can all agree that the real problem in so many RPGs is the lack of reactivity to player choice, particularly choice in character building. You could have a Fallout/GURPS style classless skill based system, but if the game frequently and dramatically reacted to your tagged skills as though they were an important part of your character that would make for an awesome RPG.

Bloodlines is great because the game reacts to your clan at nearly every turn. But that really has nothing to do with class based vs skill based. There’s no reason you couldn’t do the same thing with skills, it would just require substantially more work for the writers. Maybe not worth the effort, but it’s not incompatible with a skill based system.

Have any of you played the Stygian demo? Rather than classes, you pick archetypes (criminal, investigator, con man, aristocrat, occultist, academic, soldier, explorer etc...) and these determine which of your skills get tagged. So it’s a skill based system that’s somewhat restricted by class, and the demo does a pretty good job of reacting to your character build choices. We’ll have to see how that actually turns out, but the model seems solid.

Maybe the best term to use is just role. We want RPGs that make you pick a role and then react to it via more than a handful meaningful dialogue checks and a bunch of insignificant ones, right?

So the problem with, say, Pillars is that while it has plenty of stat checks, as well as race checks and class checks and skill checks (I admit the skill system was pretty pointless), it’s all kind of scattershot. The world doesn’t react to you consistently in a way that makes you feel like you have a particular role, other than Watcher, which is not a choice and also pretty meh.

But it doesn’t necessarily have to be class that the game reacts to consistently to make you feel like you’re playing a role. An RPG set in a world full of racial violence could make your race the defining feature, or you could have a world of religious war where your faith was the defining characteristic. Maybe I’m a fighter or a cleric or a rogue, but what really matters to NPCs is that I’m a follower of Helm.

Too be fair to the much maligned Tyranny, this is something the game does extremely well with faction because they make you choose your faction early. So you can role play as a rebel, disfavored, scarlet chorus, or anarchist and the world very much cares about that choice.

This is why NWN and NWN2 drove me nuts: great, I can pick all this stuff about my background and my patron deity and countless prestige classes, but no one seems to give a flying fuck that I’m a member of the Neverwinter Nine or a worshipper of the Red Knight. It’s mostly LARPing and I agree, the class stuff is mainly useful for min-maxing.

But anyway, a great RPG needs to be constantly reactive to some characteristic that the player has chosen. When it reacts to every characteristic intermittently, you end up losing the feeling of role playing.

You're getting close, but I'd say there is a missing aspect of this discussion that can only be appreciated from a narrative and development perspective. In principle, there's no difference between a Warrior, and a guy who specializes in Armor + Weapons + Strength + Constitution + martial talents. But a Warrior is a fantasy archetype, while a guy who just happens to have the same skills, is not. The lack of a label makes it significantly harder for a developer to interpret your character building choices in relation to a genre archetype, and therefore much harder for the game to react in an appropriate fashion.

To address this issue, developers give you other labels - backgrounds and narrative specific roles - to make sense of your identity, motivations, etc. This is all well and fine, until you realize that the roles and backgrounds the developers come up with aren't very compelling. An important reason why medieval fantasy has such staying power is because people actually do fantasize about being a Warrior, Wizard, Rogue, etc. - archetypes they've read about through fantasy novels, or watching films, or playing other games, while they don't particularly fantasize about a former Criminal who learns how to use Bows.

You can attempt to use faction as a replacement, but the two are not equivalent. A faction is an organization you join; it's not your identity. Most games do not treat factions as the central aspect of your character. They are, rather, narrative devices that you take on - or choose not to take on - as a matter of convenience and expediency. Being a member of Caesar's Legion determines what quests you complete and whose side of the conflict you're on. But it doesn't define your character; it doesn't establish your archetype.

The reason games like Assassin's Creed are popular is because they exploit the power of established archetypes. The concept of an assassin is edgy, it's cool, it's attractive to the masses. Change that to a different archetype, and the game collapses. There's a reason why we don't have Scholar's Creed or Peasant's Creed. People want to play assassins, and they want that experience to match the archetype they've always known. You can subvert the archetype, to a degree, but you can't fundamentally change it, and you definitely cannot ignore it. Indeed, that whole franchise is built around fulfilling people's expectations, and the same applies to most action and adventure games.

This brings us back to the need for structure. Not just any structure, but compelling structure. The archetype classes can be thought of as tried and proven roles that we know work, and which players can identify with instantly, as they already know them from other mediums or previous experiences. With respect to new roles that we ourselves create, whether they are a new class, or labels that we associate the player with in a system without classes, they are neither tried nor proven, and so their success is not remotely guaranteed. It is entirely possible to create a new role that people love - the Witcher franchise is an excellent example - but it's also entirely possible to fail. The price of failure, in this case, is a lack of immersion and apathy. When players don't like their roles, they don't care about them, and when they don't care about their roles in a CRPG, they don't care about the game.

 

[vivec]

That is overthinking. Roleplay should, of course, *allow* for archetypes, but not restrict you to ones you don't sympathize with. A class-based system can actually force into such a restriction. This absolutism, that RPGs are simulating *only* archetype is just not useful.

Also, the archetype should reflect from both the skillset of the char *and* from their behavior. So a warrior that acts just and upholds codes of honour is automatically a Paladin. You don't need a class for that.

 

[Delterius]

With respect to new roles that we ourselves create, whether they are a new class, or labels that we associate the player with in a system without classes, they are neither tried nor proven, and so their success is not remotely guaranteed.

Uh... yes?

That's what's fun about RPGs.

They reward experimentation and give you the tools to work with.

You can play a 3E game like NwN2 and use the 'recommended' class, the 'tried and true' Fighter.

Or you can combine a number of obscure talent picks and attribute choices and turn a double sickle wielder into the most powerful dervish of destruction possible.

Its up to you which role you want to play.

Case in point, the OP doesn't really play RPGs because he actually hates them. But he heard somewhere that Malkavians are the coolest clan in Bloodlines because of all the special dialogue they get. Fair enough. But then who goes on to say that, of course, archetypes are what's fun in RPGs. Not all this fiddling with skills and feats. Too little does he realize that I can choose to push the archetypes however I want in Bloodlines. A talky Brujah, a fighting Toreador, and so on.

But of course, that sort of busywork doesn't interest fans of action adventure games. So they go about creating threads about how Nietzsche and Zarathustra kissed while showing them the true essence of RPGs in a wet dream. You're the exact character the developer thinks you should be. No permutation or fun allowed.

 

[Azarkon]

With respect to new roles that we ourselves create, whether they are a new class, or labels that we associate the player with in a system without classes, they are neither tried nor proven, and so their success is not remotely guaranteed.

Uh... yes?

That's what's fun about RPGs.

They reward experimentation and give you the tools to work with.

You can play a 3E game like NwN2 and use the 'recommended' class, the 'tried and true' Fighter.

Or you can combine a number of obscure talent picks and attribute choices and turn a double sickle wielder into the most powerful dervish of destruction possible.

Its up to you which role you want to play.

Case in point, the OP doesn't really play RPGs because he actually hates them. But he heard somewhere that Malkavians are the coolest clan in Bloodlines because of all the special dialogue they get. Fair enough. But then who goes on to say that, of course, archetypes are what's fun in RPGs. Not all this fiddling with skills and feats. Too little does he realize that I can choose to push the archetypes however I want in Bloodlines. A talky Brujah, a fighting Toreador, and so on.

But of course, that sort of busywork doesn't interest fans of action adventure games. So they go about creating threads about how Nietzsche and Zarathustra kissed while showing them the true essence of RPGs in a wet dream. You're the exact character the developer thinks you should be. No permutation or fun allowed.

Insofar as structured reactivity in CRPGs is considered lacking, your argument doesn't address the issue. How are developers supposed to support the roles *you* come up with? I want my character to be an edgy oldfag who uses necromancy to enslave nations, but unless the game recognizes it, I'm just going to be generic protagonist 01353 with access to a few necromancy spells in combat. The reduction of roles to bundles of combat abilities is precisely what makes modern CRPGs feel generic from a role playing perspective. By which, I'm not talking about "how to build a strong character" systemfag enjoyment, but the actual immersion factor of realizing a character concept.

There are two aspects of role playing, neither of which can be ignored. There is joy to building an effective character from combining talents, skills, and classes; but there is also joy in pretending to be a character in a fully realized world. On the Codex, we historically considered the former systemfag sentiments, and the latter storyfag sentiments. But they are not as decoupled as one likes to think. The charm in class-based games is often dependent on providing the player a structured experience that combines game mechanics with narrative elements, so as to produce a cohesive whole. Arguing that people who appreciate such an experience hates the genre is absurd given the Codex's appreciation for games like the Witcher, which have minimal character customization but achieves maximal immersion through structuring its experience around a compelling role.

 

[Azarkon]

That is overthinking. Roleplay should, of course, *allow* for archetypes, but not restrict you to ones you don't sympathize with. A class-based system can actually force into such a restriction. This absolutism, that RPGs are simulating *only* archetype is just not useful.

No one's saying that they should only simulate archetypes, but rather that archetypes provide a tried and proven structured experience that people enjoy. You can create new concepts and roles, but you better be competent at it - and many developers just aren't.

Also, the archetype should reflect from both the skillset of the char *and* from their behavior. So a warrior that acts just and upholds codes of honour is automatically a Paladin. You don't need a class for that.

You're asking the player to pretend his character is a Paladin without the game acknowledging it. That doesn't work. Again, I can pretend that my character is an oldfag who uses necromancy to enslave nations, and try to pick the best dialogue choices that reflect this concept. But unless the game acknowledges me, it's all in my head, and my actual experience in the game will be that of a generic protagonist who sounds like a dick but is otherwise just like any other protagonist. How does that enrich my play?

In pen and paper, when you build a Paladin and tell the game master that this is what your character is about, a competent game master will structure the adventure so as to give you opportunities to realize your role as a Paladin. For example, by whispering you messages from your god, or by creating events in which your faith and honor are tested. CRPGs don't do that. There's a set amount of choices in a game and developers must decide which to include - and that decision is inevitably based on what they presume your role to be, whether you like that role, or not.

 

[vivec]

A. That the devs are no competent can't be an excuse.

B. There is no pretense. The *game* should acknowledge my choices. What is so hard about that? All our beloved games do that.

 

[Alkarl]

That is overthinking. Roleplay should, of course, *allow* for archetypes, but not restrict you to ones you don't sympathize with. A class-based system can actually force into such a restriction. This absolutism, that RPGs are simulating *only* archetype is just not useful.

No one's saying that they should only simulate archetypes, but rather that archetypes provide a tried and proven structured experience that people enjoy. You can create new concepts and roles, but you better be competent at it - and many developers just aren't.

So, you think a game like Skyrim is noteworthy and profound for its classless system because "people enjoy it" and the developers must therefor be genius because they abandoned archetypes and "people enjoyed it."

Good to know.