We made do many times in Everquest without the perfect group makeup....It wasnt until years later when the expansions started getting out of hand that we had to have certain things to make the group work.....I still prefer the role designed classes over the do it all classes....After all, they are ROLE playing games.
I prefer players being able to build their characters as opposed to rigid roles. Best is no defined roles (in my estimation), with advantages and disadvantages for specialization or generalization. If someone wants to follow a cookie cutter Fotm build they are free to, but if you have different ideas about the character, you can go that way.
Generally find rigid roles to be really anti-immersive, and I value immersion a lot.
In modern terms, you can be a rifleman and a paramedic. Air Forces pilots may shoot a rifle just once in their training, but Marine pilots go through complete infantry training before hitting flight school. Etc.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Since you create your character, you should be able, in the same spirit, to create its gameplay. If not, you should be able to find a close match.
Roles in terms of class, are a way to simplify the organization of raids, which are the peak of themeparks MMO.
However, if we want to go beyond this old design and inhabit digital worlds, then we need roles that go beyond the combat situation and that fill social roles. By social roles, I do not mean exclusively life-skilling, but also unique and desirable services to provide to other players.
Since you create your character, you should be able, in the same spirit, to create its gameplay. If not, you should be able to find a close match.
Roles in terms of class, are a way to simplify the organization of raids, which are the peak of themeparks MMO.
However, if we want to go beyond this old design and inhabit digital worlds, then we need roles that go beyond the combat situation and that fill social roles. By social roles, I do not mean exclusively life-skilling, but also unique and desirable services to provide to other players.
I agree, One should not be Shoehorned into corner where they are like "I am a Cleric, it is what I am, it is what I do" which is a very limiting and mind dead way to make a game.
I personally think being able to craft your own character, as you want it, is the best way to make a game.
While the content itself can be designed with roles in mind, where the Devs expect someone to be able to tank, or heal, or CC, or what have you, the players themselves should be free to design their character in such a way, if they want to be myopic, or if they want to be versatile.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
You mean they make something that is vastly more simple to analyze because you have actual control over what set of abilities exist in a character and how much synergy they can have ... somehow make it worse ?
I'm sorry but I couldnt disagree more.
Having classes allows you to group players and to evaluate their performance. Not possible when there arent classes and everyone has their very own set of abilities.
Any system where characters are not confined to a single role, or where the content can be approached with a wide variety of group compositions preventing excessive dependency on certain roles.
Examples of the former are ESO, FFXIV, and Rift.
An example of the latter is City of Heroes.
Funny that you mentioned Rift. What killed RIFT for me was the change made just before launch (or just after) where you could just respec when you wanted. (They also changed how you acquired skill trees) The Alpha of RIFT was amazing and I never enjoyed the launched game nearly as much.
Respecs that weren't a bother was an excellent feature of Rift and was increasingly so as more souls were added to the game. What is the benefit in limiting experimentation in a system that allows so much variety by adding a busy work impediment to it.
RPGs are most literally about roleplaying, i.e. acting, a character.
Its even in the very name of the thing.
Sure you can play YOURSELF but you are in no way limited to that.
In role-playing games, absolutely. In MMORPGs, not so much.
There are many playing MMORPGs that don't role-play as their character whatsoever. Being in the name in this case is largely a misnomer except in the context of multiple roles that one can choose between to play in the game.
I really don't get why anyone would want strict defined classes to either play better or feel like they're roleplaying more correctly.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I recall when I was playing FFXI how I was invited to a static group and the group leader a white mage started discussing the classes we needed. They were so precise and immovable on their choices. After a month of logging and working yes it was work more than play I told them I was quitting the game and left.
Class roles are not bad it is how players use them to police and form groups that is horrible. It was like this even in Everquest and it isn't something new in the games these days. It has just become an acceptable trend even in a game like Lost Ark.
I would prefer more flexible roles because of how players abuse these mechanics and instil draconian rules to play with them.
I really don't get why anyone would want strict defined classes to either play better or feel like they're roleplaying more correctly.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps the most famous table top role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons, is class based as is perhaps the most famous MMORPG, WoW.
That could at least partly explain the expectation and preference for such.
Why yes - people turn into fans for certain classes and prefer playing them.
And if they are not present they instead try to emulate them.
P.s.: Oh and I would like to add that classes alone are not unique to roleplaying games. A shooter, battle royale etc can also have classes. Like the guy with the big gun and many hitpoints, or the sniper, or the medic etc.
Some want A, some want E, and some want those that are in-between. Why can't we have all of it?
I have seen, over the years, that Classes are valued. It's not just the simplicity of it, it's got a high value to Gamers in the IDENTITY of their Character(s).
I strongly believe that a game can have all of these options. I also think that the basic Classes need to be better at doing what that Class does than anyone else. However....
The Jack of All Trades. This should be a misnomer. They should simply be proficient at more options, but not all of the game's available choices. And this is the key here. While the pure Class is best at what they do, the JoAT's should have options that MIGHT allow them (depending on their choices) to find the "chinks in the armor" of their opponent. This, plus being more capable against a wider range of opponents, should be close to an even trade-off.
With that, here's my system. - Start with a Skill Based system. - Allow Players to join an NPC "guild" based on the basic Classes. - These NPC "guilds" offer special attacks and defensive moves that aren't available to anyone else. - The "guild" sourced specials require minimum skills from withing that Class in order to learn, and then work up just like any other Skill.
Meanwhile, the JoAT's are open to build up any skills they want (within game limits to total Skills), combine them if they can, and use a wider variety of abilities. Their key to success is identifying the weaknesses of opponents and using a Skill they've developed against said weakness.
RPGs are most literally about roleplaying, i.e. acting, a character.
Its even in the very name of the thing.
Sure you can play YOURSELF but you are in no way limited to that.
1) Well, I agree with you. Entirely. I am even a defender of the word "Role" as "in-character" instead as "Role" such as a tactical role in a group aka a class.
2) You misunderstood.
A character is a measure of self-expression as much as any other production, such as a painting or whatever. I never meant to play myself, which is weird IMO.
I really don't get why anyone would want strict defined classes to either play better or feel like they're roleplaying more correctly.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps the most famous table top role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons, is class based as is perhaps the most famous MMORPG, WoW.
That could at least partly explain the expectation and preference for such.
To be fair "Dwarf" "Elf" and "Halfling" were both classes and races in Dungeons and Dragons.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I prefer a skill system and gear combinations. The ability to learn a specific set of skills early to get you into the game quickly and enjoy playing all content with the option to learn all skills over a long period of time allowing for a multitude of combinations.
I really don't get why anyone would want strict defined classes to either play better or feel like they're roleplaying more correctly.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps the most famous table top role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons, is class based as is perhaps the most famous MMORPG, WoW.
That could at least partly explain the expectation and preference for such.
To be fair "Dwarf" "Elf" and "Halfling" were both classes and races in Dungeons and Dragons.
They were, in Basic D&D.
However, it is Advanced D&D that became more established such that it eventually gained mass public awareness, and in that class and race were separate with their presentation in Basic accounted for through multi-classing.
The descriptor of 'Advanced' was maintained through second edition, and then dropped in third edition onward because consistency sucks apparently.
I agree. This is what? An half-century old design?
I mean it has its uses, but maybe it is time for a change...
Alternative are abundant in table top RPGs, and also present in MMORPGs. Regardless, class based systems still remain prevalent despite their lengthy history. For a lot of people class based systems ain't broke and thus need neither fixing or abandoning.
As I said before, I think the main design goal specifically with MMORPGs is aiming for longterm motivation. As I've already mentioned, that means on one hand to make every class as interesting as possible, giving them a wide range of abilties, but not making them master of more than one field.
But it also means to encourage playing multiple characters with different classes. So when the inevitable happends and you have actually maxed out your main character, you can try a second class and get a different experience out of it.
So one reason why I like classes is that if you have classey you can make each class play substantly different, making aspects of the game that are important on one character completely irrelevant on another, thus giving the player a substantially different experience once they play a secondary class more extensively.
In Vanguard for example various classes had some sort of point system, and it worked differently with every class that had it. The Dread Knight had a very simple point system, simply a debuff on the mob they would want to max out, and various ones of their abilities would increase this counter. The Blood Mage had something called blood points - they could increase the blood points with certain abilities and could then use other abilities that required these blood points. However if the current mob died the blood points would be gone. An example for the abilities that required blood points was the healing over time spell of Blood Mages, which was always a pain to set up compared to Clerics, who could just cast the same thing on regular mana. Monks and Disciplines had Chi, a counter that allowed them to use certain abilities. Unlike Blood Mages that counter was independent upon the current mob and in fact they could enter combat with the Chi counter already maxed every time. And so on and so forth. I think Sorcerer was one of the classes that didnt have a point system.
Necromancer basically was a counting game. You had to keep track of
the many different damage over time spells you had up in order to
maximize your total damage output, setting up the next damage over time
of the same kind the moment the old one would run out, and also insert
debuffs on the mob to maximize your damage with certain damage types,
and insert direct damage spells when nothing else was to do, etc. This was not necessary for example on a Sorcerer, which relied on direct damage spells.
Disciple and Ranger (and possibly/likely Monk, I never played Monk much because they've been one of the two worst solist classes) could use certain sequences of attacks to archieve special effects, namely buffs. This idea was completely absent on other classes.
There was also different kinds of crafting, depending upon class. Rangers could create arrows etc from resources they could gather in the wild. Necromancers could gain body parts from fallen opponents and improve their pet with them. Gnomes also got a crafting like ability as their special racial ability, though that one was really problematic.
Another difference that Vanguard had was that different mages had access to different elements. Sorcerers had arcane, fire and ice damage spells. Necromancers had physical, spiritual and ice damage spells. Etc.
All such details are impossible without having classes. Then your characters core mechanics always works the same.
The most tolerable implementation of this in a purely skillbased system that I could find was Skyrim. In Skyrim, if you leveled up a certain category, you could actually gain abilities that would your character make work different from other characters. Of course Skyrim screwed this up completely in the end and you can basically turn into a master of everything. Still, nice idea. Fallout also has such a game feature.
Still I find that the difference can be even much stronger if you just use classes instead.
All such details are impossible without having classes. Then your characters core mechanics always works the same.
The most tolerable implementation of this in a purely skillbased system that I could find was Skyrim. In Skyrim, if you leveled up a certain category, you could actually gain abilities that would your character make work different from other characters. Of course Skyrim screwed this up completely in the end and you can basically turn into a master of everything. Still, nice idea. Fallout also has such a game feature.
Still I find that the difference can be even much stronger if you just use classes instead.
Believe it or not, what you described has been available in UO since the beginning. Although it seems to me that UO wasn't as wide ranging, lacking such play as Necromancer, as an example.
UO's Skill system was the only true Skill System that I'm aware of. I'll go through a few points to explain it.
- There were a good number of skills with a wide range of what they allowed you to do. - Each Skill could be raised to 100, (120 later on, and maybe more now). -You Character had a max of Skill points allowed, it changed a little over time, but it was around 700 at the start (this changed over time a little bit).
Some Skills modified a primary Skill. As an example, Swords was modified by both Anatomy and Tactics for chances to hit and damage. To be the best at Swords, you needed all 3 at top end. But you could give some of those Skill Points to another Skill and still be pretty good. As an example of that, you could have 100 Swords, 80 Anatomy, and 50 Tactics, and still be pretty good as a Swordsman, and have an extra 70 points to put in another Skill.
As a pure Fighter, you could have: 100 Swords 100 Anatomy 100 Tactics 100 Mace 100 Bow and still have 200 points to place somewhere.
Healing (using Bandages) was another Skill, and it also was modified by Anatomy Skill. So this Pure Fighter could add 100 Healing and he already has 100 Anatomy. So he's still got 100 points to put somewhere(s).
He could put around 20 points in Magery and be able to cast the recall spell (a teleport) to get around the world quickly. He could put 80 points into Alchemy and make pretty good potions (heals, cures, stat boosts).
Or he could take that first list, drop Bow or Mace and have 300 points left to use for Crafting Skills, and still be a damn good Fighter.
Another things about their Skill System was that each Skill could be set to go up, down, or locked where it is. This gave players a means of control for building their ultimate choice of Character. Skills only went down if you had reached the max Skill Points allowed, and then only when another Skill went up. This also made for a natural means to "respec" your character.
I probably have a few things wrong, but I wanted to show how it works. It flows, it makes sense, and it's highly modifiable. And you can still have your Class of choice, or you can be a more rounded character with more options.
The one drawback with UO's system, as far as separating the Classes like many want, is that you could be a full fledged Fighter and Mage at the same time. (Some player like that, though.) There's a variety of ways to fix that, if a game's designers want to.
What you describe is a completely conventional skill system thats worse than Skyrim or Fallout, because every character operates exactly the same "under the hood".
You cannot get differences, like a different point system per class, in a classless system.
What you describe is a completely conventional skill system thats worse than Skyrim or Fallout, because every character operates exactly the same "under the hood".
You cannot get differences, like a different point system per class, in a classless system.
What you describe is a completely conventional skill system thats worse than Skyrim or Fallout, because every character operates exactly the same "under the hood".
You cannot get differences, like a different point system per class, in a classless system.
While it is is true by definition that you can't get a different point system by class in a classless system you can though a differentiation other than class, race for example in a fantasy or science-fiction game.
Comments
Generally find rigid roles to be really anti-immersive, and I value immersion a lot.
In modern terms, you can be a rifleman and a paramedic. Air Forces pilots may shoot a rifle just once in their training, but Marine pilots go through complete infantry training before hitting flight school. Etc.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I personally think being able to craft your own character, as you want it, is the best way to make a game.
While the content itself can be designed with roles in mind, where the Devs expect someone to be able to tank, or heal, or CC, or what have you, the players themselves should be free to design their character in such a way, if they want to be myopic, or if they want to be versatile.
Respecs that weren't a bother was an excellent feature of Rift and was increasingly so as more souls were added to the game. What is the benefit in limiting experimentation in a system that allows so much variety by adding a busy work impediment to it.
In role-playing games, absolutely. In MMORPGs, not so much.
There are many playing MMORPGs that don't role-play as their character whatsoever. Being in the name in this case is largely a misnomer except in the context of multiple roles that one can choose between to play in the game.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Class roles are not bad it is how players use them to police and form groups that is horrible. It was like this even in Everquest and it isn't something new in the games these days. It has just become an acceptable trend even in a game like Lost Ark.
I would prefer more flexible roles because of how players abuse these mechanics and instil draconian rules to play with them.
That could at least partly explain the expectation and preference for such.
Why can't we have all of it?
I have seen, over the years, that Classes are valued. It's not just the simplicity of it, it's got a high value to Gamers in the IDENTITY of their Character(s).
I strongly believe that a game can have all of these options.
I also think that the basic Classes need to be better at doing what that Class does than anyone else.
However....
The Jack of All Trades. This should be a misnomer. They should simply be proficient at more options, but not all of the game's available choices.
And this is the key here.
While the pure Class is best at what they do, the JoAT's should have options that MIGHT allow them (depending on their choices) to find the "chinks in the armor" of their opponent.
This, plus being more capable against a wider range of opponents, should be close to an even trade-off.
With that, here's my system.
- Start with a Skill Based system.
- Allow Players to join an NPC "guild" based on the basic Classes.
- These NPC "guilds" offer special attacks and defensive moves that aren't available to anyone else.
- The "guild" sourced specials require minimum skills from withing that Class in order to learn, and then work up just like any other Skill.
Meanwhile, the JoAT's are open to build up any skills they want (within game limits to total Skills), combine them if they can, and use a wider variety of abilities. Their key to success is identifying the weaknesses of opponents and using a Skill they've developed against said weakness.
Once upon a time....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
They were, in Basic D&D.
However, it is Advanced D&D that became more established such that it eventually gained mass public awareness, and in that class and race were separate with their presentation in Basic accounted for through multi-classing.
The descriptor of 'Advanced' was maintained through second edition, and then dropped in third edition onward because consistency sucks apparently.
UO's Skill system was the only true Skill System that I'm aware of.
I'll go through a few points to explain it.
- There were a good number of skills with a wide range of what they allowed you to do.
- Each Skill could be raised to 100, (120 later on, and maybe more now).
-You Character had a max of Skill points allowed, it changed a little over time, but it was around 700 at the start (this changed over time a little bit).
Some Skills modified a primary Skill.
As an example, Swords was modified by both Anatomy and Tactics for chances to hit and damage. To be the best at Swords, you needed all 3 at top end.
But you could give some of those Skill Points to another Skill and still be pretty good.
As an example of that, you could have 100 Swords, 80 Anatomy, and 50 Tactics, and still be pretty good as a Swordsman, and have an extra 70 points to put in another Skill.
As a pure Fighter, you could have:
100 Swords
100 Anatomy
100 Tactics
100 Mace
100 Bow
and still have 200 points to place somewhere.
Healing (using Bandages) was another Skill, and it also was modified by Anatomy Skill.
So this Pure Fighter could add 100 Healing
and he already has 100 Anatomy.
So he's still got 100 points to put somewhere(s).
He could put around 20 points in Magery and be able to cast the recall spell (a teleport) to get around the world quickly.
He could put 80 points into Alchemy and make pretty good potions (heals, cures, stat boosts).
Or he could take that first list, drop Bow or Mace and have 300 points left to use for Crafting Skills, and still be a damn good Fighter.
Another things about their Skill System was that each Skill could be set to go up, down, or locked where it is.
This gave players a means of control for building their ultimate choice of Character.
Skills only went down if you had reached the max Skill Points allowed, and then only when another Skill went up.
This also made for a natural means to "respec" your character.
I probably have a few things wrong, but I wanted to show how it works.
It flows, it makes sense, and it's highly modifiable.
And you can still have your Class of choice, or you can be a more rounded character with more options.
The one drawback with UO's system, as far as separating the Classes like many want, is that you could be a full fledged Fighter and Mage at the same time. (Some player like that, though.)
There's a variety of ways to fix that, if a game's designers want to.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
While it is is true by definition that you can't get a different point system by class in a classless system you can though a differentiation other than class, race for example in a fantasy or science-fiction game.