UO had a neat system where each Skill was set automatically to go up, but you could change them by locking them where they are, or set them to go down in the case that you're at max total Skill Points and you want to give up one Skill to raise another. So your new Skill effectively robbed the old Skill of points over time. You still had the old Skill to use, even as it went slowly down. Realistic. Immersive in a Worldly design way.
If you can only pick a subset of skills at any one time, then you are effectively creating a class.
If you can max out all skills at the same time, then you have a fully open skill-based system where you do not have to pick which subset of skills to use. Ryzom is like that.
Personally I think the max out all skills is better from a realistic point of view. It's not like I am going to forget being a master miner and blacksmith because I want to chop some wood and learn carpentry.
The Excelsior UO private shard I played on let you learn all skills and I found it much better than on live when I was making a mage, a combat character and a crafter.
I would also agree with making a skill template being effectively creating a class.
There are other ways to balance having all the skills like if you want to cast spells you would need to wear a robe and not armor or it would interfere with your spells and mana regen. Trade off type stuff like dual wielding two swords will improve your damage but you wouldn't get the armor bonus of a shield. etc.
You seem to know a lot about Ryzom I'm curious if they have some kind of balancing system for being able to learn all the skills?
Most other games I can think of limit you to a maximum skill selection. Secret World is 14 with 7 active 7 passive. UO is limited on the live servers. Guild Wars lets you pick 8. Project Gorgon lets you pick 2 combat skills.
I wonder just how many games let you learn all the skills? Seems like a pretty small list, even for games where you level up skills...
I played Ryzom for many years, starting in 2004 when it released. The game's premise is that the world is hostile, so even digging up mats can get you killed. It had the absolute best community I ever saw in an MMO. When you came into a zone, you normally would announce yourself, and calling for a rez or for help was always responded to.
"if they have some kind of balancing system for being able to learn all the skills?"
No, I'm not sure what you mean. Skills level up by using them. When they level, you gain credits to use when building the actions for those skills. At some level, skills branch out, so for example you start with melee 2-handed. Once you level it up enough, it can specialize in 2-H sword, 2-H axe, etc. That doesn't mean you can't still use all the skills you ever learned, there is no cap on skill points.
Crafting and digging also were skills, it took me probably 8 years to max out just digging in the forest biome, one of the 5 in the game.
It's a sandbox survival game, almost 20 years old. No quests, no classes, no predefined actions, no weapon or armor drops, everything is player made. The best crafting game I've ever played.
UO had a neat system where each Skill was set automatically to go up, but you could change them by locking them where they are, or set them to go down in the case that you're at max total Skill Points and you want to give up one Skill to raise another. So your new Skill effectively robbed the old Skill of points over time. You still had the old Skill to use, even as it went slowly down. Realistic. Immersive in a Worldly design way.
If you can only pick a subset of skills at any one time, then you are effectively creating a class.
If you can max out all skills at the same time, then you have a fully open skill-based system where you do not have to pick which subset of skills to use. Ryzom is like that.
Personally I think the max out all skills is better from a realistic point of view. It's not like I am going to forget being a master miner and blacksmith because I want to chop some wood and learn carpentry.
The Excelsior UO private shard I played on let you learn all skills and I found it much better than on live when I was making a mage, a combat character and a crafter.
I would also agree with making a skill template being effectively creating a class.
There are other ways to balance having all the skills like if you want to cast spells you would need to wear a robe and not armor or it would interfere with your spells and mana regen. Trade off type stuff like dual wielding two swords will improve your damage but you wouldn't get the armor bonus of a shield. etc.
You seem to know a lot about Ryzom I'm curious if they have some kind of balancing system for being able to learn all the skills?
Most other games I can think of limit you to a maximum skill selection. Secret World is 14 with 7 active 7 passive. UO is limited on the live servers. Guild Wars lets you pick 8. Project Gorgon lets you pick 2 combat skills.
I wonder just how many games let you learn all the skills? Seems like a pretty small list, even for games where you level up skills...
I played Ryzom for many years, starting in 2004 when it released. The game's premise is that the world is hostile, so even digging up mats can get you killed. It had the absolute best community I ever saw in an MMO. When you came into a zone, you normally would announce yourself, and calling for a rez or for help was always responded to.
"if they have some kind of balancing system for being able to learn all the skills?"
No, I'm not sure what you mean. Skills level up by using them. When they level, you gain credits to use when building the actions for those skills. At some level, skills branch out, so for example you start with melee 2-handed. Once you level it up enough, it can specialize in 2-H sword, 2-H axe, etc. That doesn't mean you can't still use all the skills you ever learned, there is no cap on skill points.
Crafting and digging also were skills, it took me probably 8 years to max out just digging in the forest biome, one of the 5 in the game.
It's a sandbox survival game, almost 20 years old. No quests, no classes, no predefined actions, no weapon or armor drops, everything is player made. The best crafting game I've ever played.
Can you imagine trying to get a youngster to play Ryzom today if they learnt it took 8 years to max a skill..."Wheres my dings!"
UO had a neat system where each Skill was set automatically to go up, but you could change them by locking them where they are, or set them to go down in the case that you're at max total Skill Points and you want to give up one Skill to raise another. So your new Skill effectively robbed the old Skill of points over time. You still had the old Skill to use, even as it went slowly down. Realistic. Immersive in a Worldly design way.
If you can only pick a subset of skills at any one time, then you are effectively creating a class.
If you can max out all skills at the same time, then you have a fully open skill-based system where you do not have to pick which subset of skills to use. Ryzom is like that.
Personally I think the max out all skills is better from a realistic point of view. It's not like I am going to forget being a master miner and blacksmith because I want to chop some wood and learn carpentry.
The Excelsior UO private shard I played on let you learn all skills and I found it much better than on live when I was making a mage, a combat character and a crafter.
I would also agree with making a skill template being effectively creating a class.
There are other ways to balance having all the skills like if you want to cast spells you would need to wear a robe and not armor or it would interfere with your spells and mana regen. Trade off type stuff like dual wielding two swords will improve your damage but you wouldn't get the armor bonus of a shield. etc.
You seem to know a lot about Ryzom I'm curious if they have some kind of balancing system for being able to learn all the skills?
Most other games I can think of limit you to a maximum skill selection. Secret World is 14 with 7 active 7 passive. UO is limited on the live servers. Guild Wars lets you pick 8. Project Gorgon lets you pick 2 combat skills.
I wonder just how many games let you learn all the skills? Seems like a pretty small list, even for games where you level up skills...
I played Ryzom for many years, starting in 2004 when it released. The game's premise is that the world is hostile, so even digging up mats can get you killed. It had the absolute best community I ever saw in an MMO. When you came into a zone, you normally would announce yourself, and calling for a rez or for help was always responded to.
"if they have some kind of balancing system for being able to learn all the skills?"
No, I'm not sure what you mean. Skills level up by using them. When they level, you gain credits to use when building the actions for those skills. At some level, skills branch out, so for example you start with melee 2-handed. Once you level it up enough, it can specialize in 2-H sword, 2-H axe, etc. That doesn't mean you can't still use all the skills you ever learned, there is no cap on skill points.
Crafting and digging also were skills, it took me probably 8 years to max out just digging in the forest biome, one of the 5 in the game.
It's a sandbox survival game, almost 20 years old. No quests, no classes, no predefined actions, no weapon or armor drops, everything is player made. The best crafting game I've ever played.
Can you imagine trying to get a youngster to play Ryzom today if they learnt it took 8 years to max a skill..."Wheres my dings!"
From the sounds of it the time investment would balance out the skill learning.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Tank is a role, not a class. In all class based games, several classes can fulfill the tank role.
And no, there are no classes in neither UO nor NW. If you pretend there are, then you either never played those games or don't have the start of an idea of what you are talking about.
Don't let your NW hatred make you talk bullshit.
Oh guess none of this exists since there were no classes in UO:
Warrior - pure warrior that leaves little to chance and everything else to their weapons, can provide bandage healing.
Paladin - heroic warrior that relies on Chivalry, positive Karma and weaponry, can provide some healing.
Samurai - warrior heavily dependent on the Virtue of Honor, a weapon and Bushido.
Ninja - shadowy assassin that relies on the element of surprise, Stealth and Hiding.
Mage - arcane practitioner that focuses their power through Magery spells making them versatile for both fighting healing.
Necromancer - practitioner of the dark magic arts that employs Necromancy.
Two new character classes were added with Age of Shadows. The new Paladin character class consists mainly of the new Chivalry skill. If used in conjunction with a "Book of Chivalry", a Paladin using the skill can perform powerful techniques, such as curing poison in battle, or teleporting to a new location. These types of magical abilities were previously restricted to mages. In order to perform Chivalry techniques, a Paladin must tithe gold to a shrine in exchange for "tithing points".
The new Necromancer character class was introduced along with 16 Necromancy spells. Necromancy requires a separate group of reagents: Bat Wing, Grave Dust, Daemon Blood, Nox Crystal, and Pig Iron.
Samurai Empire
Samurai Empire is the sixth expansion to the Ultima OnlineMMORPG, featuring an oriental-themed environment, allowing players to play archetypical characters the Samurai and Ninja. It also added a new area named the Tokuno Islands. It was developed and published by Electronic Arts and released on November 2, 2004.
Those are templates, not real classes. You aren't stuck into those specific classes, those are more like guidelines for noobs. If you want, in UO, you can be (e.g.) a necromantic paladin samurai !
Oh, and one more on /ignore... because indeed, I hate arguing on semantics (not you Nilden). If tank is a class, why can the warrior, death knight, druid, monk and Demon Hunter CLASSES be TANKS in WoW for instance ? End of discussion.
That's exactly right. What people are missing is that those were Skills, and had extra, unique weaving with other Skills. While it played like a Class, it was done through the Skill System. And a player didn't have to follow that template, and if they didn't then they had a less effective "Class-like-Skill" (which ever one they chose).
There's a difference between a "Class Based System" and "Class simulation through a Skill System." For those players who followed the Template, it played sort of like a Class Based System but it wasn't mechanically/design/code. And they never had to follow the Template design, if they wanted to just take advantage of a portion of what that Template could offer, based on their Skill choices.
There's some great ideas in there, in my opinion. They brought such things as Tithing to Shrines into the game for players. I'm sure some other games have done this, I think Project Gorgon did things like that and some other cool things. They probably went a bit too far in some cases, lol. Props to them for it, though. Gaming needs to do more of that refreshing stuff to add to the worlds we play in.
Uh this game exists. The one based on skills you pick and not a clasIns. It's called New World. Ever play it? Yeah let me know when in that game you pick your class. I'll wait. Oh and if you're not playing it then maybe having a skill based MMO isn't the silver bullet that's going to fix all that's wrong with MMOs. Just a thought.
Can I pick all the skills in New World? Or just a subset, or certain class, of skills?
As soon as you pick up your weapon and slot your abilities, you've picked your "class."
The actual skills for each weapon are just a matter of how it will function.
My main carries a fire staff and blunderbuss, has to slot intelligence at a over 300 and he's a true fire mage in every sense.
Now if he picks up a Great Sword and Great Axe, he switches his attributes (at a cost) to either 300 Str or some combination of Str/Dex and wa lah, he's a melee DPS ....
Sounds like a crappy "Skill" system to me.
Some weapon combos define a "role", indeed most tanks use sword and shield, but you can be a tank without that, I've seen my guildies tank mutations with greatsword and spear. And sword and shield, when specced properly, can be a very efficient damage weapon. That's what all the classless systems have in common, be it UO or NW: don't let you be limited by the limits of your imagination.
Give me a break, lol. I want my Characters to be something of themselves, identifiable for what they can do. Not "whatever" on any given day.
Allowing Class switching just turns me off in a big way. It ruins immersion in a world and screams "gamey."
Perfect, so I won't have your negative attitude in my games
What screams "gamey" to me is characters stuck in specific classes with a rigid skill system where all warrior tanks basically use the same skills. That's gamey. Being able to be whatever you want, be it an great sword wielding archer or a tanky mage, screams "immersion" to me, as in able to be whatever you've seen in popular fantasy franchises... Gandalf able to cast spells yet also able to hold his own with a sword...
To me, the "be what you want and still be useful" approach of UO and NW will beat the rigid class systems of EQ/WoW clones anytime of the day.
I'm a big believer in UO's system. But you couldn't change completely any time you wanted. You had to earn the new skills by using them. That's immersive and realistic.
UO had a neat system where each Skill was set automatically to go up, but you could change them by locking them where they are, or set them to go down in the case that you're at max total Skill Points and you want to give up one Skill to raise another. So your new Skill effectively robbed the old Skill of points over time. You still had the old Skill to use, even as it went slowly down. Realistic. Immersive in a Worldly design way.
That's not the same as just switching everything out. What's next, changing race? Orc one day, Centaur the next, and then Pixie the next?
You're right about not seeing me in gamey games, though. You can have them, I'm good with that.
How can a Modern MMO hold up in gameplay complexity with and old school MMO? They have been taking out complexity from MMOs since WOW came out. I will note some exceptions, I have seen more complex crafting and economy in the likes of BDO. Also some newer MMOs have systems the old ones didn't have like AoC's day and night mechanic.
That is the problem, isn't it? I don't think a lot of modern MMORPG designers know how to design games like that. It does take some different thinking to tie it all together. But there's bound to be enough people who can work that magic, or figure it out. Experience is a factor, of course.
This is why I'm holding my breath for Raph Koster's game. He's got the know-how from long experience with such designs, and believes in them.
That is the problem, isn't it? I don't think a lot of modern MMORPG designers know how to design games like that. It does take some different thinking to tie it all together. But there's bound to be enough people who can work that magic, or figure it out. Experience is a factor, of course.
This is why I'm holding my breath for Raph Koster's game. He's got the know-how from long experience with such designs, and believes in them.
He does, but it is the meta angle that concerns me, we have to wait and see, I do have hopes myself.
Going back to the classes/skills debate I think a lot of how 'class like' a skill system is depends on the MMO, it is easy to see how a skills system could seem more class like. Degrading old skills when you take up new ones, well known templates to fit a class role, skills designed for support in groups and so on.
No one is saying skills and class MMOs are exactly the same, just that it is hard to implement a skill system without roles developing which are classes under another guise.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
That is the problem, isn't it? I don't think a lot of modern MMORPG designers know how to design games like that. It does take some different thinking to tie it all together. But there's bound to be enough people who can work that magic, or figure it out. Experience is a factor, of course.
This is why I'm holding my breath for Raph Koster's game. He's got the know-how from long experience with such designs, and believes in them.
He does, but it is the meta angle that concerns me, we have to wait and see, I do have hopes myself.
Going back to the classes/skills debate I think a lot of how 'class like' a skill system is depends on the MMO, it is easy to see how a skills system could seem more class like. Degrading old skills when you take up new ones, well known templates to fit a class role, skills designed for support in groups and so on.
No one is saying skills and class MMOs are exactly the same, just that it is hard to implement a skill system without roles developing which are classes under another guise.
In my opinion, it's a good thing for players to be able to create a typical Class out of the Skills in a Skill Based game. Classes are nothing more than a defined type. Warrior, Mage, Thief, we all know what these are. They all have typical, well known assets and abilities that assist their roles. So anyone who wants a Class type can put together the typical Skills and have that to play.
In UO, those players used to say "I'm a pure Warrior", or whatever, when asked.
That is the problem, isn't it? I don't think a lot of modern MMORPG designers know how to design games like that. It does take some different thinking to tie it all together. But there's bound to be enough people who can work that magic, or figure it out. Experience is a factor, of course.
This is why I'm holding my breath for Raph Koster's game. He's got the know-how from long experience with such designs, and believes in them.
He does, but it is the meta angle that concerns me, we have to wait and see, I do have hopes myself.
Going back to the classes/skills debate I think a lot of how 'class like' a skill system is depends on the MMO, it is easy to see how a skills system could seem more class like. Degrading old skills when you take up new ones, well known templates to fit a class role, skills designed for support in groups and so on.
No one is saying skills and class MMOs are exactly the same, just that it is hard to implement a skill system without roles developing which are classes under another guise.
In my opinion, it's a good thing for players to be able to create a typical Class out of the Skills in a Skill Based game. Classes are nothing more than a defined type. Warrior, Mage, Thief, we all know what these are. They all have typical, well known assets and abilities that assist their roles. So anyone who wants a Class type can put together the typical Skills and have that to play.
In UO, those players used to say "I'm a pure Warrior", or whatever, when asked.
It also helps in groups, but depends on the game, if the game is designed for people in "dungeons" to perform roles the skill system needs to make it easy to fit those roles and other players need to easily see you can do such a role. If not that would lead to serious issues.
On the other hand if the grouping is zerg-like I am not sure how much you would need to form typical classes. Another example is when everybody on a quest in a certain area is put in the same group, that is a mash up you don't need roles. This sort of less strategic design does not appeal to me, but if you were designing such a game skill roles would not be so necessary.
Finally a very sandbox MMO would not need to be concerned about its skill system fitting to class roles at all, but players will still want the "class" they want to play. Few players enter a game and see themselves as some sort of jack of all trades, they develop a "persona" even if it is just defined by the gameplay activates they want to take part in, that is their 'class' for want of a better word.
That is the problem, isn't it? I don't think a lot of modern MMORPG designers know how to design games like that. It does take some different thinking to tie it all together. But there's bound to be enough people who can work that magic, or figure it out. Experience is a factor, of course.
This is why I'm holding my breath for Raph Koster's game. He's got the know-how from long experience with such designs, and believes in them.
He does, but it is the meta angle that concerns me, we have to wait and see, I do have hopes myself.
Going back to the classes/skills debate I think a lot of how 'class like' a skill system is depends on the MMO, it is easy to see how a skills system could seem more class like. Degrading old skills when you take up new ones, well known templates to fit a class role, skills designed for support in groups and so on.
No one is saying skills and class MMOs are exactly the same, just that it is hard to implement a skill system without roles developing which are classes under another guise.
In my opinion, it's a good thing for players to be able to create a typical Class out of the Skills in a Skill Based game. Classes are nothing more than a defined type. Warrior, Mage, Thief, we all know what these are. They all have typical, well known assets and abilities that assist their roles. So anyone who wants a Class type can put together the typical Skills and have that to play.
In UO, those players used to say "I'm a pure Warrior", or whatever, when asked.
It also helps in groups, but depends on the game, if the game is designed for people in "dungeons" to perform roles the skill system needs to make it easy to fit those roles and other players need to easily see you can do such a role. If not that would lead to serious issues.
On the other hand if the grouping is zerg-like I am not sure how much you would need to form typical classes. Another example is when everybody on a quest in a certain area is put in the same group, that is a mash up you don't need roles. This sort of less strategic design does not appeal to me, but if you were designing such a game skill roles would not be so necessary.
Finally a very sandbox MMO would not need to be concerned about its skill system fitting to class roles at all, but players will still want the "class" they want to play. Few players enter a game and see themselves as some sort of jack of all trades, they develop a "persona" even if it is just defined by the gameplay activates they want to take part in, that is their 'class' for want of a better word.
Yes, game design is important. I had trouble guilding up in other games I've played (other than UO) because I always ended up alone due to Power Gaps. I saw that for others, too. Mostly it was anyone who wasn't one of the primary group that played together all the time and stayed within Level groupings. I and those others always ended up leaving because the Guild system wasn't working for us.
That's one of the things about UO, Guildies stayed together because you didn't have this division for very long. In UO, Guilds trained up their members who weren't up to snuff, while protecting them if they were under-powered so they could train up. The point being that in Skill Based games, you don't usually need to look for special Skilled Players, you already know them.
The we get to the need of certain Skills, the crux of your post. The basic Magery, Tank, Healer, etc., is no problem as groups usually have those.
Thieves are a classic example of those special needs that can be designed into Dungeons. Picking locks, removing traps, things like that. In a Skill Based game, any of those "Classes" can also take "Lock Picking" or "Trap Remove" as a Skill. But they usuall take on other Skills to fit their own view of said Character. My thinking is that there should be ways for other Skills do accomplish these things but at a much lower "level" of ability. Mages might have a spell that "Unlocks" or "Remove Traps", but at say a 20% reduction in capability. What that does is allow any typical groups to get past most of them, but in very difficult designed areas you still need that Thief.
Since Skill Based game concepts (assuming they stick with the lower power gaps ideal (they don't have to, you know)) usually have a much more open Player Interaction, it's not hard to find a "Thief for Hire". Or borrow one from an allied Guild, someone you know.
Remember that Skill Based games, with the lower power gap design, are much more social.
I feel like classes and roles have been used interchangably too much in this thread.
Classes and roles are not the same.
Classes are more about an aesthetic theme rather than the role itself. This is why we often get multiple classes fulfiling the same role, the only difference being the theme behind the classes. Additionally, we see in a lot of MMORPGs that a single class has the ability to fulfil multiple roles.
Games where you select your abilities, rather than a class, are definitely different. Now, sure, most of these games you can put together a set of skills and gear that then lets you fulfil a role, but thats not the same thing as a class. You tend to have more freedom in terms of theme.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I feel like classes and roles have been used interchangably too much in this thread.
Classes and roles are not the same.
Classes are more about an aesthetic theme rather than the role itself. This is why we often get multiple classes fulfiling the same role, the only difference being the theme behind the classes. Additionally, we see in a lot of MMORPGs that a single class has the ability to fulfil multiple roles.
Games where you select your abilities, rather than a class, are definitely different. Now, sure, most of these games you can put together a set of skills and gear that then lets you fulfil a role, but thats not the same thing as a class. You tend to have more freedom in terms of theme.
You can get a lot of special "themes" out of Skill Based. It's not all about filling a traditional group role.
A lot of Characters in UO were built for Crafting, especially in gathering resources. There were a variety of Skills that helped in survival for those builds.
I knew of one guy that built a Character especially for one particular Dungeon, and he "lived" in said Dungeon.
There was one Guild that was pretty big and active in a number of Shards, called "The Fishing Council of Britannia." Yes, they specialized in Fishing, which by most was looked at as a nothing Skill. They were such a big deal that UO added new deep sea fishing game play for fishing up new semi-rare loot, and sometimes causing a loot rich MOB, the (Kracken?), and some other MOBs too, I think, to attack their boats.
I knew of a Guild that was created as a Spider deity's worshippers. The Sandbox design really helped as they created a headquarters Temple that was dark and had blood and webs all over the place.
Then there was the famous Orc clans, again a multi-shard thing. Built to mimic the NPC Orcs. UO even gave them their own Orc Fort to be their home.
The point being that some players love to make special builds for certain purposes. It's different, usually RP focused, and mainly just for fun. Lots of gamers gave up powergaming for uniqueness or something different, or for their Crafter-gatherers.
All of this can have a very good effect on the bottom line, profits. Games are made for fun, You can't go wrong with anything that keeps players having fun. Themes, as you just said. Customizability can allow Players to make their own.
That you can consider something doesn't make it so when it isn't.
I already provided multiple links to games that literally make classes from skill templates.
Your denial of facts don't make them any less true.
You linked all kinds of things, with the exception of skill based systems that could duplicate classes. It's possible in most such systems to cobble together skills that approximate elements of classes, but not their full breadth. This is mainly due to classes in many games having special abilities that skills alone don't well replicate.
The closest you got was a P:G Druid, but that is only because it has special abilities that don't fit into the skill based system in addition to those that do. However, it is not simply a class but a fundamental change to the nature of one's character that goes beyond what typifies classes in MMORPG, but not so much tabletop ones.
If you actually have an example of what you claim by all means bring it forward.
That's exactly right. What people are missing is that those were Skills, and had extra, unique weaving with other Skills. While it played like a Class, it was done through the Skill System. And a player didn't have to follow that template, and if they didn't then they had a less effective "Class-like-Skill" (which ever one they chose).
There's a difference between a "Class Based System" and "Class simulation through a Skill System." For those players who followed the Template, it played sort of like a Class Based System but it wasn't mechanically/design/code. And they never had to follow the Template design, if they wanted to just take advantage of a portion of what that Template could offer, based on their Skill choices.
There's some great ideas in there, in my opinion. They brought such things as Tithing to Shrines into the game for players. I'm sure some other games have done this, I think Project Gorgon did things like that and some other cool things. They probably went a bit too far in some cases, lol. Props to them for it, though. Gaming needs to do more of that refreshing stuff to add to the worlds we play in.
Exactly so. Skill based systems allow the replication of classes to a degree for those inclined to that while also allowing combinations of abilities more diverse than classes typically allow. At the same time skill based systems often don't well duplicate many class abilities that don't have skill analogues.
The contrast is essentially one of customization versus nuance. You can approximate some of a say a WoW Druid with skills but there are many elements of the class that wouldn't be so easily duplicated in such.
P:G has all kinds of cool things that some may feel push the envelope overly much. There are not a lot of MMORPGs where you can play as a rabbit, for example.
That's exactly right. What people are missing is that those were Skills, and had extra, unique weaving with other Skills. While it played like a Class, it was done through the Skill System. And a player didn't have to follow that template, and if they didn't then they had a less effective "Class-like-Skill" (which ever one they chose).
There's a difference between a "Class Based System" and "Class simulation through a Skill System." For those players who followed the Template, it played sort of like a Class Based System but it wasn't mechanically/design/code. And they never had to follow the Template design, if they wanted to just take advantage of a portion of what that Template could offer, based on their Skill choices.
There's some great ideas in there, in my opinion. They brought such things as Tithing to Shrines into the game for players. I'm sure some other games have done this, I think Project Gorgon did things like that and some other cool things. They probably went a bit too far in some cases, lol. Props to them for it, though. Gaming needs to do more of that refreshing stuff to add to the worlds we play in.
Exactly so. Skill based systems allow the replication of classes to a degree for those inclined to that while also allowing combinations of abilities more diverse than classes typically allow. At the same time skill based systems often don't well duplicate many class abilities that don't have skill analogues.
The contrast is essentially one of customization versus nuance. You can approximate some of a say a WoW Druid with skills but there are many elements of the class that wouldn't be so easily duplicated in such.
P:G has all kinds of cool things that some may feel push the envelope overly much. There are not a lot of MMORPGs where you can play as a rabbit, for example.
Well, UO was a very basic design due to the small team and much lower budget. I think it would actually be easy to add of that Class abilities. After all, UO did have Skill range requirements for abilities to get past the failure rates. Such as Mages not being able to cast higher level spells until they got enough Skill in Magery. They could learn the spells, just not able to cast them with success. And then they had to Skill Up more to be able to cast them with consistency. (Remember that little fart animation when you failed a spell casting? lol)
They didn't even add special attacks until much later after release, and those were based on the weapon. A game could easily treat Special Attacks and Defenses just like casting a spell, only without the spell casting time and animations, unless it makes sense to that in it's own animation style.
That you can consider something doesn't make it so when it isn't.
I already provided multiple links to games that literally make classes from skill templates.
Your denial of facts don't make them any less true.
You linked all kinds of things, with the exception of skill based systems that could duplicate classes. It's possible in most such systems to cobble together skills that approximate elements of classes, but not their full breadth. This is mainly due to classes in many games having special abilities that skills alone don't well replicate.
The closest you got was a P:G Druid, but that is only because it has special abilities that don't fit into the skill based system in addition to those that do. However, it is not simply a class but a fundamental change to the nature of one's character that goes beyond what typifies classes in MMORPG, but not so much tabletop ones.
If you actually have an example of what you claim by all means bring it forward.
Skill based games don't need to duplicate or replicate classes from other games. Every game has it's own version of a class like a warrior. So do the skill based games that make a class like a warrior from the skills in that game. These skill based games are literally making classes from the skills in the game.
We all know what a warrior is. It's one of the most basic fundamental classes in games.
You could make a warrior in any skill based game by picking skills in that game that would reflect what a warrior does.
In fact I think I'll go make a warrior in Project Gorgon by picking the sword and shield skills and walk around calling myself a warrior. Don't worry though because I'm prepared for some petty pompous killjoy to say, "You can't be a warrior this game doesn't have classes.". Although I doubt that will happen since most people would be able to understand the simple premise I was putting forth by saying I was a warrior.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
That you can consider something doesn't make it so when it isn't.
I already provided multiple links to games that literally make classes from skill templates.
Your denial of facts don't make them any less true.
You linked all kinds of things, with the exception of skill based systems that could duplicate classes. It's possible in most such systems to cobble together skills that approximate elements of classes, but not their full breadth. This is mainly due to classes in many games having special abilities that skills alone don't well replicate.
The closest you got was a P:G Druid, but that is only because it has special abilities that don't fit into the skill based system in addition to those that do. However, it is not simply a class but a fundamental change to the nature of one's character that goes beyond what typifies classes in MMORPG, but not so much tabletop ones.
If you actually have an example of what you claim by all means bring it forward.
Skill based games don't need to duplicate or replicate classes from other games. Every game has it's own version of a class like a warrior. So do the skill based games that make a class like a warrior from the skills in that game. These skill based games are literally making classes from the skills in the game.
We all know what a warrior is. It's one of the most basic fundamental classes in games.
You could make a warrior in any skill based game by picking skills in that game that would reflect what a warrior does.
In fact I think I'll go make a warrior in Project Gorgon by picking the sword and shield skills and walk around calling myself a warrior. Don't worry though because I'm prepared for some petty pompous killjoy to say, "You can't be a warrior this game doesn't have classes.". Although I doubt that will happen since most people would be able to understand the simple premise I was putting forth by saying I was a warrior.
From the UO one:
"There are no set class or
skill paths, skills can be mixed and matched at will to your liking.
However, there are some preselected and very broad skill templates that
are given as a set of of choices(shown below) to assist new players in
getting started(Most all experienced players chose the Advanced option
when creating a new character)."
So, no the game is not class based. Templates one can opt into or entirely ignore are not classes. They are just tools to help those that want some guidance that is largely a free form system.
For Archage:
Archage seems to have class system, where each defined by combing a few skill sets out of many. I haven't played the game so to the degree that it is actually like classes as opposed to skill bundles I don't know.
So, it does appear to be class based in a building block way.
For Skyrim:
I'm familiar with Morrowind rather in Skyrim, and what was called classes in the that were starting templates of abilities akin to those of Ultima Online.
So again, not class based unless substantially different from Morrowind in terms of increased build restrictiveness.
X--------------------X
You can certainly make a P:G character that uses Sword/Shield and declare yourself a warrior to your heart's content. No one would contest your assertion, including myself.
What you can't do in P:G is create a character of the Warrior class because no such thing exists in the game.
It shouldn't be all that difficult of a distinction to understand for anyone familiar with MMORPGs or tabletop RPGs as this is hardly a novel thing. Both have had class and skill based systems for a long, long time.
That you can consider something doesn't make it so when it isn't.
I already provided multiple links to games that literally make classes from skill templates.
Your denial of facts don't make them any less true.
You linked all kinds of things, with the exception of skill based systems that could duplicate classes. It's possible in most such systems to cobble together skills that approximate elements of classes, but not their full breadth. This is mainly due to classes in many games having special abilities that skills alone don't well replicate.
The closest you got was a P:G Druid, but that is only because it has special abilities that don't fit into the skill based system in addition to those that do. However, it is not simply a class but a fundamental change to the nature of one's character that goes beyond what typifies classes in MMORPG, but not so much tabletop ones.
If you actually have an example of what you claim by all means bring it forward.
Skill based games don't need to duplicate or replicate classes from other games. Every game has it's own version of a class like a warrior. So do the skill based games that make a class like a warrior from the skills in that game. These skill based games are literally making classes from the skills in the game.
We all know what a warrior is. It's one of the most basic fundamental classes in games.
You could make a warrior in any skill based game by picking skills in that game that would reflect what a warrior does.
In fact I think I'll go make a warrior in Project Gorgon by picking the sword and shield skills and walk around calling myself a warrior. Don't worry though because I'm prepared for some petty pompous killjoy to say, "You can't be a warrior this game doesn't have classes.". Although I doubt that will happen since most people would be able to understand the simple premise I was putting forth by saying I was a warrior.
From the UO one:
"There are no set class or
skill paths, skills can be mixed and matched at will to your liking.
However, there are some preselected and very broad skill templates that
are given as a set of of choices(shown below) to assist new players in
getting started(Most all experienced players chose the Advanced option
when creating a new character)."
So, no the game is not class based. Templates one can opt into or entirely ignore are not classes. They are just tools to help those that want some guidance that is largely a free form system.
For Archage:
Archage seems to have class system, where each defined by combing a few skill sets out of many. I haven't played the game so to the degree that it is actually like classes as opposed to skill bundles I don't know.
So, it does appear to be class based in a building block way.
For Skyrim:
I'm familiar with Morrowind rather in Skyrim, and what was called classes in the that were starting templates of abilities akin to those of Ultima Online.
So again, not class based unless substantially different from Morrowind in terms of increased build restrictiveness.
X--------------------X
You can certainly make a P:G character that uses Sword/Shield and declare yourself a warrior to your heart's content. No one would contest your assertion, including myself.
What you can't do in P:G is create a character of the Warrior class because no such thing exists in the game.
It shouldn't be all that difficult of a distinction to understand for anyone familiar with MMORPGs or tabletop RPGs as this is hardly a novel thing. Both have had class and skill based systems for a long, long time.
UO isn't class based. Why thank you for pointing that out Sherlock I never claimed it was. Yet here they are making classes with the skills in a skill based game.
Archeage is making classes from skills.
Every Elder Scrolls game makes classes from skills.
I had multiple examples of what I claimed because it's obvious that it can and has been done.
It's irrelevant if the game officially has a class called a warrior if you can make something that resembles exactly that with the skills.
My entire point was that you can make a class with skills. In fact at it's core a class is a themed skill template.
You are basically trying to argue that a prebuilt house is not the same thing as a house that you build with four walls, a door, a window, a floor and a roof. When those are the components used to make that prebuilt house.
When I was programming a MUD and wanted to make classes I would design a themed template of skills to make that class. Like a Dark Knight, who would get fear and life taps, and unholy auras, while getting shield, plate, and weapon skills.
You want to talk about something that shouldn't be difficult to understand? How about the fact that skills are used to make classes?
Remember when you were completely wrong about games using skill templates to make classes? Ah good times.
"I haven't played the game so to the degree that it is actually like classes as opposed to skill bundles I don't know."
...Classes are "skill bundles".
You can get nambly about "but classes have unique mechanics" or something, but that's very far from a universal truth. As the reality is that can only happen because the devs have locked specific skills and mechanics behind a class that an otherwise more open system could let you pick and build from.
An open skill system could simply dump the more novel mechanics into limited feat options so that you can only modify your overall play style to lean into a particular archetype instead of taking everything. It's part of how some long standing systems like GURPS even has done it.
I continue to not understand what the arguments really is in this thread. It seems to be one of nonsense for the sake of argument.
"I haven't played the game so to the degree that it is actually like classes as opposed to skill bundles I don't know."
...Classes are "skill bundles".
You can get nambly about "but classes have unique mechanics" or something, but that's very far from a universal truth. As the reality is that can only happen because the devs have locked specific skills and mechanics behind a class that an otherwise more open system could let you pick and build from.
An open skill system could simply dump the more novel mechanics into limited feat options so that you can only modify your overall play style to lean into a particular archetype instead of taking everything. It's part of how some long standing systems like GURPS even has done it.
I continue to not understand what the arguments really is in this thread. It seems to be one of nonsense for the sake of argument.
Classes are "skill bundles".
Yes and when I say the same thing like skill templates can be considered classes and someone who is clearly wrong says that is not so I feel the need to educate them on their complete lack of basic game design understanding.
I continue to not understand what the arguments really is in this thread. It seems to be one of nonsense for the sake of argument.
Hit the nail on the head there. I'm think I'm done in this thread. Peace.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
UO isn't class based. Why thank you for pointing that out Sherlock I never claimed it was. Yet here they are making classes with the skills in a skill based game.
Archeage is making classes from skills.
Every Elder Scrolls game makes classes from skills.
I had multiple examples of what I claimed because it's obvious that it can and has been done.
It's irrelevant if the game officially has a class called a warrior if you can make something that resembles exactly that with the skills.
My entire point was that you can make a class with skills. In fact at it's core a class is a themed skill template.
You are basically trying to argue that a prebuilt house is not the same thing as a house that you build with four walls, a door, a window, a floor and a roof. When those are the components used to make that prebuilt house.
When I was programming a MUD and wanted to make classes I would design a themed template of skills to make that class. Like a Dark Knight, who would get fear and life taps, and unholy auras, while getting shield, plate, and weapon skills.
You want to talk about something that shouldn't be difficult to understand? How about the fact that skills are used to make classes?
Remember when you were completely wrong about games using skill templates to make classes? Ah good times.
You're welcome, Watson.
UO allows Classes to be approximated with skills. It does not allow Classes to be made with them because such are more than just of skills.
Archage classes aren't just skills. They also include passives. So much for that.
Morrowind classes aren't just skills. Some include spells. So much for that.
Your Dark Knight could wear plate and use a shield. That you specify that suggests some classes of that game couldn't wear plate or use a shield. Were those variances in allowed equipment skills, or aspects of the classes other than... like perhaps D&D's class restrictions on weapons and armour.
I remember when I was completely correct in saying skill templates can't make classes. That good time keeps rolling along.
Comments
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/That you can consider something doesn't make it so when it isn't.
Your denial of facts don't make them any less true.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/While it played like a Class, it was done through the Skill System.
And a player didn't have to follow that template, and if they didn't then they had a less effective "Class-like-Skill" (which ever one they chose).
There's a difference between a "Class Based System" and "Class simulation through a Skill System."
For those players who followed the Template, it played sort of like a Class Based System but it wasn't mechanically/design/code. And they never had to follow the Template design, if they wanted to just take advantage of a portion of what that Template could offer, based on their Skill choices.
There's some great ideas in there, in my opinion. They brought such things as Tithing to Shrines into the game for players. I'm sure some other games have done this, I think Project Gorgon did things like that and some other cool things. They probably went a bit too far in some cases, lol. Props to them for it, though.
Gaming needs to do more of that refreshing stuff to add to the worlds we play in.
Once upon a time....
I don't think a lot of modern MMORPG designers know how to design games like that. It does take some different thinking to tie it all together.
But there's bound to be enough people who can work that magic, or figure it out.
Experience is a factor, of course.
This is why I'm holding my breath for Raph Koster's game. He's got the know-how from long experience with such designs, and believes in them.
Once upon a time....
Going back to the classes/skills debate I think a lot of how 'class like' a skill system is depends on the MMO, it is easy to see how a skills system could seem more class like. Degrading old skills when you take up new ones, well known templates to fit a class role, skills designed for support in groups and so on.
No one is saying skills and class MMOs are exactly the same, just that it is hard to implement a skill system without roles developing which are classes under another guise.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Classes are nothing more than a defined type. Warrior, Mage, Thief, we all know what these are. They all have typical, well known assets and abilities that assist their roles.
So anyone who wants a Class type can put together the typical Skills and have that to play.
In UO, those players used to say "I'm a pure Warrior", or whatever, when asked.
Once upon a time....
On the other hand if the grouping is zerg-like I am not sure how much you would need to form typical classes. Another example is when everybody on a quest in a certain area is put in the same group, that is a mash up you don't need roles. This sort of less strategic design does not appeal to me, but if you were designing such a game skill roles would not be so necessary.
Finally a very sandbox MMO would not need to be concerned about its skill system fitting to class roles at all, but players will still want the "class" they want to play. Few players enter a game and see themselves as some sort of jack of all trades, they develop a "persona" even if it is just defined by the gameplay activates they want to take part in, that is their 'class' for want of a better word.
I had trouble guilding up in other games I've played (other than UO) because I always ended up alone due to Power Gaps. I saw that for others, too. Mostly it was anyone who wasn't one of the primary group that played together all the time and stayed within Level groupings. I and those others always ended up leaving because the Guild system wasn't working for us.
That's one of the things about UO, Guildies stayed together because you didn't have this division for very long. In UO, Guilds trained up their members who weren't up to snuff, while protecting them if they were under-powered so they could train up.
The point being that in Skill Based games, you don't usually need to look for special Skilled Players, you already know them.
The we get to the need of certain Skills, the crux of your post. The basic Magery, Tank, Healer, etc., is no problem as groups usually have those.
Thieves are a classic example of those special needs that can be designed into Dungeons. Picking locks, removing traps, things like that.
In a Skill Based game, any of those "Classes" can also take "Lock Picking" or "Trap Remove" as a Skill. But they usuall take on other Skills to fit their own view of said Character.
My thinking is that there should be ways for other Skills do accomplish these things but at a much lower "level" of ability. Mages might have a spell that "Unlocks" or "Remove Traps", but at say a 20% reduction in capability. What that does is allow any typical groups to get past most of them, but in very difficult designed areas you still need that Thief.
Since Skill Based game concepts (assuming they stick with the lower power gaps ideal (they don't have to, you know)) usually have a much more open Player Interaction, it's not hard to find a "Thief for Hire". Or borrow one from an allied Guild, someone you know.
Remember that Skill Based games, with the lower power gap design, are much more social.
Once upon a time....
It's not all about filling a traditional group role.
A lot of Characters in UO were built for Crafting, especially in gathering resources. There were a variety of Skills that helped in survival for those builds.
I knew of one guy that built a Character especially for one particular Dungeon, and he "lived" in said Dungeon.
There was one Guild that was pretty big and active in a number of Shards, called "The Fishing Council of Britannia." Yes, they specialized in Fishing, which by most was looked at as a nothing Skill.
They were such a big deal that UO added new deep sea fishing game play for fishing up new semi-rare loot, and sometimes causing a loot rich MOB, the (Kracken?), and some other MOBs too, I think, to attack their boats.
I knew of a Guild that was created as a Spider deity's worshippers. The Sandbox design really helped as they created a headquarters Temple that was dark and had blood and webs all over the place.
Then there was the famous Orc clans, again a multi-shard thing. Built to mimic the NPC Orcs. UO even gave them their own Orc Fort to be their home.
The point being that some players love to make special builds for certain purposes. It's different, usually RP focused, and mainly just for fun.
Lots of gamers gave up powergaming for uniqueness or something different, or for their Crafter-gatherers.
All of this can have a very good effect on the bottom line, profits. Games are made for fun, You can't go wrong with anything that keeps players having fun.
Themes, as you just said. Customizability can allow Players to make their own.
Once upon a time....
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
You linked all kinds of things, with the exception of skill based systems that could duplicate classes. It's possible in most such systems to cobble together skills that approximate elements of classes, but not their full breadth. This is mainly due to classes in many games having special abilities that skills alone don't well replicate.
The closest you got was a P:G Druid, but that is only because it has special abilities that don't fit into the skill based system in addition to those that do. However, it is not simply a class but a fundamental change to the nature of one's character that goes beyond what typifies classes in MMORPG, but not so much tabletop ones.
If you actually have an example of what you claim by all means bring it forward.
Exactly so. Skill based systems allow the replication of classes to a degree for those inclined to that while also allowing combinations of abilities more diverse than classes typically allow. At the same time skill based systems often don't well duplicate many class abilities that don't have skill analogues.
The contrast is essentially one of customization versus nuance. You can approximate some of a say a WoW Druid with skills but there are many elements of the class that wouldn't be so easily duplicated in such.
P:G has all kinds of cool things that some may feel push the envelope overly much. There are not a lot of MMORPGs where you can play as a rabbit, for example.
I think it would actually be easy to add of that Class abilities.
After all, UO did have Skill range requirements for abilities to get past the failure rates.
Such as Mages not being able to cast higher level spells until they got enough Skill in Magery. They could learn the spells, just not able to cast them with success. And then they had to Skill Up more to be able to cast them with consistency.
(Remember that little fart animation when you failed a spell casting? lol)
They didn't even add special attacks until much later after release, and those were based on the weapon.
A game could easily treat Special Attacks and Defenses just like casting a spell, only without the spell casting time and animations, unless it makes sense to that in it's own animation style.
Once upon a time....
Ultima Online:
https://www.uoguide.com/Character_Creation:_Class
Archeage:
https://archeage.fandom.com/wiki/Classes
Elder Scrolls Skyrim:
https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Character_Classes_(Skyrim)
We all know what a warrior is. It's one of the most basic fundamental classes in games.
You could make a warrior in any skill based game by picking skills in that game that would reflect what a warrior does.
In fact I think I'll go make a warrior in Project Gorgon by picking the sword and shield skills and walk around calling myself a warrior. Don't worry though because I'm prepared for some petty pompous killjoy to say, "You can't be a warrior this game doesn't have classes.". Although I doubt that will happen since most people would be able to understand the simple premise I was putting forth by saying I was a warrior.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/From the UO one:
"There are no set class or skill paths, skills can be mixed and matched at will to your liking. However, there are some preselected and very broad skill templates that are given as a set of of choices(shown below) to assist new players in getting started(Most all experienced players chose the Advanced option when creating a new character)."
So, no the game is not class based. Templates one can opt into or entirely ignore are not classes. They are just tools to help those that want some guidance that is largely a free form system.
For Archage:
Archage seems to have class system, where each defined by combing a few skill sets out of many. I haven't played the game so to the degree that it is actually like classes as opposed to skill bundles I don't know.
So, it does appear to be class based in a building block way.
For Skyrim:
I'm familiar with Morrowind rather in Skyrim, and what was called classes in the that were starting templates of abilities akin to those of Ultima Online.
So again, not class based unless substantially different from Morrowind in terms of increased build restrictiveness.
X--------------------X
You can certainly make a P:G character that uses Sword/Shield and declare yourself a warrior to your heart's content. No one would contest your assertion, including myself.
What you can't do in P:G is create a character of the Warrior class because no such thing exists in the game.
It shouldn't be all that difficult of a distinction to understand for anyone familiar with MMORPGs or tabletop RPGs as this is hardly a novel thing. Both have had class and skill based systems for a long, long time.
Archeage is making classes from skills.
Every Elder Scrolls game makes classes from skills.
I had multiple examples of what I claimed because it's obvious that it can and has been done.
It's irrelevant if the game officially has a class called a warrior if you can make something that resembles exactly that with the skills.
My entire point was that you can make a class with skills. In fact at it's core a class is a themed skill template.
You are basically trying to argue that a prebuilt house is not the same thing as a house that you build with four walls, a door, a window, a floor and a roof. When those are the components used to make that prebuilt house.
When I was programming a MUD and wanted to make classes I would design a themed template of skills to make that class. Like a Dark Knight, who would get fear and life taps, and unholy auras, while getting shield, plate, and weapon skills.
You want to talk about something that shouldn't be difficult to understand? How about the fact that skills are used to make classes?
Remember when you were completely wrong about games using skill templates to make classes? Ah good times.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/...Classes are "skill bundles".
You can get nambly about "but classes have unique mechanics" or something, but that's very far from a universal truth. As the reality is that can only happen because the devs have locked specific skills and mechanics behind a class that an otherwise more open system could let you pick and build from.
An open skill system could simply dump the more novel mechanics into limited feat options so that you can only modify your overall play style to lean into a particular archetype instead of taking everything. It's part of how some long standing systems like GURPS even has done it.
I continue to not understand what the arguments really is in this thread. It seems to be one of nonsense for the sake of argument.
Yes and when I say the same thing like skill templates can be considered classes and someone who is clearly wrong says that is not so I feel the need to educate them on their complete lack of basic game design understanding.
I continue to not understand what the arguments really is in this thread. It seems to be one of nonsense for the sake of argument.
Hit the nail on the head there. I'm think I'm done in this thread. Peace.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/UO allows Classes to be approximated with skills. It does not allow Classes to be made with them because such are more than just of skills.
Archage classes aren't just skills. They also include passives. So much for that.
Morrowind classes aren't just skills. Some include spells. So much for that.
Your Dark Knight could wear plate and use a shield. That you specify that suggests some classes of that game couldn't wear plate or use a shield. Were those variances in allowed equipment skills, or aspects of the classes other than... like perhaps D&D's class restrictions on weapons and armour.
I remember when I was completely correct in saying skill templates can't make classes. That good time keeps rolling along.
Understand first. Evaluate second. Otherwise the evaluation itself is nonsense.