Indie-Resource.com

This is more of a philosophical question than anything else. Food for thought if you will

While trying to develop the game mechanics for an RPG that is nothing but a concept yet, I came to this early but crucial doubt:

Do I include character classes or not?

I am currently more inclined to NOT include character classes. Let me explain my reasoning.

Classes are great, encourage cooperative play and increase replayability value, but I find them too limiting. Maybe I don't want to be a Fighter or a Wizard or a Pastamancer. Maybe I just want to be a normal guy. I know, I know, being just a *dude* doesn't make for a great RPG experience. It's the real-life RPG dilemma: if a game was to be made where you could be basically anything, who would want to be the level 100 garbage collector? Poor example, but you get my meaning. Giving that amount of freedom to players might originate imbalances in the game, because some crucial game functions might be fatally underused. Let's call it the "everyone wants to be a Jedi" syndrome. So how to compensate for that?

My idea was to create a system somewhat based on the SPECIAL system used by the Fallout series. To have an assortment of skills and stats relevant to the game that is big enough to allow for creativity, yet not so huge that it confuses the newbie. Traits, in my opinion, are the ultimate way of slowly customizing characters into what would be "classes" without actually having to pick one at the beginning of the game.

The Elder Scrolls series uses this mechanic where you can virtually use any skill, and the more you use it, the more proficient you get at it. I think that is a great idea, but they misused it somewhat in the games, where exploiting the system is not only possible but it is actually encouraged (like jumping around like an idiot to get that Acrobatics stat maxed out).

The sweet spot would be in creating a system where you start out with the exact same stats and skills as everybody else. Maybe you can be given the option to spend some initial stats or skill points while creating the character, but nothing that will ultimately define your playing style right from the start, like picking a class would. Then, through adventuring and leveling up, you would be able to pick from an assortment of traits that would lead you in a certain direction or another. Traits in this sense would be pretty much akin to the ones used in Fallout, giving the character certain special abilities or stat/skill boosts, but with the added feature that they should encourage you to stick to a theme, either through having synergy between some of them, special requirements that would force you to meet certain conditions to pick them, or even having mutually exclusive options, where following a certain path (that is, choosing certain traits) will lock other paths.

If correctly designed and balanced, that would allow players to fully control their characters' destinies, so to speak, while still making it possible for different players to have totally different game experiences.

Another great side-effect would be that new players wouldn't have to read a manual or "play till level 10" with a random class just to get a feeling of the game, and then go back and play what they really wanna play or what they think would be strongest. Anyone could create a character, play with it, and just kind of go with the flow, picking whatever fits their playing style the most, unknowingly leading their characters towards a unique set of abilities.

So, what do you think?

What are your opinions on having classes or not, and the advantages or disadvantages of either? Is there any other game system that works in a way similar to the one I just described that I'm not aware of? Any other type of solution to this problem?

Thanks for reading guys.

I personally think classes are over used but have found very few non class games to work right. I guess my main real world example is myself. I am a jack of all trades but master of none. I have held more jobs than people 3 times my age. I would not fit into any one class not even a dual class. I would fit better into a Elder Scrolls type system where I gain skills as I use them.

I do like class systems do not get me wrong, I would just like a refreshing out look on them for once.

This has been a question I have been asking myself for several years. I'm very new to coding...but I've been gaming in one form or another since Hitchhiker's guide, Planetfall, and Zork on the AppleIIe.

There actually is a game coming out with a looser class system as far as it normally goes. Final Fantasy XIV's armoury system should shake up a little of the class level system though maybe not to the total extent that you're talking. Also sorta goes retro with the leveling scheme

When I started thinking of a game where there's no classes I pretty much just try to decide what defines a class to me. Usually its nothing more than a group of stats bundled to create a type of character for a driven set of co-efficients for abilities and maybe some armor penalty type system in a game. It all seems driven to simulate real life encounters of the type and serves to emulate real conditions that would have been faced. That's already a pretty large amount of effort to promote "realism". Then enters the fantasy. It seems after all this realism has been put in play the character it is for is an orc, or a human with powers of light or dark etc etc. So now we've limited our fantasy creatures to the ground with simulations of realism.

Enough about that, just my ramblings to try to define what a class generally might do imho. You def served to cover a great many of the other advantages.

I would think a classless game where you're just a "guy" would need to have a driven storyline where you stand to encounter the world on its terms. In that way you mold a path of choices to make 1 normal guy epic or epic fail.

One idea I have been toying with which I don't consider new to avoid classes is to rely more on a player (optionally+ group of players) vs other player (possibly heavily connected to another group of players) type of system. I kinda feel like in a system like this Your character can just be a guy but he's tied into a political power struggle in a player shaped enviornment full of politics and Group vs Group PVP action. That's before he even gets to encounter what the Player vs Enviornment world has in store for him. Be it questlike transactions of story oriented killing and gathering, NPC bosses or public nemesis that have an effect on the world or what have you he will have to carve a spot to advance. So many options are there I won't attempt to even list too many.

In this role your "guy" is just another hand ,just another savior, just another griefer, just another victim, open and friendly,or dark and mysterious.
The only difference now in whether you're the hunter or the hunted is your actions and the progression you put into a "guy". I feel like without touching a class a system like this could present enough trials to keep a player interested by making him a part of a world where the attitudes, customs( like hey we don't attack people offline here unless we wanna get stomped by a group of players etc etc) and the economic market is totally up to the players.

Then you could maybe add in the trait type of system you were thinking just to sweeten the pot. Maybe some PVP or PVE accomplishments or top group positions might enable more damage by the group or more currency generated from a kill etc. So many options and ways to implement.

Anyways that's my 2 cents and some of what I've been mulling over how to code in. Hope it helps a little.

Rastan wrote:I would think a classless game where you're just a "guy" would need to have a driven storyline where you stand to encounter the world on its terms. In that way you mold a path of choices to make 1 normal guy epic or epic fail.

Typically, classless games have a bit looser story because they are usually skill-based and people can go anywhere and do almost anything. So it is hard to keep a story woven into the gameplay.

I don't like classless games. Its adds to many complications like fallout3.

I firts start the game and I pick like big guns and stuff like that. I've only just started the game I don't know what is going to benefit me. I'm not sure how the game works. Where as a warrior would be more fighting a mage magic etc. Maybe I'm just simple

I hate classes. As a designer I try and not include them whenever I can, and nearly anything that I create will only have classes if there is no way to really accomplish the gameplay I would like without them. Or if I get overruled (or am being payed to develop something with a class system).

I could probably provide a full rant on this, but you'd need to get at me on vent or when I am in a typing Mood. (Which I am not at the moment).

In short.
Usually uninspired, lock people into a very linear progression system where there is no wonder, or what if, usually when the world is even linear moreso.

(insert bit on research over graduated, sporadic achievement compared to completely linear achievement that I don't feel like finding.)

If I am bound to a story that I can see coming, I'd rather be able to move through it of my own volition. Grinding up to X to beat Y is very uninteresting, and I'd bet alot of other people would get irritated with it to. Where's the interest when you know the end?

Usually used in places where gameplay is lame (RPGs in general).

There are some cons to going classless but my thoughts aren't completely together as I am not in full-on-rant mode.

Jackolantern wrote:

Rastan wrote:I would think a classless game where you're just a "guy" would need to have a driven storyline where you stand to encounter the world on its terms. In that way you mold a path of choices to make 1 normal guy epic or epic fail.

Typically, classless games have a bit looser story because they are usually skill-based and people can go anywhere and do almost anything. So it is hard to keep a story woven into the gameplay.

Maybe driven wasn't a good word to use. What I meant was since you aren't giving a class (i.e. bundling skills and abilities) or a role designated by class (i.e. I'm a warrior I tank/DD/smashysmashy) The story has to be tailored to match. Then that path of choices a character might make doesn't fall into a system where the fact that you are a warrior is your place in the world. The story and ui then has to incorporate just a little nudge here and there towards a possible path while still maintaining that feeling and playability of more freedom as just a guy.

I see that last part as the challenge. Trying to provide that freedom without a newer player thinking "well now what?" and not having a clue of the general layout.

In short , I agree with you but I still think a world can be painted with a multitude of things that give it sort of a real world feel with some places to go and reasons to go there through some story/lore/possibility of some rare treasures to wave in front of the other kids and gloat etc etc

Class vs. classless design is a very personal choice and it depends on what kind of game the designer wants to make. I have some class-based game ideas and some classless ideas myself. Classless games are typically about living in the game world, whereas class-based games are typically more "game-like" and almost more like a sport. Classless games can be more immersive because the game is more like real life where things are there to be experienced and understood, whereas in class-based games, things are there to be conquered. I don't consider either type to be better than the other, and I don't think either lends itself to being more or less creative. The massive bulk of AAA MMOs have been class-based, and I think the lack of originality is not an aspect of the game design but rather a sign of the times in the industry. With development costs on current-gen games sky rocketing and MMOs being one of the most expensive kind of games to develop, I just feel that it is the purse-holders being less willing to take a chance with that kind of money. There is nothing in the class-based design that means you have to have a cookie-cutter world.

Yeah I was just spitting out a general idea I had. There's def a ton of different ways to do things well. That's what makes playing them fun for me.

Well this is my 2 cents on this subject. I personally don't like classes as they a normally used. But in my game i'm using a "previous profession" option to the game. Well in short my game takes place were civilization has crumbled and you get to pick what job you had before the world pretty much ended. It determines what equipment and money you start out with but after that your on your own to build a charter that is seemingly "classless" as you struggles for survival fending off other players and attempting to secure the limited resources that remains. This allows players to both have a started character that had a life before his "adventure" but still lets you advance and mold your character to fit your "personality" and preferred style of play. In game you get to turn a, lest say, a farmer that uses a pichfork into a solider battling for survival that is heavily armed. Idk i guess it all depends on personal preference.