Monday, September 24, 2007
Skill-Based or Class-Based?
In role-playing games (computer and pen-and-paper), there are two prevailing types of rule systems used to simulate actions within the game: Skill-Based systems, and class-based systems.
Class-Based RPG Systems
In class-based systems, your character's main abilities are governed by the character's membership within a category or group. Progression is often defined in terms of levels. Dungeons and Dragons, the original RPG, used this kind of system. Each stage of progression grants a number of improvements
The advantage of this kind of system is its simplicity. Again, hearkening back to very-old-school Dungeons & Dragons, the game was based on wargames. Individual units were too hard to track, and the mortality rate was high. Your character wasn't much more than six characteristics (rolled with 3d6), a class, a level, a name, and a hit-point total. The simplicity of the system makes it easier for newcomers to enjoy.
Besides its simplicity in playing, class-based systems are easier to balance for designers. They are especially useful for multi-player (or multi-character) games, as each class can be specialized for dealing with different aspects of the game. A common combat-based example is the tank / ranged / support combination. A "tank" class is designed to take the incoming fire and engage the enemy in close-quarters combat. The ranged classes function as "artillery," doing devastating damage at range, but are very weak and vulnerable in close combat. The support (or "healer") classes enhance the other two by somehow improving their performance and keeping them alive.
Of course, different roles can be added, and many games feature "hybrid" classes that may combine two or more roles in one class (though not as effectively as a specialist).
Class-based systems usually offer a increase in multiple abilities per step of progression. For example, gaining a level might grant you more hit points, a better chance to hit, better defense against attacks (or spells), and increased spellcasting ability or some new special ability all at the same time. This sudden jump in character capability can be a great psychological reward for players.
Examples of Class-Based Games
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st and 2nd editions), EverQuest, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Wizardry 7, Aveyond, Final Fantasy VII.
Playing Class-Based RPGs
If you are playing a class-based RPG, your decision of what class to play will be based upon your personal preference, and the needs of the group. Most class-based RPGs do give you some options for your character beyond class (if only in the selection of equipment), so make sure you understand the strengths and weaknesses of the class when making those decisions.
For example, in older editions of D&D, intelligence isn't a very useful attribute for fighters, but strength is. Making intelligence your fighter's best stat isn't a great idea unless you really want to role-play a "smart fighter" - the rule system won't reward you much for doing that.
In a well-designed game, you usually won't have to worry too much about which class is "better" than any other (though message-board complainers will often protest otherwise in Massively-Multiplayer RPGs). Just pick the most appropriate class and run with it.
Skill-Based RPG Systems
Skill-based systems, on the other hand, give the player much more fine control over their character's progression. Many different aspects of the character may be improved independently of each other.
Based on forum polls, most experienced players prefer skill-based systems because of the flexability in creating and maintaining characters. Players tend to identify with their characters much more than was probably expected in the early days of role-playing games.
Skill-based systems are better for solo or small-group play, as the charactes can become generalists and not suffer from the lack of someone in a specialist role. Skill-based systems are also very good for regular playing groups that have a small amount of churn or variation in participants from session to session (which describes nearly every pen-and-paper group I've ever played with). Players can build in their own redundancies into their characters - so if Bob the Cleric can't show on a Friday night, another player may be able to substitute.
The biggest problems of skill-based systems are the flip-side of the advantages of class-based systems. They are hard to balance. It is often possible for a skilled player to exploit the rules system to come up with certain combinations of skills that, used together, are far more effective than any others (which soon means that EVERYBODY feels compelled to use that same combination, turning the game into the equivalent of a class-based game with only one class). Also, inexperienced players may find themselves creating a far-less "optimum" character build, which can become frustrating. The slow, more granular progression makes progress less visible to players.
Skill-based systems are also very frustrating in pick-up games, as it can be much harder to find a role or "niche" for your character. It's much easier to say (or understand), "I'm a 20th level tank" than, "I have high skills in martial arts, specializing in the katana, stealth, fluent in a dozen languages, and I'm a master in floral arrangement, plus I've got at least a 20 in defensive spellcasting, driving, and aircraft mechanics."
Examples of Skill-Based Systems:
Call of Cthulhu, Final Fantasy XII, Champions, Fallout, Cute Knight.
Playing Skill-Based RPGs
The challenge of playing a skill-based game is understanding all of the options available to you and how they interact with each other. This can be particularly challenging the first time you play, and have to commit to choices during character creation. It might not hurt to do your homework first, and ask other players for suggestions (live or on forums).
If you are playing in a group, avoid the temptation to make your character a "jack of all trades." You will be far happier if you specialize in one or two areas. This will give you an area in which to shine. On the other hand, if you are playing a solo computer game, you will probably want to generalize a bit more and make sure you have all the key bases covered. Your character will need to be self-sufficient... or pick up hirelings who can fill in for your character's weaknesses.
The flexibility (and granularity) of skill-based character progression system usually means that if you find yourself with a "weak build" character, you can easily recover from it in the process of normal play and some well-placed improvements to your character.
Hybrid RPG Systems
Hybrid systems have been around for a while, which try to capture the best of both worlds. The most famous is the third-edition Dungeons & Dragons rules, which keeps the original class system but also adds a heavy layer of skill-based options that the player can take with every level, in the form of feats, skills, and certain class options. The downside of this is added complexity, and a little bit of the weaknesses of both philosophies.
Playing Hybrid RPGs
The advice of both class-based and skill-based RPGs still applies. However, the hybridization throws some assumptions out on their ears.
For example, in 3.5 edition Dungeons and Dragons, there are several useful feats and skills for fighters that are dependent upon intelligence. Suddenly, the option to create a "smart fighter" is far more mechanically interesting in addition to being a fun role to play.
One thing to watch out for with hybrid systems is that there is a greater danger of getting stuck with a "weak-build" character. Hybrid systems grant only some of the flexibility of skill-based systems, which means it could be harder to recover from a poor combination of class and skill choices. In a pen-and-paper RPG, this can simply mean some exciting role-playing opportunities, but in a computer game it could mean a much harder game.
Examples of Hybrid RPG Systems
Vampire: The Masquerade (it adopts the granular improvement of most skill-based systems, but the vampire's clan is a powerful influence over the character's progression and behavior), Dungeons & Dragons edition 3.0 and 3.5, D20 Modern, The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, Avernum 4.
(Vaguely) related links of doom:
* Original Dungeons & Dragons Trivia
* The Evolution of Computer RPGs
* Why Do RPGs Suck Now?
.
Labels: Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 6:00 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
There are two ways to make a hybrid system - you only covered one: taking a class-based system and adding a depth of skills.
The CRPG Arcanum included another way to build a hybrid system... take a skills-based system, and provide class-like "templates" for advancement. IIRC, this was still a (somewhat) level based system - you gained a certain amount of skill points at each level. The template system allowed you to say "Meh, when I gain a level, don't bug me - just allocate the points as needed to build a gunslinger." (or archer, or tank, or mage, or... you get the idea.) You could change templates at any time, or accept/reject individual changes, etc.
I'd imagine that this kind of system is potentially more satisfying to both types of players, though the advancement templates might be harder to develop, and would probably be harder to apply in a pen-and-paper game than in a CRPG.
The CRPG Arcanum included another way to build a hybrid system... take a skills-based system, and provide class-like "templates" for advancement. IIRC, this was still a (somewhat) level based system - you gained a certain amount of skill points at each level. The template system allowed you to say "Meh, when I gain a level, don't bug me - just allocate the points as needed to build a gunslinger." (or archer, or tank, or mage, or... you get the idea.) You could change templates at any time, or accept/reject individual changes, etc.
I'd imagine that this kind of system is potentially more satisfying to both types of players, though the advancement templates might be harder to develop, and would probably be harder to apply in a pen-and-paper game than in a CRPG.
Hmmm.... true enough. If you can completely disregard the template, then it is probably more of a skill-based system with a simplified faux-class-based overlay to make things easier for players... but that's still a good way to take advantage of the simplicity of the class-based system (which is a pretty big deal, especially for computer RPGs with unique game systems).
To me, the big difference between the two systems is the question, "Is the point of this character to have the player actually play a defined (if evolving) role, or is it to create an avatar in the game world for the player?"
Class-based systems are best for the first one: they force the character to try to think like a barbarian or a wizard or a rogue to solve the problems they face. In so doing, the restrictions on abilities ought to feel natural -- while the player might say, "Damn it, why can't I just knock the door down instead of solve this puzzle?" they have to admit that their frail and scantily-clad elf mage probably isn't built for that kind of thing. That's one of the reasons why it's annoying to have someone min-maxing in a D&D game: in addition to tiresome rules-lawyering in a group, they're just plain missing the point.
Skill-based systems, on the other hand, generally are built to allow the player to project their personality directly into the game. Sure, they can be role-playing as well, but the RP is internally enforced, as when playing through Fallout multiple ways, being a good guy one game, and a bad guy the next. Frequently, though, selecting skills becomes a matter of strategy rather than a matter of fleshing out a character: being able to solve all the problems the character comes across in the manner that first occurs to the player.
It might be useful, in exploring this, to have a look at Sierra's old Quest for Glory games. It had a decent attempt at a hybrid system, with three classes and lots of skills. With so few classes, it was easy to add class-specific content.
The "weak-build" problem might go away if rephrased: instead of looking at it as a balancing issue, it can be used as a way to implement easy/regular/hard levels. Just by having the player choose one level, you get rid of the balancing complaints. The player just blames himself for not picking the easier option.
Class-based systems are best for the first one: they force the character to try to think like a barbarian or a wizard or a rogue to solve the problems they face. In so doing, the restrictions on abilities ought to feel natural -- while the player might say, "Damn it, why can't I just knock the door down instead of solve this puzzle?" they have to admit that their frail and scantily-clad elf mage probably isn't built for that kind of thing. That's one of the reasons why it's annoying to have someone min-maxing in a D&D game: in addition to tiresome rules-lawyering in a group, they're just plain missing the point.
Skill-based systems, on the other hand, generally are built to allow the player to project their personality directly into the game. Sure, they can be role-playing as well, but the RP is internally enforced, as when playing through Fallout multiple ways, being a good guy one game, and a bad guy the next. Frequently, though, selecting skills becomes a matter of strategy rather than a matter of fleshing out a character: being able to solve all the problems the character comes across in the manner that first occurs to the player.
It might be useful, in exploring this, to have a look at Sierra's old Quest for Glory games. It had a decent attempt at a hybrid system, with three classes and lots of skills. With so few classes, it was easy to add class-specific content.
The "weak-build" problem might go away if rephrased: instead of looking at it as a balancing issue, it can be used as a way to implement easy/regular/hard levels. Just by having the player choose one level, you get rid of the balancing complaints. The player just blames himself for not picking the easier option.
Very good points, John. I hadn't looked at it that way.
Though I think with single-player CRPGs, I tend to project my own personality into the game regardless of whether its class-based or skill-based. Or at least, I don't spend several minutes trying to figure out the personality of the character I am playing like I do in a pen-and-paper game (or online in NWN).
I'm pretty much an explorer / goal-directed type, I guess, in single-player games. I love the context of the world (if its any good), and suspending disbelief while being immersed in the plot. But I don't typically give much thought to my own character unless there are other human players to play off of.
Though I think with single-player CRPGs, I tend to project my own personality into the game regardless of whether its class-based or skill-based. Or at least, I don't spend several minutes trying to figure out the personality of the character I am playing like I do in a pen-and-paper game (or online in NWN).
I'm pretty much an explorer / goal-directed type, I guess, in single-player games. I love the context of the world (if its any good), and suspending disbelief while being immersed in the plot. But I don't typically give much thought to my own character unless there are other human players to play off of.
Dungeon Siege is not my favorite CRPG by far, but there was one aspect of it I really liked:
You did not have to make a dramatic choice of class or even allocate skills when you start your character. It uses a skills-based approach, but the only way you could improve a skill is by using it.
If you wanted to become an archer, all you had to do was pick up a bow and start shooting things. The ability builds up over time, right up to the point you realize you'd rather be a healer and start doing that instead.
I played Titan Quest recently and read about the classes for 10 minutes before I chose the first one and for another half hour before I chose the second one.
Having to make these dramatic choices with little information is not a great game experience as far as I am concerned.
You did not have to make a dramatic choice of class or even allocate skills when you start your character. It uses a skills-based approach, but the only way you could improve a skill is by using it.
If you wanted to become an archer, all you had to do was pick up a bow and start shooting things. The ability builds up over time, right up to the point you realize you'd rather be a healer and start doing that instead.
I played Titan Quest recently and read about the classes for 10 minutes before I chose the first one and for another half hour before I chose the second one.
Having to make these dramatic choices with little information is not a great game experience as far as I am concerned.
Yeah, most of what I was thinking in terms of class-based RPG is multi-player: pen and paper, or MMORPG. Those are really the only ones where I consciously focus on the kind of character I'm role-playing.
The first time I play through most CRPGs, I almost always play through projecting my own personality, picking the closest class if necessary -- usually a rogue. Like you, I just like to explore the game as fully as possible, and it's less of a time sink to get it all in one play rather than plan to play it again. The class-based CRPGs I've played have mostly had pretty bland PC characters, and so I'm rarely punished for playing that way. Quest for Glory happily let me treat my thief like a mage when it suited me, and like a hardcore fighter when I wanted to bash things. The way it did this was by a use-based system like the one Michael talks about. Want to increase your throwing skill? Why, you can pick up rocks off the ground and throw them at a bird's nest... over and over and over. (As I recall, you could hold down the button with one hand, and read a book for half an hour, and be rewarded with a maxed-out throwing skill) It tends to incentivize grind, since I lose nothing. I've yet to see a CRPG where skills degrade through lack of use, but I bet it could be done well with a bit of thought.
Arcanum, on the other hand (thanks for the reminder, Sam) at least forced me to choose between tech and magic, and provided compelling reasons for it. Being an engineer, I naturally pursued the tech side of things... and then discovered that magic was pretty much off-limits.
The first time I play through most CRPGs, I almost always play through projecting my own personality, picking the closest class if necessary -- usually a rogue. Like you, I just like to explore the game as fully as possible, and it's less of a time sink to get it all in one play rather than plan to play it again. The class-based CRPGs I've played have mostly had pretty bland PC characters, and so I'm rarely punished for playing that way. Quest for Glory happily let me treat my thief like a mage when it suited me, and like a hardcore fighter when I wanted to bash things. The way it did this was by a use-based system like the one Michael talks about. Want to increase your throwing skill? Why, you can pick up rocks off the ground and throw them at a bird's nest... over and over and over. (As I recall, you could hold down the button with one hand, and read a book for half an hour, and be rewarded with a maxed-out throwing skill) It tends to incentivize grind, since I lose nothing. I've yet to see a CRPG where skills degrade through lack of use, but I bet it could be done well with a bit of thought.
Arcanum, on the other hand (thanks for the reminder, Sam) at least forced me to choose between tech and magic, and provided compelling reasons for it. Being an engineer, I naturally pursued the tech side of things... and then discovered that magic was pretty much off-limits.
In general, I am not a fan of game systems that make you practice a skill to improve it. Though at times, they can be sincerely amusing in their... weirdness.
But while long hours of repetition is realistic, it's not usually fun in real life. So why should it be fun in a game?
But while long hours of repetition is realistic, it's not usually fun in real life. So why should it be fun in a game?
When it causes the player to simply grind to build skills, it's not fun. When it continues to award skill points for, say, hopping and skipping through fields of flowers, that's actively silly. In real life, we build our skill in something largely by attempting things beyond (usually only just beyond) our current ability. The first time I built a robot, I gained a lot of skill in robot-building. The second time, not much more. After that, it became routine, and did not gain me much expertise. A skill system based on attempts should work like this also, to disincentivize grind.
If you limit the repetition and provide incentive for the player to try dangerous things, you're more likely to make a skill system like this fun. I've been reading bits and pieces of Tyler Cowen's book "Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist." The more I read, the more convinced I am that this would be excellent reading for a game designer trying to figure out the best way to get players to get the best out of a game.
As for picking flowers... I'm just going to sit here and snicker, if that's all right.
If you limit the repetition and provide incentive for the player to try dangerous things, you're more likely to make a skill system like this fun. I've been reading bits and pieces of Tyler Cowen's book "Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist." The more I read, the more convinced I am that this would be excellent reading for a game designer trying to figure out the best way to get players to get the best out of a game.
As for picking flowers... I'm just going to sit here and snicker, if that's all right.
every system has its pros and cons.
class-based simply suck if you really want to R O L E-play, because every character will simply be a minor variation from it's main class stereotype.
But it's great anyway for the fun. Playing a class-based rpg is just like playing an arcade videogame: you don't care it's not realistic, because you enjoy it as it is.
skill-based is THE way if you want a realistic ROLE™playing game. With "realistic" I don't mean "it can happen in our world", of course, but I mean "it does make sense".
PS: I don't really think DnD3 can be considered hybrid, it's still too class-sticked.
class-based simply suck if you really want to R O L E-play, because every character will simply be a minor variation from it's main class stereotype.
But it's great anyway for the fun. Playing a class-based rpg is just like playing an arcade videogame: you don't care it's not realistic, because you enjoy it as it is.
skill-based is THE way if you want a realistic ROLE™playing game. With "realistic" I don't mean "it can happen in our world", of course, but I mean "it does make sense".
PS: I don't really think DnD3 can be considered hybrid, it's still too class-sticked.
Sorry about the off-topic, but I'm looking for a John Murphy who made a freeware game called "Dungeon Explorer" for DOS in 1990. Is he one of you?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
