Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Are Class-Based CRPGs are Better Than Skill-Based?
In a class-based RPG, your character's abilities as they progress through the game follow a defined progression path. This contrasts with skill-based RPGs, where player has more direct control over the progression (or lack thereof) of their character's abilities. Then you have some hybrid systems, which try to merge the flexibility of the skill-based system with the structure of class-based.
Class-based examples would include Baldur's Gate, NetHack, Knights of the Chalice, and most jRPG-style games (Aveyond, Deadly Sin, Final Fantasy VI, etc). Hybrid games abound in modern RPGs, including the D20-based RPGs Knights of the Old Republic and Neverwinter Nights (heavily class-based but incorporating the flexibility of skill-based options), the Elder Scrolls games (leaning very skill-based, incorporating the structure and ease-of-use of class & level system), Eschalon: Book 1, and many others.
Purely skill-based RPGs are a bit more of a rarity. The Elder Scrolls games really border on this realm. Ultima Online. Some pretty ancient cRPGs, Twilight: 2000 and the two MegaTraveller games from Paragon Software, were based on skill-based pen-and-paper systems. And then we had two games based on the Vampire: the Masquerade dice-and-paper system, Redemption and Bloodlines. (You could argue that one's clan in Bloodlines was analogous to a class, and it certainly altered the game experience - especially for Malkavians and Nosferatu. But clan choice imposed relatively few restrictions on character progression - really just the cost of vampiric disciplines). And then there's Cute Knight Kingdom - which does a lot of things very differently.
When I "graduated" from Dungeons & Dragons to other dice-and-paper RPGs back in my teens, I became a big fan of skill-based systems. It was The One True Way of RPGs. I dismissed class-based, level-based games as merely quaint but entertaining relics of a bygone era to me. It took a few years before I came back around in my thinking and learned to re-appreciate the strengths of class-based games. I like both styles pretty equally nowadays.
But with computer RPGs, I lean towards class-based systems. This isn't a matter of preference, but practicality. I would love to play some more, well-done skill-based CRPGs, and my hat is off to those developers bold enough to build them. But it's tough to do well. Very tough.
Here's why:
The problem is one of the design. In a class-based game, a designer can make some reasonable assumptions. If every character has some minimal fighting ability, and can be classified as a tinkerer, a talker, a sneaker, a fighter, or a hybrid of any two of those, and their ability in any of those specializations can be safely assumed to be within a particular range, then there's a well-defined space of challenges and choices that a designer needs to build to.
But in a skill-based game with some thirty skills, with a character who can be maxed out in one skill while having next to no ability in anything else, there really aren't many constraints to design around. This makes the task daunting, if not impossible for practical purposes. Instead, the burden is shifted to the player to not only create a balanced character, but also to play "guess the mind of the game designer in advance" to determine which abilities are going to be useful in the game.
Yeah. I've played those games where I loaded up on some cool-sounding skills that sounded really useful but almost never came into play. I guess I shoulda stuck with "longsword proficiency" or something...
In pen-and-paper games, this isn't such a big problem. The game master can design on-the-fly for known characters. And it's theoretically possible that programmers and designers might come up with some AI "Designer's Helper" that will customize a game on-the-fly around a player's choices and playstyle. In fact, that's such a cool idea that I might try to tackle it myself someday.
If I ever get these current projects finished... :)
Until then, the closest we get is automatically scaling difficulty for combat, which to me is translated, "However powerful you are, it won't make a lick of difference." Can't say I'm a big fan of that mechanic, either. Or you have Cute Knight Kingdom's approach, which has several storylines based on combinations of skills, but otherwise leaves the world pretty open-ended and sandbox-y. It's not so great for epic, traditional RPG quests, but it solves the problem.
So in general, for traditional RPGs, the problems involved in skill-based systems are the reason I think class-based or hybrid systems are preferable as both a designer and a player. (Given a choice, well, give me the hybrid!)
But I'd love to see more stabs at resolving these problems to make skill-based systems more practical in cRPGs.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 6:11 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
For the most part, I feel a class-based design is effectively a skill-based one, but the character's skill points are automatically allocated. A fighter has most skill points in the 'Combat' skill, and a mage's are in 'Magic'. I think a good option would be to give the player a list of 'classes', where skills are set up appropriately, but also have the ability to modify the values as they see fit. This works for newer players and those who just want to jump into the game as quickly as possible, and those who want to go in to do their own fine-tuning.
I'd also say, from a design standpoint, a skill-based system is going to work better in a game where the user is able to create a party, rather than one where they are in control of only a single character. This greatly lessens the chance of a player entering into a hopeless situation because of skill choices. The downside, however, is that most players will likely end up creating characters that fit the usual class molds (fighters, healers, mages, etc.), anyway.
I'd also say, from a design standpoint, a skill-based system is going to work better in a game where the user is able to create a party, rather than one where they are in control of only a single character. This greatly lessens the chance of a player entering into a hopeless situation because of skill choices. The downside, however, is that most players will likely end up creating characters that fit the usual class molds (fighters, healers, mages, etc.), anyway.
# posted by 
: December 09, 2009 12:21 PM
: December 09, 2009 12:21 PM
Love the article, and I am totally with you on liking both. I have always been a little fond of the GURPS rule system, perks and skills are not just numbers, some of them are quite amusing and add to the atmosphere of the game. They pretty much define the personality of your character for you. Fallout had a bit of a cross between D&D and GURPS, and I think they made one of the few (if not the only) balanced cRPG using a skills based approach.
But when I am in charge of managing the entire party by myself I tend to prefer a class based system. Lets face it, as fun as it to play with all those numbers, it is easy to get frustrated when you can't remember what character in your party does what and you have two character who can identify items and no one who can mix a potion from grasshopper knee venom. Classes really help ease this pain.
Of course, the hybrids are a lot of fun too. Final Fantasy Tactics used a job system that was a blast. It is the game that made me enjoy grinding again. :)
But when I am in charge of managing the entire party by myself I tend to prefer a class based system. Lets face it, as fun as it to play with all those numbers, it is easy to get frustrated when you can't remember what character in your party does what and you have two character who can identify items and no one who can mix a potion from grasshopper knee venom. Classes really help ease this pain.
Of course, the hybrids are a lot of fun too. Final Fantasy Tactics used a job system that was a blast. It is the game that made me enjoy grinding again. :)
I am sorry, I can appreciate your argument and others. I get it, classes are you easier for you to design games around. Classes are supposed to make the players life easier and more fun.
And to all that I say, I just still don't agree. I am sorry, I don't care if it's easier for designers to create games. And no, I am not so simple that I need to have my hand held and coddled so I can play a game.
No, sorry. I don't need that. What I need? What I enjoy? Freedom. I want to define my own success. I want to define my own tactics. I want to define my own adventure. What I want from a designer? A place where I can be what I want to be. Where I can face challenges and problems and I can decide how to over come them.
Classes get in the way of that just as sure a fence I can climb over or a mountain placed in my path to keep me on the rails.
cl
And to all that I say, I just still don't agree. I am sorry, I don't care if it's easier for designers to create games. And no, I am not so simple that I need to have my hand held and coddled so I can play a game.
No, sorry. I don't need that. What I need? What I enjoy? Freedom. I want to define my own success. I want to define my own tactics. I want to define my own adventure. What I want from a designer? A place where I can be what I want to be. Where I can face challenges and problems and I can decide how to over come them.
Classes get in the way of that just as sure a fence I can climb over or a mountain placed in my path to keep me on the rails.
cl
@Anonymous - A class-based mainly just dictates where the skills go. Which is why I REALLY prefer a hybrid system. And yeah - class-based and hybrids DO help the game stay more "balanced," but I'm not sure that's as much a virtue (at least in single-player games) as some people seem to think.
@Code Ugly - When starting out a game, yeah, it can be frustrating with a party that needs to be manually built on a low level (especially when you have no idea about what to expect or what everything does). But really, it depends upon the game and system. Especially if the party levels up at different rates, I like the frequent opportunity to tinker with the party's development.
@Chris - If you are talking a purely sandbox game, I'm totally down w/ that. And the ES games were the closest I've played to Sandbox games, and while far from perfect, I did get a lot of mileage out of the particular combination of skills I chose to focus on.
At one point in Oblivion, it seemed like the dialog options indicated that I'd actually deviated significantly from the designer's intent, which tickles me a bit.
So from a theoretical perspective, I'm in agreement. I want more of that. From a practical perspective, though... unless that is the FOCUS of the game (which is a very good focus!), I'm less trusting of designers to get it right. If they aren't going to do it right, I'd rather they focus on doing a good job on a class-based game system.
@Code Ugly - When starting out a game, yeah, it can be frustrating with a party that needs to be manually built on a low level (especially when you have no idea about what to expect or what everything does). But really, it depends upon the game and system. Especially if the party levels up at different rates, I like the frequent opportunity to tinker with the party's development.
@Chris - If you are talking a purely sandbox game, I'm totally down w/ that. And the ES games were the closest I've played to Sandbox games, and while far from perfect, I did get a lot of mileage out of the particular combination of skills I chose to focus on.
At one point in Oblivion, it seemed like the dialog options indicated that I'd actually deviated significantly from the designer's intent, which tickles me a bit.
So from a theoretical perspective, I'm in agreement. I want more of that. From a practical perspective, though... unless that is the FOCUS of the game (which is a very good focus!), I'm less trusting of designers to get it right. If they aren't going to do it right, I'd rather they focus on doing a good job on a class-based game system.
The biggest, most well known skill-based game in recent memory is Champions Online. With relatively few exceptions, you can pretty much make any character with any combination of skills. While this seems like a good idea on paper, it is ridiculously easy in that game to make a "fail" character. To compound the problem there, the cost of respecs was so astronomical, you couldn't do anything about it. I literally found myself scared to pick skills as I was always nervous I was going to break my character.
Great article: if you are interested see my complaints about Champions over at my blog: http://www.morinar.com/search/label/Champions%20Online. But basically I'd agree with you: class based in games is MUCH less problematic in the long run.
Great article: if you are interested see my complaints about Champions over at my blog: http://www.morinar.com/search/label/Champions%20Online. But basically I'd agree with you: class based in games is MUCH less problematic in the long run.
Yeah, I did the D&D to GURPS path myself.
The real idea of class-based verses skill-based is one of modular design. A class is really just a higher level abstraction of a number of smaller abstractions. (In this case, skills and abilities.)
From a designer's perspective, the reason class-based is more popular is that it's easier to balance out. For a skill-based system, you really have to balance across the entire whole. You may find that a system you design is actually dictating behavior you didn't necessarily want in the game.
For example, let's look at magic systems. A lot of games have a "magic point" system which derives from a distinct value or set of values (intelligence, power, etc.) that are considered different from a more martial set. (strength, agility, etc.) This is how you get your "swords and/or sorcery" model.
Where the problem arises is when players mix the two. If you're not careful, you can end up with the classic "Tank Mage" of Ultima Online, who wore full plate and could cast spells with no restrictions at all. At that point you have to start inventing new abstractions, like magic power regeneration, to create balancing reasons why spellcasters should wear lighter armor.
Where, of course, with a class system, you can say "spellcasters aren't proficient in heavy armor" and call it done.
It's not impossible to create a skill-based system that works and is satisfactory, but it requires a stronger and more in-depth design than most game designers really want to spend time on. Plus, even in GURPS, players figured out how to game such systems by making "munchkins", characters with extreme values in a few narrow areas that make them really powerful, if not well-rounded.
The real idea of class-based verses skill-based is one of modular design. A class is really just a higher level abstraction of a number of smaller abstractions. (In this case, skills and abilities.)
From a designer's perspective, the reason class-based is more popular is that it's easier to balance out. For a skill-based system, you really have to balance across the entire whole. You may find that a system you design is actually dictating behavior you didn't necessarily want in the game.
For example, let's look at magic systems. A lot of games have a "magic point" system which derives from a distinct value or set of values (intelligence, power, etc.) that are considered different from a more martial set. (strength, agility, etc.) This is how you get your "swords and/or sorcery" model.
Where the problem arises is when players mix the two. If you're not careful, you can end up with the classic "Tank Mage" of Ultima Online, who wore full plate and could cast spells with no restrictions at all. At that point you have to start inventing new abstractions, like magic power regeneration, to create balancing reasons why spellcasters should wear lighter armor.
Where, of course, with a class system, you can say "spellcasters aren't proficient in heavy armor" and call it done.
It's not impossible to create a skill-based system that works and is satisfactory, but it requires a stronger and more in-depth design than most game designers really want to spend time on. Plus, even in GURPS, players figured out how to game such systems by making "munchkins", characters with extreme values in a few narrow areas that make them really powerful, if not well-rounded.
The entire problem with this problem is the fact that you're pitting Class-based vs. Skill Based in the first place. I prefer neither.
In the Savage Worlds RPG there's a concept called "Edges". Edges are somewhat like Feats in D&D, and a few of them have overlapping purposes, such as the Two Fisted edge which mitigates the penalty for attacking with two weapons at once. But it goes way beyond that, with Edges for having spells/powers/gadgets, influencing people, being tough or fast, being rich, having a special pet, being lucky, or having an especially good relationship with the rest of the group. All of which have in-game benefits, of course.
Edges are not entirely dissimilar to Badges in the Paper Mario series, Perks in Fallout 3(less so Fallout 1 & 2), and Talents in DoomRL. Final Fantasy XII has a grid where you unlock abilities, and minus the grid the abilities themselves are just like Edges/Perks etc.
Diablo's Skill Trees most certainly are not an example of what I mean, and are almost the opposite. When you choose an Edge it doesn't scale or become obsolete at any point; it's always useful. So forget Diablo. Also Dark Messiah of Might & Magic and pretty much anything that combines trees & points.
Perks in Saint's Row 2 are almost kind-of the same, the main difference being that particular perks are tied to specific achievements and usually grant passive bonuses instead of affecting play habits directly.
This is my favorite system: Picking your abilities, whatever you want to call them, and they're always useful. Pick a bunch of abilities suited to stealth and you're a ninja/thief type. But you can choose slightly different ones and still do the same sort of thing. Like dual-wielding sword ninja vs. archer ninja. Or dual-wielding sword ninja vs. dual-wielding sword tank. Or Magic Tank. Or whatever style you want based on what you choose.
In the Savage Worlds RPG there's a concept called "Edges". Edges are somewhat like Feats in D&D, and a few of them have overlapping purposes, such as the Two Fisted edge which mitigates the penalty for attacking with two weapons at once. But it goes way beyond that, with Edges for having spells/powers/gadgets, influencing people, being tough or fast, being rich, having a special pet, being lucky, or having an especially good relationship with the rest of the group. All of which have in-game benefits, of course.
Edges are not entirely dissimilar to Badges in the Paper Mario series, Perks in Fallout 3(less so Fallout 1 & 2), and Talents in DoomRL. Final Fantasy XII has a grid where you unlock abilities, and minus the grid the abilities themselves are just like Edges/Perks etc.
Diablo's Skill Trees most certainly are not an example of what I mean, and are almost the opposite. When you choose an Edge it doesn't scale or become obsolete at any point; it's always useful. So forget Diablo. Also Dark Messiah of Might & Magic and pretty much anything that combines trees & points.
Perks in Saint's Row 2 are almost kind-of the same, the main difference being that particular perks are tied to specific achievements and usually grant passive bonuses instead of affecting play habits directly.
This is my favorite system: Picking your abilities, whatever you want to call them, and they're always useful. Pick a bunch of abilities suited to stealth and you're a ninja/thief type. But you can choose slightly different ones and still do the same sort of thing. Like dual-wielding sword ninja vs. archer ninja. Or dual-wielding sword ninja vs. dual-wielding sword tank. Or Magic Tank. Or whatever style you want based on what you choose.
@TheMadTinkerer - Yes, my brother has ran several Savage World games, and it's his favorite latest generation RPG system... unfortunately his players weren't so into it, so now he's running 4th Edition D&D.
The idea of just picking abilities works very well. The main issue with balance is defining limitations. If one perk gives you a +1 bonus to attacks, and another gives you a +2 bonus, do they stack? Or do they overlap? So mechanics still need to be defined for interoperability.
Working in software, I actually see this happen all the time with coding. Because most developers work in a very narrow stretch of code on a large application or project, inevitably, most of the bugs are found when code is integrated together, and you find out that Bob's code isn't playing nice with Dave's...
Systems that try to hybrid between classes and skills can have unexpected consequences. 3rd Edition D&D first exposed the problem of self-made classes. By removing all multi-class restrictions, and adding inherently imbalanced prestige classes, they made it possible for players to create power-gaming demigod characters. In some ways, 4th Edition returning to a single class path with the ability to pick up one or two cross-class abilities was a relief...
The idea of just picking abilities works very well. The main issue with balance is defining limitations. If one perk gives you a +1 bonus to attacks, and another gives you a +2 bonus, do they stack? Or do they overlap? So mechanics still need to be defined for interoperability.
Working in software, I actually see this happen all the time with coding. Because most developers work in a very narrow stretch of code on a large application or project, inevitably, most of the bugs are found when code is integrated together, and you find out that Bob's code isn't playing nice with Dave's...
Systems that try to hybrid between classes and skills can have unexpected consequences. 3rd Edition D&D first exposed the problem of self-made classes. By removing all multi-class restrictions, and adding inherently imbalanced prestige classes, they made it possible for players to create power-gaming demigod characters. In some ways, 4th Edition returning to a single class path with the ability to pick up one or two cross-class abilities was a relief...
As has been mentioned, a "hybrid" system usually works the best. My game Meridian 59 is this way, where you can pick abilities from different schools, but you have to specialize to get the top-end abilities in a few areas. Another favorite system is the Dungeon Master games, where characters could "multi-class" into any of the four classes based on how much they used the abilities from the specific class.
Most of the "problems" with skill-based systems are mostly just bad design. The strength of a class-based system is that a poor designer can fall back on familiar design patterns and can make a half-way decent system just by cribbing from existing systems. Implementing a skill-based systems makes poor design more apparent: skills that don't work as advertise, skills that aren't used very often in the game, skills that are so overpowered you "have" to take them or gimp your character, skills that work together to make an invincible character, etc. These are problems that can be mitigated or even eliminated with good design. But, good design takes longer than just grabbing some flavor of the D&D PHB (or other classic RPG) for inspiration.
To me, as an avid RPG fan and a game designer, a well-designed skill system can make the game so much better than yet another generic class-based system. This, I think, is the real benefit of skill-based systems. But, as a designer, you have to decide if it's worth the extra time to make a good, original character advancement system to stand out from the crowd. It probably most depends on what your game's goal is. Trying to tell a story? Use a generic class-based system so mechanics don't get in the way too much. Trying to show off some interesting gameplay? A skill-based system will help you stand apart from the rest of the crowd.
My thoughts.
Most of the "problems" with skill-based systems are mostly just bad design. The strength of a class-based system is that a poor designer can fall back on familiar design patterns and can make a half-way decent system just by cribbing from existing systems. Implementing a skill-based systems makes poor design more apparent: skills that don't work as advertise, skills that aren't used very often in the game, skills that are so overpowered you "have" to take them or gimp your character, skills that work together to make an invincible character, etc. These are problems that can be mitigated or even eliminated with good design. But, good design takes longer than just grabbing some flavor of the D&D PHB (or other classic RPG) for inspiration.
To me, as an avid RPG fan and a game designer, a well-designed skill system can make the game so much better than yet another generic class-based system. This, I think, is the real benefit of skill-based systems. But, as a designer, you have to decide if it's worth the extra time to make a good, original character advancement system to stand out from the crowd. It probably most depends on what your game's goal is. Trying to tell a story? Use a generic class-based system so mechanics don't get in the way too much. Trying to show off some interesting gameplay? A skill-based system will help you stand apart from the rest of the crowd.
My thoughts.
The one thing I hated about class based systems was the pure enforcement. What, my magic user can't wear armour by class enforcement? I'm skill based all the way. If your mage wants armour, great, it has a -10 to magic skill... no biggie, but you CAN wear armour or wield that great sword if your strength is up enough... Why can't my PC with high dexterity try picking the lock?? oh the game will only let 'thieves' try to pick the lock, otherwise you dont get an option.. nice :/
class based == player restrictions. rails. choices already made for you.
hmm absolutely perfect for japanese crpgs when you think about it.
a skill based system can approximate a class based one but a class based system can't approximate a skill based one.
class based == player restrictions. rails. choices already made for you.
hmm absolutely perfect for japanese crpgs when you think about it.
a skill based system can approximate a class based one but a class based system can't approximate a skill based one.
I did a procedural RPG a couple years back, pretty small in scale, only about 15 dungeon levels or so. For it, I went with an equipment-based system, rather than skills or class. Every power upgrade came from equipment, from health/life bonuses to special attacks, spells, etc... And all the equipment came from random drops, no shops to purchase from. The consequences could be somewhat bizarre sometimes, but all in all, for what it was, I think it worked pretty well. Of course, balancing for it was tricky, and quite often a player would have to grind a particular level a bit too much in order to get a drop that had some skill or ability he really needed to progress further. I'm not sure I'd want to design a full game around such a system, but I reckon it could be done.
Great article!
I liked the old system that was used in the first version of Star Wars Galaxies before they made it a plump class-based system when the NGE hit live!
There were about 30 professions which all consisted of several skill tiers. You first had to learn a number of these skill boxes before you could go and learn any of the advanced professions. You could also learn all skill boxes in the novice profession to reach the master box or just skip it. You had a pool of skill points and every skill box cost a varying number of these skill points. This way one could create hybrid professions of two or even three or four classes. Not all combinations allowed you to learn the full profession up to master since some classes had more prerequisite skills than others (Bounty Hunter, Commando etc.). Still it was a very flexible system. And a hard to balance one!
I'm working on creating a very similar system for a single-player RPG (with NPC party). Have to see how it works out. I might adjust here and there on the way to getting it worked out.
SWG has now long went with a very bland class-based system (inspired by the success of WoW) but if anyone is interest how the former system worked there is still a profession calculator downloadable for the old system which pretty much shows how it worked ... http://forums.truegalaxies.com/showthread.php?t=107
I liked the old system that was used in the first version of Star Wars Galaxies before they made it a plump class-based system when the NGE hit live!
There were about 30 professions which all consisted of several skill tiers. You first had to learn a number of these skill boxes before you could go and learn any of the advanced professions. You could also learn all skill boxes in the novice profession to reach the master box or just skip it. You had a pool of skill points and every skill box cost a varying number of these skill points. This way one could create hybrid professions of two or even three or four classes. Not all combinations allowed you to learn the full profession up to master since some classes had more prerequisite skills than others (Bounty Hunter, Commando etc.). Still it was a very flexible system. And a hard to balance one!
I'm working on creating a very similar system for a single-player RPG (with NPC party). Have to see how it works out. I might adjust here and there on the way to getting it worked out.
SWG has now long went with a very bland class-based system (inspired by the success of WoW) but if anyone is interest how the former system worked there is still a profession calculator downloadable for the old system which pretty much shows how it worked ... http://forums.truegalaxies.com/showthread.php?t=107
I think a nice inbetween version were the old wizardry games .. a class gave you a skill selection and some bonus points at level up but a lot of free points to allocate too, grouped by combat/social/academical
another way to deal with a skill based character could be to put "tests" up before certain regions - that would also give you a way to learn about which skills are needed before actually going there. Before you could enroll as a mercenary, you'd have to show your fighting skills in a duel .. stuff like that.
another way to deal with a skill based character could be to put "tests" up before certain regions - that would also give you a way to learn about which skills are needed before actually going there. Before you could enroll as a mercenary, you'd have to show your fighting skills in a duel .. stuff like that.
Yes, wizardry 7 was exactly what I had in mind when I was thinking of a game that would be hard to level up without classes, especially with those clunky old interfaces. ROA comes to mind as well. The hybrid class systems help assign boundaries that are flexible and meaningful.
You're saying, basically, that good skill-based games are harder to develop. I don't know anything about that. But as a player, I must admit that I've always loved the idea of skill-based characters, especially when skills get better with use.
OK, that leads to grinding (it's almost impossible to resist), but it still seems to make so much sense. In RL, we do get better with practice. Education and training help, too, but for physical skills, at least, nothing beats practice.
I like to fine-tune characters. And I can't see any reason why armor should interfere with casting spells, though I CAN see how heavy armor would require a lot of strength, strength which might be hard to get if you've spent your life in bookish pursuits. Skill-based systems - with reasonable stat-based restrictions - just seem more logical to me.
Still, in most fantasy worlds where magic exists, not everyone has the capability to cast spells. It's something innate that gives mages this ability. And it's reasonable that a guild of mages might keep their secrets, so that non-members have no chance to learn spells. (And perhaps thieves would keep lock-picking skills as a guild-secret, too.) So class-based games aren't entirely illogical.
And I can enjoy both kinds of games - class-based or skill-based, it really doesn't matter that much. What I don't like much, though, are games that are class-based in order to provide replay value. I'm never going to play a game twice, anyway (it's rare that I finish a game the first time).
OK, that leads to grinding (it's almost impossible to resist), but it still seems to make so much sense. In RL, we do get better with practice. Education and training help, too, but for physical skills, at least, nothing beats practice.
I like to fine-tune characters. And I can't see any reason why armor should interfere with casting spells, though I CAN see how heavy armor would require a lot of strength, strength which might be hard to get if you've spent your life in bookish pursuits. Skill-based systems - with reasonable stat-based restrictions - just seem more logical to me.
Still, in most fantasy worlds where magic exists, not everyone has the capability to cast spells. It's something innate that gives mages this ability. And it's reasonable that a guild of mages might keep their secrets, so that non-members have no chance to learn spells. (And perhaps thieves would keep lock-picking skills as a guild-secret, too.) So class-based games aren't entirely illogical.
And I can enjoy both kinds of games - class-based or skill-based, it really doesn't matter that much. What I don't like much, though, are games that are class-based in order to provide replay value. I'm never going to play a game twice, anyway (it's rare that I finish a game the first time).
I actually prefer class based systems. I think class based systems are better for party based games, where you can assign a class for different characters to cover all needed aspects, while skill based is better for single character games, so you can assign skills as you want.
"The idea of just picking abilities works very well. The main issue with balance is defining limitations. If one perk gives you a +1 bonus to attacks, and another gives you a +2 bonus, do they stack? Or do they overlap? So mechanics still need to be defined for interoperability."
Except that's not a good example. Edges/Perks should not give the same kind of bonus that you could get by swapping out a weapon for a different weapon type, or for a better weapon of the same type. Same with armor. (Paper Mario 1 & 2 are an exception to this, because nearly every kind of improvement is defined as a badge.)
While Edges/Perks that give you some kind of bonus are acceptable, such as one that gives you a bonus to defense with a shield, and another that gives you a bonus to defense when wielding two weapons (having them is not mutually exclusive, but using them is), the best Edges/Perks:
1) Mitigate penalties, such as attacking with your off-hand, wound penalties, range penalties, etc.
2) Passively increase abilities in a way that's binary. Like a "Dodge" Edge/Perk where you can dodge melee attacks with a well-timed button press. See the Kingdom Hearts games for a bunch of good examples.
3) Provide new abilities, like choosing spells or special combat moves. See the previously mentioned games, but also Final Fantasy VII (Materia = instantly re-speccable Edges/Perks) and Final Fantasy IX.
4) If you must include ones that give you bonuses to stats, make it so that
4a) It's the only way to get that bonus. (BEST)
4b) If you include bonuses from different Edges/Perks that stack, make them prerequisites and absolutely limit them to two or three.
4c) Make them not stack.
4d) Make them super-advanced/rare/tough to get, especially if we're talking about Edges/Perks that stack with equipment bonuses.
5) (my personal preference) Have at least some justification for existing. Savage Worlds assumes that you're learning everything in your down-time. Final Fantasy XII combines being able to buy spells in the shops with the need to unlock Licenses for individual users (like how in the real world you're expected to have a license when you buy a gun), which tie into the setting and the story in a very good way. The system would not make sense if ported to another setting, any more than Materia would make sense anywhere other than Final Fantasy VII's setting.
Except that's not a good example. Edges/Perks should not give the same kind of bonus that you could get by swapping out a weapon for a different weapon type, or for a better weapon of the same type. Same with armor. (Paper Mario 1 & 2 are an exception to this, because nearly every kind of improvement is defined as a badge.)
While Edges/Perks that give you some kind of bonus are acceptable, such as one that gives you a bonus to defense with a shield, and another that gives you a bonus to defense when wielding two weapons (having them is not mutually exclusive, but using them is), the best Edges/Perks:
1) Mitigate penalties, such as attacking with your off-hand, wound penalties, range penalties, etc.
2) Passively increase abilities in a way that's binary. Like a "Dodge" Edge/Perk where you can dodge melee attacks with a well-timed button press. See the Kingdom Hearts games for a bunch of good examples.
3) Provide new abilities, like choosing spells or special combat moves. See the previously mentioned games, but also Final Fantasy VII (Materia = instantly re-speccable Edges/Perks) and Final Fantasy IX.
4) If you must include ones that give you bonuses to stats, make it so that
4a) It's the only way to get that bonus. (BEST)
4b) If you include bonuses from different Edges/Perks that stack, make them prerequisites and absolutely limit them to two or three.
4c) Make them not stack.
4d) Make them super-advanced/rare/tough to get, especially if we're talking about Edges/Perks that stack with equipment bonuses.
5) (my personal preference) Have at least some justification for existing. Savage Worlds assumes that you're learning everything in your down-time. Final Fantasy XII combines being able to buy spells in the shops with the need to unlock Licenses for individual users (like how in the real world you're expected to have a license when you buy a gun), which tie into the setting and the story in a very good way. The system would not make sense if ported to another setting, any more than Materia would make sense anywhere other than Final Fantasy VII's setting.
Betrayal at Krondor used a pure skill system for character development, if I recall correctly, but effectively reduced this to classes by providing the player with highly defined characters. That is, characteristics like strength and what they could equip were essentially "set", and the player simply chose how they would develop within that context. The system was balanced by making progression rather slow, although a player could enhance progression by "focusing" on a skill. Dividing this focus among several skills diminished its effectiveness, however. Given the limited number of fights available in the game, this meant that the player couldn't max out all the skills to create a completely over-powered character. Over-specialization was also thwarted by regularly mixing up the party. In a strongly authored game like BaK, that gives the player less opportunity to screw the system, a skill approach is easier to implement.
Aw, man - it's been so long since I played BAK that I don't even REMEMBER how the game system worked. I just remember the combats (including against traps) and the chest puzzles.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
