Classes are flavor.

[rusty_shackleford]

Classes are flavor.
I can't quite remember where I read this originally. But the more I've thought on it, the more I concede that it is truth.
What do I mean by flavor?
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=flavor

A distinctive yet intangible quality felt to be characteristic of a given thing

The issue I have with most entirely skill-based RPGs is that your character ends up lacking a certain uniqueness quality. My character in Fallout may be a gambler, but he doesn't feel very different than your character who is a gunslinger. Odds are, I'll still end up using a gun, just not quite as good as your character. I don't find myself locked out of much, if anything.
This is especially true in skill-based games with parties that allow you to customize your party members as much as your main character.

I say most, because it is not true across the board. Daggerfall is in fact an entirely skill-based game. A skill-based game with classes. In Daggerfall, classes represent a particular area of expertise as pertaining to certain skills along with boons and banes. If I had a critique, it is that it did not go far enough. Skills not covered by the class should have been severely hampered or even unable to be used, at least without significant training(and requirements to receive such) to make it accessible.

Classes are archetypes.
Archetypes are flavor.
Flavor is good.
Classes are good.

Not all implementations of classes are good.

————————————————————————————————————————
I think I'm going to start regularly posting blogposts topics that are, to me anyways, about things "core" to RPGs.
Everyone is encouraged to blogpost as long as it's in the right section.

[Tweed]

My Fallout 1 and 2 characters were both gamblers, but they were also gunslingers, scientists, public speakers, repairmen, survivalists, doctors, medics, locksmiths, and masters of martial arts. Because if you know how to gamble you can generate infinite money, buy books to teach you other skills, and then sink points into the skills that can't be advanced with books.

[GhostCow]

I prefer skill based systems because I just want to min/max and go pew pew with no restrictions

[madbringer]

Classes are flavour with arbitrary limitations. I am uncertain if I like arbitrary limitations; on the one hand, as a player, you are given a clear path to how develop your character. On the other, as we can see with D&D 5e, it is clear those are railroad tracks. Extreme dumbing down of what was once was supposed to be a delineation and picking a role in a larger party. There is only so much you can do when you're strapped to an extremely constraining choice every step of the way.

My favourite characters, when I was DMing Cyberpunk, which is very skill based, were ones that went outside the box, tweaked the rules. Street samurai that was a charismatic talker, grisly decker that was also an amazing fistfighter.

[MadPreacher]

Even with the absence of arbitrary classes you still end up with specific archetypes.

[J1M]

The appeal of classes is that a player can reliably execute on an archetype that they want during character creation. The designer can limit the choices to those that they want to support for a particular game.

Sometimes classless systems will introduce a package of bonuses and call that a class to help ease players through choice paralysis when making a character. That is no more a class-based RPG than Tetris would be if you had a choice to get bonus points for using certain blocks to initiate a line clear.

I would argue that an RPG is only class-based if class selection offers features or interactions that are not obtainable via generic means. For example, in D&D Lay On Hands is not on the feat list. It is not possible to build a D&D Monk by investing heavily in unarmed combat as a Fighter. In Final Fantasy XI, only the Warrior had the provoke ability. Other classes needed to subclass Warrior if they wanted provoke for tanking.

I would further argue that a true class-based system includes maluses as part of the archetypal flavor to make things more interesting and provide another knob for designers to tune the packages overall. For example, Druids must use non-metal equipment or Paladins must follow a moral code.

[Ratcatcher]

I see this as a conundrum that is truly present only when critiquing a game you know. When we talk cRPG, first and foremost we evaluate a specific class in the singular environment that game world represents. Eg, WotR. In WotR Slayers suck wet donkey balls. Because in the source material, a slayer is a bounty hunter specializing in ambushes and non-conventional traps. It simply cannot be implemented in a cRPG using current technology without it being utterly castrated (unless you heavily script each interaction, I guess).
Why would Owlcat choose that specific class, instead of any of the 3 dozens or so they could have implemented in a decent way? Probably because slav.

What I'm trying to say tho, it's impossible to judge a cRPG class without also analyzing the game world in which you play it. The consequence of this is, if a class ends up being boring, underpowered or with little flavour, it's easy to fault the devs for it. Skill based systems are much harder to critique. Suppose I invest in a skill that sees low usage during a playthrough. To properly critique such system, one needs spoilers. Did the dev implement an objectively bad skill? A low usage noob trap? Many such cases in older cRPGs. Or pheraps the player missed a number of working interactions? Maybe the skill was actually rolled in background and it's just the perception of its utility to be at fault here, and so on.

The reason I write this is, I often play skill based systems in pnp. I definitely prefer those as a GM (easier to build NPCs). Ofc when you have a GM that taylors up a campaign for a specific group of characters, some specific interaction can simply be injected (Wanna be a Deep Diver in CoC? Ofc I can write something to make that shine) I don't think they produce less unique characters than class based systems. If any, you have even more rules to customize your banalshitboring warrior.
When creating a cRPG character in a classless system tho, the question naturally arises. Should my thief be able to pickpocket? If that specific skills sucks in its interactions with the gameworld, am I better off picking something less flavorful? If you repeat this thought process for each pick, you can easily dilute whatever archetype you had in mind.
If the game world isn't suited for what you wanted to play, switching to a different class is easier, since there are probably better implemented ones. With open skills systems you're probably more prone to tweak, compromise and dilute your original idea.

[rusty_shackleford]

Eg, WotR

WotR(and Pathfinder as a whole) is a perfect example of how to not do classes. What they refer to classes are not actually classes, because they have no flavor. They are merely a bundle of class abilities, etc., You often have 4-5 classes sharing the same archetype but just different in small ways.

[rusty_shackleford]

Sometimes classless systems will introduce a package of bonuses and call that a class to help ease players through choice paralysis when making a character. That is no more a class-based RPG than Tetris would be if you had a choice to get bonus points for using certain blocks to initiate a line clear.

What if the package is designed such that the skills are a particularly kind of synergy and expected to work together in a certain way?
e.g., Gygax's two (major) RPGs after D&D were both skill-based. Lejendary Adventures was actually created from the ground up to support CRPGs because he was in talks to design one — which eventually fell through. Avatars(player character) in LA could belong to what was called 'Orders', which were both part mechanical and part story.







The 'orders' in LA provide benefits that would otherwise be unattainable, and those benefits go beyond merely mechanical benefits as they also intertwine with the story itself due to being part of a specific social class. It feels quite elegant in a way, and perhaps a shame the game never caught on. Might even have some popularity right now if it wasn't for Gary's damned widow.

I'm not sure if I'd agree if it's class-based, but it's close. It's definitely archetype-based, and archetypes are good. Ways to fit archetypes into skill-based are double good.

[Klerik]

Classes are just a label to stats and skills.

[J1M]

Sometimes classless systems will introduce a package of bonuses and call that a class to help ease players through choice paralysis when making a character. That is no more a class-based RPG than Tetris would be if you had a choice to get bonus points for using certain blocks to initiate a line clear.

What if the package is designed such that the skills are a particularly kind of synergy and expected to work together in a certain way?

That wouldn't change my viewpoint. That sounds like the bare minimum if I were to assign this task to a designer. If the package of skills didn't have some synergy or support a successful playstyle then I would categorize it as a trap choice left by a incompetent designer. The Sentinel class in Mass Effect as an example of this. They ran out of passable ideas for the particular game they were making but included it for symmetry.

[SDG]

Diablo.

[rusty_shackleford]

Lejendary Adventures was actually created from the ground up to support CRPGs

Happened to come across this when cleaning up my digital library

[rusty_shackleford]

@J1M Do you consider the Daggerfall system to be class-based? Could you elaborate?

[rusty_shackleford]

Just realized that Daggerfall's classes are basically Rolemaster's professions. Huh. Can't believe I never noticed that before.

[KnightoftheWind]

Classes allow me to roleplay as Balthazar the Gay Midget Elf, therefore they must remain.

[Klerik]

Why havent I seen an option for DIRTY *****

[J1M]

@J1M Do you consider the Daggerfall system to be class-based? Could you elaborate?

I haven't played it. From a cursory look at a wiki it appears to be exactly what I described above. Skill-based with some bundles of skills ("classes") offered to simplify character creation. It also sounds like the majority of those classes are viewed as substandard choices so players are recommended to use the "create custom class" option. Unless I am missing something it seems like textbook skill-based system.

[rusty_shackleford]

@J1M Do you consider the Daggerfall system to be class-based? Could you elaborate?

I haven't played it. From a cursory look at a wiki it appears to be exactly what I described above. Skill-based with some bundles of skills ("classes") offered to simplify character creation. It also sounds like the majority of those classes are viewed as substandard choices so players are recommended to use the "create custom class" option. Unless I am missing something it seems like textbook skill-based system.

At what point do you consider it to be classes?
If the skills not included as part of the 'bundle' were significantly more difficult to obtain(trainer, cost, or outright locked out depending on the skill), would that make it class-based?

[J1M]

@J1M Do you consider the Daggerfall system to be class-based? Could you elaborate?

I haven't played it. From a cursory look at a wiki it appears to be exactly what I described above. Skill-based with some bundles of skills ("classes") offered to simplify character creation. It also sounds like the majority of those classes are viewed as substandard choices so players are recommended to use the "create custom class" option. Unless I am missing something it seems like textbook skill-based system.

At what point do you consider it to be classes?
If the skills not included as part of the 'bundle' were significantly more difficult to obtain(trainer, cost, or outright locked out depending on the skill), would that make it class-based?

For me the dividing line would be classes having a skill or other significant passive traits that other classes cannot use. The presence of a custom class option almost guarantees that a system isn't class-based.

[MadPreacher]

I haven't played it. From a cursory look at a wiki it appears to be exactly what I described above. Skill-based with some bundles of skills ("classes") offered to simplify character creation. It also sounds like the majority of those classes are viewed as substandard choices so players are recommended to use the "create custom class" option. Unless I am missing something it seems like textbook skill-based system.

At what point do you consider it to be classes?
If the skills not included as part of the 'bundle' were significantly more difficult to obtain(trainer, cost, or outright locked out depending on the skill), would that make it class-based?

For me the dividing line would be classes having a skill or other significant passive traits that other classes cannot use. The presence of a custom class option almost guarantees that a system isn't class-based.

While locking your custom class out of certain skills... Did you think this through logically? I'm just curious is all.

[J1M]

At what point do you consider it to be classes?
If the skills not included as part of the 'bundle' were significantly more difficult to obtain(trainer, cost, or outright locked out depending on the skill), would that make it class-based?

For me the dividing line would be classes having a skill or other significant passive traits that other classes cannot use. The presence of a custom class option almost guarantees that a system isn't class-based.

While locking your custom class out of certain skills... Did you think this through logically? I'm just curious is all.

It should be clear from my answers that a class-based system would not allow you to build a custom class.

Secondary classes or multi-classing would be the closest to supporting something similar, but many systems do not have rules for that.

[MadPreacher]

For me the dividing line would be classes having a skill or other significant passive traits that other classes cannot use. The presence of a custom class option almost guarantees that a system isn't class-based.

While locking your custom class out of certain skills... Did you think this through logically? I'm just curious is all.

It should be clear from my answers that a class-based system would not allow you to build a custom class.

Secondary classes or multi-classing would be the closest to supporting something similar, but many systems do not have rules for that.

That makes it abundantly clear that you haven't the foggiest idea on what you are talking about then.

All classes are custom designed by the developer of a crpg. If it's a pen and paper RPG the lack of any mechanics for building a custom class is a poorly designed system.

Again logic do you know it?

[WhiteShark]

At what point do you consider it to be classes?
If the skills not included as part of the 'bundle' were significantly more difficult to obtain(trainer, cost, or outright locked out depending on the skill), would that make it class-based?

I think the minimum to qualify as classes is requiring more advancement resources (XP/skill points) to improve a skill outside your niche. If it costs more gold but otherwise allows you to reach the same heights as a specialist, that's not sufficient. Completely locking one class out of the skills of another is the other end of the spectrum.

[J1M]

While locking your custom class out of certain skills... Did you think this through logically? I'm just curious is all.

It should be clear from my answers that a class-based system would not allow you to build a custom class.

Secondary classes or multi-classing would be the closest to supporting something similar, but many systems do not have rules for that.

That makes it abundantly clear that you haven't the foggiest idea on what you are talking about then.

All classes are custom designed by the developer of a crpg. If it's a pen and paper RPG the lack of any mechanics for building a custom class is a poorly designed system.

Again logic do you know it?

The part that is unclear is why you insist on calling a skill-based character system a class-based one, as if you are applying a quality/value judgement based on categorization.

The designer and player are not on equal footing. The designer has meta knowledge that, when applied correctly, allows them to offer varied archetypes that will lead to a fun experience. Tabletop play is different than a videogame because you are in the room with one of the designers when making choices and that designer can rule zero anything they want or tailor the game to the experience the players are looking for.

TLDR: Do whatever you want in your imagination with your friend. My comments on game design don't really apply there.

[MadPreacher]

The part that is unclear is why you insist on calling a skill-based character system a class-based one, as if you are applying a quality/value judgement based on categorization.

I didn't. However classes have skills and your decision to make them mutually exclusive is stupid frankly.

The designer and player are not on equal footing. The designer has meta knowledge that, when applied correctly, allows them to offer varied archetypes that will lead to a fun experience. Tabletop play is different than a videogame because you are in the room with one of the designers when making choices and that designer can rule zero anything they want or tailor the game to the experience the players are looking for.

They are on equal footing when the game is released. Also, in Daggerfall the only person that has a class is the player. I fail to see how your arguments against a custom class apply to a game where only the player has the class.

[J1M]

The part that is unclear is why you insist on calling a skill-based character system a class-based one, as if you are applying a quality/value judgement based on categorization.

I didn't. However classes have skills and your decision to make them mutually exclusive is stupid frankly.

The designer and player are not on equal footing. The designer has meta knowledge that, when applied correctly, allows them to offer varied archetypes that will lead to a fun experience. Tabletop play is different than a videogame because you are in the room with one of the designers when making choices and that designer can rule zero anything they want or tailor the game to the experience the players are looking for.

They are on equal footing when the game is released. Also, in Daggerfall the only person that has a class is the player. I fail to see how your arguments against a custom class apply to a game where only the player has the class.

I find it tiring to debate with you because you will fixate on something and ignore the context that it was said in. Most of your misconceptions about my opinions would probably be cleared up by reading the thread again with the context that I am mainly talking about digital games.

For example, I never said anything about classes and skills being mutually exclusive. Class-based and skill-based were two broad labels used to categorize design decisions. There may be additional categories that deserve a label too.

Even for a tabletop game the player and the designer are not on equal footing when a game is released. After playing a game for many hours the player may approach an equal level of understanding, but will never have the full context of why decisions were made, the inputs on that collaborative process, or the goals of the designers at the time.

When you can pick and choose freely from all of the skills/powers/feats for character creation, I would refer to that as a skill-based system. (For example, Fallout.) I think calling premade characters in a game like this "classes" is misleading/incorrect.

From what I understand about Daggerfall, the correct way to create a character is to ignore the premade options because the majority of them have redundant or poorly allocated skills. One is "supposed" to know the Assassin is a good premade character or create a custom character using meta knowledge from another player. This is poor design and a bad experience for players.

Regarding a hypothetical class-based game (let's say similar to D&D 3.5) here is why I would be opposed to a custom class option:

a) allowing players to freely pick options is more likely to create non-viable characters, and games like this usually provide no recourse for retraining a character halfway through the game. This will create design pressure to tune the difficulty down late in development

b) freely picking class features reduces flavour because people will gravitate towards more generally useful choices over situational ones

c) a character with Rage, Divine Casting, and Lockpicking may break the party-based nature of a game if it can be effective across 3 different pillars of play

d) it's very easy for the player to dream up a cool concept and invest resources into it before realizing that said concept is not supported by the design/content of the game at all

e) without iterations based on observing player choices, the cost of perks and maluses will have inconsistencies that lead to more powerful characters than designers expect

f) most importantly, the designer has all of the meta knowledge about the game and is in a position to restrict player choices to several that will lead to a good experience for the player. Maybe the game has no traps or locked chests so the Thief is not an available class. Maybe the setting is suffused with arcane magic, and all the classes available have at least some limited arcane casting ability so that players can engage with more environmental reactivity and face the challenge posed by not having access to convenient healing magic. Etc.

[MadPreacher]

I find it tiring to debate with you because you will fixate on something and ignore the context that it was said in.

I'm not arguing with you. You think that I'm an enemy and I'm not. I'm discussing things with you. I ask you questions and I present what you've said then counter it. It's called a conversation.

For example, I never said anything about classes and skills being mutually exclusive.

Really?

The part that is unclear is why you insist on calling a skill-based character system a class-based one, as if you are applying a quality/value judgement based on categorization.

Seems to me that you did specify that there is a difference between a class and skill based system. That's your argument not mine. I pointed out the illogical position you took when classes have skills which makes them a skill based system. If you had said class based versus free form skill system there wouldn't be any logical failings. You excluded the possibility of classes having skills. You did it yourself. All I did was point out the flaw in your thinking. I'm not your enemy. I find my conversations with you to be enjoyable. I do learn from you and I hope the same is true in that you learn from me.

Even for a tabletop game the player and the designer are not on equal footing when a game is released. After playing a game for many hours the player may approach an equal level of understanding, but will never have the full context of why decisions were made, the inputs on that collaborative process, or the goals of the designers at the time.

That's not the argument I made and you are replying to. This is a non-sequitur.

When you can pick and choose freely from all of the skills/powers/feats for character creation, I would refer to that as a skill-based system. (For example, Fallout.) I think calling premade characters in a game like this "classes" is misleading/incorrect.

So this comes down to a definition and your incorrect understanding of what skills are in classes. You are referring to freeform skill system where you can choose what you want from the list without any constraints. That's a good way to play if the game is set up for that. All a class does is remove a lot of the choice from the player in skills to get them to play a specific playstyle. Neither is wrong.

From what I understand about Daggerfall, the correct way to create a character is to ignore the premade options because the majority of them have redundant or poorly allocated skills. One is "supposed" to know the Assassin is a good premade character or create a custom character using meta knowledge from another player. This is poor design and a bad experience for players.

The custom class is for advanced players that are familiar with the system. They are min-max builds for the most part. It doesn't mean that the default classes are bad per say. They're just themed in a sub-optimal way. Custom classes are not that much better as they are restricted like the original classes due to them having to follow the same rules the designers did. That's why your comment about the player and the designer doesn't make much sense in regards to Daggerfall.

The rest is covered by the prior paragraph. Custom classes in Daggerfall adhere to the same rules that the designers used for the shipped classes. The only way to truly cheese the classes is to edit the save to make things cheaper which in turn allows you to level up faster.

As I said that in Daggerfall the only character in the game that actually has a class is the player.

[0sacred]

I have the same issue with skill based systems that I have with wild multiclassing. Characters lose their internal consistency. What would be the RP reason to dip 1 level in Bard, or Monk? Why is your outdoorsman also a skilled orator? **** doesn't make sense anymore and detracts from my identification with my character, it gets in the way of muh immersion.

[rusty_shackleford]

that I have with wild multiclassing. Characters lose their internal consistency. What would be the RP reason to dip 1 level in Bard, or Monk?

Agreed, I always found the AD&D demi-human multi-class rules to be superior, (nearly) the same system used by e.g., Deadfire.