Class-based versus skill-based

Page: 1 2 3
Sep 11 2003, 10:49 am
In response to Ter13
Oh, and leftley, a well balanced class system can have it's unbalances. Look at D&D 3rd ed. The monk is the most powerful character in the game, a fighter and wizard cannot easily beat them. They are immune to poison, disease, damage, spells, ageing, AND mind-games! They are unbalanced character types.

A fighter has a distinct advantage over a monk in that they have a larger selection of equipment they can use so thier power isn't completly determined by level whereas a monk is very restricted in equipment thus his power is mostly restricted by level. A well decked out fighter can easily have more immunities, resistances, and all around firepower than a monk.
Sep 11 2003, 10:57 am
For example, you could start the game as a "Warrior" class, but initially, straight from the beginning, use your bow instead of heavy armour and swordplay. You would be more talented at using heavy armour and blades -- they'd just come naturally to you -- but you could practice really really hard with your bow and get better at using it than you could use a sword. Of course, if you practiced the same amount of time with a sword, you'd be much further along than you are currently.

There is also the issue of entertainment. Most good RPGs I've played are level based. The skill based ones where you increase skill by using a specific talent usually leads to you needing to do a certain task over and over again. This is very realistic but it can and probably will be very boring which is why I don't really like this kind of method. A classless model like the Exile and Avernum games is much better. Rather than repeating a certain skill over and over you just gain exp through killing monsters, when you level up you are given a certain number of points which you use to increase stats/skills. This is unrealistic in that a player could get all the experiance through using swords then buy a lot of magic skills, but it's a lot less frustrating than having to poorly cast magic over and over again over a long period of time to slowly increase that skill. Since it is game you are working on and not a simulation your prime concern shouldn't be how real something is but how enjoyable it is for the player.
Sep 11 2003, 2:16 pm
In response to Crispy
But (sorry to break it to you) the characters in the game arent real either. =P
I do understand your points though. Im not saying what I said had any real logic behind it, its just how I feel. (Like disliking a movie for no real reason)
Although, if Spiderman carried an Uzi Id have the same problem. Its just not interesting when everyone has the same basic techniques because "It would be stupid not to know heal", reguardless of what type of person the character is.
Sep 11 2003, 3:28 pm
In response to Ter13
Ter13 wrote:
One more thing: the samurai's light-movement ability would be a pwerful skill, so you make it hard to master, not only expensive, and hard to find, but also reduce it's effects, it will decrease the restriction penalty of your armor by 1 point per 5 levels... balanced.

But if your a Samurai it should be standard. This is where Leftly's point is (I think). Some things need to be easily accessable/standard for some classes, but cant be handed out to anyone.
You could probably balance it out by making the skills you have effect how well you learn other skills, but its not exactly desirable (100 skills, all with there own reactions to each other, would get far too annoying for everyone concerned).
Also, you make a lot of references to D&D throughout your posts, but you have to remember that those rules are thought up with humans using them in mind. Humans think differntly to computers.
Whats good for us just might not be efficient for a computer.

It would be nice if you mixed both your techniques together. So you have class restrictions, which make it so you can only learn a certiant amount of skills, but you also have heaps of sub-skills.
So I can choose to be a Mage, get access to a bunch of skills. Then when Im training those skills I can train certiant area's of those skills (Ie, I choose the skill Offencive Magic, then sub-skill Dark Magic, to become a Dark Mage).
So we have initial classes, then the ability to take on a sub-class. The sub-class would never be anything official, but you would be able to say to the other Mages "I am a Master of the Dark Arts".

So back to the Samurai example. I choose "Shinobi" as my class, which gives me access to the respective Skills. Then to become a "ANBU*" by learning more stealth sub-skills, or an all round Ninja by learning parts of each skill.
This way you have structure, but a lot of flexibility to do what you want.

PS: With the sub-skill stuff, you have to know the initial skill to a certiant extent to get access to the sub-skills, and when you get better at the skill you get "stronger" at the subskills (You dont actually get better at using them, they are just more effective when you use them).
So if I know the sub-skill fireball a little, and Im top notch at "Projectile Magic", it still has the same chance of fizzling as if I was bad at "Projectile Magic" but if it succeeds the rusults are better.


*ANBU - Assisanation Squad member (Taken from the Manga "Naruto", I know its lame to quote manga, but its fitting in this case)
Sep 11 2003, 6:30 pm
In response to Ter13
Ever notice that despite your insistence that you are merely voicing your opinions, you rarely bother prefacing your statements with any indication of this fact (such as "I think..." or "In my opinion..."), or acknowledging the existence of alternatives? Not only do you not voice your opinions as opinions, or even advice, you voice them as specific instructions as to exactly what should be done and how to do it; worse, you never bother providing any explanation as to why (even an explanation as simple as "because I think it's a cool idea").

When I posted my original reply, I was merely annoyed, not angry. I'm still not angry at you, but my browser just ate a moderately in-depth (but not very angry) response, so yes, I am ticked in general right now. Short version: the point of the samurai example is that a class system allows you to balance the power of choice abilities by packaging them with less desirable abilities, or even giving a class limitations, that would not make sense in a skill-based system. If you give players the ability to pick abilities piecemeal, then they will aim exclusively for the most powerful or useful ones, and the only way to balance this is by increasing their cost or decreasing their effectiveness, which makes things harder for everyone--even people who weren't intending to exploit the system for maximum power. Businesses will often offer package deals at an overall lower price, in part because in doing so they can throw in things that people wouldn't buy otherwise; the same principle applies here.
Sep 11 2003, 7:01 pm
In response to Leftley
When I posted my original reply, I was merely annoyed, not angry. I'm still not angry at you, but my browser just ate a moderately in-depth (but not very angry) response, so yes, I am ticked in general right now. Short version: the point of the samurai example is that a class system allows you to balance the power of choice abilities by packaging them with less desirable abilities, or even giving a class limitations, that would not make sense in a skill-based system. If you give players the ability to pick abilities piecemeal, then they will aim exclusively for the most powerful or useful ones, and the only way to balance this is by increasing their cost or decreasing their effectiveness, which makes things harder for everyone--even people who weren't intending to exploit the system for maximum power. Businesses will often offer package deals at an overall lower price, in part because in doing so they can throw in things that people wouldn't buy otherwise; the same principle applies here.

Fortunately, skills-based systems work great for systems where players are heroic, and that's exactly the direction I'm aiming for with Haven.
Sep 11 2003, 7:37 pm
In response to Spuzzum
Spuzzum wrote:
Fortunately, skills-based systems work great for systems where players are heroic, and that's exactly the direction I'm aiming for with Haven.

I don't see where the "heroic" concept enters into it. The heroic concept justifies why characters have abilities above and beyond what you'd expect for an average human, or even a very talented human. It doesn't justify why some abilities or combinations of abilities give vastly more effect than other ostensibly equal abilities, which is what good game balance seeks to guard against, and which can't be replaced by explanations of player characters being exceptional by nature because you're dealing with comparisons of player character vs. player character.
Sep 11 2003, 9:23 pm
In response to Leftley
I don't see where the "heroic" concept enters into it. The heroic concept justifies why characters have abilities above and beyond what you'd expect for an average human, or even a very talented human. It doesn't justify why some abilities or combinations of abilities give vastly more effect than other ostensibly equal abilities, which is what good game balance seeks to guard against, and which can't be replaced by explanations of player characters being exceptional by nature because you're dealing with comparisons of player character vs. player character.

It's easy enough to balance. So the warrior knows a few spells, and so the mage knows how to wear heavy armour -- to get really good at doing what they're not designed to do, it'd take them forever. If they want to invest the time, then more power to them, I say. =)
Sep 12 2003, 12:03 pm
In response to Spuzzum
In the game I'm making, I'm planning on having specific classes, but each class gets a wide choice of equippable weapons and armour. For example, the White Mage can choose to equip a mallet, which is slightly heavy but has a good attack, a staff which has little attack but also little weight, plus enhances white magic casting, and a knife, which has no weight but very weak attack. Properties like these will inhabit all the weapons and armour so you can build the character you want.
Sep 13 2003, 3:32 am
I'm glad people have different views about this. If people you that read this don't mind you should post here to vote on your view. Thanks :).

James
Sep 16 2003, 4:25 am
YOu guys don't get it! THERE IS NO WARRIOR type, THERE IS NO WIZARD! It is pure skill, sure characters may mimic the abilities of a warrior, or a wizard, but in actuality they are filling a niche in the job department.

You people act like what we are saying is "take a class system and make it more open to all!" What I am saying is "Screw the class system." If you remove the class system to increase functionality and freedom, you increase the uniqueness of characters, and the less tied in they are to the rigid rules of the game.

Sure, you might want an easier system, abut in your case, Theodis, doesn't fighting monsters get old as well? isn't is repetitive to a simple class system, where characters have a limited run of abilities, which they must use over and over again? Compared to a skill system where you can go out, and learn counterattacks, and then multiple, diverse skills. I think so. It is my distinct opinion that this system is quite a lot better than the classic class system. Yes, the class system is easier to balance, and it is tried but true, but I think the skill system adds some spice to the game, classes just kind of make it, "Well okay, it's time to get some XP so I can PK some newbs!" Wheras the skill system is more of a "Hmmmmmm.... what am I going to do today?" It is just more effective in my mind.

Oh, and leftley, I do not have to put little disclaimers on everything I say. You can respond however you like, but if you are an ass in response, I DO have the right to point it out. The world does not have to fit your expectations.
Sep 16 2003, 8:51 am
In response to DarkView
You were comparing this to reality... keep your argument straight.
Sep 16 2003, 8:58 am
In response to Ter13
Ter13 wrote:
YOu guys don't get it! THERE IS NO WARRIOR type, THERE IS NO WIZARD! It is pure skill, sure characters may mimic the abilities of a warrior, or a wizard, but in actuality they are filling a niche in the job department.

But more often than not they're going to be filling that niche a lot more closely than you might like. In a class based system, you might have a thief class that can climb, pick locks, disarm traps, hide, sneak, pickpocket, etc., etc. In a skill based system, players will more often than not simply create a character who is the living embodiment of pickpocketing skill just so that they can loot the world blind with their astronomical pickpocketing skill. Can you guard against this scenario? Definitely. Can you guard against all such scenarios? ...Only if your game doesn't have very many skills at all to keep track of in the first place.

You people act like what we are saying is "take a class system and make it more open to all!" What I am saying is "Screw the class system." If you remove the class system to increase functionality and freedom, you increase the uniqueness of characters, and the less tied in they are to the rigid rules of the game.

This is all true, but it's also a trade-off; those rules do a lot more for you than simply restrict how unique a character is. Playing football with no referee increases the player's options and gives them more freedom too, which is all fun until someone gets a shot in the groin.

Sure, you might want an easier system, abut in your case, Theodis, doesn't fighting monsters get old as well? isn't is repetitive to a simple class system, where characters have a limited run of abilities, which they must use over and over again? Compared to a skill system where you can go out, and learn counterattacks, and then multiple, diverse skills. I think so. It is my distinct opinion that this system is quite a lot better than the classic class system.

But in a skill-based system, characters have a limited run of abilities too. You can make a class system where the only difference between classes are some different attributes, and yeah, that gets boring pretty quickly. But class systems often involve not only giving each class a reasonably sized set of abilities, but also opening up access to new skills, techniques, or spells as they increase in level.

Yes, the class system is easier to balance, and it is tried but true, but I think the skill system adds some spice to the game, classes just kind of make it, "Well okay, it's time to get some XP so I can PK some newbs!" Wheras the skill system is more of a "Hmmmmmm.... what am I going to do today?" It is just more effective in my mind.

You're comparing a good skill system against a bad class system, so of course the sort of skill system you suggest here. You can just as easily make a skill based system where the prevailing mode of thinking is "accumulate power to PK newbies" as you can make a class system that makes players ask "what am I going to do today?", and vice versa.

Overall, you seem to mostly be comparing one specific type of skill system vs. one specific type of class system. The specific skill system you're constantly talking about is a pretty good one, and the specific class system you're talking about is a pretty bad one. You haven't said a word about any other sort of systems possible under the two broad headings of "class-based" or "skill-based", nor about systems which mix the two. Hybrid systems give players the freedom to specialize while still providing a rigid framework to keep players in check. Hierarchal skill systems do the same thing, but in doing so, you're not that far different from a class-and-skill-based system; you're just providing an alternate means to get the same general effect.

Oh, and leftley, I do not have to put little disclaimers on everything I say. You can respond however you like, but if you are an ass in response, I DO have the right to point it out. The world does not have to fit your expectations.

I haven't called you any names so far. All I've done is disagree with you, in a moderately insistent but non-inflammatory manner. You seem to think that namecalling is more justified than debate, so next time you post something that I disagree with, would you prefer that rather than posting a rebuttal I simply replied with "You're an ass"?
Sep 16 2003, 10:50 am
In response to Ter13
Sure, you might want an easier system, abut in your case, Theodis, doesn't fighting monsters get old as well? isn't is repetitive to a simple class system, where characters have a limited run of abilities, which they must use over and over again?

It does if it's a bad game with no variation in combat. There are very few games with little variation in combat. But in a skill based system like Ultima Online how do I increase my lumberjack skill? I have to chop trees. Is there any way I can do that different? No, which is why it's much more boring than hacking at monsters. How about mining? Well I have to click on the ground in a mine to get ore. Any other way of doing it? No. Comabt at least requires you to pay attention to a health bar and make an attempt to heal yourself which breaks the monotony and if it's a good game theres even more to combat than that. But all the non-combat skills tend to be even lamer than even the most repetative of combat systems. I don't want some stupid system that requires me to repeat simple brainless tasks over and over again for hours on end.

Compared to a skill system where you can go out, and learn counterattacks, and then multiple, diverse skills.

You can do this in a class system too only you don't have to set yorself up to take an extended beating so that you might successfully counter attack to increase the skill by a fraction of a point. Usually you get all the cool combat extras after getting so much experience or you get to select it as a bonus for leveling up sorta like in Fallout or any 3rd edition ADnD game.

I think so. It is my distinct opinion that this system is quite a lot better than the classic class system.

It could be just as good if done right but no game has yet to have done it right, so I'll just prefer my class based system since many games have done this right.

Yes, the class system is easier to balance, and it is tried but true, but I think the skill system adds some spice to the game

Yeah sorta like adding salt to my ice cream! Just because it adds to the game doesn't mean it does it in a good way :P. As I have noted before I haven't played a skill based game yet that would have been a lot more fun to play if they had just gone with a good class system.

, classes just kind of make it, "Well okay, it's time to get some XP so I can PK some newbs!" Wheras the skill system is more of a "Hmmmmmm.... what am I going to do today?"

I don't see how you could just as easily swap the statements. You can power up your skills rapidly in a skilll based system so that you can go kill new players just as easily as you can in a class system. And in a diverse class based system you could easily have the choice of what you would want to do today.

It is just more effective in my mind.

When has it been more effective? Can you name a good skill based game that didn't have a bunch of stupid non-combat skills that could only be gained through braindead tasks?
Sep 16 2003, 1:34 pm
In response to Leftley
You people act like what we are saying is "take a class system and make it more open to all!" What I am saying is "Screw the class system." If you remove the class system to increase functionality and freedom, you increase the uniqueness of characters, and the less tied in they are to the rigid rules of the game.

This is all true, but it's also a trade-off; those rules do a lot more for you than simply restrict how unique a character is. Playing football with no referee increases the player's options and gives them more freedom too, which is all fun until someone gets a shot in the groin.

Ha!

In essence, I agree: games aren't sets of freedoms, they're sets of limitations. Those limitations can always be extended as situations warrant. If someone finds a technique that allows them to gain 50,000 points every round, there are equal and valid arguments saying that the technique is simply using deductive skill and logic to take advantage of code (which isn't a bug) that is already present, and thus couldn't possibly be considered an exploit. (Personally speaking, I tend towards the "unfair advantage is always an exploit" argument, but I'm citing for example.) It is up to the ruling body to decide how to handle the situation. In other words, you relax the referee, but don't get rid of him altogether.


Sure, you might want an easier system, abut in your case, Theodis, doesn't fighting monsters get old as well? isn't is repetitive to a simple class system, where characters have a limited run of abilities, which they must use over and over again? Compared to a skill system where you can go out, and learn counterattacks, and then multiple, diverse skills. I think so. It is my distinct opinion that this system is quite a lot better than the classic class system.

But in a skill-based system, characters have a limited run of abilities too. You can make a class system where the only difference between classes are some different attributes, and yeah, that gets boring pretty quickly. But class systems often involve not only giving each class a reasonably sized set of abilities, but also opening up access to new skills, techniques, or spells as they increase in level.

Class-based systems also hold the advantage in the replayability department. In a skill-based system, eventually it's possible to "max out" every single skill imaginable (though in a well-designed system, this is so remote to be considered in the realm of impossibility), which means that with anything you want to try, you can just go learn it and do it. With a class-based system, you need to start a new character to experiment with new options, which almost infinitely extends the playability of the game (especially if you have a wide array of unique and interesting classes).


Yes, the class system is easier to balance, and it is tried but true, but I think the skill system adds some spice to the game, classes just kind of make it, "Well okay, it's time to get some XP so I can PK some newbs!" Wheras the skill system is more of a "Hmmmmmm.... what am I going to do today?" It is just more effective in my mind.

You're comparing a good skill system against a bad class system, so of course the sort of skill system you suggest here. You can just as easily make a skill based system where the prevailing mode of thinking is "accumulate power to PK newbies" as you can make a class system that makes players ask "what am I going to do today?", and vice versa.

Overall, you seem to mostly be comparing one specific type of skill system vs. one specific type of class system. The specific skill system you're constantly talking about is a pretty good one, and the specific class system you're talking about is a pretty bad one. You haven't said a word about any other sort of systems possible under the two broad headings of "class-based" or "skill-based", nor about systems which mix the two. Hybrid systems give players the freedom to specialize while still providing a rigid framework to keep players in check. Hierarchal skill systems do the same thing, but in doing so, you're not that far different from a class-and-skill-based system; you're just providing an alternate means to get the same general effect.

Of course, in the end, it's comparing apples and oranges. Apples have their advantages -- they're sweeter and thicker -- and oranges have their advantages -- they're juicier and rich in Vitamin C -- and each also has its corresponding disadvantages (apples turn brown when exposed to air, oranges can get crushed easily).

Skill-based systems have their places and class-based systems have their places. In serious freeform RPGs, I believe that skill-based systems are more appropriate than class-based systems, because it allows more diversity in your character -- but in number-played RPGs, class-based systems hold the advantage of being far easier to balance and, above all else, being far easier for players to grasp.
Sep 16 2003, 3:26 pm
In response to Theodis
Theodis wrote:
When has it been more effective? Can you name a good skill based game that didn't have a bunch of stupid non-combat skills that could only be gained through braindead tasks?

People seem to be mixing in various things that don't necessarily have anything to do with the topic at hand. EQ is a strongly class-based game...in which you do brainless tasks for non-combat skills.

Making non-combat interesting is a good thing, but is unrelated to combat-based vs skill-based.
Sep 16 2003, 3:28 pm
In response to Spuzzum
Spuzzum wrote:
Class-based systems also hold the advantage in the replayability department. In a skill-based system, eventually it's possible to "max out" every single skill imaginable (though in a well-designed system, this is so remote to be considered in the realm of impossibility), which means that with anything you want to try, you can just go learn it and do it.

That would be a pretty poor skill-based system. The current skill-based game I'm playing is Star Wars Galaxies, and they have a skill point cap...so you can do anything you want, but you can't do everything.
Sep 16 2003, 4:27 pm
In response to Ter13
Ter13 wrote:
YOu guys don't get it! THERE IS NO WARRIOR type, THERE IS NO WIZARD!

Exactly, your saying "It has to work this way because thats how it really works" but your forgetting that its a game. People are getting too wrapped up in ultra-realism. It can be fun, but usually its only fun in theory or ruined by only being ultra-real in certiant systems.
Skill restrictions based on class make it a little more challanging in some respects, and definantly encourage in-character relationships more.
For example, if Im a "Warrior type" and I cant do any magic, I have to go out and make friends with someone whose class allows them to learn heal before I go into uncharted badlands to fight evil monsters.
In a skill based system like you describe nine out of ten people would just learn the most effective low level heal technique.

Also, on another note its not that "real" to be able to learn anything you want.
In theory I would wake up, go to work, come home and work out, talk to my girlfriend/relax for a while, then learn some new programming stuff, followed by 8 hours of sleep to wake up and repeat.
I dont do that. In game I can with just as much ease (If not more) as I can sit around and relax, so I would.
Skill restrictions balance this out, sort of like how AI cheating can make NPC's react more real on the outside. "Its not how it works, its how it turns out", you may disagree with this, but its a perfectly acceptable oppinnion.
Sep 17 2003, 3:39 am
In response to Theodis
The skill system I am thinking of is not a practice system. Rather than practicing to increase each skill, everything you do gets you blanket experience. You are thinking ultima or runescape on the dot. Next, you go to a trainer, request training in that skill, pay the XP penalty, which varies from character to character, and then you pay them the cash they deserve for training you. Gotta go, but I do apologize for being set "THIS IS THE WAY", but I just think this system is the best route to go.
Sep 17 2003, 3:42 am
In response to Deadron
I do not enjoy the skill cap, but I prefer the method of the more skills a player has, the harder it is for them to learn and maintain a new, or unrelated one, while maintaining the old ones.
Page: 1 2 3