As some have said, I think the only reason the class seems to represent "who you are" the most is because combat is the focus of so many RPG's. When you're crafting, you are your profession. When you're choosing which quest to take, you are your alignment. But 90% of the time, you're killing monsters, so you are your class.
You could probably change the player's focus on different parts of his character sheet by changing how much time you put into each aspect of your game. If you make your RPG 90% about crafting, then players will define themselves by profession much more than by class.
What am I? RPG classes.
I think one thing that's often overlooked is how classes telegraph to the buyer the core content of your RPG. Take the lack of a viable purely non-combat class in almost every single player RPG-- we're telling the player that they're going to be some kind of exterminator. What you offer in classes tells them what kind of exterminator they're going to be: good guy exterminator, sneaky exterminator, exterminator with exotic pest control options, whatever.
I think grouping classes and skills is good because it allows you to be upfront about how you expect the player to play the game. Don't allow the player to group things together in such a way that it creates false expectations. It would be bad design, for instance, to allow players to invest solely in non-combat skills like acrobatics, sneaking and lock-picking to the exlusion of combat because it allows the player to think that they can win the game solely through these skills.
I don't think you can provide the player much identity through the combat options, though. A really good tank and a really good sniper are just going to feel like really good fighters, nothing more.
Unless you have radically limited roles, the raw material for identity is probably going to come from the missions you present, how you allow them to be solved, and what identity the game world gives you based on your actions. In Fallout, for instance, when you become the "Savior of the Damned" it's not solely based on skills and savvy in a type of combat: You can win this identity as a sniper or a brute or other mix. But your role emerges because of who you've exterminated or spared and how you've resolved different quests (compare this to the moniker in that game of "Child Killer" and how the world treats you).
I think grouping classes and skills is good because it allows you to be upfront about how you expect the player to play the game. Don't allow the player to group things together in such a way that it creates false expectations. It would be bad design, for instance, to allow players to invest solely in non-combat skills like acrobatics, sneaking and lock-picking to the exlusion of combat because it allows the player to think that they can win the game solely through these skills.
I don't think you can provide the player much identity through the combat options, though. A really good tank and a really good sniper are just going to feel like really good fighters, nothing more.
Unless you have radically limited roles, the raw material for identity is probably going to come from the missions you present, how you allow them to be solved, and what identity the game world gives you based on your actions. In Fallout, for instance, when you become the "Savior of the Damned" it's not solely based on skills and savvy in a type of combat: You can win this identity as a sniper or a brute or other mix. But your role emerges because of who you've exterminated or spared and how you've resolved different quests (compare this to the moniker in that game of "Child Killer" and how the world treats you).
You are right, Wavinator, about the identity not being impacted much by the combat role. it is something I hadn't realized before this thread but classes have two roles. They provide your skill set, but they also provide an image of who you are, and those two things are very separate. Compare these: Two special OPs agents, one melee, knife fighting master with a sneaky back stabbing dark side, the other a lone sniper god on a roof. They feel fairly similar but their combat roles are very different. Now instead imagine this: An emaciated undead knife fighter gutting his enemies, and a (cliche alert) elven priestess with a bow sniping from the trees.
Same roles, very different identities though.
Honestly though, I'm not really sure how to take this into account in a character creation system. How do you let a player choose the identity and combat role separately? Make the class the identity alone and then allow them to choose combat abilities separately?
Same roles, very different identities though.
Honestly though, I'm not really sure how to take this into account in a character creation system. How do you let a player choose the identity and combat role separately? Make the class the identity alone and then allow them to choose combat abilities separately?
Quote:Original post by JasRonq
Honestly though, I'm not really sure how to take this into account in a character creation system. How do you let a player choose the identity and combat role separately? Make the class the identity alone and then allow them to choose combat abilities separately?
Like I mentioned above, some games let the player separately chose their class and race. Usually class is the combat ability and race the identity. Class is kind of a loaded term, you could substitute 'fighting style' or simply 'weapon' to remove any stray identity connotations from particular classes. Other systems substitute faction for the philosophical and political part of the character's identity, whether faction is chosen at the beginning or developed through choices made in the game.
Quote:Original post by Wavinator
I don't think you can provide the player much identity through the combat options, though. A really good tank and a really good sniper are just going to feel like really good fighters, nothing more.
That's true with some classes, but not all of them. There are many classes that really do present different types of identies for characters. A paladin and knight are both similar and combat related. The knight is a patriot, and the paladin fights against evil for all that is not evil. But you would probably never talk a paladin into killing a group of normal humans to benefit a king, and you would have a difficult time convincing your knight to kill his dark king to save another country. They both fight, but they fight for very different reasons.
That's a worse-case scenario. There are plenty of classes that can offer a huge degree of variation with purpose and NPC interaction, which is the majority of identity in a role playing game. Most games already employ varying combat styles, but do very little for the rest.
One very important thing to consider if you want to make class role-playing better is that classes might bear totally different stereotypes depending on the game world. For example, the stereotypes for melee class (usually called "Fighter", "Warrior", or "Knight") is a brave and bold knight in shiny armor in Final Fantasy worlds and many other Japanese RPGs while it is a salvage hulking berserker in the Warcraft universe and most other Western RPGs. In FF, the salvage fighters is the "Dark Knight" and in Warcraft the bold knights in shiny armor is the "Paladin". (Although it is also the class of religious and zealous bigots in this universe, see Arthas and the Scarlet Crusade in WoW.) Also, in many games, healers are cleric/priest/bishops/pope/whatever and thus bear a strongly religious themes, while in other games they are another magician just like the wizards and the warlocks.
So, if you want to reinforce role-playing in your game, it is important that you specify what is the stereotype for a class exactly, even if you think it is obvious.
So, if you want to reinforce role-playing in your game, it is important that you specify what is the stereotype for a class exactly, even if you think it is obvious.
Unless you can design the classes in such a way so that they can really work together as a unity, there won't be any real "identity" the players can get from any of them.
And I think that's true for so many RPGs out there. Not including pure non-combat classes, while at the same time designing the overall world as a place where non-combatants live... that's such a huge contradiction which serves no purpose except only for keeping the players away from finding any real "identity" within the provided classes.
And I think that's true for so many RPGs out there. Not including pure non-combat classes, while at the same time designing the overall world as a place where non-combatants live... that's such a huge contradiction which serves no purpose except only for keeping the players away from finding any real "identity" within the provided classes.
Are you doing this for an MMO or console/pc RPG?
If MMO.. here is where to start...
Find your archetypes. Archetypes means what type of class they are and usually their primary role. The most common archetypes are Tank, Healer and DPS (Damage per second). You can go as far as making a support, crowd control and puller archetypes as well. What ever you feel. IMO one of the best ways is to have the primary role of the 3 main archetypes and then give them a secondary role. The best balance for this is, imo..for mmorpgs that is...that if you balance the tank, dps and healers well, the secondary role shouldnt define you as much. Also if you can figure out a way to be creative and make new archetypes heh.
If MMO.. here is where to start...
Find your archetypes. Archetypes means what type of class they are and usually their primary role. The most common archetypes are Tank, Healer and DPS (Damage per second). You can go as far as making a support, crowd control and puller archetypes as well. What ever you feel. IMO one of the best ways is to have the primary role of the 3 main archetypes and then give them a secondary role. The best balance for this is, imo..for mmorpgs that is...that if you balance the tank, dps and healers well, the secondary role shouldnt define you as much. Also if you can figure out a way to be creative and make new archetypes heh.
If I were to make an MMO, which I am not, I would mix up the standard archetypes to give players something new instead of feeding them the same classes they have seen in every other MMO for the past decade.
As it stands though, my idea is for a single player RPG. I have realized that the combat role and the 'personality' of the class are separate things and need to be selected separately.
btw Kest, the knight and paladin have the same combat role (except the paladin might be a secondary healer) but their personalities are different. This falls in line with my example of a even bowmen or a special ops sniper, same combat role, different personalities. this should place them as different classes, this should mean the player has some way to select the personality they are going after and the combat role they want.
As it stands though, my idea is for a single player RPG. I have realized that the combat role and the 'personality' of the class are separate things and need to be selected separately.
btw Kest, the knight and paladin have the same combat role (except the paladin might be a secondary healer) but their personalities are different. This falls in line with my example of a even bowmen or a special ops sniper, same combat role, different personalities. this should place them as different classes, this should mean the player has some way to select the personality they are going after and the combat role they want.
Quote:Original post by Kest
There are many classes that really do present different types of identies for characters. A paladin and knight are both similar and combat related. The knight is a patriot, and the paladin fights against evil for all that is not evil. But you would probably never talk a paladin into killing a group of normal humans to benefit a king, and you would have a difficult time convincing your knight to kill his dark king to save another country. They both fight, but they fight for very different reasons.
Very true, and as you note this is rarely expressed in a meaningful fashion. I think one of the biggest challenges is that it is very difficult to make a game world or story that is dynamic enough to be impacted by taking on a really different identity. In your example, there would need to be an opportunity to kill the dark king-- and then what? What happens to the world or story?
It's interesting that some of the most legendary RPGs (like Fallout) gave you these kinds of identity creating choices. Is that what made them so enduring?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement