I don't like classes; I much prefer systems like pic related where you entirely build a character from scratch. I would rather RPGs try to perfect and balance that sort of classless system. Why do RPGs mostly seem to emphasize class systems instead?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
I like class systems more
that's dope anon, could you elaborate why you like them? Personally I like to leave the roleplaying up to me right down to the nitty gritty stats vs having a predetermined spread.
I just like the concept of class fantasy for rp purposes and I find the class kits to be more straightforward and fun to play around with than several disjointed things that are supposed to make my build. Also, I do prefer party based RPGs over anything else and classes makes it easier to manage party members and assign them roles.
I think classless systems tend to lead to the "stealth archer problem" where builds all tend to eventually converge on the most efficient things for the game because if you can spec into anything, why not the best stuff? Fallout 1 there's basically no reason not to just go small guns (eventually into energy weapons for a sniper build with turbo plasma rifle) with lockpicking and speech because it's just so much better than anything else. I think by taking some choice away from you and being pigeonholed to some degree into a class, you ironically encourage far more varied playstyles.
>but you can build anything, just don't pick the good stuff bro
You say you will, but you won't
That's only if you suffer from autism though. If you dont have mental disabilities you realize fallout 1 isnt a hard game and you can play melee or whatever just fine.
Most people will gravitate towards efficiency and what seems the best. That's how our brains are wired (conserve energy, get food and resources in the easiest and best way possible). People that would experiment with odd stuff are an extreme minority.
I refuse to believe that, why would rpg devs even bother implementing a multitude of different playstyles if that was true? I guess not being able to relate to how other people play is another sign of autism
>I refuse to believe that, why would rpg devs even bother implementing a multitude of different playstyles if that was true?
You design the game better.
Make multiple options seems roughly as viable (and also not too hard to discover/figure out), don't make something very powerful too easy (including finding a strong piece of gear very easily), throw some things the players way that prevents or makes a singlular approach much less effective and so on.
On top of this it's fine to make something more complex or situational stronger. Just don't expect most players to find and use it.
The reason why something like "stealth archer" was so popular is because
>it's very easy
>it's very powerful for how easy it is to do
>it doesn't require anything beyond a bow and arrows, which you find very early
>people are more likely to sneak and engage from range anyway
>ai is stupid so they can actually de-aggro after getting shot, walk back and you can shoot them again
>doing it powers it up with the progression system the game uses, which makes it even more effective and more likely for them to commit to it
>low risk, high return
It was a huge oversight on the designers/director part.
>The reason why something like "stealth archer" was so popular is because
It's fun and a different way of approaching encounters.
I never had problems with characters turning into stealth archers, and I never found a reason to make a drastic change to a character, at least not because of difficulty or powergaming.
I have made characters who started out as stealth archers, among others who were warriors, mages, thieves, spellswords and whatever, and they all pretty much stayed the same throughout their playthroughs.
Skyrim allows players to make their own choices. Some can be due to roleplaying, some do it for efficiency and numbers. Some want to mix up the gameplay of a long playthrough, some start a new character instead.
If you turned your character to a stealth archer, and didn't like your own choice, that's on you.
You missed the entire point that was being made. If there is one easy and powerful way to play the game, no matter how dull and simple, players will do it. If almost all players play the game in the same way then all that supposed "freedom" is moot.
And as been stated. People that diverge from this end up just making what is effectively a basic archetypal class anyway, except more diluted.
At this point you would honestly just be better off making like 10 main classes with sub-classes and allowing for multiclassing.
>"freedom" is moot
It's not, because it allows one to build their character naturally and change it up.
If players choose to play a certain way, then let them. Free will and all that.
>at this point you could have classes
Don't need them for anything
>It's not, because it allows one to build their character naturally and change it up.
Except most people end up building it the same way. You could just as easily "change it up" with classes. You deciding to use plate armor instead of leather armor for your stealth archer doesn't actually change your gameplay experience in a relevant way.
A no class system is a design trap that makes people think there's tons of options and freedom that otherwise wouldn't be available to them and results in a more varied and unique experience. But that's the exact opposite of what it does.
No go ahead and tell me what are all these +20 different and unique builds in Fallout 1 that would not have been possible and made better with a system with classes?
>Except most people end up building it the same way.
Let them, it's irrelevant to me. Restrictions on the other hand would harm my experience.
I asked you to prove what you do with all this "freedom" to see if it's actually relevant, noticeable and provides more unique gameplay.
>tell me what are all these +20 different and unique builds in Fallout 1 that would not have been possible and made better with a system with classes?
What do you need classes for, how are they better? To keep you from choosing the same skills?
I'll answer you despite you completely failing to answer mine and back up your claims.
Classes allow for
>unique skills, mechanics and synergies
>to allow designers to ensure they're all varied, distinct and fun to play
>to play into the roleplaying and having the world react to it
>to have sub classes for variations and multiclassing for even more variations, while still maintaining the benefits of classes
and so on.
With a no class system it means you have to dilute everything to allow everything to be picked together and be less unique. It's the equivalent of the Borderlands marketing line "Over 1 billion guns", where they try to dazzle people with numbers, but in this case it's "limitless skill combinations and freedom!". It's an illusion.
For example, if you can't make over 20 different completely unique and fun to play builds in a classless system, why even bother when you could've gone for 10 classes and allow mutli-classing for far more uniqueness, variatety and meangful choice.
skills, mechanics and synergies
>>to allow designers to ensure they're all varied, distinct and fun to play
>>to play into the roleplaying and having the world react to it
>>to have sub classes for variations and multiclassing for even more variations, while still maintaining the benefits of classes
Why isn't this possible without set classes
>Why isn't this possible without set classes
It's easiest if you realize this on your own with an example
For the sake of this argument, let's use the classes and subclasses of Deadfire
https://pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com/Classes
How would you take these classes, sub-classes (plus factoring in multi-classing) and break down them into a classless system that doesn't dilute or remove any of the unique mechanics or systems for each class, while allowing all of them to work together to create more *noticeable* variety, depth and unique gameplay options than what exists with classes.
How would you then present this to players, how would leveling up/progression look and ensure all of it works together (mechanically)?
This example is for your sake, for you to think about. You do not need to type it out or reply.
What exactly is the problem there?
>How would you take these classes, sub-classes (plus factoring in multi-classing) and break down them into a classless system
Sawyer did it for the tabletop version of the game, it's pretty good.
Your dumb fricking argument applies to classes just as equally. You're complaining about a balance issue like they're nonexistent with a class system.
>I think by taking some choice away from you and being pigeonholed to some degree into a class, you ironically encourage far more varied playstyles.
So you realize this, but instead of making the choice yourself, you want the game to impose it on you.
Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game. - Soren Johnson
Obviously, if you wanted to play a class, then just build a restricted class using the free system LOSER. It's like saying you want to walk in circles, so you build yourself a pen that forces you to, absolute idiot behavior.
I like both. Usually I prefer "Jack the All-Trader" character building in "sandbox" RPGs, and classes for "[number] homies in a row" RPGs, but I also like games that try to combine both in some form.
>Why do RPGs mostly seem to emphasize class systems instead?
Gameplay mechanics and "because D&D" aside, classes are an extra layer of background flavor you can add to your character/playstyle. You could argue that "Dude with Heavy Armor, Heavy Weapon, Heavy Shield and Also Some Shiny Spells" and "Paladin" are basically the same thing playstyle-wise, but it's nice to be able play a specific "role" in the setting that affects the way you play the game.
Of course, Mr. Dude could join the Holy Order and complete dangerous quests to earn that fancy heavy armor and the title of "Paladin" and that works very well in slow-paced games where you will spend a lot of time on that grindset to get those promotions in your faction of choice, and there is definitively "flavor" in being able to make such a choice in the game (especially if you can find the "Unholy Chaos" faction on the other side of the town), but not every straight-forward adventure needs a fully playable thematic training arc.
who else always thought that thing on the box art is a vacuum cleaner
>vacuum cleaner
>not a toaster
classes make it easier for new players to get into the game. also in terms of tabletop roleplaying, your character's class gives you another thing to base your character's identity on if you're a mediocre role player who can't come up with much on your own. basically classes are good for getting people to actually play your game.
pinko
>Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's precisely the opposite.
These only work if there's actually enough balance in the game that you can make different builds. In Fallout 1 you're going to be "agile genius guy that shoots things and lockpicks and sneaks that's also good at talking." Ultimately you're just making classes too, just without names. If the game is balanced right I think I agree with you though.
Classless for lone wanderers (companions optional). ClassYes for party based games.
Played Wasteland 2 which is both classless and party based and I just ended up making 1 leader and 3 guys with the same stats, their only difference being they used different weapons and different utility skills but their attributes were the same and each wore heavy armor. I imagine I'd do the same if I could choose the stats of companions in Fallout 1. Everyone with max Agility, same Traits, etc and only giving them different guns depending on available ammo.
Fallout doesn't have classes? lets change that
Because rpgs come from d&d, which uses a class system. Regardless, you're really arguing semantics.
Classes unironically work better if you want unique and interesting gameplay expereinces with more depth.
Without classes you remove distinction which in turn leads to players more or less playing the same character.
If you try to push something to the extreme like "only melee and stealth" then you're basically just jumping through hoops to end up with an inferior class system.
You don't know what you're talking about.
He said, while not providing any point or argument.
Get an argument that isn't fricking moronic first.
Your kindergarten approach to discussion doesn't work outside of the playground.
If you can't even formulate a basic counter argument you're wrong, but don't want to admit it.
If what I said was truly littered with holes it would've been easy for any moderately intelligent person to point those out. If you're incapable of doign so, then it speaks for itself.
Don't like it? Tough shit.
Fallout 1 is shit.