Character design RPG style

Hello, So im at a point where i need to design my players proparly. And i have i few questions where i would like to hear you guys opinions on. First classes or no-classes? And should the weapons be class restricted? Should weapons and armour be randomly generated or do you think it is better to have a set of weapons with variants. Any other tips on this soort of topic is always helpful since i have no idea what to do with this and it is kind of inportant. My game is an random gen dungeon clearing game btw.

 

I would recommend making a Games Design Document, with what you think is best first. Then work out the scope of the project and cut bits off.

 

Right now i thinking about this: Classes that give you passive bonuses and equipment tiers bound to those classes. Every class can use every type of weapon but some classes will have advantages over other classes while using those weapons. No levels, but you are able to find upgrades for urself and ur weapons. But you can pick up and use anything at the beginning of the game. Im still not sure if i want to go with random weapons or not. I like the borderlands way of doing it but i also think its cool if you could collect weapons a little like pokemon with rare ones and more common weapons which all have preset stats.

 

But i would like to hear other peoples input on this since i have never done anything like this my previous games where: 2 zombie shooter, a online shooter and a racing game. So i never really did any of the gameplay design of characters.

 

@StarGamess - As an alternate viewpoint, consider skipping the Game Design Document. It might be too early for that. Instead, what is the essential experience that you want to give the players?

Do you want the player to feel like an expert? For example, "I'm the sniper," or "I'm the demolitions expert; come to me if you need stuff blown up." If so, then perhaps the game calls for specialized classes. Maybe everyone can use C4 explosives, but only the demolitions expert can do really crazy stuff with it. In this case, you'd want to make the C4 class difference very pronounced. Another nice thing about classes is that you can build distinct personalities into the characters, like in TF2. But it can also be restrictive. Every Heavy looks like The Heavy.

On the other hand, if the essential experience is to customize your character as you pick up equipment, maybe make it classless, and focus on customization aspects -- appearance, skill trees, etc. -- and ways to express those customizations.

Then again, if it's about speed running through the dungeon or experiencing the game world, maybe the character stuff is less important and you should de-emphasize it.

As early as you can, put together a playable prototype and share it here on the Feedback Friday thread! It doesn't need to be polished, and it should just use throwaway code that you can put together quickly. Once you have the design, you'll rewrite the code anyway.

 

My most memorable gaming experiences are with games that used a class system. Games that allowed anyone to be anything were very bland; which is one reason I stopped following EQNext. With that being said, a class system takes more time to balance for PvE or PvP. Most people I have gamed with do not mind being locked into 1 class, as long as they are not "gimped" by the class. I believe that allowing players to choose any weapon is a good way to manage the illusion of free choice.

Now an argument for a "classless" system: look at EvE online, there are essentially no differences between the races and anyone can train to be anything. The approach EvE took is that it takes too much time to realistically train every skill therefor you would want to choose your piloting path very carefully. I wouldn't call the different ships "classes" per se, but that is the closest analogy. Every ship is good at one thing, however you never lock the player in to only being allowed to fly battleships for the rest of their time in EvE. The game is designed around choices, and only temporarily lock a player into a ship when they are in space, but they can dock and switch ships depending on the enemy fleet they are about to engage.

 

How did you possibly come to this conclusion? I've designed both and believe me, class-based systems are SO much easier to balance. That is, in fact, the very reason classes were created in the first place.

 

Agreed. Classes mean fewer variables to balance. Five classes, for example, mean you have to balance five different variables. With classless, skill-based systems, each skill is like a mini-class. If you have 30 skills, then all the possible combinations makes for a lot of variables.

 

It comes down to FOTM builds. When you have a few players that find that optimal build because there are varying degrees of classes that may have not been tested all that well, then in my opinion balance is harder to achieve. Compare that to a FPS (which is very similar to a classless system); you only have to balance that x skill does y damage every single time, and there are not really any novelties to the system. Every player has access to every weapon or skill and thus the level of entry into competition is easier. A class based system requires some knowledge up front when choosing the type of class to play.

It's a great discussion point, and I do see your viewpoint. I come from the viewpoint that "classless" systems always have less skills than a class system. In that scenario I believe class systems are harder to balance, because a class system has races * archetypes * classes * differing skillsets for each class = lots of balance options. On the other hand a classless system might have 10 skills that can easily be balanced. Again it's just a different way of looking at the information.

If you take a MOBA for example that does have very limited class skills compare to say UO, which is something I would consider "classless" then UO definitely has a harder time balancing the system. So it's important for me to qualify my answer that I was thinking about PvP balancing in games, where players are working against one another and balancing is about creating as fair as an opportunity as you can achieve. Unlike in PvE where low DPS for one build does not make it subpar because of the skillset brought for tanking. However in PvP subpar dps for a warrior would be unbalanced against a glass cannon caster. Those are the balance issues I face when dealing with classes.

A more generic statement would be, that the more skills you add to the game, and the more limitations you add to players being able to acquire all those skills, makes balancing more difficult. A system where players can acquire all skills is easier to balance.

I would like to give an opinion on why classes were created though, as more of a fun jaunt down memory lane. I remember playing PnP RPGs back in the day, and part of the fun with classes was to be different from anyone else. These classes were created to have unbalance in the build, because we (maybe it was just me) wanted to be "uber" special and unique. In some cases my GM would have to say "no" to a skill I could use, because its use would leave the rest of my group with nothing to do. Lots of fun for me, not so for them.

 

Yep, you are right. I have played plenty of pnp games with those "uber special" characters and it isn't nearly as much fun. A good GM, willing to say no, is extremely valuable and hard to find these days.

Unfortunately, in our modern MMO's the focus has been on making sure EVERYONE feels special and EVERYONE is a hero. By doing this, you no longer need your team mates and you no longer have to cooperate with other players.

Kind of takes the purpose out of an MMO or even a multiplayer game. So keep a bit of unbalance in the classes or at the very least, make sure each class has something that will require help from another class. It forces players to work together. My research is shown the biggest reason players stay with an MMO is because of the friends they have made online. Not all players do this, obviously, but the long term community members are there for the community.

 

Well the game is all about going through dungeons with 3 of your best friends. Their will be a small form of a mystery to it. The game will be fairly small and simple and will not be ment to be released for any type of commercial use. Just something completly free and simple. The game is fairly young but we are using some Asset Store assets to speed up things. I'll definetly try to make a working prototype ASAP and post it here.

 

Sounds great! My friends and I recently played through an old Gauntlet game (couch co-op) over a handful of short game sessions. We didn't miss the lack of customization. It was just fine to pick up characters with static classes and the personalities that came with them. In fact, we all had a laugh (in good fun) at whoever got stuck with the decrepit old wizard since he had trouble keeping up with the rest of us when we were running.

 

Definitely build classes for an RPG. At the very least this guarantees some replayability. First game sucked as a wizard? Lets try the archer. That still sucked? Lets try the warrior. There is only so much of this you can pull off if your actual game sucks. But it gives players a few options. Getting players to accept a 'role' pretty early is also a good start for something called a 'role playing game'.

The other option is to build a customisation system as complex as Skyrims to allow the player to build there own classes. Note here that despite the massive amounts of customisation possible, most players characters will still fit into one of the classic class types.

In many cases forcing players to play within a set of limits is more fun then letting them do whatever they like. That's why sports and games have rules.

 

I wonder if doing something like creating four or five basic classes and then have something where maxing all of them unlocks a create your own class slot kinda thing would work? Or if you have five classes, play 3 or them to max unlocks a hybrid where you can combine skills of those three classes.. Or something along those lines...

 

Works well in Realm of the Mad God. You start with a single unlocked class. As you play through each class more get unlocked.

 

Yeah.. But I wasn't talking about unlocking pre-built classes but to unlock the ability to create a hybrid class of the ones you already played. Always playing vanilla classes gets boring after a while. At least it does for me. But maybe playing the vanilla to be able to unlock the ability to build a hybrid of the classes already played might make playing the vanilla less boring. Also not a big fan of only getting one character and having to play it through before playing another. I may sit down today in a warrior mood, but tomorrow I may be more in a mage mood and need to blow S*** up. Usually games that lock me into one character get shelved quick. lol

 

I like the approach of locking the direction of where the classes go, but allow the player to play varying classes in the game. (i.e. I'm an altoholic too and change my character depending on my mood)

Locking characters is different than locking a player. But I completely agree with BoredMormon that limits actually makes games more fun. Have you ever really thought about how a rule strict static board game can be fun over and over again? This is the approach I am taking, get back to the basics of making the social interactions enjoyable.