Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Letting players select their own skills vs. having multiple classes / characters?

Discussion in 'Game Design' started by Deleted User, Nov 4, 2014.

  1. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Wow so Rocko, you break it down on party roles. Beef breaks it down by personality/ motivation/expertise. Mine is purely based on implementation in a combat game.
     
  2. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    It's cool though, my triad absorbs both of yours. :p
     
  3. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    I just can't see any reason why a rogue can't use ranged weapons in your formula. So if both the rogue and the warrior are capable of doing melee and ranged attacks...
     
  4. SteveJ

    SteveJ

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Posts:
    3,085
  5. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    How about you tell us what you got from that article rather than just post a link to it?
     
  6. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Even if we are talking about about implementation, how is the ranger any different than a spellcaster? Is drawing a bow any different than charging a spell, much less a spell cool-down from a reload?
     
  7. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    The spellcaster can do damage up close or far away and he can do it more powerful than the fighter. He's the master of everything, really. He's just slow.
     
  8. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    So I think you can break it down into everybody has to pick two of these:

    Speed
    Range
    Power
     
  9. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    I mean based on the description of a rogue as a character that basically isn't meant for combat, the rogue is basically just Speed
     
  10. hopeful

    hopeful

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Posts:
    5,676
    What happens? (I've not seen this.)
     
  11. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    People give themselves the highest defense rating and the highest magic power. Like my little avatar photo, you get a Tank Mage.

    So you can buff yourself and then blast people while taking virtually no damage. Its like you take a glass cannon, armor plated with adamantium lol
     
  12. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    So it's basically about party roles.
    What about defense?
    Or they are the assassins with conditional power, when they get backstabs.
     
  13. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    The complete list of everything that I've come up in terms of a single thing you can theme a character around with boils down to this:

    1) Power
    2) Range
    3) Speed
    4) Defense
    5) Area of Effect

    However, this doesn't give you a rock, paper, scissors effect. It's just theming. It's vague, as well. But AOE trumps Speed, Speed trumps power, power trumps defense, defense trumps range and range trumps aoe.

    And keep in mind this is a pick-one only method.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2014
  14. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    The problem is that to have physical power you would also have defensive power, they go hand in hand.

    So now we're forced to create couples based on what would logically be found together in order to balance.

    So we get offensive power and defensive power aka The Fighter

    We get speed and range aka the Ranger

    These two alone basically cancel each other out. And that's kind of boring. So we throwing the mystical wizard who gets power range and area effect. But instead of like giving him normal defense rating and normal speed rating in order to compensate we have to make him extra slow and extra week. So that your run-of-the-mill spellcaster.

    I feel like there could potentially be something else here but it wouldn't be balanced.

    If you created a ninja who had power and defense and speed and magical power... Or a tank mage... Or heavily armored Ranger... It just all falls apart
     
  15. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    So how many permutations can you make out of this? I kind of have to point out that it trashed your idea of a simple model.
     
  16. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    No, go ahead and look at my other post I explain it all in detail.
     
  17. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Yeah I created those five qualities boil down out of hundreds of considerations of different character classes that I've seen and that I've imagined... But some simply can't go with the other ones and likewise some can't be separated from the others in a logical scenario
     
  18. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Also excluded completely is intelligence, which technically is the sixth quality that completes the entire equation. I just think that for a video game you have to assume that all of the characters are around the same intelligence level because there's absolutely no way to visually represent this are communicated to the player
     
  19. BeefSupreme

    BeefSupreme

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2014
    Posts:
    279
    Likewise, I don't see why the warrior can't use ranged weapons. The warrior and ranger both kill things with weapons, so I group them together. The rogue provides utility outside of combat that can't be duplicated by a warrior. I suppose it depends on how combat-centric the game is. In Baldur's Gate, for example, my rogue does many things that aids the party's survivability before swords are even drawn.
     
  20. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Oh yeah I'm only thinking of combat when I make these distinctions. I hadn't even considered utility outside of direct battle.

    Yeah I mean the warrior can use ranged weapons, sure, but like now what do you do with the whole Ranger / Archer / hunter archetype... throw it away? His job was stolen by the more heavily armored warrior. The way I have it now they don't step on each others toes
     
  21. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    And when you really get down to it being a locksmith doesn't necessarily conflict with being a warrior. I see no reason you couldn't learn poison making lockpicking pickpocketing etcetera, as a wizard or as a hunter. There's no need for the mutual exclusivity
     
  22. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    The instant you put a "but" in there, it lost all simplicity. I get what you're trying to do, but the fact that it can instantly splinter into a thousand different classes if you actually put all the attributes together means it's pretty much useless.

    What about evasion, or is speed evasion, or is speed attack speed, or is speed movement speed, or is movement speed range, or is range just attack range. Already power is divided into concentrated and AoE, but we've still got to divide those two between magic based and physical. And apparently I actually have to point out support is completely excluded from this altogether. You've completely excluded an entire group of characters whose sole purpose is to keep the party from being obliterated.
     
  23. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Yeah I know this is just combat.
     
  24. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    So is combat only limited to the people who bash things into other things?
     
  25. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    I'm not sure where I advertise this as the solution to every problem, or the perfect system but it certainly is a lot better than complete randomness, imo. You could argue that power just means bigger numbers so in the context of healing power could also mean healing, but that would have to be a magical character to begin with.

    It's like this if you're extremely fast it doesn't matter how strong your opponent is he can't hit you. If you're going to cast a massive AoE Blizzard spell that freezes every target within.a mile it really doesn't matter how quick you move, etc. It's just a guideline how to think about things like this, it keeps me from going in circles.
     
  26. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    No, I will be limited to anyone who is trying to kill somebody else using their abilities.
     
  27. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    So all I'm saying is say you take a giant whose main central focus is power how would you defeat him? You could overpower him, or you could use speed to your advantage, or you could outrange him so he can never get hit on you. But preferably you would use speed and range... They seem to be always linked.
     
  28. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Commencing snark in 3... 2... 1...

    You are right in that all of this is completely useless.

    Unless you're making a video game.
     
  29. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Or you could use your create oil spell to cause the giant to slip and cascade down the cliff-side where it breaks its neck upon impact.
     
  30. BeefSupreme

    BeefSupreme

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2014
    Posts:
    279
    Your system is pretty much how SRPGs operate. In MMOs, the trinity is usually Tank/Healer/DPS. It really depends on what the game allows the player to do and how combat is implemented.

    As for skill based systems, if any combination of skills can break the game, it hasn't been designed properly. In Skyrim, my character focuses on one handed weapons, heavy armor, and regeneration magic, so a paladin by most definitions. Is he survivable? Yes. Is he omnipotent? Far from it. He still gets chewed up by mages and pesky archers. The game lets you have two abilities equipped at most based on what you have equipped in your hands. Using magic to heal myself means I'm not using a shield, and therefore more at risk to ranged opponents. If I equip a shield, I can't use magic anymore so I have to rely more on potions to heal myself during battle. No matter what skill pairing you choose, you will be at a disadvantage in some way and it forces the player to make interesting decisions. And that's what I find appealing about skill based systems. I can build my character however I want to play the game, and find a way to deal with the shortcomings in creative ways.
     
  31. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    I think of the reason why the way that I think often differs from the way that you guys seem to think is I'm never thinking in terms of just one game, be it one that I've played or one that I've imagined. I sat down with a notebook and a pen and a paper for a few hours one day at a McDonalds and simulated all these different combat situations in my head and in the end I found a whole lot more than I thought I was going to
     
  32. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    This is so many is this is where it all fits into well exactly what I'm describing above.

    A tank is a fighter, the healer is a spellcaster, and DPS I mean in World of Warcraft isn't that usually a hunter?
     
  33. BeefSupreme

    BeefSupreme

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2014
    Posts:
    279
    Or mage. If you change ranger to ranged damage dealer, then they can be the same thing. However, to me the terms "ranger" and "magic user" imply flavor as well as function. How would you apply your categories to a high tech RPG?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2014
  34. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Basically if you could take a bunch of hits and you run around beating the crap out of thing you're going to be a fighter.

    If you have to stay away but you can overcome situations with superior speed and range you're going to be a ranger.

    If you attack with any kind of area of effect power whether joint flamethrower or electricity cannon you're basically going to be a spellcaster.

    I understand you having differences of opinion and stuff like that but I mean come onand at least give it a chance for 5 minutes
     
  35. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    It's at least 80% accurate at any given time
     
  36. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    And obviously if we're going to compare it to real life... Like seriously create oil..? What game is that even from? I don't even know is that even magic?
     
  37. slay_mithos

    slay_mithos

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Posts:
    130
    Well, technically, "magic" is where everything that is not equipment-based lies, I guess, but in futiristic types, where healing, elemental and whatever is done by tools, so I guess it needs a slightly different name or definition, but it usually is mostly what is not available to the usual warriors/inhabitants, and that is usually either useful (even if only situational) or powerful.
     
  38. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Well there's your problem, fry oil causes inverted time dilation. What you thought was hours was probably just ten minutes.

    Aside from the fact you keep emphasizing the ranger is ranged, you are basically describing a thief. The fact you limit AoE to spellcasters also means the archer can only fire one arrow at a time, and the fighter is limited to daggers because everything else might be able to hit more than one thing at a time.

    I believe there's something to that effect in D&D, although I can't remember what it's called (been ages since I read through a spell book). Substitute throwing a bottle of oil in, if you can't suspend your disbelief that the magic wielder can't somehow cause the floor to be slick.
     
    BeefSupreme likes this.
  39. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    I dunno, I like simplified things. I definitely advocate classes, though.
     
  40. hopeful

    hopeful

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Posts:
    5,676
    I'm not sure what's wrong with tank mages. If your game isn't designed for them, then it's clearly a problem. But if you design for it ...?
     
  41. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    If you just want to make a magical character that has a lot of armor, I wouldn't necessarily call that a tank mage. The tank mage would basically be capable of tanking the enemy and being DPS. So while everybody else is walking around in parties of tank heals DPS, the tank mage is just going around basically being an entire party by themselves.
     
  42. slay_mithos

    slay_mithos

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Posts:
    130
    Oil as a spell is in many japanese rpgs, mostly as a mean to enhance fire element, both in strength and duration.
    It's not that much weirder than calling down meteors when you are deep underground, or materializing complex things out of nowhere (different from summoning, which is just transporting).

    I think we can safely agree that Misterselmo is a fervent advocate of the "simple and easy" (made up term) school of thoughts, and I don't mean it in a bad way.
    It mostly relies on easy to understand and solid principles, rather than searching for complications everywhere.
    Definitely has its props, in a place where most of us are trying to overcomplicate things to extremes.


    As for the "balancing" issue, hopeful, yes, but you also have to design it for pure tank, pure speed, speed and tank at once, and any kind of combinations, so that you don't get a few that are game breaking easy, but none that are not viable at all either (unless you wish for some contradictions to actually make it harder for the player, which can be a thing too).
    That is a really heavier work than just trying it out against 3-10 pre-fabricated builds based on classes and character levels expected for the zone.

    Do you put a bonus on magics and a malus on physical learning rates for each magic mastery you gain (and similarily for the physicals), do you make specific abilities mesh badly with each other by design to reinforce that idea of "learner of everything, master of nothing"?
    Do you put a cap on total skill levels, a slower learning rate as you gain skill levels, none of that?
    Those are a lot of questions you need to answer if you want to balance an open skills type of game, and potentially quite a bit of time in making it into the game, where the classic approach can make all this pretty much meaningless, because classes, centralized levels, simplified stats and a lot of other similar aspects save greatly on time, wile still allowing you to make a game and experience that can be seen as great by many players.

    Don't misunderstand, I am one of those that like to make complex things, even if just for the sake of it (I play dwarf fortress, if that alone is not a good example, I also dabble in modding it...), but when you are out to figure what you should put on an actual game, not a prototype, you have to keep in mind what the most important parts of your finished product are.
    If that's a classless system, then alright, it means you build around the whole idea, and all can potentially be good, but if that's just an idea thrown on top of what you really want your game to be, there is value in at least considering more documented and easier approaches that were proven to work and be understood by the players.
     
  43. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Look what @RockoDyne said about me having a 5 dimensional approach to RPG character classes, he said how many permutations of those are there? Well, one thing for sure its way too damn many to balance. Somewhere in there are some ridiculously overpowered builds. Instead of trying to balance some massive equation, go with what is tried-and-true.

    I always wonder why game designers want to re-invent the wheel so much.
     
  44. slay_mithos

    slay_mithos

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Posts:
    130
    Because it's fun?
    Having ideas is already fun in itself, but trying to make them into an actual game is even better.

    Sure, it more often than not doesn't work out, but you sometimes get really interesting new things out of people trying to make games out of ideas that don't fit into existing molds.

    But it's mostly fun for me, the whole having ideas, trying to imagine what it could end up as,and even occasionally actually trying to make it.
     
  45. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    I rather agree with you, Slay_mithos.

    Our game is skill based rather than class based and I saw this thread title and thought, oh good! I can learn something from all these developers.

    Instead, most of it was a discussion of DnD classes. lol Now, I live with avid DnD players and I hear these arguments all the time coming from my kitchen, the loud voices of a young adult and two teens. Now, DnD classes are classic, and what a lot of the traditional RPG video game classes are based on so I get the connection.

    But what sort of gets me is why do we have to focus on the traditional classes? We are video game developers and we have ideas, often based on what we like in other games or what we don't like in other games. We also have ideas because are creative individuals. Our own ideas are valuable. Yet some seem to abhor ideas. It was even an excuse not to have this forum.

    How did Gary Gygax create Dungeons and Dragons in the first place? A few very creative guys with some awesome math skills got together and made a really cool game. They were idea people and they were implementation people. I bet they spent a lot of time arguing about classes. :) I can't imagine Gary Gygax shutting down ideas. In fact, I briefly met him while working on a game and we chatted online. I never heard him shut down anyone. He was a rather humble man, in fact. Very nice.

    As Slay said, "sometimes get really interesting new things out of people trying to make games out of ideas that don't fit into existing molds." Isn't that why we are here? To learn from each other? Isn't the purpose of Support Forums? I don't think it is to prove we are always right, a lesson I have yet to learn at times as well.

    I have got to tell you guys, I talked to two people this week that I was trying to persuade to come here. Both are Unity programmers, both talented guys. They came, they read and both of them said they would NEVER post any questions or thoughts about their games or ideas because they would be crucified by the people on the Design Forum. They feel their ideas won't be taken seriously or respected. That is sad.

    We have got to stop shutting down people's ideas and respect them even if we disagree.
     
    Gigiwoo likes this.
  46. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    Fun for you, or fun for the players?
     
  47. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Are we really that focused on D&D though? Most of what we've been talking about is the tank/dps/healer trinity which aren't even classes per se. Essentially, they are roles in combat. The tank's concerns are fundamentally spacial, keeping the enemies and allies separated; dps is focused on the state of the enemy, usually on any any state of not dead; while the healer/support is focused on the party, keeping them in any state of not dead. You can just as easily export these notions to WWI as to D&D (although WWII is a bit harder since there wasn't much tanking, way too much dps and the nuke is way too OP).
     
    RJ-MacReady likes this.
  48. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Tanks are general. Rogues and Rangers and Barbarians are not.

    This discussion is supposed to be about Class based vs Skill based systems, not about defining individual classes in a game. Every game that has classes are going to define them differently. Some might call them Tanks. Some might call them Offensive Linemen, some might call them Defenders, whatever.

    Oddly enough, some games might have classes that have nothing at all to do with combat! ;)

    Regardless, this is supposed to be a thread about systems, and whether we should consider allowing players more control over the skills they choose as opposed to imposing classes on them. I guess it doesn't matter anymore although a pity we didn't hear more discussion about the actual topic. It seems we keep having to start new threads on the same subjects in order to actually discuss the subjects. :p It would be really nice if people instead would spin off discussions such as a discussion of how to define classes within a Class System. That would be interesting. It would fill the Design forum with a lot of discussions so people can actually talk about what they want to talk about without people like me derailing the derailed thread back to the original topic.

    We are still having growing pains I think.
     
    Gigiwoo likes this.
  49. slay_mithos

    slay_mithos

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Posts:
    130
    Is that even a question?
    It's fun for me to find and imagine what I personally could find fun in a game.

    Sure, it might or might not end up being fun for the end player by itself, and there are a lot of "fun" out there, from power fantasy to the "loosing is fun" of dwarf fortress.

    When you make an actual game, you definitely can't just base yourself on what's fun for yourself, but find out what could be fun for what kind of players, and decide what you want to do based on who you are making it for.

    On the phase before even making plans for a finished product, you do have to find ideas, and how to inovate, even if only slightly, because making what is already here will at most cover the costs, but won't make ground breaking sales anyway, because indies lack the money power to make an average but very polished title into something everyone buys.
    "Average" I used is not in term of quality per say, but in term of how inventive or "new" it feels to the player.

    At the same time, inovating is also taking risks, even if you can somewhat calculate them, if you have enough data.

    But let's be serious a minute, most of us here on these forums may talk about making a game, but how many are going to make one that actually sells?
    We are hobbyists, so we are doing it to have fun, and if we can learn things, or make a product in the process, all the better, but it's essentially just an other way to spend our free time to have some forms of fun.
     
  50. RJ-MacReady

    RJ-MacReady

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Posts:
    1,718
    My submission was that my triad represents the most basic classes that all classes derive from, having been obtained through comparing many classes and determining their principle combat idea. Not to argue with D&D, Baldur's Gate or Elder Scrolls. It is another way of looking at it, a single lens you can place on your microscope to see things in a unique way. Nobody will ever be 100% correct on these RPG class matters, I'm not sure there is a right answer or that finding that right answer matters.

    But it's interesting and fun to take classes and define them as a percentage of Fighter/Ranger/Caster. If anything, there's still room for skill customization if you were to look at it this way. As long as you keep the three from crossing into the territory of the others, you can do whatever you want and it will still be balanced.

    So why must we choose between Classes and Skills?

    What say you?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2014