Class as playstyle?

[Quickleaf]

Recently I've been thinking of classes as exemplars of certain play styles.

For example, players of rogues tend to be instigators, improvisers, and experimenters. Players of mages tend to be strategists and thinkers. Players of warriors tend to be a bit more diverse but IME include more slayers and tacticians. And players of bards all seem to have a method acting streak.

So mages have Vancian casting which really appeals to strategic play. But what about the other classes?

What if a central design goal was to provide each class with a feature that appealed to a certain play style the most? In this sense vlass isn't just about identifying the most iconic elements that make up such a character, a class is a portal into the game world thru a certain lens.

I'm not saying bind play style strictly to class, but to use it as a guideline in class design.

 

[Lwaxy]

I've never really noticed any class being related to a specific set of players. People play all sorts of different things. Sometimes in the same campaign.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I've played druids, warlocks, warblades, psionic warriors, and wardens. Other than the strange coincidence that the classes I like include most of the ones with the "war-" prefix, I can't say there is some inherent playstyle similarity among them...

Overall, I really don't like the idea of this approach. Class mechanics certainly have an influence of playstyle, but trying to custom-build each class for a particular player personality just won't work. There is no way anyone could possibly gather enough good objective data on this kind of thing and then properly convey that data to designers who each have their own playstyle. I really don't think any data would point to clear equivalencies. The whole thing would end in tears if they tried this, I think.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I can see this.

Leroy Jenkins was definitely a lawful good paladin.

 

[Rhenny]

I can see what you are getting at Quickleaf. When I used to play (as opposed to DMing), I would love to play rogues and magic users, even in earlier versions of D&D (OD&D, Basic, etc.). I guess I kind of like puzzles and solving problems without combat, or I like to be sneaky and find a way to beat a foe through trickery or interesting use of spell.

This is one reason why I never felt that all classes had to have strict balance. In the old days, it didn't really matter that the Magic User had only 3 or 4 hit points at 1st level, and after casting two or three spells he was basically done until resting. Well, it mattered a little, I hated that at the time, but I was willing to stick with it because the role/character felt cool, and the spells were better after about 5 levels. Like Raistlin in the Dragonlance books...he was a first class wimp for a long time. Then, vavoom! Well, if someone wants to play that kind of character the class should be made for him or her.

In this way, I agree that classes should appeal to different play styles, but by the same token, every class should have a way to make it fit with more than one play style. And, if there are options within classes (different types of magic users) even better.

Cheers.

 

[howandwhy99]

I advocate this. D&D is more of an adventuring game than anything else, exploring a medieval fantasy world of might and magic, mystery and myth (enough alliteration).

In my games fighters gain most XP from the combat system, magic-users in the magic system, clerics from the clerical system, and thieves... Well they kind of dabble in everything from an illicit point of view, but there's enough ways to accomplish theft in the game for them too.

Playstyle really does matter. If you want to dissect a corpse, be a mortician. If you want to dance, be a dancer, If you want to knit, be a knitter. The game focuses on certain fantasy roles, but playing multiple ones can be done too.

 

[Incenjucar]

Eh. Not a fan.

Playstyle doesn't always reflect archtype.

I may want to be a highly tactical fighter who controls the battlefield, or a wizard who just AOE-spams. I may be a cleric who hits first and heals if he has to, or a rogue who protects his allies with judicious slides.

 

[SensoryThought]

Like Raistlin in the Dragonlance books...he was a first class wimp for a long time. Then, vavoom!

This is a great example of why linear fighters quadratic wizards DOESN'T work. After Raistlin hit those high levels he became an npc by necessity of being too powerful.

At low levels his value to the party was skills and intelligent insight, things that are often undervalued in a D&D game.

 

[KesselZero]

Also against this. I like playing all sorts of classes, and I don't want my style or my fluff to be limited by my class features. I'm already not crazy about the roles in 4e-- I can't build a ranged fighter? Hm. My personal preference would be fewer classes, each of which is extremely modular with lots of options so I can tweak the base class to be what I want.

 

[SKyOdin]

I've played a mix of dumb fighters, bodyguard paladins, off-beat clerics, and detached wizards. I don't think my central playstyle has at all shifted between these characters though. I still like a certain mix of diplomacy, unusual character quirks, and tactically complex combat with all of my characters. So I don't think there is any kind of link between class and a player's preferred playstyle at all.

On the contrary, I think that it is important for classes to have flexibility in their playstyle. For example, some people may enjoy playing a fighter as a living battering ram that breaks down doors, smashes open chests, and all round looks at every problem the way a hammer looks at a nail. On the other hand, some other players want their fighters to be noble knights who use diplomacy, etiquette, and courtly grace to sway royalty, win followers, and build armies. Both approaches are perfectly appropriate for a fighter, are completely contrary playstyles, and should be supported by the game.