*Rant* Standard/core classes needed

**Warning: Rant **

I used to play Dark Age of Camelot. As the game matured the undercurrent of elitism became stronger and stronger, until eventually the game had become so cookie-cutter, that it was just no fun to play any more.

Every group HAD to have 2 clerics, plus a set template of other classes based around whatever was the flavour of that month. (Mythic, the company behind the game made regular tweaks to class abilities in the name of "balance", although the game was anything but balanced) If you had the misfortune to play a class that didn't fit into that template, or your spot in that template was taken then you were SOL. (For example, for a long time, severe magic resistances made pure caster classes very ineffective - coupled with their low defences this made them undesirable in groups, so the group would consist of 2 clerics plus an assortment of fighter types. I'm told certain casters are wanted nowadays.) People would NOT go out with a 'gimped' group.

Further, a 'buffbot' (a cleric on a second account specialised purely in enhancements) was becoming more of a necessity. Since buffs can be precast and maintained indefinitely, your main character can then go out to battle with a full suite of top-level buffs, while the buffing cleric idles safely back home. Rather than a cheaty advantage, it was seen pretty much as the norm. (And of course Mythic did nothing to discourage this, and in fact several "balance" changes only served to make buffbots more essential. But then why should they? They had discovered that they could generate cash more through exploiting the addictive quality of the game than through making it fun.)

Finally there is the issue of "power creep". As an mmorpg matures, there will be expansions added to it. Now in order to make these expansions desirable to players they must contain something better than the core areas, and all previous expansions. As such with each new expansion, the potential power level of any character will climb. However the only way to achieve this new power is through spending long amounts of time in the expansion areas working towards getting the optimal set of items/powers/whatever, often requiring the support of very large groups of people (who in turn must accept you considering the criteria mentioned above). Now why is this bad? It's bad because the margin in power level between the 'hard core' mmorpg player that spends hours and hours playing every day, and the 'casual' player who can only spare a few hours on the occasional evening increases to the point where the latter is hedged out of the game.

Which Mythic don't mind of course, as they continue to rake in the cash from the multiple accounts each hardcore player maintains.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zimri said:
Ever since the big group based MMO has come out though I have been seeing lots of things in pen and paper RPG as well as MMO (and I find the idea ludicrous in both) saying that unless your party consists of a primary healer(cleric), primary armored based fighter (meat shield) a primary offensive caster (sorceror, wizard) then you are all silly for being in a less than efficient group and can't do anything important.
This concept predates MMORPGs by decades. Remember that D&D came from Chainmail, which was a set of miniatures rules. It's one reason that the core classes from AD&D were so tightly focused and immutable. A party travelling without a cleric could get by, but they could be greatly hamstrung without something to fill the gap and undead became a much more potent threat. The same concept applied to traps without a thief or fighting powerful creatures without a good fighter or wizard.

MMORPGs aren't influencing the current batch of RPGs...they're just more transparent at showing the underpinnings. More importantly, an MMORPG is only as good as it weakest link. You don't notice the cool players who are out to have fun: you only notice the jerks. City of Heroes is the first game out there that took the emphasis away from the loot, and that's made a world of difference. However, any MMORPG is going to suffer from problems that a simple pen-and-paper game would never have to worry about. Technical limitations, a huge player-base and lots of tweaking and testing. Compare how long it takes a DM to create a new module, and contrast that with creating, testing and rolling out a new quest to an established game world with tens of thousands of players. The biggest problem with MMORPGs has traditionally been that one person pees in the pool, and no one can enjoy swimming. More recent MMORPGs are finding ways to fix that problem, such as instanced dungeons and the like.

Not to sound glib, but I here this mantra periodically, and it's always "XX has made the game go all XX" or "No one plays the game in XX fashion, anymore". Typical culprits, over time, have been:

  • Collectible Card Games (usually Magic)
  • Video Games
  • Computer RPGs
  • Console RPGs
  • Collectible Miniature Games
  • Third Edition
  • The Revised Third Edition
  • Anime
  • Pokemon
And usually, the observation assumes that the game has changed, or that a majority of players have switched their habits, and I've yet to see that be the case. It isn't to say that people don't play that way, but I haven't seen some new trend. These are arguments as old as the game, usually. The only reason folks might see an increase of them is because there has been a fairly huge increase in players of the game in general, since the release of third edition.

Mind you, if someone ridiculed you for having a non-standard party, they've got issues. A well designed adventure should work for any party, although it should concern itself with balancing against the 'core four'. But if you cannot complete an adventure without an arcane caster having one specific spell or only if you have a druid...then the problem lies with the module, IMHO.
 

The concept is DEFINITELY older than the past ten years. In fact, 3E ensures that you don't need a "balanced" party by letting the archetypal lines blur a bit.

In the good old days, if you wanted to tackle more than one combat in one game week or game month, you HAD to have a cleric. Preferably two. Otherwise, you healed at 1-3 hit points per DAY (old rules it was ONE hit point per day, period, and only with rest). Now, you have Rangers, Bards, Paladins, Clerics, Druids and even ROGUES who can heal. Whereas in OD&D clerics were the only healers, and in AD&D only paladins and Clerics could heald (and lucky high-level rogues with scrolls), now fully HALF of the classes have the ability to heal by themselves or with magical-item assistance.

Don't have a Thief in your party? In 1E, you were out of luck, unless you had a mage of middling might or greater. In 3E, ANYBODY can take the place of the party Rogue, to a full or limited degree - Even a fighter with a decent DEX and a couple of ranks can pick an average lock.

Need a heavy hitter with spells? No Wizard handy? A Druid or (to a lesser extent) a cleric can fill the role.

In Summary, it's not new, and with the newer rules it's easier now than ever before to run with an all-warrior type party, or a party of all clerics, etc.
 

I've never really had a problem of players insisting on party balance in Third Edition. We had a few "forced clerics" in Second, but not too often.

Fortunately, myself (and most of the other DMs in my area, it appears) are fairly good at adapted the adventures to the party. If there are no rogues, I use few traps, except on those few occasions that I want to point out that the party can't handle everything. Similarly, early in my current campaign, the party didn't have much on the arcane magic front (a variant bard from Eldritch Might), so they didn't see many arcane threats from me, except on those occasions I wanted to scare them.

The games should be about what the party can do, not what they can't do.
 

Often it's not even necessary for the DM to adjust the games. Let the players show initiative and common sense, and they will manage most of the problems anyhow. Perhaps in a not planned way, but that's fun.
 

In the Forgotten Realms campaign I'm playing in now, we haven't had a Rogue or Rogue substitute for a long time now. We have a Fighter/Purple Dragon, a Wizard, a Fighter/Sorceror (me) and a Cleric. The DM has been going easy on the traps BUT since I invested in the Knock spell, we can get through a locked whatever if we have to. We are also a creative bunch, so we've been able to think our way through the traps we have encountered. Would life been easier with a dedicated dungeoneering rogue? Sure, but we've found a way to deal with our shortcoming and had so much fun along the way that this has become my favorite campaign.
 

Anduril said:
In the Forgotten Realms campaign I'm playing in now, we haven't had a Rogue or Rogue substitute for a long time now. We have a Fighter/Purple Dragon, a Wizard, a Fighter/Sorceror (me) and a Cleric. The DM has been going easy on the traps BUT since I invested in the Knock spell, we can get through a locked whatever if we have to. We are also a creative bunch, so we've been able to think our way through the traps we have encountered. Would life been easier with a dedicated dungeoneering rogue? Sure, but we've found a way to deal with our shortcoming and had so much fun along the way that this has become my favorite campaign.

I hear you there, the party I play in doesn't have a rogue either. So my fighter has become the defacto rogue... and for one reason... his "lock pick" his +2 Adamantine Fullblade... have a locked door or chest? Bring out the lock pick :cool:
 

Some others have said about the same thing. What we are discussing here is group dynamics, and that has existed in role playing pretty much forever. Can you game without the 'perfect group'? Yeah you can. It's often (in my opinion) a little more entertaining that way. But a solid 'core party' will almost always have an easier time of things.

I think (again, in my opinion) that class based games are the worst at this sort of disparity, just as they are often the worst when it comes to the effectiveness of 'new' characters travelling with 'veteran' players. Of course I don't expect anyone here to agree with that as this is a D&D fansite and 'classes and levels' are a staple of the game.

D&D does provide a number of hybrid classes which can allow you to play one role but still be effective in another. The Paladin is an effective warrior, and after a few levels he can also help make the lack of a party cleric more endurable. You get the idea...
 

Henry said:
In Summary, it's not new, and with the newer rules it's easier now than ever before to run with an all-warrior type party, or a party of all clerics, etc.

i'll agree it's not new.

but the rest of your statement i disagree with completely.
 

Remove ads

Top