Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6017597" data-attributes="member: 4937">Basically, a class is a role within a game.  The type of game determines the metrics that you design the class by.  For example, if the game is highly tactical in nature, then the roles will be defined by the range of tactics available - offensive, defensive, attrition, interdiction, area denial, intelligence gathering, etc.  Often classes for games like this are designed to work like Roshambo - class A negates the advantages of class B and its exploits its weaknesses, while class B negates the advantages of class C, which in turn is able to defeat class A.  You see design of classes like this in RPG inspired shooters, and in tactical RPGs like final fantasy.  Arguably you see this sort of influence in the class design of 4e with its Controller, Leader, Defender, Striker metaclasses.But a game might not primarily define its roles in terms of combat if combat is not its primary focus.  You could make a highly narrative game by focusing on the roles of characters in a story like protagonist, sidekick, love interest, villian, rival, comic relief, mentor, etc.  Of course, the problem there for me is it is never clear a game like that needs a lot of rules.  A game that is based on a particular setting will want classes that promote the sort of roles seen in the setting.  For example, a 'Star Wars' game will want Jedi, Bounty Hunters, Smugglers, Pilots, Droids, etc.  A 'Lord of the Rings' game will want Hobbits, Dwarves, Sindar, Rohirrim, Numenoreans, etc. and perhaps 'professions' like burgler, ranger, scout, rider, soldier, sage, etc.Classes can of course serve multiple roles.  You might decide for example that Bounty Hunters in addition to having a certain thematic role, also have a tactical role within your game system - perhaps interdiction (that is, they tend to stop other classes from doing their thing freely).  If the game is going to spend a significant amount of time out of combat, you might also decide that they have special skills in information gathering and create mechanics around that.Depending on our core game play, classes could get really far from things like fighters, wizards, clerics, etc.  Suppose for example our core gameplay was Monopoly, and we wished to add RPG like elements to the game.  Our classes would be defined by the sort of mechanics that we could interact with.  For example, we might have a Well-Heeled class that started off with more money, or an Entrepreneur class that earned more money for each trip around the board, or a Rascal class that paid less rent, or a Traveller class that could reroll dice, a Politician that collected taxes from everyone on the board each time around, or whatever.  Our classes might not look like the fixed progressions of D&D.  Instead, since the core game play is fairly simple, they might be defined solely by starting skills and/or maximum skill progressions.  In an RPG, I feel that the optimal number of classes is somewhere between 3 and 15.  However many that there are, they should be space filling - there should be no character concievable in the setting that can't be based on a class.  They should also each be as broad, so that each encompass a very great many possible characters.  Indeed, I think each class should be so broad that you could not easily guess the characters class from a description.  You know you are misdesigning your classes when every character has the same traits, features, abilities, personality, and equipment.  Yet, each class should not overlap with its neighboring classes, but merely nudge gently up to them to make sure nothing can fit in the cracks.  Each class should have a definable role and purpose, and its own area where it excells.I very much dislike mechanical variaty for its own sake.  Whenever you are tempted to add some new mechanic to describe something, or some new variant, first consider if there is a way to unify the mechanic with existing ideas.  I like Pathfinder, but books like Ultimate Combat really needed a rules editor.  Pathfinder is the poster child for mechanical variation for its own sake (inherited from 3.5 edition, which had the same problem).  I think the main attraction to mechanical variation is that all the rules can be extensions from existing rules.  In this way, you can keep printing books without having to go back and revise previous ones.  It's practical, but its poor planning in a game system IMO.The fewer classes you have, the more flexible your class building mechanics have to be, so that you begin to approach closer and closer to point buy.  Indeed, most of your mechanics are probably like pointbuy at this point, mix and matching from long lists of purchasable benefits bought using limited resources acquired as you level up.</blockquote>

Verification