User Tools



labyrinth:character_progression_systems

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
labyrinth:character_progression_systems [2014/07/26 20:29] leaflabyrinth:character_progression_systems [Unknown date] (current) – removed - external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== Why Both Class-Based and Classless Systems (Along with d20 Multiclassing) are Broken ====== 
  
-There is a big hubaloo on the Internet about class-based vs classless game systems.  I think they are both broken in various ways!  And that they both have various advantages.  We'll examine them from the perspective of a computer game, here. 
- 
-===== Classless Systems ===== 
- 
-Classless systems, on the surface, seem great!  I mean, what could be better than building my character however I want, right?  I'll just spend my XP to improve my skills (or get a number of skill points at each level, whatever), right?  I'll put them into my skills, and end up with a nice classic literary-fantasy sort of character rather than the whole Fighter/Cleric/Thief/Wizard sort of myopia that's existed since D&D, right?  I'll be able to really make a unique character, rather than Just Another Fighter, right? 
- 
-Well, maybe.  I think classless games are great with a more narrative playstyle.  Like Call of Cthulhu, or (dare I say) Whitewolf: The WhateverGameYouWantToInsertHere.  But for a classic sort of kick down the door, kill the monsters, and take their stuff kind of game, classless systems make combats //really// hard to balance.  I mean, you've got people all over the place.  One player may have min-maxed something, while another player might have her skill spread around thinly over a whole bunch of stuff.  If you're a good DM, you can work around that without too much extra trouble.  That's the beauty of human intuition.  But for a computer game....  Well, the computer just ain't smart enough to balance a game well.  Sure, Bethesda has tried.  But in my opinion they've failed.  In their games, you can just do whatever, and you know that there won't be a challenge that you cannot overcome.  There's none of that "Ooooh, something cool that I will have to work at to be able to conquer" feeling, right? 
- 
-Additionally, you've got this huge combinatorial explosion of interactions between skills and powers in a classless system.  A decent human DM can deal with this, with that elusive human intuition.  But a computer just sits there and drools on itself. 
- 
-==== Skill Improvement Through Use ==== 
- 
-One thing that is very odd about skill-based systems is when a character levels up and buys points in a skill to improve it, when they haven't actually used the skill much at all previously.  "Like, I just went and eviscerated a bunch of goblins, so now I am better at playing the piano!"  What??? 
- 
-"Aha!" says a clever game designer.  "Computers can track tons of data and crunch numbers really fast!  I'll use that to solve this problem!" 
- 
-And so she does.  She creates something where, each time a skill is used, it has a chance of improving.  That's realistic, right? 
- 
-But the result, while making //sense//, ends up being often un-fun.  Failing repeatedly isn't fun, nor is scumming for skill points.  Having an appropriate challenge and overcoming it //is// fun, but not failing repeatedly.  We see this a lot in Bethesda games, where we end up having to just go out and sneak, climb, swim, or run around randomly to improve those skills until we can progress in the game, because they fell too far behind our other skills.  With a system where a player gets to assign their points to their character, at least they can "fix" whatever is broken the next time they get some points to spend, instead of skill-point scumming.  It may not be realistic, but it is certainly more fun.  And **FUN** is what it's all about. 
- 
-===== Class-Based Systems ===== 
- 
-Class-based systems pidgeonhole a character into some sort of role.  You've got your fighter, wizard, etc.  Your wizard does wizard stuff.  Your fighter does fighter stuff.  Nowhere do they meet.  This is quite obviously flawed!  We can't have any Elric, Gandalf, or even Cudgel the Clever in a system like this. 
- 
-Additionally, your fighter may have been fighting with swords since she was a wee thing.  Maybe never even touched a bow.  But, just because she's a 5th level fighter, she can pick up a bow and use it just as well as her sword.  What? 
- 
-And...  I don't want a Fighter in plate armor, I want a Berserker wearing animal skins!  Well...  We'll just make a new class for that.  But now I want something else!  Well, we'll just make a new class for that, too. 
- 
-And soon we have a million classes, overwhelming the player.  And none of them are really what the player envisions for their character! 
- 
-And worst of all, the character is a berserker (or whatever) forever.  There's no epic character development arc where a wounded berserker is taken in by the Temple of the Divine Bovine and undergoes a shift of belief and becomes a Paladin of the Order of Burger, right? 
- 
-But at least it's codified!  As a DM (or a computer) you can apply a logical set of rules to figure out what the character can deal with and what they can't.  You don't have to intuit anything, which computers are especially bad at.  Just make a plan, execute the plan, and voila!  Something that the computer (or inexperienced DM) can throw at the player to give them a challenging (but not too challenging) and fairly satisfying experience. 
- 
-==== Multiclassing ==== 
- 
-In some class-based games, they try to fix the pidgeonholing by allowing a character to multiclass.  In some games, this works.  But in others, it does not. 
- 
-=== D20 === 
- 
-Now, we've all played d20 games.  In a d20 game, we have a unified experience table, and at each level the character can take a level in whatever class they want. 
- 
-This seems pretty straightforward, and looks great on the surface, but it is inherently //very// broken. 
- 
-Let's say I have a character who is a level 5 wizard and a level 5 rogue, for a total character level of 10.  She has the same XP total as the pure level 10 wizard who is in the party, as well as the pure level 10 rogue who is in the party. 
- 
-Now obviously, the multiclassed character shouldn't be as good at slinging fireballs or picking locks as a character who has focused fully on one single class.  But, well...  She ought to be able to at least contribute to the party some way.  But she can't.  Compared to the single-classed character, she is bit a bitty bug to be stepped on.  Her puny level 5 abilities can't even come close to being useful against monsters suitable for a level 10 party.  There are some exceptions, but this is generally how multiclassed d20 characters end up.  They try to patch it up with "prestige classes", which sometimes sort-of work and other times fail miserably.  But even that is just duct tape over the gaping, festering wound that is a multiclassing system suffering from a crippling basic design flaw. 
- 
-See, it's a problem of skill synergy.  Most abilities in d20 (other than BAB, saving throws, and hit points) are discrete.  Special abilities from multiple classes generally do not stack one iota.  Spell-casting abilities in particular.  So a multi-classed character can act as //one class//, or //the other class//, when taking a given action, but not as both.  What you end up with is a character who is just awful at both of her classes, and can't meaningfully contribute to the party. 
- 
-And that's not fun.  And **FUN** is what it's all about. 
- 
-=== 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D === 
- 
-First and second edition AD&D used a far different multiclassing system.  Nothing stacks.  //Nothing.//  It is consistent, and it works.  It's a little obtuse, but it works. 
- 
-You split your experience between two or three classes, and all of the classes have different experience point progressions.  Nothing stacks, you just use the //best// value out //of all of your classes// for a particular statistic.  On the surface, this seems really complicated and bizarre. 
- 
-But it works.  And it works well. 
- 
-See, the XP progression is exponential.  That is they key.  Instead of having a level 5/5 Wizard/Thief trying to contribute to a party of level 10 characters, you have something more like a level 7/8 Wizard/Thief.  They are usually outshined by the single-classed characters, but they are good enough to contribute.  And on those rare occasions when the party gets into a situation where the multiclassed character's abilities synergize, they shine just as brightly as the single-classed character, and the rest of the party smiles at what a fine addition to their group this multiclassed character is.  Unlike that worthless d20 5/5 Wizard/Rogue that they left in the ditch three towns back. 
- 
-===== So if Both Classless and Class-Based Systems Suck, What Are We Supposed to Do??? ===== 
- 
-I propose to attempt to merge the two.  Instead of having a million different classes, we'll have a bitty handful of fantasy archetypes.  Within those archetypes, the character will be able to specialize in certain things, but won't be able to completely cross over into something weird that gets the computer all confused.  We will arrange the customizable abilities in each archetype into a sort of "tree", if possible, becoming more and more specific out in the branches, so that basic synergies between related abilities can be calculated by the computer.  Melee->Swords->One-Handed->Shortsword, for example.  Melee will confer a bonus with all melee weapons.  Swords will confer a further bonus with all swords.  One-Handed will confer a further bonus with only one-handed swords.  And so on and so forth. 
- 
-Additionally, the character may mix archetypes, using a method similar to 1st and 2nd edition AD&D multiclassing.  And we'll get our Elric.  And the player will get a character that isn't too broken to play (hopefully).  And the computer will be able to figure things out based on the structured nature of the, uh, unstructured-ness?  Something like that...  If it works! 
- 
-==== The Archetypes ==== 
- 
-We have identified three basic fantasy archetypes, which achieve their goals in different ways.  There may be more, but we'll add them as we think of them!  However, only having three of them helps out with calculations, as we can plot them in a triangle as part of a fuzzy system for the computer to figure out "what" a character is. 
- 
-=== The Warrior === 
- 
-The warrior achieves her goals through strength of arms.  This archetype beats things up. 
- 
-=== The Adroit === 
- 
-The adroit achieves her goals through cunning.  This archetype sneaks and picks locks, as well as following tracks, swaying opinions, and other such "skillful" things. 
-(We're a little vexed at what to do with this, as there is such a broad range of skills that don't really relate to each other.  But I reckon we can come up with some sort of synergy map here, too.  It just might be a little more web-like than tree-like.) 
- 
-=== The Mystic === 
- 
-The mystic achieves her goals through magical powers of whatever source.  This subsumes the wizard-type classes, as well as the spell-casting and other "divine" abilities of the classical D&D "cleric" class (though the classical D&D cleric would be a multi-archetype warror/mystic in this system). 
-(We'll examine some different schools of magic, and roll restoration magic in there somewhere.  Then, using the diagram of spell-schools, we'll have neighboring schools provide differing amounts of synergy with each other.  Essentially, all mystics will be "specialist wizards", albeit specialists who can specialize in more than one school (at the cost of slower higher-level-spells advancement.) 
-(Not sure quite yet what to do about rote vs bestowed magic, but we'll get there when we get around to implementing more than just the Warrior archetype I guess.) 
- 
-**(Further archetype details to come, or we'll move this into the other document...)** 
labyrinth/character_progression_systems.1406431762.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/07/26 20:29 by leaf