Have classes become stale in gaming?

[Lepruk86]

Hey guys. Firstly, this isn't about Grim Dawn or any particular game.

I play Pen and Paper DnD (3.0 and 3.5). The thing I like about DnD is the variety of classes that come out with each new edition. To quickly explain, there are general skills that everyone has access to, then class specific skills. General could be Dual wielding, but class specific could be any enchant on the first blade applies to the second (for a random non-real example).

As much as I am not a fan of the 4th edition rule sets, they have some really good ideas for new classes. They are still based on the basic types, but they at least add variety into the fray.

In our 3.0 game, I am currently playing a Psychic Warrior. I have a lot of weird skills I could potentially learn such as (to give a single basic example):

Schism: Split the caster's mind into two, giving them a double saving throw against charms / sleeps etc and allows them to cast 1 extra spell per turn.

Whilst this class is still by all accounts, a mage-fighter, I don't have to multi-class to pull this off, meaning I gain huge benefits etc.

Now video games have attempted to include some of these DnD traits. I'd argue Dream from TQ:IT is a reasonable representation of a Psychic Warrior (using mind and physical together).

But for every innovative class you see, you still equally see the warrior/barbarian type, the rogue/thief type etc. The trouble is, I really don't know if it's possible to ever break a way from this. Without just changing the words.

Some games have a huge class selection (such as Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea series). But the trouble is, they don't do enough to make those characters stand out. As mentioned above, DnD does feature general skills / feats. But they also have an absolutely huge extended list of class specific skills. In video games it tends to be classes have a couple of unique skills (such as with Disgaea) but the rest are all from the *general pool of powers*.

TLDR: Me rambling about classes; no real question other than the thread title, have classes become stale or predictable, and is there enough variety in class-heavy rpgs?

Note: This isn't just about Arpgs, but fantasy rpgs on the whole. Anything from Disgaea, Tactics ogre etc to Fire Emblem, FF: Tactics, Dragon Quest, Dragon Age: Origins ETC ETC ETC....

[eisprinzessin]

Classes are just archetypes, templates from which you can start your character. They simply serve the purpose for which they were created - namely a more or less quick start into the game.

The underlying problem for reoccurring classes are the restricting options for interacting with the world. This even holds true for pen&paper RPGs. In the end you need to beat the bad guys. Therefore you need warriors, assassins, battle mages and the like.

Survival horror (without weapons and fighting) might work differently (haven't played such a game yet) ... but I assume these games don't utilise the class concept at all

[Malpheas]

I had one of the best PnP rpg experiences with Mage / Werewolf / etc.

The GM I had was crazy good though, and focused mainly on story and mood. Fighting was essential, but secondary. I doubt I'll ever get in to one of those again, but eh.

[Shoganai]

If you really want to experiment with Classes, and see how a company can breathe new life into old archtypes, then play Rift. So many choices, so many combinations. It was a min-maxers heaven. I truly enjoyed Rift, it was a really refreshing MMO. it's just too bad that the population was so low on my server that it was difficult to do much. Guild kept disappearing through apathy Still, I was able to rift raid a lot

[Psychogasm]

Originally Posted by Shoganai

If you really want to experiment with Classes, and see how a company can breathe new life into old archtypes, then play Rift. So many choices, so many combinations. It was a min-maxers heaven. I truly enjoyed Rift, it was a really refreshing MMO. it's just too bad that the population was so low on my server that it was difficult to do much. Guild kept disappearing through apathy Still, I was able to rift raid a lot

I just started playing Rift again myself. My problem is i work third shift so i have a really hard time finding people with a similar play times (been trying to get in good with the Aussies) and without the people connection it just feels like another grind RPG.

Back on topic; i agree its hard to really find anything that doesn't boil down to the three basics: Warrior, Thief, Wizard. But then again i think that's why i love the Elder Scrolls series so much is it just plops you into the game and lets you do whatever you want and you make it up as you go instead of starting from the beginning as a certain class only able to do certain things.

[Code187]

I might misunderstand the thread.

but the way i see/understand it is he want to have a game where classes might have nothing to do with basis classes ( warrior-rouge-mage etc )
might be that he is thinking about classes that no one havent made yet, not just same class difrend name, no whole new class base.

i mean all can backstab, any class get to attack from back will get bonus to damage, lower ac etc etc. yes there are alot games where you can do multy class build. but yes basis is the same. dps-tanks-healers-stealers- etc etc

most spells is fire, ice, earth, air, wood, mental power. acid electrisity.
will be and is it posebility to make others substans to use in rpg, not just names og color of spells.

i personaly like open games where i can take what ever skill/feat/tallent/trade. and mix is in to a big stew. where it will be the stats that will detirmite the power of it all.

but as long i get to roll my own stats, select my own skills, and be able to build my chr on lvl up, i will be happy. will start on D3 soon and it is with mix fealings!!!

[Asphael]

Interesting topic, but I guess it comes down to personal preferences.

I really like classes as long as they can pushed in a different direction with the right gear/expercience and so on.
If you start a new game, classes give you something to hold on to, if you play a fighter/warrior/barbarian it probably won't be too bad putting some points into strength or look out for some melee weapons... so it really makes the "getting into the game"-phase easy and it feels intuitively and natural.

On the other hand it can get stale pretty fast, if the class is designed too fixed on it's archetyp...

Just to put some examples out there:
+ Love the Diablo 2 char design, it offers a lot of builds (that obviously are not the best but still viable) while making it easy for the player to determine the "right" (intended) way to play the class.
+ Love the TQ design, because it really has some weird/cool combinations but also the "normal" stuff

- Dislike the way Diablo 3 is balanced at this point... also options like a throwing axe-barbar are not possible. Demon Hunter is pretty much impossible to play as a melee, due to no-lift-click-hatred-generator-melee-thing... I think a lot of potential is lost here. :/
- Dislike the PoE style. It just is too "open", people always say PoE has such a high number of viable builds, but I don't count a ice spear witch and an ice spear marauder is too different builds, it is the same build/playstyle, only your passives differ somewhat... I mean yeah you might have some differences due to the unique-passives, but meh... just not my thing.

[Lepruk86]

Originally Posted by Code187

I might misunderstand the thread.

but the way i see/understand it is he want to have a game where classes might have nothing to do with basis classes ( warrior-rouge-mage etc )
might be that he is thinking about classes that no one havent made yet, not just same class difrend name, no whole new class base.

i mean all can backstab, any class get to attack from back will get bonus to damage, lower ac etc etc. yes there are alot games where you can do multy class build. but yes basis is the same. dps-tanks-healers-stealers- etc etc

most spells is fire, ice, earth, air, wood, mental power. acid electrisity.
will be and is it posebility to make others substans to use in rpg, not just names og color of spells.

i personaly like open games where i can take what ever skill/feat/tallent/trade. and mix is in to a big stew. where it will be the stats that will detirmite the power of it all.

but as long i get to roll my own stats, select my own skills, and be able to build my chr on lvl up, i will be happy. will start on D3 soon and it is with mix fealings!!!

Oh I really wasn't saying I want anything. Just writing down random thoughts mostly ...

serve the purpose for which they were created - namely a more or less quick start into the game.

The underlying problem for reoccurring classes are the restricting options for interacting with the world. This even holds true for pen&paper RPGs. In the end you need to beat the bad guys. Therefore you need warriors, assassins, battle mages and the like.

Survival horror (without weapons and fighting) might work differently (haven't played such a game yet) ... but I assume these games don't utilise the class concept at all

Yeah a class is generally just a means of interacting with the world, and the game world is what can create unique situations.

Perhaps games that try to do it all end up feeling a bit flat (aside from maybe the TES series or older games like Baldur's Gate).

But, at the same time, there aren't really many games that gives you a class and says *here, this is your class and this world was designed for the skills they have*. The Witcher 1 and 2 are probably close to this (and maybe things like God of War are essentially playing out the role of a barbarian).

But for games that try to include many classes, most of the time they just don't really feel unique enough from each to really be worth existing.

I do like the TQ method and would love to see that incorporated into a traditional RPG. But you can't add unique problem solving because games are scripted. There are three programmed solutions to a problem in a game for example, but many solutions depending on party set-up etc in Pen and paper.

So again TLDR: Perhaps it's the worlds that need to make the classes feel more unique than the classes changing themselves per say.

[corwiniii]

IMO, it's a combination of factors.
1) It's tried and true. Despite when people say they want something new - do they really? People tend to gravitate to what they know. Which leads to...

2) The standard classes tend to decrease the learning curve for experienced gamers who have an idea for what they're looking to do. Games tend to build on what's come before and (in general) take what works, maybe improve, and add their own flavor.

3) The classes are relate-able to mythology or common Sci-Fi/Fantasy lore from books and movies. Fans of these genres tend to seek out similar characters in their games.

There's probably more to it as well. The only thing I can think of out-side the box here are superheros, and there are already games geared towards that.

As for Rift, I'm a current player since Beta 4 and regular raider there. It's where I spend the majority of my gaming time. While the classes offer "soul" variety, the same typical classes exists. As a rogue, I just happen to be able to switch seamlessly between ranged, melee, tank, or support (bard). The archetypes are still the same. And that works for me, it's what I like. I love the game.

[jamoecw]

DnD is a pretty rigid game, based off of wargaming in its earliest incarnation. 3.0 ruleset was a move to a more fluid world, where classes could do things from other classes, baring some specific skills or abilities. the extra rulesets for 3.0 adds new mixtures and such, often times failing to keep the usefulness of the original classes.

in cRPGs made during the early to mid 90's were highly experimental, sometimes forgoing classes all together. the thing that classes bring to the table is iconic roles. a barbarian is known as an unarmored juggernaut, while a mage is a magic wielding glass cannon. these are known quantities, which are fairly pervasive, unlike say a demon hunter, or a triarii.

if you have an ax throwing barbarian some people will be confused, as it isn't as traditional as a melee ax barbarian. a demon hunter on the other hand isn't rooted in cultural stigma, and so can be many different things, from monk, to rogue like archer, to some type of knight. a barbarian is based on nordic warriors, which did in fact wear armor, and throw axes. so if they decided to have the classes follow historical precedent, allowing greater latitude while giving up a clear image for people to follow.

an extreme case of gaining latitude in exchange for a clear iconic image, would be a classless system. most people find that a classless system lacks definitive roles for players, often times resulting chaotic team mixes.

in fact the romans had this issue with their military, and came up with the marian reforms. after the reforms the iconic roman legionary was developed, which allowed their troops to be interchanged and or merged with other roman units. in time their enemies learned how to counter this unit, and since the entire roman army was based on this unit, the unit was phased out for a more fluid force.

in essence the iconic legionary soldier became stale, but you could take one and drop it into a team that had no experience with that specific soldier and have the team operate close to optimal.

in short, the more stale a class is, the better able for people to use it to its fullest, either as a team member, or individually. while no classes offers the greatest variety and freshness to characters. new classes fall somewhere inbetween.