Class/Advancement Systems

[dragon wench]

Recently I have been alternating between NWN: SoU/HoTU and Morrowind.
As many people here will know, NWN is based on D&D rules, in this case, third edition. So, if somebody starts off as one class they can begin a career in a new 'profession' but there are consequences and/or penalties.
Second edition (I think that is the number?) rules are even more stringent, and beyond initial dual or multi-classing, you can't deviate from your chosen path. (i.e BG 1/2)

But games like Morrowind, Oblivion (and I believe the Gothic series) are very different.... While characters might be better suited to a particular path, they can advance in any way they wish without real penalty or consequence.

My question is, which do you prefer?

While Morrowind's totally open system of career choice and advancement is more realistic in some ways.. I find myself preferring a stricter framework. It keeps the game more challenging (IMO), makes for better replay value, and (I feel anyway), it makes for better role-playing, because certain classes receive very specific abilities. For example..playing a druid gives you an animal companion and the ability to shape-shift.

Thoughts? Preferences?

[mr_sir]

I prefer the D&D style levelling systems for the same reasons as DW, although I would prefer it if elements of the class/advancement systems from Morrowind etc. was introduced, such as learning skills by using them rather than just getting xp for killing everything. However, I do like getting xp for quests so I guess you can't really have one without the other.

In general, I like to have set rules that I have to stick to when choosing a class and levelling as it makes the characters more unique. So often I'll get a high-ish level character in something like Morrowind or Gothic and realise that they are not really that much different to the last character I had. Whereas with games like NWN, I can even make each wizard different just by specialising in a particular school of magic, and you have to think more about your character development due to the penalties and incompatibilities when multiclassing and so on. So yeah, all in all I much prefer the D&D style of levelling and class advancement as it means you have to think more about your build and you can replay as different classes/characters without them all ending up very similar.

[fable]

I like the improve-with-use system, though this imposes an extra burden on a developer. That's because if you want your player to truly have choices, then you have to provide both numerous options, and balance among others. So if you're being assaulted by an undead televangelist, they should be killable by magical as well as mundane means, or your player will quite reasonably complain that they can't raise their magic in battle.

[Xandax]

Personally - I *would* mainly preferer a "use-to-improve" as fable mentions. However the way it is done in Morrowind and Oblivion I dislike seriously because there is no consequence.
If you want to you can reach high in all aspect, and become a great meele archer thief wizard cleric all at once, and that is going overboard in my book and providing easy-street no-consequence gameplay.

When such a system is not done with consequence I actually prefere the 3rd edition D&D of the other two mentioned. I never liked 2ed that much because I found the restrictions artificially and the gain illogical (why would a wizard level slower then a rogue?), but no doubt some of the restrictions were placed to prevent some of the munchking/powergaming aspects that 3rd edition allows (sorcerer/paladin anybody? and the saving of skillpoints are two things I disagree majorly with; rule-wise.)
But I still prefers the 3rd edition because it resembles somewhat freedom of choice, but providing penalties and consequences. So you can have your wizard specialize in picking locks still, but unless you are willing to assign levels in rogue, you'll be limited, and by assigning multiple classes you risk running into XP penalties from it.
2ed rules seems illogical with the restriction placed on multi/dual class and they are very static, compared to 3rd edition

So of the 3 types mentioned: Oblivion/Morrowind, 3rd D&D or 2ed AD&D - I'll take 3rd ed D&D rules.

[Siberys]

I'd prefer a blend like it does in Vampire Bloodlines. There are no specific classes that you go for, but improving abilities gives you something specific tied to that ability.

I play World of Darkness and Vampire the Requiem (The pen and paper versions of Vampire TM: Bloodlines) and I really like how the leveling system works there. You gain experience, spend it where you want if you have enough, and eventually you do go down a certain path or are otherwise a useless Jack of all trades.

Another game similar to this is Dungeon Siege II where you can gain abilities practically anywhere, but sooner or later you rather have to go a certain route or are otherwise only slightly useful in every field.

[Aeon]

Hybrid Theory

I like a little bit of both options...and dislike a bit of both oprions...
For example, I LIKE that when I "level-up" I can gain NEW abilities I never had access to before, but then I'm not sure how I have become a better singer/talker/animal handler just because I cut a few orcs in half with a sword...?
Then again, I like being able to get better at stealing by STEALING a lot, but I'm not sure I want to have to level up my firewood CHOPPING ability as well as my fire STARTING ability, and my HANDLE FLAME ability in order to start a campfire at night...
I really enjoy a hybrid like they introduced in Fable. (although, I believe the Fable experience system is like an old Commodore computer...GREAT for it's time, but it pales in comparison to the computers of today) I like becoming stronger by hitting things, and better at magic by casting spells, although I'm not sure how using a bow makes me a better thief, or faster with my sword... (Back to my previous statement about commodore.) Of course, along with SPECIFIC experience, I get GENERAL experience, too! Say I'm a big buff fighter, but I want to add a couple of spells to my arsenal - like say magical armor, or a strength boost, or a speed boost - I can buy that with my general experience if I like, instead of having to cast "SPARK" nine-hundred times so I CAN do something a little more magical.
I also like the idea that at some point, there is a line you cross that will limit you in other fields, like say: I have a high level wizard that gains +15% magical experience or abilities or what have you, but -20% in strength attributes (or some other item you've not poured points into)
Of course, this could be countered with a "jack of all trades" type that evenly distributes points to all skills, however, if you have two characters of roughly the same "character level," the jack of all trades will get his butt kicked BAD by the speciallist (most times). I guess it all comes down to how you want to play your game... I personally like the freedom to be an armor wearing, fiery sword wielding, pocket picking, fireball throwing, hero or villian...if I so choose. I don't like being SO limited, but I don't like to have SO MUCH freedom I become overly powerful early on in the game.
It's true that while you may START down a different path EVERY TIME YOU PLAY OBLIVION OR FABLE, but eventually, aside from armor, clothes, and play style, your characters all end up the same, because once you max out one ability, you have nothing else to spend time/effort/points on but the ones you've neglected up to that point.

But in a nutshell, I like the idea of a hybrid setup, in which you get to shape your character by your actions, but can also tweak things with experience gained as well.

[DesR85]

My question is, which do you prefer?

While Morrowind's totally open system of career choice and advancement is more realistic in some ways.. I find myself preferring a stricter framework. It keeps the game more challenging (IMO), makes for better replay value, and (I feel anyway), it makes for better role-playing, because certain classes receive very specific abilities. For example..playing a druid gives you an animal companion and the ability to shape-shift.

Thoughts? Preferences?

I agree with you here. For leveling systems, introducing classes will make the leveling up process more focused compared to the leveling system employed in Fable: The Lost Chapters, Morrowind and Oblivion. The latter may be cool at first but after a while, it does get kind of boring due to the fact that you can create a hybrid character that can master all forms of attacks and it will remove the challenge eventually.

For someone who really dislike replaying games (and I've mentioned this a lot here), I still prefer the class system overall as you can hone in your skills in that certain class. It does give some sense of focus overall.

[fable]

I agree with you here. For leveling systems, introducing classes will make the leveling up process more focused compared to the leveling system employed in Fable: The Lost Chapters, Morrowind and Oblivion. The latter may be cool at first but after a while, it does get kind of boring due to the fact that you can create a hybrid character that can master all forms of attacks and it will remove the challenge eventually.

But this kind of system is controllable. Witness the Gothic series, which uses improve-with-use, but limits the number of quests and enemies, while forcing you to join a guild/faction (with narrowing skills) to progress. This allows you to have a jack of all trades type of character up to a point, but you miss on the benefits of a really focused one; and eventually, you have to focus your character by joining a specific faction.

[Magrus]

I prefer a middle ground between the two to be honest. The reason being is that I can become good at many things given time and effort spent learning them. On the other hand, there are some things I simply will never be good at it. This is in real life, and I feel it would be better if the characters I play in game would be in some way reflected on this.

The problem is, how do you figure out what you can improve on, even if you start out doing one thing and want to switch to another? How do you decide what you can't? What way do you go about it? Something similar to the 1st edition DnD with a level cap to other classes/abilities/skills based on your initial skill selection? It gets complicated, and if not done right, would make a mess of things.

[Monolith]

But this kind of system is controllable. Witness the Gothic series, which uses improve-with-use, but limits the number of quests and enemies, while forcing you to join a guild/faction (with narrowing skills) to progress. This allows you to have a jack of all trades type of character up to a point, but you miss on the benefits of a really focused one; and eventually, you have to focus your character by joining a specific faction.

Gothic doesn't use an improve-with-use system. It's an experience/level-based system. Besides, you can't allocate skillpoints without trainers.

IMO every system *can* be compelling if it's well done.

[galraen]

Part of the problem in discussing classes and advancement in reference to RPGs is defining what is and isn't 'role playing'.

For example whilst I enjoyed playing Dungeon Lords (apart from the bugs and rip-off aspect), it is definitely NOT an RPG. In fact role playing in DL is effectively forbidden.

In games like Morrowind the role playing aspect is left up to the player. If you want to play a specific role then it's up to you to keep your character on the straight and narrow. However if you want to just build a multi-tasking master of all trades, that option is there for you.

With 1st and 2nd edition AD&D the role playing was (and for those of us who still play it, is) built into the very fabric of the game.

If you are role playing, then the choices you make as you character advances should be tailored to the role you originally chose, even if you get tempting options outside that role. For example, if you're playing a Paladin, then taking a thief skill is a definite no no. Likewise a mage opting to learn battle axe or the ability to wear heavy armour.

The final straw for me in D&D 3rd edition was running into a character that was a Hobbit Paladin/Assassin! Insane.

The bottom line though, is that it's up to (or should be) the player to decide for themselves how they want to play the game, but with certain 'logical' restrictions. One of the restrictions should be that mixing of diametrically opposing characteristics, such as the aforementioned Paladin/Assassin, or as in Dungeon Lords, Paladin/Ninja is forbidden.

[cyndric]

If its a party based game, I prefer D&D rules, but a solo game I'll take The Elder Scrolls rules. Both are fun. Biggest Problem I have with the ES rules is I keep remaking my character, D&D you get to have 4 or more characters in some cases.