PDA

View Full Version : Modular, Classless and Multiple, Oh my!



Tanuki Tales
2012-04-15, 10:30 AM
In my experience of table top gaming, games tend to approach characters in one of three ways (yes, there are probably more I haven't encountered yet, but this thread is just about these three) or a mix of these three:

Modular: The game has one single base class that all characters use. This one class though has access to a multitude of trees that they can choose and level through, gaining abilities and customizing themselves from one another in this way.

Classless: Characters don't have a "class" as is normally recognized in most games (though they may have a specific archetype or race or affiliation that grants them prime access to certain things). They have a pool of resources that they can spend on abilities, skills, attributes, weapons and other options to customize themselves and increase their power. Instead of "leveling" per se, they gain more resources as the game goes on.

Multiple: The staple format for games like Dungeons and Dragons, Legend, Pathfinder and their fellows. There's a class for nearly every occasion and nearly every possible idea and there are even "prestige" classes that further customization, power, etc.



Talking Points
Which of the three do you prefer to run games for as a DM/GM/ST/etc.?
Which of the three do you prefer to play when you're in the Player chair?
Which do you think is more conductive to game balance and allowing a player to find the more enjoyable game experience (in regards to all facets of gaming such as combat, puzzle solving, social intrigue, etc.)?
Which do you think is the worst?
If you were designing your own game system, which of the three would you be most likely to use? Would you make a combination/hybrid/etc. of them?
Which would you be least likely to use?

Tengu_temp
2012-04-15, 12:19 PM
Can you give an example of a modular system?

Craft (Cheese)
2012-04-15, 01:08 PM
If you were designing your own game system, which of the three would you be most likely to use? Would you make a combination/hybrid/etc. of them?

If I were designing a game, I'd ask four questions:

First, how is the combination of abilities the player has to be restricted?

Second, how is the acquiring/replacing of abilities to be restricted?

Third, how is the use of these abilities to be restricted?


To borrow card game terms, these three questions respectively pertain to the hand, the deal, and the play. How these three aspects work together form the player's interface. The interface is how the player interacts with the meat of the game. Not only that, but the interface is the lens through which the player receives the entire experience. It's not all that there is to a game, but the "same" game with wildly different player interfaces aren't the same game at all.


As an example, in D&D, the class/skill point/inventory system is the hand, the XP, loot, and leveling systems the deal, and rounds/the action economy/skill checks/roleplay form the play.


Now this brings us to the fourth question: What kind of experiences, exactly, do we want our game to facilitate? Toon and Call of Cthulhu are different games not just because their mechanics are different, but because the experiences they naturally create are wildly different. What mechanics are appropriate choices for making one intended set of experiences might be horribly wrong for another intended set. The question of where to shoot is quite meaningless when we don't know what we're aiming for.



So, let's assume we're trying to create the classic "gamist" puzzle experience: The players are given a set of tools and a puzzle crafted by the GM with a single, intended solution. The players receive rewards for completing the mechanical challenges laid out for them, but not much else: RP is very downplayed.

What sort of hand/draw system would I use in designing this game? To me, the obvious answer is to strip out classes and skills and leave everything entirely up to what items the player has on hand. The advantage here is that items and their functions are solely placed into the world by the GM, and the player can't bring anything to the table that would disrupt the challenges by introducing aspects the GM couldn't have planned for.

(Of course it's possible for the DM to just say no to certain class/skill combinations in D&D, but the fiat there is obvious and grating: Here, the GM can do it silently and seamlessly. I'd also heavily downplay or even outright remove dice rolls, but this is an issue outside the player power progression system you had in mind to discuss.)


Such a system, however, would be terrible in a game where the players bring just as much, if not more, to the table than the GM does through their individual personalities and desires, whether real or roleplayed. There'd be very little room for the player to express themselves and explore, and exploiting what little room there would be would be terribly disruptive.

Jay R
2012-04-16, 11:18 AM
There are lots of different ways to characterize games. The one you're using is not that important to me.

For one thing, the distinctions aren't as stark as you think. In any game of simulating a genre, there are archetypical character types. Even if the system doesn't have classes, players do. For instance, Champions is a classless superhero game. But as soon as we start playing, one person decides to be the brick, someone else is the energy projector, a third player is the martial artist, etc. Why? Because we all know comic books, and assume we'll have a Superman, a Human Torch, a Batman, etc.

A game like Flashing Blades, set in seventeenth century France, has to have classes based on, well, class. A noble, a gentleman and a family-less rogue have very different options.

But give me the worst possible game system and five great players, and we'll have a great game.