Theory behind class design in rpgs and general video games?

[AquaBlade]

So I'm primarily interested in class design and specific classes in mmo's.
Basically I want to know:
1) How do devs create classes? How do they think of them and their skills and calculate formulas and decide on which mechanics to implement and various roles?
2) We're used to the warriors clerics rogues mages archetypes. Are there any like crafting only rpgs? What classes would be present in those rpgs? What other class-based games/genre can there be?
3) What else is there to look at regarding class/character design?
4) Can every set of roles or individual things be associated to rogues warriors mages and clerics in some way? Like for example phoenix wright.
Both in video games and in the real world? Are there sets that don't?
5) so what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?
thanks.
This is what I think so far:
isn't the goal of the game and the available mechanics the primary determining factor of the classes setup? Well, when I'm referring to crafting classes, let's make a better example, the world in which we live in lol. In order to keep the economy going and keep technology advancing we have different professions/classes/archetypes which contribute to the economy and work as a whole. For example, we have engineers, scientists, teachers, bankers, accountants, businessmen, policemen, etc. which all work together to keep the economy going. Each archetype works on the disadvantage of another archetype and attempts to solve what it can't do. Like in the holy trinity, dps is squishy, so the tank draws aggro to solve that problem. And the tank can't live forever, so the healer is there to solve the problem. It's just that our world is far more complex with so many different mechanics and variables that we need a ton of professions/archetypes to solve different problems. And based on the available mechanics, the devs attempt to create a system of the least classes possible needed to fully take advantage of those available mechanics and create a efficient working system.
Another example, of this would be easily visible if we look at another theoretical game. For example, a game where the goal isn't in every single mmorpg which is to lower health bars. let's say we were attempting to just land a single hit on an enemy. Then the entire class system would change. We wouldn't use the traditional rogues warriors clerics and mages anymore. We would have classes like the striker or the class that supports to help the striker easily hit the enemy or given more mechanics another class that aids in defending the striker. The system is different but similar to the holy trinity because it still revolves around combat. However, mechanics do matter a lot imo. Say we allow building towers, that would allow far more complexity to the game and allow the entrance of new archetypes such as engineers and construction builders.
Thus, if we deviate from the goal of the game and mechanics, wouldn't our set of classes be totally different from the traditional warrior rogue cleric and mage that we see in every game?

then again I'm only referring to the roles. So would the traditional archetypes rogues warriors clerics and mages still be applicable in other genres.
thanks.

[Madfellow]

The short answer is yes. For example, take Shadowrun. It's a fantasy game that also happens to be set in the year 2070 and features cyberpunk technology and themes. As such, its expectations on players are different. The game uses a point buy character creation system instead of class-based, but certain archetypes still exist.

The Street Samurai: a cybernetically or biologically enhanced (or just awesome) fighter who uses guns, swords, or plain old fisticuffs.

The Engineer: manipulates advanced technology and can specialize in electronics or robotics.

The Face: charismatic, clever, and in charge of making people not want to kill the party.

The Mage: manipulates magic and is in charge of making sure spirits and spells don't kill the party.

The Infiltrator: bypasses locks, sneaks past security, scales buildings, and opens all the doors for the party.

Lots of systems have lots of different classes based on what kind of gameplay they want to encourage, and even in a game like D&D there are tons of classes besides The Big 4. In recent years I think the ranger/druid/barbarian have become very important to a standard party because they specialize in surviving the natural wilderness where no other class really has any special abilities. And there are tons of other classes that blend the abilities of other classes or perform their functions in different ways: monks, bards, paladins, duskblades, etc.

I haven't heard of any RPGs that focus on craftsmanship, but I don't imagine it'd be very difficult to make one. If you want it to be class-based, make classes based on what they specialize in. Blacksmith, weaponsmith, armorsmith, jeweler, tailor, and alchemist are what instantly come to my mind.

[AquaBlade]

The short answer is yes. For example, take Shadowrun. It's a fantasy game that also happens to be set in the year 2070 and features cyberpunk technology and themes. As such, its expectations on players are different. The game uses a point buy character creation system instead of class-based, but certain archetypes still exist.

The Street Samurai: a cybernetically or biologically enhanced (or just awesome) fighter who uses guns, swords, or plain old fisticuffs.

The Engineer: manipulates advanced technology and can specialize in electronics or robotics.

The Face: charismatic, clever, and in charge of making people not want to kill the party.

The Mage: manipulates magic and is in charge of making sure spirits and spells don't kill the party.

The Infiltrator: bypasses locks, sneaks past security, scales buildings, and opens all the doors for the party.

Lots of systems have lots of different classes based on what kind of gameplay they want to encourage, and even in a game like D&D there are tons of classes besides The Big 4. In recent years I think the ranger/druid/barbarian have become very important to a standard party because they specialize in surviving the natural wilderness where no other class really has any special abilities. And there are tons of other classes that blend the abilities of other classes or perform their functions in different ways: monks, bards, paladins, duskblades, etc.

I haven't heard of any RPGs that focus on craftsmanship, but I don't imagine it'd be very difficult to make one. If you want it to be class-based, make classes based on what they specialize in. Blacksmith, weaponsmith, armorsmith, jeweler, tailor, and alchemist are what instantly come to my mind.

so how would the rogue warrior cleric mage exactly relate?

is the face just the non-violent rogue btw lol.

But if we consider everything, every thing can be divided into roles? There's infinite many sets where roles can play a part. So the influence of the traditional archetypes in D&D isn't really that huge outside of combat related things?

[Madfellow]

The point is that they don't exactly relate. The Street Samurai, Infiltrator, and Mage are most similar to the fighter, rogue, and wizard respectively, but beyond that the party roles are unique because Shadowrun plays differently from D&D. The social aspect of the rogue was removed from the Infiltrator and expanded to make the Face because diplomacy, disguises, and stuff like that were considered more important than in a "break down the door" D&D dungeon crawl. And the engineer exists because the game takes place in the future and involves advanced technology. The cleric was removed because they wanted combat to be more dangerous and exciting for the party.

And keep in mind that Shadowrun is a point buy system and not class-based, so it's easy to make a character that dabbles in different strategies. And each of the main archetypes can be approached in a number of different ways.

[AquaBlade]

The point is that they don't exactly relate. The Street Samurai, Infiltrator, and Mage are most similar to the fighter, rogue, and wizard respectively, but beyond that the party roles are unique because Shadowrun plays differently from D&D. The social aspect of the rogue was removed from the Infiltrator and expanded to make the Face because diplomacy, disguises, and stuff like that were considered more important than in a "break down the door" D&D dungeon crawl. And the engineer exists because the game takes place in the future and involves advanced technology. The cleric was removed because they wanted combat to be more dangerous and exciting for the party.

And keep in mind that Shadowrun is a point buy system and not class-based, so it's easy to make a character that dabbles in different strategies. And each of the main archetypes can be approached in a number of different ways.

Yeah lol that's what I'm trying to discuss. Like I stated earlier, basically roles differ depending on the goal of the game and the mechanics available. But, given that classes and archetypes can be more than one role, now couldn't the traditional archetypes be compared?

And btw, the D&D archetypes basically stemmed from the basic fighting man, cleric, and magic user archetypes, which then just branched off by either hybridizing them or developing alternate forms of the class. For example, with the typical warrior, a berserker and a guardian.

as previously stated a class can play more than one role. So the traditional rogue warrior cleric mages, and the lore behind them, are they applicable in games in other genres in which mechanics and the goals are different? Like, can we form relationships between classes among genres. Because while mechanics and goals dictate roles, they don't necessarily correlate with classes. Roles don't necessarily determine classes and lores right?
What is the fundamental thing that forms the class? Like, for example, the stats or attributes or mechanics like stealth are an outgrowth of something more fundamental relating to the class right? For example, how would the dev think of the paladin class as mentioned above? Is it an outgrowth as a hybrid of warriors, rogues, clerics, and mages? How was that thought up of as a viable system of classes? And now that system of classes is so popular not only in mmo's, but remnants of its system can be found even in class-based shooters. For example, the four class system in borderlands 2, can easily be correlated to the warrior, mage, rogue, and cleric system.
Is there anything more to look into regarding classes or to research? For example articles like this really interests me:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132028/mmo_class_design_up_with_hybrids_.php?print=1
This one utilizes economic theories and applies them to the concept of the use of hybrids to diversify classes asnd as a useful class in games. In order to allow easier access to hybrids, certain mechanics must change.

[AquaBlade]

and also, up to now I've only been talking about group-based combat. With the infinite sets of roles like I mentioned, would there be even more if we included solo-combat as an option where one class doesn't necessarily have to rely on the other.

[Madfellow]

Alright, I didn't want to have to do this, but here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonCharacterClasses

If you've never been to TVTropes before, I apologize in advance for the hours you are about to lose to the longest wiki walk of your life. :smallamused:

[AquaBlade]

lol dwai, I looked at that page a lot of times before. And near the top of the page there's the modern scifi/rpg equivalence page, where they denote that mages are just sappers, which I don't really agree with.
And lol, I like how everyone that suggests me tvtropes says the exact same thing :smalltongue:

[Madfellow]

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what your question is. Or your argument. Or whether you're trying to ask a question or make an argument. You kinda ramble a bit, no offense. Can you condense your question/argument/whatever in a single sentence for us?

[AquaBlade]

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what your question is. Or your argument. Or whether you're trying to ask a question or make an argument. You kinda ramble a bit, no offense. Can you condense your question/argument/whatever in a single sentence for us?

sorry lol.
Basically I know that its the class that then determines the skills, equipments, and stats. But, how does such a class get formed in the first place? How did the dev think of putting in a warrior a rogue a cleric and a mage?

And my other question is basically, up to know we've only been talking about group-oriented roles, the holy trinity soccer w/e. Does the role define the class? Can we relate the warriors, rogues, clerics, and mages and fit them in other different systems that have different roles? Guild wars 2 makes this obviously possible, but I'm talking about even more different things. For example, our world and the balance between the military and the civilian world. Can the traditional archetypes be related to them?
And if not, what archetypes replace warriors rogues clerics and mages? I just find this hard to do because that paradigm basically covers everything in one way or another lol.

And lastly, what is the difference between archetypes and classes?

[AquaBlade]

oh and one more question:
So does role actaully play a part in determining what class something is? After all like guild wars 2, playstyle seems to play more of a part in determining what class something is since every class can heal. And the holy trinity is replaced by control support and dps.

[Reluctance]

Let's step back and look at what classes actually do. They support archetypes, and at least in theory they help ensure balance between supposedly equal characters. Especially the latter doesn't matter as much in games where characters don't overlap niches so much. There's a reason that many games out there use point-based character generation.

You're also overthinking how much thought PnP developers have to put into such things. D&D is a class/level system because it's always been a class/level system. Pick up a ouija board if you want to ask the original minds behind it why. Many other games are class/level based due to the influence of D&D. All you need to do is pick archetypes and appropriate abilities. Balancing them and picking roles is an outgrowth of MMO thinking.

[Arbane]

sorry lol.
Basically I know that its the class that then determines the skills, equipments, and stats. But, how does such a class get formed in the first place? How did the dev think of putting in a warrior a rogue a cleric and a mage?

History.

D&D got its starts as a fantasy miniatures game. First came the Fighting Men, as infantry, then the Magic-User, as artillery. Then someone said "I wanna play a sneaky guy!" and we got the Thief, and then someone must've said "how about someone with powers to keep these three other guys alive?" and that got us the Cleric.

An awful lot of stuff in D&D that is now Cherished Tradition got its start as 'yeah, that sounds cool.'



And lastly, what is the difference between archetypes and classes?

I dunno.

[TheOOB]

Perhaps the most important thing to note is that in table top RPG's, class and level based systems are the exception, not the rule. Most RPG's use a more organic system where players can improve individual elements of their character as they wish.

So, the first thing to note is, what advantages does a class based system have. The first one is that it allows you to focus your design. Notice that in D&D, most classes primarily describe how your character fights. This is not an accident. D&D is descendant from wargames, and at it's core D&D is about combat. It does other things, yes, but most the rules and systems in D&D relate to violence, and every class has a role in combat. Other game systems allow you to make a non-combatant character, but D&D does not.

The second advantage of a class based system is it allows you to make cool and unique abilities. In an organic system, where anyone can get any ability, characters often start to look similar as everyone will naturally purchase the best abilities for a given campaign. You can't do that in a class based system though. A wizard will never have the abilities a cleric has, who will never have a rogues abilities(ignoring multi-classing for now). That allows powerful unique abilities that are(at least in theory) balanced because if you have one of these abilities, you can't have another.

There are two equally valid ways to design a class. You can start either with a roleplay or story idea, and build mechanics around that. Or you can start with mechanics, and build a story around that. D&D has been built around the fighter, thief, priest, magic-user class base for a long time(most of it a hold over from their wargame roots) and uses those four classes as a root for all the others.

[jaybird]

Perhaps the most important thing to note is that in table top RPG's, class and level based systems are the exception, not the rule. Most RPG's use a more organic system where players can improve individual elements of their character as they wish.

Of course, you can hybridize the two - note the WH40kRP systems for example. You select a career (class), then within each rank (level) you can buy different abilities with earned XP. Once you've spent enough XP, you move to the next rank.

Anyways, my opinion on class formation is that it's not overly dependent on the setting of the game. Fighter/Mage/Rogue is really a fantasy way of saying Endurance/Power/Finesse. The Fighter can take and deliver hits all day long, the Mage can let loose a ton of destruction in a short period of time, and the Rogue can act as a force multiplier to make problems more manageable. In Mass Effect, for example, Soldier takes the Endurance role, Adept takes the Power role, and Engineer takes the Finesse role. In a theoretical surgery game, for example, the "Fighter" role would be the young primary surgeon with a strong body and plenty of energy, able to operate for long hours at a time, the "Mage" role would be the internal medicine specialist who's seen and diagnosed every problem under the sun, but has trouble focusing for a long period of time due to his advanced age, and the "Rogue" role would be filled by the anaesthesiologist, whose job is to prepare the patient for surgery and keep the patient properly sedated.

[Hylas]

Are there any like crafting only rpgs? What classes would be present in those rpgs?

I haven't actually found a fun crafting system for an RPG, specifically alchemy. There's usually rules like "you can make a health potion in 5 hours for 10 gold" but nothing that involves picking out herbs and making a concoction out of whatever you can find out of desperation. Me and a friend made a custom system meant for alchemy but can be used for making things like swords and armor that uses dice with colors instead of numbers for various qualities and properties of herbs/ore/wood/baskets* that are found. So maybe there's a herb you find with a fire property, you could use it to make a fire immunity potion or a bottle of alchemists' fire. Maybe there's some ore that's particularly dense and can be used to make strong but heavy armor. It got pretty interesting when you started mixing different samples of ore and herbs together. A big trick to crafting focus is to limit available time and resources so players don't simply stock up and make things as they need it i.e. don't let players make a suit of armor in 10 minutes from the 10 tons of ore they have been collecting over the week. There's also setting limitations where if the entire campaign is in a city crafting is more viable than a setting where you don't stay in a town for more than a day.

Yes, crafting can be fun if you have the tools, but it really isn't as fitting for most games like being a fighter or a mage where you can pick up and move whenever you want without losing out on what you've made your character to do. A fighter doesn't lose his sword and a mage doesn't lose his magic just because you didn't stay in town for a week, but a crafter might lose all progress on his brand new suit of armor when adventure comes a-knockin' and he needs to run out before it's finished.

*You don't mess with the master basketcrafters.

[Kitten Champion]

I look at it from the perspective of chess. Pieces are represented by abstractions of feudal social rank, commonly understood archetypes. While some have more apparent value than others, they all have their strengths and merits to be on the board. Adding new pieces or changing the rules for the conventional ones can make your game completely alien from the original experience. This is the challenge of game design where strategy is involved, and why so many professionally designed games can be utterly broken. Either the pieces add nothing to the game play and are simply off-coloured Bishops or Knights, or they break the flow and comprehensibility of the game.

In many ways the Fighter, Thief, Mage are the Rooks (linear, powerful, protective), Knights (evasive), and Bishops (diagonal, weak against direct opposition but useful for tactical strikes from afar) of the RPG experience. We see them as the necessary starting point to a balanced game. Then, designers try to develop other pieces around them, breaking them up into various sub-categories with various degrees of relevance -- or my personal favourite of starting them all as pawns until they're promoted.

[Totally Guy]

The skills and such that a game supports defines what are important parts of the game.

Consider the following skills from a sci-fi game:
Breaking: Hacking data out of something or destroying stuff.
Cultivation: Making things using traditional old-world means.
Ephemera: Using art as a way of communicating a concept.
Flood/Bleeding: Implanting or taking memories through psychic contact.
Ghosting: Moving unseen and stealing things away.
Mobbing: Creating body modifications integrating technology to a person.
Negotiation: Creating binding deals that will be mutually beneficial
Printing: Using a matter printer to create something.
Recycling: Repairing or modifying technology or personal interface.
Shaping: Using body language to manipulate people.
Social Engineering: A skill for spreading memes or an ideology.
Switching: Redirecting consequences of bad behaviour onto another.
Thin Slicing: Making data valuable for creating stuff or implanting as a memory.
Wetwork: Temporarily killing another person until their backup is restored.

What kind of stuff do you think this game would be about?

[AquaBlade]

I look at it from the perspective of chess. Pieces are represented by abstractions of feudal social rank, commonly understood archetypes. While some have more apparent value than others, they all have their strengths and merits to be on the board. Adding new pieces or changing the rules for the conventional ones can make your game completely alien from the original experience. This is the challenge of game design where strategy is involved, and why so many professionally designed games can be utterly broken. Either the pieces add nothing to the game play and are simply off-coloured Bishops or Knights, or they break the flow and comprehensibility of the game.

In many ways the Fighter, Thief, Mage are the Rooks (linear, powerful, protective), Knights (evasive), and Bishops (diagonal, weak against direct opposition but useful for tactical strikes from afar) of the RPG experience. We see them as the necessary starting point to a balanced game. Then, designers try to develop other pieces around them, breaking them up into various sub-categories with various degrees of relevance -- or my personal favourite of starting them all as pawns until they're promoted.

thanks, I never thought of the classes like that.
1) But for example, aren't the roles never constant? Like, the mage doesn't necessarily have to relate to artillery. For example, in guild wars 2, the warrior is capable of aoe ranged damage as well as the ranger which has always been a capable ranged dps. As for tactical strikes, rangers are capable of that as well which makes me think that rangers are more suited to snipers.
2) So does the role really define the class? If we weren't looking at mmorpgs, and looking at a game with different goals and mechanics which would lead to a system with different roles, could the classes still be related?
3) I find that non-rpg archetypes such as tanks can be characterized as warriors and mages which would make most things hybrids. What other systems are there besides fighter,mage,rogue,cleric?
4) so basically, a class doesn't necessarily have to relate to a certain role and can show up in different sets of classes in different games with different roles/goals/mechanics right?
Like we can relate a warrior class in the mmorpg to other genres like class-based shooter games? Or even solo-action adventure games and relate that to the protaganist of the story?
5) What else can I read/research regarding class design?

[AquaBlade]

what I mean regarding relating the traditional archetypes to other mmorpgs is like this:
The perfect example is etrian odyssey 3 and their classes.
For example the yggdroid, arbalist, shogun, and farmer classes. How would they relate to warriors rogues mages and clerics?
I mention the arbalist as an example. Its the epitome of glass cannons however its clearly the farthest thing from a mage you can get.
The farmer class, I don't even know what it is beyond it's support. Its easy to identify a role, but these are examples where roles obviously do not define archetypes.

[oxybe]

a D&D mage is a D&D mage, but in no way is it a WoD mage, a GURPS mage, a WoW mage or Final Fantasy mage. different games will treat certain thematic archetypes differently depending on the goal of the game.

the class title itself is basically meaningless unless you chose to give it in-game meaning. a class is just a function of delivering one your game's stated goals. you don't design a class-based game, you design a game that happens to have classes.

i've never met a character in an RPG who defines himself as a 5th level rogue. they have a name, maybe a nickname, usually a profession of sorts but class is entirely a meta-game title in most games i've played.

since my recent layoff, i've been doing a bit more design work on my own TTRPG heartbreaker and my class design goes as follows:

1- are classes the pure focal point of character creation, or one of many. basically: how important to defining your character is your class.

in my current model, your class is really only more of a combat style: how your character reacts to danger. your skill choice, specializations, advantages/gifts, etc... are all other aspects of your character that are just as important or even moreso.

2- choose the genres, themes, tropes and trappings of my system. what kind of game am i trying to make? what kind of characters are expected to be played? a game that is supposed to support a team of forensic investigators will focus on things different then one that focuses on fantasy heroes.

here i try to be as specific as i can. "anything" as an answer is pure poison to the design process. i want action, pulp-fantasy. i want characters that are not mundane (that includes the martial ones), but supernatural. various forces define the universe, of which "magic" is but one, give those forces their own strengths and limits (IE: arcane forces can't do everything. sometimes you need to channel the spirits or primordial forces. other times, a strong sword arm and pure dedication are the key).

this helps define both the characters and the classes. this helps give me a better idea of what is a "warrior", what is a "mage", what is a "priest" to some extent.

3- choose the levels and what they mean.

just saying "my game has 20" levels is meaningless. what defines those 20 levels?

here is where i would say you need to start playing different games to get a feel for what you want characters to achieve. i would recommend Gamma World, based on the 4th ed D&D ruleset for a good idea of a "snapshot". the game is 10 levels and shows a snapshot of a character growing more powerful within a certain scope, but never really going out of hand.

basically if i were to do a game with 30 levels it would go as follows

levels 1-10 : heroic, start off as better then most. become the best in the land
levels 11-20 : paragon, become the best in the world
levels 21-30 : epic, achieve feats that will be known for all time

levels 8 & 9 / 18 &19 : ease transition into the next stage
levels 12 & 13 / 22 & 23 : get used to this stage's style

during this time i would also decide things like when it's appropriate for characters to gain things like flight, teleportation, super-strength, super-speed, etc... the scope of their abilities.

it might sound like i'm talking in super-hero terms, but heroes of myth were basically superheroes before the term was coined.

5- what's my goal with this one class? what purpose does it serve? here i try to chose goals that are specific but can attached to a wide array of characters: if i create 4 classes that channel the elements, a pyromancer, a hydromancer, an aeromancer & a terramancer.

at this point i'll start looking at what exactly those elements focus on:
Fire can be used to protect but will almost always lead to destruction
Water can heal and protect as well as swallow it's enemies whole
Air has unrestrained freedom yet can move even mountains
Earth is strong and unmoving: the immoveable object and the unstoppable force

the pyromancer will focus on harming it's enemies, alone or in groups
the hydromancer will focus on keeping it's allies alive while bogging down the enemy
the aeromancer will flit about causing mischief on his enemies
the terramancer will guard his territory and allies from his enemies

how they go about manifesting these, is up to the player. how he or she channels fire is not up to me to decide. i give them the tool, various pyromancy abilities. they decide if they were though to channel it through their body via stances in a militaristic school or if they're one of 8 vile constructs made to take over the kingdom and simply happens to channel the energy of fire.

that's more campaign/setting detail and not really want i want to focus my classes on.

6- once i know my goal in creating a class, it's theme & it's scope and whatnot, i start doing the mechanical work on the class based on my system design (where i'm having the most problems with in all honesty). i have a good idea what i want my classes to do... i'm just having a much harder time with the mechanics part :P

as for reading up on class design, read up on game design in general. lots of articles and publications out there.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

And lastly, what is the difference between archetypes and classes?

Archetype is about story/fluff side of the character, class is about the mechanical/crunch aspects of the character. "Dude in a loincloth with a big stonking sword" is an archetype usually called 'barbarian'. "Barbarian" is a class used by D&D to represent that archetype. In Anima: Beyond Fantasy the same archetype would be best represented by the Armsmaster. Barbarian (the class) exists because the devs said "we need barbarians (the archetype) in this game".


oh and one more question:
So does role actaully play a part in determining what class something is? After all like guild wars 2, playstyle seems to play more of a part in determining what class something is since every class can heal. And the holy trinity is replaced by control support and dps.

A class' combat role is generally determined by the archetype it belongs to. Mage/Elementalist (classes) are (usually) DPS because, generally, wizards (the archetype, now) blow stuff up good and can't take a hit too well, which makes them a non-brainer pick for DPS roles. Some games have their Wizards more focused on battlefield control (D&D 4E, for instance) because that's also a thing a lot of archetypal wizards do.

GW2, I think, builds it's classes off archetypes: the Warrior is build around the "non-magical armsmaster" archetype, Guardian around the "magical holy warrior" archetype, and etc. From there, one builds the class in a way that reflects the style of that archetype, which in turn informs the combat role(s) that class will have - if having ranged weapons doesn't fit the style of the artchetype, then the ranged DPS role isn't right for the class. Similarly, if part of the archetype is being physically puny and not carrying weapons or armor, then melee roles won't make much sense for the class based on that archetype.

[AquaBlade]

any ideas on this?
what I mean regarding relating the traditional archetypes to other mmorpgs is like this:
The perfect example is etrian odyssey 3 and their classes.
For example the yggdroid, arbalist, shogun, and farmer classes. How would they relate to warriors rogues mages and clerics?
I mention the arbalist as an example. Its the epitome of glass cannons however its clearly the farthest thing from a mage you can get.
The farmer class, I don't even know what it is beyond it's support. Its easy to identify a role, but these are examples where roles obviously do not define archetypes.

[AquaBlade]

well basically my question is:
1) Can every set of roles or individual things be associated to rogues warriors mages and clerics in some way? Like for example phoenix wright.
Both in video games and in the real world? Are there sets that don't?

2) so what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

[Eldan]

First question: no. Four categories are much too narrow for all the possible roles one can have even in RPGs alone, let alone all games out there or real life. It was a system for a certain kind of old RPGs, where they applied.

For the second: play more games? Look at what they did? Pretty much every game with classes has different ones. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a reason to make a new game in the first place.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

well basically my question is:
1) Can every set of roles or individual things be associated to rogues warriors mages and clerics in some way? Like for example phoenix wright.
Both in video games and in the real world? Are there sets that don't?

I don't think so. The comparison can only be made under similar systems. The less similar the system, the harder to compare, until comparison becomes impossible. You can compare WoW and D&D because WoW is similar to D&D. You can't compare D&D to Phoenix Wright or real life because they don't have enough common elements to compare to.

[endoperez]

You may want to read AquaBlade last thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249577), about 11 pages, where he posted similar questions. He also crossposted into maybe a dozen different forums, but I won't link into all of those.

This way, you won't end up repeating answers , or re-explaining what has already been explained.

Also, so far I haven't noticed AquaBlade being happy with any answer. There's always a new question in each reply.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

well basically my question is:
1) Can every set of roles or individual things be associated to rogues warriors mages and clerics in some way? Like for example phoenix wright.
Both in video games and in the real world? Are there sets that don't?

Absolutely not, unless you generalize Warrior/Mage/Rogue/Cleric to be a very basic Damage/Control/Utility/Support framework. In most RPGs those are the major categories, although they can be approached from any number of different angles with different permutations. So in the sense that Warrior/Mage/Rogue/Cleric is A: a tradition, and B: intentionally generic, yes, one could stretch the definitions to cover almost anything. But I think that stretching is just that: a stretch, and by no means an accurate statement.

And even then you have edge cases where the Damage/Control/Utility/Support framework just doesn't work, because the game is different. If I were making a Phoenix Wright MMO, for example, you might have Persecution/Defense/Evidence Gathering/Loopholes as important statistics, but those don't have direct parallels (although, again, you could stretch that to be Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard if you wanted to really try to hard to make those roles fit: they just wouldn't do so well at all). There's to much variety in concept and execution to say that 4 classes cover the basics entirely.


2) so what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

Practically everything. Class design and class systems vary based on concept, the feeling you want to evoke from the game, gameplay mechanics, perceptions of fun from the player (what abilities are "fun?"), and a whole host of other things. The amount of research and development that you can do, in theory, is basically unlimited.

Out of curiosity, why are you asking?

[AquaBlade]

just interested into this topic.
So if we generalize we can do it?
I mean if we consider all attributes, I find that this system of archetype covers almost about everything.
Is there a system that does cover everything.

No I mean like categorizing phoenix wright as an individual not making it into an mmo. What archetype would he belong. Or categorizing sonic and mario.

[AquaBlade]

So you like a specific archetype right? What do you do then? Is there a certain type of video game that you play that reflects that class in mmorpgs?

[FireJustice]

Oookay.

Let's see.

I'm reading "classes" as a set of information and attributes (as in characteristics) that will set you up to a certain style of play, favoring certain aspects. I know we can define with more specifics, but we are on the run.

If you are design a game (any game), there's something called payoff matrix. Its mathemathics, and basically its a cross reference score chart that let you know who has the upper hand after each decision.
Think as a more refined Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Rock: draws with rock, beats scissors, lose to papper
etc

Any game can be put in simple "your decision versus other player's decision", you cross both in the payoff matrix and see the outcome".
You can have infinite variations and decisions to take, but in the end is simple like that. Sure, you can add some execution skill requirement (like a sport). Sure, you matrix can have infinite players as well.

Classes are pretty much a way to make a player make a choice (he will be a Rock, a Paper or a Scissor) in a way he will enjoy being a Rock, paper or scissor.

To balance, you will make sure that no player can be all three.
To make people actually play, you need to input some skill requisites (like a sport. for exemple soccer: you know you have to kick the ball to the goal. But it takes skill to do it consistently)
To appeal more people, you make different ways to play (requiring a diferent skillset, like the goalkeeper and the regular player).

the cool thing is.
the actual gameplay (how you play or should play a class) is just a "skin" to the actual role.

You can have infinite classes, and just 3 roles (rock, paper and scissors).

[AquaBlade]

Oh I see. But like in guild wars 2, a class can often play more than one role. It can rocks and papers. How would you relate the system rogues warriors mages clerics to everything?

1) Can every set of roles or individual things be associated to rogues warriors mages and clerics in some way? Like for example phoenix wright.
Both in video games and in the real world? Are there sets that don't?

2) so what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

[FireJustice]

Sorry I dont play GW2.

Sure, a "class" can play more than one role?
at the same time?
can you re-spec in battle?

If not. The class still playing one role at time.
you still chosing Rock, Paper or Scissors.
It's a good trick\feature to have. You "fool" the player with the choice\give him a option to not need do level up another character.


about your questions.
I dont know if I get it.

1) Rogue/Warrior/Wizard/Cleric. That depends. you need to define each class. how broad is your definition?
phoenix right can be a special kind of rogue. Super Mario can be a warrior or a wizard (he grows, can fly and throw fireballs).
Anyway, it should be possible (but no pratical) to have definitions broad enough to have those any set of abilities related to any of your classes

2) That's more easy. Class design is about understading "Mechanism Design". Any book about that should sufice.
Learning about Game Theory (or Theory of Games) also is never a bad thing, its mathematics so is never a bad thing.

[AquaBlade]

So you like a specific archetype right? What do you do then? Is there a certain type of video game that you play that reflects that class in mmorpgs?

what books are there regarding class design? What else is there besides books?
And about game theory, do you mean economics?

[endoperez]

1) Can every set of roles or individual things be associated to rogues warriors mages and clerics in some way? Like for example phoenix wright.
Both in video games and in the real world? Are there sets that don't?


No, they can't. Most replies in this thread tell you that.
No, Phoenix doesn't fit.
No, real world doesn't work that way.
Yes, there are sets that don't fit. Read the first and second replies to this thread (by Madfellow, about Shadowrun).

[Xondoure]

Well it has to start with the goals. For fun, let's make a system all about finishing blows.

In this system enemies have quickly regenerating health and protection of some sort that needs to be broken through before serious damage can take place. Enemies spawn from set locations and managing the reinforcements while taking on the greater foe is vital to success.

In such a system you could potentially have a standard tank to attract attention of more dangerous enemies, a healer to support the other members of the party, an armor breaker that goes around disabling dangerous foes, a single target dpser to finish off the now exposed heavy units, and an AOE attacker to manage the otherwise overwhelming small fry. 5 unique rolls that can be divided and shared among different classes in a way that acknowledges the trinity while expanding on it. By including certain objectives such as disabling the gates a sixth operative in charge of sabotage and infiltration can enter the mix.

Basically, so long as the goal is kill the enemy before the enemy overwhelms your defense, the trinity is safe. As soon as you add on other objectives things can get more complicated.

Edit: To additionally clarify, the trinity doesn't exist at all in situations where you have classes but 1 man parties. Though a strength/speed/magic triangle is often still used. To look at a place this isn't as true look at fighting games. There you have zoners, grapplers, etc. to offer a variety of fighting styles, even though the goal is ultimately kill the other guy first.

[AquaBlade]

Well it has to start with the goals. For fun, let's make a system all about finishing blows.

In this system enemies have quickly regenerating health and protection of some sort that needs to be broken through before serious damage can take place. Enemies spawn from set locations and managing the reinforcements while taking on the greater foe is vital to success.

In such a system you could potentially have a standard tank to attract attention of more dangerous enemies, a healer to support the other members of the party, an armor breaker that goes around disabling dangerous foes, a single target dpser to finish off the now exposed heavy units, and an AOE attacker to manage the otherwise overwhelming small fry. 5 unique rolls that can be divided and shared among different classes in a way that acknowledges the trinity while expanding on it. By including certain objectives such as disabling the gates a sixth operative in charge of sabotage and infiltration can enter the mix.

Basically, so long as the goal is kill the enemy before the enemy overwhelms your defense, the trinity is safe. As soon as you add on other objectives things can get more complicated.

Edit: To additionally clarify, the trinity doesn't exist at all in situations where you have classes but 1 man parties. Though a strength/speed/magic triangle is often still used. To look at a place this isn't as true look at fighting games. There you have zoners, grapplers, etc. to offer a variety of fighting styles, even though the goal is ultimately kill the other guy first.

1) Yeah but those roles can still be easily related to the traditional archetypes. For example the healer would be the cleric, the tank would be the warrior. Depending on exactly what stats and attributes they have, we can further clarify the classes since a tank doesn't always have to be a warrior.

What I mean by one man parties, for example, we can see that batman from the video games is definitely a rogue. Or ezio from assassin's creed.
I know that roles differ due to objective. Like what I said earlier, the system of roles in a certain game depend on the mechanics available and the objective of the game. For example in real life, the objective is for example, to make money. Thus there are many roles that each job plays in a company for example the guy in charge of marketing, engineering, financial officers, etc. And also, there are tons of roles because there is almost unlimited mechanics and many unpredictable circumstances and possibilities.

2) So basically, you can make a set of roles out of everything. However, such a set of roles doesn't necessarily correspond to the traditional archetypes since for example the warrior doesn't have to be the tank. It can be dps in can be support as well. So is there a specific group of archetypes that apply to everything?

3) So you like a specific archetype right? What do you do then? Is there a certain type of video game that you play that reflects that class in mmorpgs? Do you attempt to relate the archetype you like to every other thing as well?

4) what books are there regarding class design? what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

5) But isn't it possible to relate the archetypes from the video game to real life? If we take the entire country as an example, we can easily associate warriors to soldiers in the military, rogues to the criminals, mages to the intellectual civilians, and the clerics to the doctors.

However it would be different if we were to consider for example the military itself. As such, it does differ depending on the objective. If we consider the military itself, we would further divide the classes. For example, the medic corps would be the cleric, the mages would correspond to the engineer corps, and so on.

[AquaBlade]

any ideas?????

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

2) So basically, you can make a set of roles out of everything. However, such a set of roles doesn't necessarily correspond to the traditional archetypes since for example the warrior doesn't have to be the tank. It can be dps in can be support as well. So is there a specific group of archetypes that apply to everything?

No. Many people have said this. There is NO archetype that can accurately be applied to everything, except for perhaps Does X in Y manner and Does X in Z manner, where Y and Z are not equal.


3) So you like a specific archetype right? What do you do then? Is there a certain type of video game that you play that reflects that class in mmorpgs? Do you attempt to relate the archetype you like to every other thing as well?

Not at all. I'm very varied with my tastes in classes and characters.


5) But isn't it possible to relate the archetypes from the video game to real life? If we take the entire country as an example, we can easily associate warriors to soldiers in the military, rogues to the criminals, mages to the intellectual civilians, and the clerics to the doctors.

However it would be different if we were to consider for example the military itself. As such, it does differ depending on the objective. If we consider the military itself, we would further divide the classes. For example, the medic corps would be the cleric, the mages would correspond to the engineer corps, and so on.

It feels like your stretching here. The country is a big place, and consists of many people BESIDES doctors, criminals, soldiers, and intellectuals. How do you account for them? How do you account for the fact that the intellectual citizens, soldiers, and doctors all work primarily towards different goals in different environments?

[Cogwheel]

The country is a big place, and consists of many people BESIDES doctors, criminals, soldiers, and intellectuals. How do you account for them?

Well, someone had to be the druids. Also, warlocks.


How do you account for the fact that the intellectual citizens, soldiers, and doctors all work primarily towards different goals in different environments?

Emphasis on solo content over forcing groups.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Well, someone had to be the druids. Also, warlocks.

Oh, you. :smalltongue:


Emphasis on solo content over forcing groups.

Well, yes. But then you've really just got the doctors/soldiers/etc each playing a different game. Class is meaningless there. Tetris /= Call of Duty /= Animal Crossing, and you can't make class parallels across genre.

But my point is that you can't really express all the run-of-the-mill professions or even divergent mechanics with the big 4 of Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Mage. Where does Baker, Tanner, Accountant, Jigsaw Puzzle Fabricator, Computer Programmer (we're definitely not Wizards...trust me on this), Illustrator, Bank Manager, and so forth fall? In "Real World: The Everydayening," a class-based system just doesn't cut it.

Point buy, maybe. :smalltongue:

[Cogwheel]

Tetris /= Call of Duty /= Animal Crossing

A CROSSOVER IS BORN.


Computer Programmer (we're definitely not Wizards...trust me on this)

I knew it. Sorcerers, just coasting along on raw talent.

So unfair.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

A CROSSOVER IS BORN.

Blockfall

Once upon a time you were but a peaceful badger...until the gods grew angry. Some malevolent god or goddess derives great entertainment in destroying your peaceful town and your furry companions. A large, god-crafted meteor has been assembling overhead, forming out of strangely intertwining bits of rock, and you have only one hope left: work with your companions to assemble a ship, travel to the heavens, and hunt down those responsible.

Can you do it before the meteor completes, and the Blockfall begins? Only you can determine that!



I knew it. Sorcerers, just coasting along on raw talent.

So unfair.

Yep. That's us. After all...aren't programmers known as a powerful, charismatic bunch? :smalltongue:

[Cogwheel]

Blockfall

Once upon a time you were but a peaceful badger...until the gods grew angry. Some malevolent god or goddess derives great entertainment in destroying your peaceful town and your furry companions. A large, god-crafted meteor has been assembling overhead, forming out of strangely intertwining bits of rock, and you have only one hope left: work with your companions to assemble a ship, travel to the heavens, and hunt down those responsible.

Is it wrong that I want to play this?


Yep. That's us. After all...aren't programmers known as a powerful, charismatic bunch? :smalltongue:

Nope, you're the variant with strength-based casting, clearly. You just angrily smash lines of code into existence with your steely binary fist.

[AquaBlade]

No. Many people have said this. There is NO archetype that can accurately be applied to everything, except for perhaps Does X in Y manner and Does X in Z manner, where Y and Z are not equal.



Not at all. I'm very varied with my tastes in classes and characters.



It feels like your stretching here. The country is a big place, and consists of many people BESIDES doctors, criminals, soldiers, and intellectuals. How do you account for them? How do you account for the fact that the intellectual citizens, soldiers, and doctors all work primarily towards different goals in different environments?

It's easily accountable. It doesn't matter what environment or what goal they're doing. Even more, we can talk about the whole world. The whole world, in fact, is only one little village. Each country depends on another just as much. One country may have more resources which we all depend on. It's all a circle in which one depends on another. No country is independent. If one country fails, it won't be good for other countries as well
Same thing within the country. A farmer and a doctor. Without a farmer, who'd grow the crops and provide the food? Without the doctor, who'd advance medicine and heal people? Every role depends on another. Similarly, that's how classes in video games work.

What do you think of my other questions.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Is it wrong that I want to play this?

Not at all. I thought the same thing when I wrote it up.


Nope, you're the variant with strength-based casting, clearly. You just angrily smash lines of code into existence with your steely binary fist.

Well, you brought a smile to my face with this hilarious line. Well done. :smallbiggrin:


It's easily accountable. It doesn't matter what environment or what goal they're doing. Even more, we can talk about the whole world. The whole world, in fact, is only one little village. Each country depends on another just as much. One country may have more resources which we all depend on. It's all a circle in which one depends on another. No country is independent. If one country fails, it won't be good for other countries as well
Same thing within the country. A farmer and a doctor. Without a farmer, who'd grow the crops and provide the food? Without the doctor, who'd advance medicine and heal people? Every role depends on another. Similarly, that's how classes in video games work.

This is basically saying that the class archetype to account for everything is...everything. I don't think that's reasonable. Yes, all these things are required for current human civilization, but it doesn't make for a good class system either actually or conceptually.

I'm not going to respond to the other questions (I actually only didn't respond to #4, as I don't have an answer for it...I think you missed the responses?), as it seems you've asked them before, and I feel like I might have even addressed them before. There's little discussion here, and I'm honestly having trouble figuring out the purpose behind this thread at this point.

[AquaBlade]

Not at all. I thought the same thing when I wrote it up.



Well, you brought a smile to my face with this hilarious line. Well done. :smallbiggrin:



This is basically saying that the class archetype to account for everything is...everything. I don't think that's reasonable. Yes, all these things are required for current human civilization, but it doesn't make for a good class system either actually or conceptually.

I'm not going to respond to the other questions (I actually only didn't respond to #4, as I don't have an answer for it...I think you missed the responses?), as it seems you've asked them before, and I feel like I might have even addressed them before. There's little discussion here, and I'm honestly having trouble figuring out the purpose behind this thread at this point.

I'm just saying that it's possible to classify everything using the archetypes.
Well what other kinds of archetypes are there besides the rpg ones?

What's the purpose behind this whole forum? What's the purpose of playing video games? I just enjoy learning about class design. There's no significance or real benefit to it.

[AquaBlade]

1) why do you keep separating elements into an rpg class based game. For example, in batman, I'm just talking about batman.

2) and roles is independent from archetypes right? Like what I said before about an archetype having more than one role?

3) So what other archetypes are there out there besides video games besides rogues warriors clerics and mages? Like in literature or anything?

4) so what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

5) So basically, you can make a set of roles out of everything. However, such a set of roles doesn't necessarily correspond to the traditional archetypes since for example the warrior doesn't have to be the tank. It can be dps in can be support as well. So is there a specific group of archetypes that apply to everything?

6) So you like a specific archetype right? What do you do then? Is there a certain type of video game that you play that reflects that class in mmorpgs? Do you attempt to relate the archetype you like to every other thing as well?

7) what books are there regarding class design? what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

8) Can such archetypes be applied to everything in the world?

[banthesun]

I'm just saying that it's possible to classify everything using the archetypes.
Well what other kinds of archetypes are there besides the rpg ones?

If you really want to learn more about archetypes you should look into the theories of Carl Jung, since he more or less introduced the word into the language. Be warned though, his writings themselves can be very dense, so I'd recomend finding a reader or some kind of "for dummies" version (I remember being fond of the "indroducing" series, but I haven't read any of theirs for a while, so I can't speak with any certainty).

[Beleriphon]

2) and roles is independent from archetypes right? Like what I said before about an archetype having more than one role?

An archtype is something like the wizard. Think literary wizard here, no game wizard. A role is what your archetype does in a game. The WoW mage has elements of literary archetype, but it doesn't do everything that literary archetype does. Why? Because its a game that requires defined roles and resources.


3) So what other archetypes are there out there besides video games besides rogues warriors clerics and mages? Like in literature or anything?

Jungian Archetypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetypes#Jungian_archetypes) via the Wiki.

Archetypes have existed since before writing existed. Jung took the ideas and basically invented a bunch of "archetypes" to help him in his psychological research. Games often borrow the names Jung originally used to apply to the same ideas. Archetypes are just broad ideas about something that can be distinguished from another broad idea.


4) so what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

My suggestion is to look into math. Game Theory is a good place to start. When it comes right down to it video game classes are just a stack of spread sheets that have been animated nicely.


5) So basically, you can make a set of roles out of everything. However, such a set of roles doesn't necessarily correspond to the traditional archetypes since for example the warrior doesn't have to be the tank. It can be dps in can be support as well. So is there a specific group of archetypes that apply to everything?

The closest is Jung, but he's a bit nutty. He was a student for Freud after all.


6) So you like a specific archetype right? What do you do then? Is there a certain type of video game that you play that reflects that class in mmorpgs? Do you attempt to relate the archetype you like to every other thing as well?

You could, but you're delving into psychoanalysis not game design.


7) what books are there regarding class design? what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

I can only assume as much. I'd try a search on Amazon or Google Books to see what you can find.


8) Can such archetypes be applied to everything in the world?

Carl Jung certainly thought so. Although by the time he'd fully solidified his ideas the archtypes were very much derived from his studies in psychology and moved well away from their literary roots.

As I recall the primary ones are:


The Self
The Shadow
The Anima
The Animus
The Persona


Jung also detailed some more specific archetypes as well:

The Child
The Hero
The Martyr
The Great Mother
The Wise old man or Sage
The Wise Old Woman/Man, archetypes of the collective unconscious
The Damsel in distress
The Trickster or Fox
The Devil or Satan
The Scarecrow
The Mentor
The Warrior

[AquaBlade]

would those archetypes relate to warriors rogues mages and clerics?
any other ideas on my questions?

[sonofzeal]

1) How do devs create classes? How do they think of them and their skills and calculate formulas and decide on which mechanics to implement and various roles?
It's usually a mix of following genre conventions, or willfully defying them, depending on the philosophy of the company.


2) We're used to the warriors clerics rogues mages archetypes. Are there any like crafting only rpgs? What classes would be present in those rpgs? What other class-based games/genre can there be?
"Like crafting only RPGs"? Not sure what you mean there.

In vertical scrollers there's often a choice between balanced, offence-heavy, and defence-heavy. In racing games the options are usually split around speed, handling, and acceleration. League of Legends categorizes by Assassin, Carry, Fighter, Mage, and Tank.


3) What else is there to look at regarding class/character design?
All sorts of things! See the above for some ideas. Even if damage source doesn't matter, there's still range, mobility, burst vs consistent damage, accuracy, durability, and ability to heal/protect/buff others.


4) Can every set of roles or individual things be associated to rogues warriors mages and clerics in some way? Like for example phoenix wright.
Both in video games and in the real world? Are there sets that don't?
You can usually broadly categorize in those ways, but it's often not going to be meaningful.



5) so what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?
All I can recommend is trying out different games. Final Fantasy 5 had something like two dozen classes. D&D has 72 base classes. League of Legends has over a hundred champions, each of which could be though of like a class. Look at games like these and how they differentiate (or fail to).

[AquaBlade]

would those archetypes relate to warriors rogues mages and clerics?
any other ideas on my questions?

oh so, jung's archetypes do apply to any situation?
even when not talking about humans? Like for example, if we were creating a set of how vehicles contribute. We would split it into sea air and land transportaiton where each plays a role and we can denote each as an archetype. That's what I mean by apply to everything.

[Eldan]

Warrior, rogue, mage and cleric are not archetypes in the Jungian sense. They are just class names. Though any given Warrior, Rogue, Mage or cleric may be included in one or more of those archetypes.

And these are personality archetypes, first and foremost. Unless your vehicles have strong AI, that won't really apply.

[AquaBlade]

Warrior, rogue, mage and cleric are not archetypes in the Jungian sense. They are just class names. Though any given Warrior, Rogue, Mage or cleric may be included in one or more of those archetypes.

And these are personality archetypes, first and foremost. Unless your vehicles have strong AI, that won't really apply.

so there is no archetype that constitutes everything?
Would you say that warrior rogue mage and cleric applies to everything mostly? Like you can call anything one of those archetypes. They include personality and pretty much everything lol.
Does the archetypes warrior, etc. have any applications to real life?
And what about campbell's archetypes. Weren't those literary archetypes. Like from the Odyssey.

[AquaBlade]

what do you think of these questions?
1) why do you keep separating elements into an rpg class based game. For example, in batman, I'm just talking about batman.

2) and roles is independent from archetypes right? Like what I said before about an archetype having more than one role?

3) So what other archetypes are there out there besides video games besides rogues warriors clerics and mages? Like in literature or anything?

4) so what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

5) So basically, you can make a set of roles out of everything. However, such a set of roles doesn't necessarily correspond to the traditional archetypes since for example the warrior doesn't have to be the tank. It can be dps in can be support as well. So is there a specific group of archetypes that apply to everything?

6) So you like a specific archetype right? What do you do then? Is there a certain type of video game that you play that reflects that class in mmorpgs? Do you attempt to relate the archetype you like to every other thing as well?

7) what books are there regarding class design? what else is there to read/research/learn about class-design and class system in video games?

8) Can such archetypes be applied to everything in the world?

[boj0]

You''ve asked these same questions multiple times in the same thread; so I'm doubting how much attention you're paying...

Regardless, there is no overall encompassing "archetype" standard, one person's wizard is another person's psychic. Trying to force them to fit into bite-sized blurbs takes away from individual examples.

Also, the warrior/mage/thief trinity really only applies to fantasy games, if you want to apply archetypes to everything you need several different archetypes, which of course can vary from person to person and culture to culture.

tl;dr you are trying to quantify psychological stereotypes and ideals into patterns and numbers, good luck

[AquaBlade]

You''ve asked these same questions multiple times in the same thread; so I'm doubting how much attention you're paying...

Regardless, there is no overall encompassing "archetype" standard, one person's wizard is another person's psychic. Trying to force them to fit into bite-sized blurbs takes away from individual examples.

Also, the warrior/mage/thief trinity really only applies to fantasy games, if you want to apply archetypes to everything you need several different archetypes, which of course can vary from person to person and culture to culture.

tl;dr you are trying to quantify psychological stereotypes and ideals into patterns and numbers, good luck

Well the trinity isn't always the trinity. There are many articles that employ theories from fields like economics to explain stuff. There are also expanisions to the trinity like guild wars 2 that ignores the trinity.
This is basically what I wnat to know lol:
So you like a specific archetype right? What do you do then? Is there a certain type of video game that you play that reflects that class in mmorpgs? Do you attempt to relate the archetype you like to every other thing as well?

Like me, I like the rogue and warrior archetypes. So I want to know how to relate it to stuff.

And in addition, so is there any archetype that applies to every single thing?

[boj0]

There isn't.

Full stop, no one archetype can be applied to everything, and if you like an archetype then you play it, if you want, otherwise whatever and move on.

I don't know what else to tell you, the whole thing is subjective. There is no one answer, you want snipers to be mages? Cool I want them to be rogues and other people want them to be warriors.

Archetypes are just labels for concepts, if you want to compare everything by archetype you need a solid definition of differences between classes, roles, and archetypes. They can be interchanged as well so... yeah.

[Eldan]

Well, first of all, we have to come down to the origin of the use of archetypes. I suggest that, if you really want to get into this, you start by reading Plato, Philo of Alexandria and Francis Bacon in addition to Carl Jung, that should really help you towards a deeper understanding of different categories of archetype.
Nope, I'm not even trying to be helpful anymore. From now on, I?ll just copy-paste my own answers.

[AquaBlade]

Well, first of all, we have to come down to the origin of the use of archetypes. I suggest that, if you really want to get into this, you start by reading Plato, Philo of Alexandria and Francis Bacon in addition to Carl Jung, that should really help you towards a deeper understanding of different categories of archetype.
Nope, I'm not even trying to be helpful anymore. From now on, I?ll just copy-paste my own answers.

thanks is there any other things to read about related to archetypes and class designs?
wait so like you said different archetypes relate differently. Now specifically: The engineers in guild wars 2, battlefield 3, and tf2, which archetype are each of them? Which class rogues warriors mages clerics?

[endoperez]

I tried talking with AquaBlade on the pages 9-10 of his previous thread. All his posts end in questions.

He crossposts his threads into several forums (https://www.google.com/search?q=Theory+behind+class+design+in+rpgs+and+ge neral+video+games?).

Personally, I see no need to humour him.

[AquaBlade]

so how do you definitively classify something as a rogue or a warrior?
Same thing with jung's archetypes. Howc an you definitively call anything a hero or a shadow?

Well, me liking rogues and warriors the msot out of the typica traditional archetypes. Does that indicate anything?

[AquaBlade]

would it be possible to characterize engineers if I gave a specific example? For example, the engineer in tf2, battlefield 3, and guild wars 2. Where would each fit in?
And additionally talking about unique classes, where would clsases like the merchant class in ragnarok online or the dancer class fit in? And additionally the dealer class in rose online and the trader class in lineage 2?
thanks.

[GnomeGninjas]

so how do you definitively classify something as a rogue or a warrior?

You don't definitively classify something as rogue or warrior because doing so would be pointless. Names like rogue or warrior in rpgs can describe all kinds of things and generaly what they describe is very narrow. In Game A rogue could do X and in Game B rogue could do Y. In Game C warrior can do X and Z. Each game has there one definitions of what a class name means. You could try to come up with some definitions of the class names but to make them include everything with the name rogue it would have to be so broad a definition that having a term for it would be pointless.

Rogue - An individual who: wears light armor, is sneaky, is agile, is good a fast talking there way out of situations, is attractive, is good at hitting people where it hurts, doesn't follow the law, is good at climbing, uses dishonorable ways to enforce the law, seduces people, is skilled with swords, pistles, daggers, throwing knives, sniper rifles, lightsabers, caneswords, grenades, alchemal weapons and improvised weapons, has mostly melee attacks, has mostly medium range attacks, casts illusions, is good at hacking, does not use magic, has a wide varitity of weapons.

[AquaBlade]

You don't definitively classify something as rogue or warrior because doing so would be pointless. Names like rogue or warrior in rpgs can describe all kinds of things and generaly what they describe is very narrow. In Game A rogue could do X and in Game B rogue could do Y. In Game C warrior can do X and Z. Each game has there one definitions of what a class name means. You could try to come up with some definitions of the class names but to make them include everything with the name rogue it would have to be so broad a definition that having a term for it would be pointless.

Rogue - An individual who: wears light armor, is sneaky, is agile, is good a fast talking there way out of situations, is attractive, is good at hitting people where it hurts, doesn't follow the law, is good at climbing, uses dishonorable ways to enforce the law, seduces people, is skilled with swords, pistles, daggers, throwing knives, sniper rifles, lightsabers, caneswords, grenades, alchemal weapons and improvised weapons, has mostly melee attacks, has mostly medium range attacks, casts illusions, is good at hacking, does not use magic, has a wide varitity of weapons.

so what could I do with rogues and warriors if I really like them?
and in my other thread with engineers. I was not asking what role engineers fit in. I was asking what class they fit in.
I think classifying by roles is stupid and obvious because a class can often be more than one role.

[Eldan]

so what could I do with rogues and warriors if I really like them?

Play them? Shocking and unconventional, I know. But you should give it a try.

[GnomeGninjas]

so what could I do with rogues and warriors if I really like them?
and in my other thread with engineers. I was not asking what role engineers fit in. I was asking what class they fit in.
I think classifying by roles is stupid and obvious because a class can often be more than one role.

What is your definition of class? If you don't define it by role than what do you define it by? If you define it by what the class is supposed to be than there won' be much cross over from game to game. If a mage is someone that casts spells and has a wide variety of spells then you are not going to find something with the mage class in TeamFortress.

[AquaBlade]

What is your definition of class? If you don't define it by role than what do you define it by? If you define it by what the class is supposed to be than there won' be much cross over from game to game. If a mage is someone that casts spells and has a wide variety of spells then you are not going to find something with the mage class in TeamFortress.

Classifying by role is only slightly useful because like I said any class can play any role. I've seen warriors be tanks as much as dps and even support like the guardian in guild wars 2. And rogues can be dps or dodge tanks or even utility based.
Imo, it's better to look at attributes and stats. And even more importantly the fundamentals of the class. For example, the fundamentals behind the rogue class is that it's cunning and fights unorthodox. Yeah, there won't be stealth in every game because not every game has that mechanic. However, there are a variety of ways that just depict the fact that the rogue is cunning and fights using unorthodox methods. For example, some games may have them as very agile others may use stealth others may use things like traps and debuffs or skills to interrupt the enemy. It's basically the same way to show that it's a rogue.

And the most important of all, not any one thing classifies a class. A role doesn't make a rogue a rogue. Using DEX as the primary stat doesn't make it a rogue. It's the combination of stats attributes, roles, weapons, skills, etc.
For example, the fact that a class uses the stat DEX doesn't necessarily make them a rogue/ranger. However, combine that with more things that rogue usually have such as concealable weapons, poison, etc, then it increases the probability that it's a rogue.

[GnomeGninjas]

Classifying by role is only slightly useful because like I said any class can play any role. I've seen warriors be tanks as much as dps and even support like the guardian in guild wars 2. And rogues can be dps or dodge tanks or even utility based.
Imo, it's better to look at attributes and stats. And even more importantly the fundamentals of the class. For example, the fundamentals behind the rogue class is that it's cunning and fights unorthodox. Yeah, there won't be stealth in every game because not every game has that mechanic. However, there are a variety of ways that just depict the fact that the rogue is cunning and fights using unorthodox methods. For example, some games may have them as very agile others may use stealth others may use things like traps and debuffs or skills to interrupt the enemy. It's basically the same way to show that it's a rogue.

And the most important of all, not any one thing classifies a class. A role doesn't make a rogue a rogue. Using DEX as the primary stat doesn't make it a rogue. It's the combination of stats attributes, roles, weapons, skills, etc.
For example, the fact that a class uses the stat DEX doesn't necessarily make them a rogue/ranger. However, combine that with more things that rogue usually have such as concealable weapons, poison, etc, then it increases the probability that it's a rogue.

If your can't provide a definition of class then I don't think you can try to classify everything as rogue, cleric, warrior, mage.

[AquaBlade]

If your can't provide a definition of class then I don't think you can try to classify everything as rogue, cleric, warrior, mage.

Did you read what I wrote at all....
I'm saying that the definitions are very general but specifice noguh to know the diffference between a mage and a rogue. However, it's pointless to go too indepth because each game expresses the fundamental definition of the class differently. There's a certain balance.
I would just go with these definitions:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses

[GnomeGninjas]

Did you read what I wrote at all....
I'm saying that the definitions are very general but specifice noguh to know the diffference between a mage and a rogue. However, it's pointless to go too indepth because each game expresses the fundamental definition of the class differently. There's a certain balance.
I would just go with these definitions:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses

But those definitions classify by role.
"The Fighter is the tank of a group and the most basic and broad class, usually recommended for beginners. The fighter is basically, the strong guy with heavy armor, a large melee weapon, and possibly a shield or second melee weapon"

"A Magician is usually a Glass Cannon, blasting away at long range, but easily taken down at close range"

"Rogues are usually dexterous thieves or treasure-hunters who are experts in stealth, infiltration, lockpicking, traps and the disarming thereof, sneak attacks, and attacking from the rear. In almost any game with classes, there will be that maps to the Rogue. They are often lumped in with Ranger-type characters, but more commonly specialize in melee - particularly with light blades and daggers. They tend to be quick but fragile, limited to light armor, but deal a lot of damage when allowed to do so"

"A Cleric is usually The Medic — some variation on dedicated healers. Unlike Magician-classes, the Clerics usually draw their powers from either Faith, a god, or some variation of the two"

If "the definitions are very general but specifice noguh[I assume that means enough] to know the diffference between a mage and a rogue" then what are they? TVtropes's definitions define Clerics as dedicated healers who draw power from faith or gods, that is not "general" like you said the definition of a class is. If we can disregaurd the "draw power from faith or gods" part then you are left with "dedicated healers" which is a role and therefore not part of your definition of class.

[AquaBlade]

{{scrubbed}}

[GnomeGninjas]

{{scrubbed}}

[Tebryn]

Right Aquablade. But would it be possible to characterize classes if I gave a specific example? For example, the engineer in tf2, battlefield 3, and guild wars 2. Where would each fit in?
And additionally talking about unique classes, where would clsases like the merchant class in ragnarok online or the dancer class fit in? And additionally the dealer class in rose online and the trader class in lineage 2?
thanks.

[AquaBlade]

Responses in bold.

No they aren't whatever the devs want them to be. They won't call a mage a warrior because that would confuse people. Therefore, their development does refelct what a warrior is in most games except their abilities may change due to changes in mechanics available in the game.

yes. I can compare pyro to warriors rogues mages and clerics. I can compare their attributes and roles and stats. They are primarily close-ranged, don't have particularly high hp, and focuses on ambushing. Thus, I can relate that to a rogue. Why? Like I said you look at EVERYTHING. You look at thei role. If you take EVERYTHING and most of them points towards a certain class, then the probability of that relating to that class is significantly higher. No ONE thing makes something ONE class.

[BRC]

One way to classify things could be the type of behavior encouraged by the class. Sticking with the Warrior/Rouge/Mage trio.


The Warrior: Encourages mastery of the most basic elements of play. Usually in games, anybody can use weapons, the Warrior is simply the best at doing so. We can call "Hitting things with weapons" the primary mechanic. A Warrior focuses on doing that as well as possible. special abilities they have are likely extensions on that Primary Mechanic (A hit that does more damage, or behaves differently, rather than a new mechanic).

The Rogue: The Rogue is focused on the use of the Primary Mechanic, but with less emphasis on the mechanic itself, and more emphasis on setting up the right circumstances. The Warrior hits things with a sword, the Rogue stabs things in the back. In this case, the difference is that the Rogue is more powerful, but also more situational. Rogue classes tend to be characterized by a modified version of the primary mechanic.

The Mage: Ignores the Primary Mechanic (Hitting Things With Weapons) in exchange for a secondary mechanic (Spellcasting). They CAN hit things with weapons, usually, but their focus is on some unique, secondary mechanic that calls for a drastically different playstyle.

Now, using this system, let's look at a game that does not easily fall into "Rogue, Warrior, Mage". Team Fortress Two.


The Primary Mechanic in TF2 is "Shoot The Enemy".
The Heavy, Scout, and Soldier classes are the Warriors.They have their own strengths and weaknesses, but each one primarily uses a relatively unmodified version of the Primary Mechanic. They are all about just Shooting Stuff.

The Sniper, Pyro, and Demoman are the Rogue Classes. They use a Modified Version of the primary mechanic that works much better in certain situations. The Sniper wants to stay back and line up a shot, the Pyro wants to get into close range with the enemy before shooting, and the Demoman needs to use their bombs carefully if they want to actually hit anything. They're all Shooting Stuff, but it's different from the generic Shooting Stuff that other classes do.

The Spy, Engineer, and Medic are the "Mage" classes, utilizing a secondary mechanic and requiring a drastically different playstyle. None of them really focus on "Shooting Stuff". The Medic plays a support role, watching his teammates rather than taking the fight to the enemy. The Engineer needs to focus on putting their turret in a good location and keeping it alive, while the main challenge of the Spy is to avoid detection.

Now, I classified the Spy as a Mage instead of a Rogue because, unlike many games, their stealth and disguises are not simply tools with which to set up the Primary Mechanic. The Spy is not simply a warrior who turns invisible for a few seconds so he can get behind the enemy, his goals are very different from that of the other classes. He is defined by a secondary mechanic.

Oddly enough, by this system, World of Warcraft's Mage is not, in fact, a Mage. The Primary Mechanic in World of Warcraft is 'Use Abilities to Deal Damage", a Warrior gets a few more non-ability hits in there, but is generally doing the same thing.

In fact, since most of the classes in WoW use Mana for their abilities, and since those abilities make up the primary mechanic, one could argue that the Mage is in fact a "Warrior", while the Warrior (Which uses Rage, gained in battle, rather than Mana, which is gained outside of battle) better fits the role of "Mage".

[AquaBlade]

One way to classify things could be the type of behavior encouraged by the class. Sticking with the Warrior/Rouge/Mage trio.


The Warrior: Encourages mastery of the most basic elements of play. Usually in games, anybody can use weapons, the Warrior is simply the best at doing so. We can call "Hitting things with weapons" the primary mechanic. A Warrior focuses on doing that as well as possible. special abilities they have are likely extensions on that Primary Mechanic (A hit that does more damage, or behaves differently, rather than a new mechanic).

The Rogue: The Rogue is focused on the use of the Primary Mechanic, but with less emphasis on the mechanic itself, and more emphasis on setting up the right circumstances. The Warrior hits things with a sword, the Rogue stabs things in the back. In this case, the difference is that the Rogue is more powerful, but also more situational. Rogue classes tend to be characterized by a modified version of the primary mechanic.

The Mage: Ignores the Primary Mechanic (Hitting Things With Weapons) in exchange for a secondary mechanic (Spellcasting). They CAN hit things with weapons, usually, but their focus is on some unique, secondary mechanic that calls for a drastically different playstyle.

Now, using this system, let's look at a game that does not easily fall into "Rogue, Warrior, Mage". Team Fortress Two.


The Primary Mechanic in TF2 is "Shoot The Enemy".
The Heavy, Scout, and Soldier classes are the Warriors.They have their own strengths and weaknesses, but each one primarily uses a relatively unmodified version of the Primary Mechanic. They are all about just Shooting Stuff.

The Sniper, Pyro, and Demoman are the Rogue Classes. They use a Modified Version of the primary mechanic that works much better in certain situations. The Sniper wants to stay back and line up a shot, the Pyro wants to get into close range with the enemy before shooting, and the Demoman needs to use their bombs carefully if they want to actually hit anything. They're all Shooting Stuff, but it's different from the generic Shooting Stuff that other classes do.

The Spy, Engineer, and Medic are the "Mage" classes, utilizing a secondary mechanic and requiring a drastically different playstyle. None of them really focus on "Shooting Stuff". The Medic plays a support role, watching his teammates rather than taking the fight to the enemy. The Engineer needs to focus on putting their turret in a good location and keeping it alive, while the main challenge of the Spy is to avoid detection.

Now, I classified the Spy as a Mage instead of a Rogue because, unlike many games, their stealth and disguises are not simply tools with which to set up the Primary Mechanic. The Spy is not simply a warrior who turns invisible for a few seconds so he can get behind the enemy, his goals are very different from that of the other classes. He is defined by a secondary mechanic.

Oddly enough, by this system, World of Warcraft's Mage is not, in fact, a Mage. The Primary Mechanic in World of Warcraft is 'Use Abilities to Deal Damage", a Warrior gets a few more non-ability hits in there, but is generally doing the same thing.

In fact, since most of the classes in WoW use Mana for their abilities, and since those abilities make up the primary mechanic, one could argue that the Mage is in fact a "Warrior", while the Warrior (Which uses Rage, gained in battle, rather than Mana, which is gained outside of battle) better fits the role of "Mage".

thnx. I see where you're coming from. But, I don't really agree with the second mechanic and primary mechanic thing to classify most classes. I mean, you're basically saying that whatever ignores the primary mechanic of the game is a mage. That's ONE aspect of the mage. But that doesn't necessarily make something a mage. Tbh, I definitely consider the spy a rogue. His attributes are speed, and stealth. He primarily avoids detection and is primarily utilized to scout and assassinate players and plays in an unorthodox method. I think this points towards the rogue class more.

I think the best way to classify isn't to look at only one thing in your case the mechanic relationships, but at every single thing and see where it fits in more. Don't you think so?

[Tebryn]

Right Aquablade. But would it be possible to characterize classes if I gave a specific example? For example, the medic in tf2, battlefield 3, and guild wars 2. Where would each fit in?
And additionally talking about unique classes, where would clsases like the merchant class in ragnarok online or the dancer class fit in? And additionally the dealer class in rose online and the trader class in lineage 2?
thanks.

[AquaBlade]

so where does the dn engineer fit the best? warrior rogue cleric mage?
Okay fine, basically I like the warrior and rogue classes. I just want to know whether the engineer or other unique classes is similar to the rogue and warrior calsses.

[AquaBlade]

what is magic in a cyberpunk setting.

[Tebryn]

so where does the dn engineer fit the best? warrior rogue cleric mage?
Okay fine, basically I like the warrior and rogue classes. I just want to know whether the engineer or other unique classes is similar to the rogue and warrior calsses.

Any class is anything the creator of the game wants it to be. Any class can fill the role the creators want. You need to look at each game that has a class you're interested in and do the research. What is the role each servers.

I find it odd you keep saying "I like this class. And this class." but then chide us when we mention the classes and go to roles.

So I'm going to ask you really plainly. What roles do you like?

[AquaBlade]

Any class is anything the creator of the game wants it to be. Any class can fill the role the creators want. You need to look at each game that has a class you're interested in and do the research. What is the role each servers.

I find it odd you keep saying "I like this class. And this class." but then chide us when we mention the classes and go to roles.

So I'm going to ask you really plainly. What roles do you like?

Like I said before, I don't care about roles... I like rogues and warriors regardless of what role they are. I'm talking about classes not roles. I chide because classes don't necessarily correspond to one role. I already gave examples where classes don't only have one role. Moreover, roles are useless when we start comparing non-rpg games like devil may cry and metal gear solid. We can't determine what class dante is or snake is by role because roles are merely made for party-based. They are made exclusively for parties in order to balance classes.
And before you ask me what I think those classes would be, I would say dante is a warrior snake is a rogue assuming you play metal gear solid how the devs created it to be rather than going around running and gunning.

[BRC]

So you want to discuss the Theory behind class design in RPG's, but you really just want to say "Rogues are Fast, and they stab things. I like Rogues".

[AquaBlade]

So you want to discuss the Theory behind class design in RPG's, but you really just want to say "Rogues are Fast, and they stab things. I like Rogues".

no I'm saying I like rogues and warriors and I'm interested in class design. So I want to know the overall features of classes, how they're made, everything about class design. And after I learn that I want to know more about the rogue and warrior classes. Including the specifics of them in every game. Including roles.

Just for the purpose of relating them to other classes, I'm saying that the definition of the rogues is very general.

Why do you keep bringing roles into the discussion. Do you not read when I say relating them covers everything not just roles. Why do you keep insisting that roles is that much of an important element in making something a rogue. No one element makes something a specific class. Would something be a rogue ONLY because he can stealth? Anyone even a toddler can hide behind a bush when he's playing hide and seek. It's the combination of elements that makes something what it is.

And I do agree with your previous analsysi of the trio. What I'm saying is that doesn't necessarily make a spy a mage. You have to analyze more than that. That's only ONE element that is part of a LOT of other things... What d oyou not get about what I'm saying....

My main goal is to be able to tell if something fits into the rogue/warrior category? Thus I don't really look at the definition. I look at individual characteristics. I don't really care if they use stealth or agility or tanking because they're all included into the rogue/warrior category. However, I'm just saying you can't say somethign is ar ogue just because it is stealthy, it can always be a mage if you look at other attributes.

[Tebryn]

Like I said before, I don't care about roles... I like rogues and warriors regardless of what role they are. I'm talking about classes not roles. I chide because classes don't necessarily correspond to one role. I already gave examples where classes don't only have one role. Moreover, roles are useless when we start comparing non-rpg games like devil may cry and metal gear solid. We can't determine what class dante is or snake is by role because roles are merely made for party-based. They are made exclusively for parties in order to balance classes.


Right, so you're not really saying anything at all her. Classes are useless without the roles assigned to them. You just demonstrated that by saying a Fighter could be anything and then listing the roles it could be.

Can you tell me what Fighter is without using Roles?

[BRC]

The reason we keep bringing up "Role" is because Role is a major part of Class design.
First of all, you keep bringing up characters from games with no class system and saying "He's a Rogue, he's a Warrior, He's a Mage", which may be true, if this was a "Hey, let's stat out video game characters in DnD" type thread, but it's not. It's a discussion of class theory in game design. You can call, let say, Ezio a Rogue, because he is stealthy and ambushes his targets. However, when playing Assassin's Creed, you don't have the option of being a massive armor-clad knight or a wizard or whatever. There is no class design in Assassins Creed, there is just Ezio stabbing people. You can call him a Rogue, but if you want to talk about class design in video games, he is irrelevant, because Ezio's play style isn't class Design, it's just the design of the game.

A Class exists because it is different than other classes. You choose a class because it's playstyle appeals to you more than the other classes. If there is no choice, it's not a class at all, that's just the game.

Now, as for why we keep bringing up "Role".

Most class-based games are also Party-Based. In a Party-based game, each member of the party usually plays a specific Role. For these games, the main question when designing a class is going to be "What Role is this class going to play in the party".
Let's look at, say, World of Warcraft. Usually, a Rogue plays the role of DPS. The Rogue's abilities are based off this, they can deal large amounts of damage in a quick burst, then let the Tank use their taunting abilities to get Aggro, making the Healer's job easier.

You keep saying "Look At Everything''. Well we are looking at Everything, and a big part of that "Everything" is the Role a class plays in a party, or the relation the Classes playstyle has to the primary mechanic of the game.

Now, there ARE games like, let's say, Mass Effect, where even in multiplayer every class is playing basically the same role, just with different playstyles.

The problem with just "Looking At Everything" is that doing so defies any sort of consistent theory besides "Rogues are Fast, Fighters are Strong, Wizards Use Magic". There are simply too many variables. Snake hides in a box, waiting for a guard's back to be turned so he can slip by undetected, while Infiltrator Shepard turns invisible for a few seconds so she can line up a good shot with her sniper rifle while a WoW Rogue tries to position himself behind the enemy for a backstab before engaging in a regular "Stab-Stab-Ability" routine, while a DnD Rogue checks for traps and uses his stealth to scout ahead, allowing his unstealthy party members to advance safely and prepare for what's ahead, while the Spy is focused on sapping that sentry turret that's been stopping his team from Pushing The Cart, while Ezio is just hiding in a crowd waiting for his target to approach within stabbing distance, ect ect ect.

If you're really trying to talk about the theory behind class design, then you need to be asking the question "Why do designers build certain classes the way they do", not just saying "Rogues are Fast, Warriors are Strong, Mages Use Magic".

[AquaBlade]

The reason we keep bringing up "Role" is because Role is a major part of Class design.
First of all, you keep bringing up characters from games with no class system and saying "He's a Rogue, he's a Warrior, He's a Mage", which may be true, if this was a "Hey, let's stat out video game characters in DnD" type thread, but it's not. It's a discussion of class theory in game design. You can call, let say, Ezio a Rogue, because he is stealthy and ambushes his targets. However, when playing Assassin's Creed, you don't have the option of being a massive armor-clad knight or a wizard or whatever. There is no class design in Assassins Creed, there is just Ezio stabbing people. You can call him a Rogue, but if you want to talk about class design in video games, he is irrelevant, because Ezio's play style isn't class Design, it's just the design of the game.

A Class exists because it is different than other classes. You choose a class because it's playstyle appeals to you more than the other classes. If there is no choice, it's not a class at all, that's just the game.

Now, as for why we keep bringing up "Role".

Most class-based games are also Party-Based. In a Party-based game, each member of the party usually plays a specific Role. For these games, the main question when designing a class is going to be "What Role is this class going to play in the party".
Let's look at, say, World of Warcraft. Usually, a Rogue plays the role of DPS. The Rogue's abilities are based off this, they can deal large amounts of damage in a quick burst, then let the Tank use their taunting abilities to get Aggro, making the Healer's job easier.

You keep saying "Look At Everything''. Well we are looking at Everything, and a big part of that "Everything" is the Role a class plays in a party, or the relation the Classes playstyle has to the primary mechanic of the game.

Now, there ARE games like, let's say, Mass Effect, where even in multiplayer every class is playing basically the same role, just with different playstyles.

The problem with just "Looking At Everything" is that doing so defies any sort of consistent theory besides "Rogues are Fast, Fighters are Strong, Wizards Use Magic". There are simply too many variables. Snake hides in a box, waiting for a guard's back to be turned so he can slip by undetected, while Infiltrator Shepard turns invisible for a few seconds so she can line up a good shot with her sniper rifle while a WoW Rogue tries to position himself behind the enemy for a backstab before engaging in a regular "Stab-Stab-Ability" routine, while a DnD Rogue checks for traps and uses his stealth to scout ahead, allowing his unstealthy party members to advance safely and prepare for what's ahead, while the Spy is focused on sapping that sentry turret that's been stopping his team from Pushing The Cart, while Ezio is just hiding in a crowd waiting for his target to approach within stabbing distance, ect ect ect.

If you're really trying to talk about the theory behind class design, then you need to be asking the question "Why do designers build certain classes the way they do", not just saying "Rogues are Fast, Warriors are Strong, Mages Use Magic".

I never just said that if you actually looked at the op.
Yeah well, just because you say a tank that doesn't mean every warrior is a tank. You can't denote a class ONLY by looking at the role. That's what I've been saying the whole damn time. You have to look at everything.
If you even read what I said before, I mentioned guild wars 2. They dont' even have specific roles in that game. Yet every single class feels different and has different playstyles.
What I mean by looking at everything is stats and attributes. DEX, str, stealth, they're all ways of exemplifying the class's fundamental idea. YOU CANNOT CALL A CLASSA WARRIOR BECAUSE IT"S A TANK. What do you not udnerstand about the significance of roles.

WE CAN call ezio a rogue by comparing it to to the overall structure of the rpg. because it's the closest thing to the rogue. we call harry potter a mage because if we fit him in any rpg like world of warcraft he'd be a mage.

[AquaBlade]

what you're saying is like a doctor saying oh look there's a black spot there that means it's cancer. There's too many variables so we don't have to care. We can just call it cancer because there's a black dot and that's one of many reasons.

[boj0]

Oh you
No, that is literally the opposite of what everyone is saying.
Which is funny cause you like yelling at people for using roles but then want to fit everything in a role/archetype/class

[Xondoure]

I never just said that if you actually looked at the op.
Yeah well, just because you say a tank that doesn't mean every warrior is a tank. You can't denote a class ONLY by looking at the role. That's what I've been saying the whole damn time. You have to look at everything.
If you even read what I said before, I mentioned guild wars 2. They dont' even have specific roles in that game. Yet every single class feels different and has different playstyles.
What I mean by looking at everything is stats and attributes. DEX, str, stealth, they're all ways of exemplifying the class's fundamental idea. YOU CANNOT CALL A CLASSA WARRIOR BECAUSE IT"S A TANK. What do you not udnerstand about the significance of roles.

WE CAN call ezio a rogue by comparing it to to the overall structure of the rpg. because it's the closest thing to the rogue. we call harry potter a mage because if we fit him in any rpg like world of warcraft he'd be a mage.

The names are unimportant. That's just fluff. The mechanics may sometimes be there to mirror the fluff, but ultimately the mechanics is where the design takes place. Tank, alt tank, dps, healer, crowd control, debuff, pet class (usually still dps,) others, and combinations of the above are what make up a class in most games. The why is because it's a simple and effective system for any game where the goal is to kill the enemy first.


Now, let's look at Mass Effect for example. Like it or not the different classes fill different roles. Infiltrators become essential with their ability to revive a fallen party member undisturbed, and complete mission objectives without having to clear the area entirely. Soldiers focus on packing the biggest guns they can. Sentinels are balanced with a heavy focus on defense allowing them to have all sorts of playstyles from packing the best guns, to charging like a krogan and head butting their enemies across the map. The Vanguard is a front line fighter, pulling agro from his team mates while zipping around the battlefield. Engineers use drones to distract enemies while they use abilities such as cryo blast and overload to slow down or strip enemies of shields. Adepts focus on synergy with other adepts (or by themselves) using biotic combos for massive damage.

Each has a unique play style. And ultimately it's all about how you want to play. In any game where roles are a thing, your play style is going to be focused around your role. In any game with one or more classes with teamwork, you will have a role. Even in single player games, if there's a class system, and there are differences between them, how you tackle the game will change.

[Fallbot]

Aquablade, you've been asking this and similar questions all over the internet for I don't know how long, and have yet to find an answer that satisfies you, no matter how many times you reiterate the same questions.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the problem is not with our answers, but with your questions?

(Hint: It is)

[AquaBlade]

The names are unimportant. That's just fluff. The mechanics may sometimes be there to mirror the fluff, but ultimately the mechanics is where the design takes place. Tank, alt tank, dps, healer, crowd control, debuff, pet class (usually still dps,) others, and combinations of the above are what make up a class in most games. The why is because it's a simple and effective system for any game where the goal is to kill the enemy first.


Now, let's look at Mass Effect for example. Like it or not the different classes fill different roles. Infiltrators become essential with their ability to revive a fallen party member undisturbed, and complete mission objectives without having to clear the area entirely. Soldiers focus on packing the biggest guns they can. Sentinels are balanced with a heavy focus on defense allowing them to have all sorts of playstyles from packing the best guns, to charging like a krogan and head butting their enemies across the map. The Vanguard is a front line fighter, pulling agro from his team mates while zipping around the battlefield. Engineers use drones to distract enemies while they use abilities such as cryo blast and overload to slow down or strip enemies of shields. Adepts focus on synergy with other adepts (or by themselves) using biotic combos for massive damage.

Each has a unique play style. And ultimately it's all about how you want to play. In any game where roles are a thing, your play style is going to be focused around your role. In any game with one or more classes with teamwork, you will have a role. Even in single player games, if there's a class system, and there are differences between them, how you tackle the game will change.

I know that. What I've been saying the whole damn time, is that roles do not define the class. I'm talking about the class right now. Dev's are going to keep the basis of the class in each game. They're not going to call a mage a warrior because that'd confuse people.
What I disagreee is that roles do not SOLELY define the class. THEY NEED OTHER MECHANICS like you said, like playstyle in order to show what the class is. I already gave an example as guild wars 2, where each class has a different playstyle yet they also do not have different roles. Read up the comments from the designers.
I never said the idea of roles was insignificant. All I said was taht they do not solely define the calss because every damn class can play a different role. Rogues can be dodge tanks not only dps. How many times do I have to say this.....

Moreover, fluff is sometimes necessary along with the crunch. You won't call a mage that casts spells and plays the exact same role as a rogue a rogue because it fundamentally is a mage. You need fluff to determine that.

I doubt every single person likes the warrior because they like standing there and getting hit while their teammates kill the enemy. No, clearly the warrior isn't solely a tank in every single game.

And also, if you look up articles about this, the idea of the holy trinity also has many flaws. WHich is why there are games like guild wars 2 to come up with another system where each class can solo, and yet also play a role in a party and feel differently at teh same time.

[AquaBlade]

In addition most of the classes were derived from Tolkein fantasy. Especially the theme of party and each class playing a specific role. For example, Aragorn for ranger and Bilbo for rogues.
Even then, roles don't only define the archetype. When translated into DnD, it's also the skills and attributes that define the class. That's what I'm talking about. It's not only the role, but the combination of skills and attributes that define the class.
Also this paper was an interesting read: http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/111043/role-playing-games-and-the-influence-of-j-r-r-tolkien

[Xondoure]

Classes are there mechanics. In any system with roles, the mechanics are built around the roles. That is the principle of class design.

[AquaBlade]

{Scrubbed}

[AquaBlade]

{Scrubbed}

[Xondoure]

not true. In guild wars 2 roles are obviously built around the classes. I don't understand why you insist that roles are more important than they actually are. Sure roles are important in parties and in defining what each one has to do, but each one should have a different playstyle and shouldn't be confined to doing only what they are allowed to do. There's a reason why they're hybrids and why the holy trinity is getting rewritten.
But like I said before, in order to determine the class you need stats and attributes.
In addition, tell me why a warrior can be a dps and a tank. Thus, classes are not primarily defined by roles like I've been saying for 50 ****ing times.

In addition, rangers and mages play the same role. Why should we ahve two classes then? To extend variety and not to limit the player. Roles aren't that important. It's diversification that allows the player to enjoy the game.

The trinity is just one system, but every system will have roles. Sometimes more than one yes, but they are still built with roles in mind.

[AquaBlade]

{Scrubbed}

[Xondoure]

Whoops. Didn't mean to scrub this whole thing, just the quote.

[BRC]

So classes are Skills and Attributes now? Alright, watch this.

Let's say I'm making an RPG. And I have three classes, the Rogue, the Warrior, and the Mage.

The Warrior's primary stat is Strength, Strength means more damage because he can hit harder, it also means more defense because he can wear heavier armor.
The Rouge's primary stat is Dexterity. Dexterity means More Damage because he can better aim his strikes. It also means more defense because he can dodge better.
The Mage's primary stat is Magic. Magic means more damage because it let's the mage cast more powerful spells. It also lets the mage weave more potent defensive enchantments, leading to more defense.

Stats are just numbers with labels on them.

[AquaBlade]

{Scrubbed}

[AquaBlade]

{Scrubbed}

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Thread locked.