The other day I was looking into a roleplaying game to which I'd recently seen references and was surprised to discover that, despite its having been published in 2022 and not being a fantasy game, it nevertheless made use of character classes. Of course, character classes, like hit points and experience points, to cite just two examples, are well-established elements of RPG design, owing to their having appeared in Dungeons & Dragons at the dawn of the hobby. That even a game published almost a half-century after OD&D makes use of them thus shouldn't be the least bit shocking.
The reason that I was surprised is that, for as long as I've been involved in the hobby, there have been loud complaints about character classes and their supposed deficiencies. One of the commoner complaints is that classes are too "restrictive" in some fashion. Others argue that the classes are "arbitrary" or even "unrealistic" in the way they categorize the skills and abilities of different adventuring professions/vocations. Still others say that classes are "simplistic," a relic of an earlier phase of game design before more "sophisticated" approaches had been imagined. Like training wheels on a bicycle, the hobby should abandon character classes now that it finally understands how to build a better game.
Seeing a new RPG make use of characters would seem to run counter to these long-stated complaints, not all of which are without some merit. Indeed, I have at various times been sympathetic to many of them, particularly those that focus on the limiting nature of character classes. Why shouldn't a fighter be able to learn how to pick locks or climb walls? Why shouldn't a magic-user be able to pick up a sword and fight? This is the line of thought advanced by Chaosium in its early advertisements for RuneQuest, which decried character classes as "artificial" and, on that basis, ought to be rejected in favor of "a realistic set of fantasy rules based on experience and reality rather than an arbitrarily developed abstract mathematical system."
Truth be told, I understand Chaosium's perspective well, especially of late, as my appreciation for the elegance of the design of
Basic Role-Playing has increased. As I continue to (slowly) chip away at my
Secrets of sha-Arthan setting, I'm seriously considering the abandonment of character classes altogether, opting instead for something much looser and closer to
BRP's skill-focused design, since it more closely approximates the kind of weird science fantasy that inspired sha-Arthan in the first place.
Yet, there can be no denying that character classes, whatever their putative flaws, have stood the test of time. The very simplicity that critics decry is, in fact, one of their virtues. Classes are quite helpful for newcomers, since they narrow the range of choices during character generation to a flavorful handful of easy-to-understand archetypes. In a similar way, their artificial restrictions and limitations help to ensure that every character has a delineated mechanical role. This, too, is important to newcomers, who can sometimes be overwhelmed by the freedom inherent in roleplaying games, where there is no obvious "right" answer to the referee's perennial question of "What would you like to do now?"
Now, to those who've played RPGs for years, particularly those suffering from
D&D fatigue, character classes may well seem like a played out concept that's no longer fit for purpose, one that's been superseded by a number of alternative ways to build a player character. I wouldn't dare to deny this, though I would point out that, except for a handful of exceptions –
GURPS being one of those with which I have great familiarity – most roleplaying games include some sort of mechanical frame around which a player builds his character, whether it's the prior services of
Traveller, the occupations of
Call of Cthulhu, or even the clans/tribes/traditions/etc. of White Wolf's
World of Darkness games. Some of these alternate approaches are a little more flexible than
D&D's character classes certainly, but are they
wholly different? (It's worth noting, too, that, like many other elements laid down by
D&D, many video games make use of character classes and do so for the very reasons I've outlined here.)
In the final analysis, I think it's fair to say that character classes work. They might not "make sense" according to some lines of thoughts, but they serve the purpose for which they designed, namely to make it relatively easy to generate a character and to give that character a ready-made niche within the play of the game. That's not nothing. Indeed, it's a genuinely clever bit of design that I don't think gets as much praise as it deserves.
The other day I was looking into a roleplaying game to which I'd recently seen references and was surprised to discover that, despite its having been published in 2022 and not being a fantasy game, it nevertheless made use of character classes. Of course, character classes, like hit points and experience points, to cite just two examples, are well-established elements of RPG design, owing to their having appeared in Dungeons & Dragons at the dawn of the hobby. That even a game published almost a half-century after OD&D makes use of them thus shouldn't be the least bit shocking. 
I think character classes endure because they support archetypes. Every society through the ages has relied on archetypes to tell their stories. We all know what a fighter, a thief, and a sorcerer is, whether it's a short story or an RPG. Likewise, it's highly intuitive that a sea fairing fighter is awesome at ship battles but terrible on horseback. It's when players try to game the system with their monk/sorcerer/half-dragon/tiefling frankenstein that we lose our suspension of disbelief.
ReplyDelete& I think that allows you to really set the tone. "Oh, these are the type of people here." Personally, the "in class" vs "out of class" for leveling up skills or whatever is my favourite. A clear lane to play in but the ability to, you know, fill in the corners.
DeleteRuneQuest has this a little bit, at least in the way RQ2 Cults of Prax work (this was broken for RQ3, I'm not sure how RQG is going to play out) with half price and free skills and spells, and prohibited spells. Most other classless games have much systematic guide like that.
DeleteAnd yea, many class systems have skills which allows characters to take "out of archetype" skills.
So I am currently involved in two non-D&D character class games...
ReplyDeleteBushido is MOSTLY a skill based game, but every character is a member of a character class with levels. Hit points increase with level as magical power increases (though access to more powerful spells is governed by skills). There are other level based attributes. Overall, I think this works well.
The other game is Cold Iron, but it uses class and level in an interesting way. Really each class is a broad skill. That broad skill allows increasing hit points (which IS a nice mechanic for zero to hero, eventually you can take on a dragon single handed). It limits the power of spells a caster has access to until they earn higher levels, without the problems of hyper-specialization that some more granular magic skill systems can have. The levels also provide the mechanism for increasing attributes. The way I run it, some classes also give granular skills. But the unique factor is that fighting ability is governed ONLY by the Fighter class, and at least all PCs have at least 1 level of fighter. I also use an Expertise class that grants additional skill points which allows construction of thieves, rangers, and the like. On the magic side, there is a Passive Magic class that everyone has (if you are a caster, any XP in caster skills is ALSO counted towards Passive Magic) that allows your magic saves to increase and a few other magic things. The way I have run it, there's a Magic User class and a Cleric class. Clerics have a deity or cult which indicates which spells they have access to. There is no reason specialty magic users couldn't be built in the system, either in addition to or instead of, the generalist Magic User.
Cold Iron is one of my favorite games. RuneQuest is another...
Class and level does things that skill based experience can't do, while skill based experience does things that class and level can't do. RQ sneaks in a BIT of class and level stuff with Lay Member, Initiate, Rune Lord, Rune Priest and ways different cults work.
In a more D&D-like game, it can really help some kinds of game experiences to have characters forced into one of several archetypes. Pick and choose skills and abilities creates a very different game experience than archetypes.
What I like about a class or an archetype is the ability to make logical inferences about the world. "Oh are you a cleric or paladin? Then sure, they welcome you into the cathedral." "Of course the wizard is welcome in the Great Library." "Sure, you know the gangs that run the Thieves' Guild in this town."
ReplyDeleteI want my players (and myself, when I play) to have to make meaningful choices. the skill structure of BRP works, because we limit how many points you start with. classes work because you pick your class, and there you do, you have this list of skills. Letting players just do what-have-you not just leads to Min-Maxing issues, and power gaming, but frankly, gives the players too many choices, when they should be focused on the story they are participating in, not "winning" their build.
ReplyDeleteI love the classic Basic D&D set of 4 character classes. The simplicity appeals hugely, and you instantly know who your character is and what he does, all in one word. For a pick-up-and-play game, it doesn't get better.
ReplyDeleteThe other hand involves going too complex with classes, and later variants of D&D fell into that trap. For me there are only two viable options - keep them few and simple, or go entirely classless.
The big dirty secret of early RQ was, of course, that the Cults were classes in disguise.
I agree with this. I have pushed my players to go back to the core four (or even three). you want to play a ranger? do it. that is roleplaying, a fighter in the woods? a thief in the tundra? no new powers, just how you describe yourself.
DeleteClasses actually serve a solid mechanical function in latter D&D editions -- 4e especially -- in that they keep you from wasting time on non-decisions.
ReplyDeleteFor example, 3rd edition had a very well-documented RuneQuest envy, which is one of the reasons for the move away from non-weapon proficiencies toward a skill system. You know what the best way to choose between the 40-odd skills they had? Don't look at skills that aren't on your class list, because they cost double, and it's inefficient. Stick to the skills on your class list, because you're the only/best one to do some of them for your team. Focus on skills that benefit from your strongest ability score, because that gives you the best chance of success. Max out your investment in each of those skills.
So instead of a free-wheeling system of dabbling and a quirky hobbies, the best way to play was e.g. Clerics should do WIS things like Spot and Sense Motive, and those skills should always be your maximum (level + 3.)... but we're not going to come out and just _tell_ you that. It was no surprise then that the 4e you don't even choose skills or how to raised them: your rank in a skill is always simply either your level or half your level. It was a bit dull, but at least it was honest labeling.
In a 1981 issue of Sorcerer's Apprentice magazine, Tunnels & Trolls creator Ken St. Andre had some interesting things to say about character classes: "One of the most common comments I hear about T&T is that there aren't enough different kinds of characters — not enough variety among the classes. I always try to explain that players can create as much variety as they wish, and what other systems such as D&D call 'character types' we would consider to be merely 'occupations.' Warriors can be thieves, traders, and blacksmiths all at the same time if they want to. My northern barbarian can also be a first class wizard.... In T&T, character types are defined by their ability to deal with magic, which is considered to be a natural psionic power of certain individuals."
ReplyDeleteSt. Andre then goes on the summarize the four T&T classes of Warrior (no magical ability), Wizard (magical ability), Rogue (magical ability but no training on how to use it), and Warrior-Wizard (some magical ability).
This approach makes sense to me, and seems applicable to both White Box-era and B/X D&D. I think once Rangers, Illusionists, Assassins, etc. were introduced, the floodgates were opened to a never-ending assortment of new, sometimes questionable classes.
Character classes aren't just functional, they're fun. They point the player squarely at the different ways you can engage with the game. "Tried fighting? How about magic-use next, or thievery! Hey, have you considered hobbiting next time?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps you don't want to say but I'm gonna ask anyway. What game was this?
ReplyDeleteIt's worth noting that GURPS has adopted a variation of the idea of character classes, at least after a fashion. Templates are structures that give an almost-completed character built to an archetype or stereotype, with a little room for modification and variation. They sort of point out that a "character" in GURPS is more or less a character class in itself, since attributes serve a different function in GURPS than they do in D&D. The primary difference, then, is that D&D and other class-based games tend toward a linear and fixed progression, with perhaps some slight variations allowed depending on the specific rules (Rolemaster and WotC editions of D&D exemplify ways of providing that variability within the structure of "classes", at the expense of ongoing complexity in character maintenance), while GURPS and similar games have a wide-open progression.
ReplyDeleteThe Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game, aka DFRPG, which is built on the GURPS rules, goes even further in this direction (as befits its function and intent as an adaptation of D&D-style tropes), by providing "power-ups" that are only available to characters with certain starting templates.
Love the RQ ad. For me it's really the enduring appeal of RuneQuest.
ReplyDeleteInteresting read, especially as someone with a love/hate relationship with Character Classes.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I just largely dislike them as a general idea but even Star Trek and Traveller have Departments, Positions, Careers, etc. I think I'd like them more if they truly felt unique or special and/or if the games that use them also included general abilities and skills every PCs has because they all share the common class of 'Adventurer' in addition to their niche specialty. .
The basic objection to character classes in the early days of roleplaying was that many people wanted to emulate characters from fantasy fiction who did fall into class-based pigeonholes.
ReplyDeleteFor that you could either create an ever-larger number of house ruled or official classes with all the play balance and complexity issues involved, or you could get rid of classes, or you could get rid of the idea that your game was intended to emulate fantasy fiction.
D&D gradually moved from "this is a game that emulates fantasy literature" to "D&D is it's own (set of) worlds". This is what classes are good for: setting parameters for a specific world. T
"This is what classes are good for: setting parameters for a specific world."
DeleteTotally agree. Take a game like Gangbusters. You tell a new player they can be a cop, an FBI agent, a reporter or a criminal, and right away they know what this game is about and what they're supposed to do.