Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 01-08-2004, 09:41 AM

The important thing to keep in mind is that it's not as black and white as "class-based" and "classless" - there is plenty of middle ground. On one extreme you've got the full-on cookie-cutter class system, whereby everyone picks a class which completely defines their present and future abilities. At the other extreme, you've got the classless system whereby everyone is exactly the same, which ends up being more like a single-class mud. But I think most people would agree that the preferable solution lies somewhere in between.

There are plenty of pen&paper roleplaying games which take the extremes - with RPGs like D&D at one end, and ones like RuneQuest at the other - so I don't think you can realistically draw any direct connection between the quality of roleplaying and the type of class system used.

But what I find more interesting are the RPG systems which take a middle ground. The Rolemaster system, for example, provides an interesting take - hundreds of classes, each of which can learn any skill, but at varying costs. Thus (for example) a wizard could become deadly with a sword, but would pay several times what a warrior would. Equally a barbarian could learn spells, but at such an extreme cost it generally just wouldn't be worthwhile (except for perhaps a little dabbling on the side). This allows players to customise as much as they like, but tends to pushes each character in a certain direction.

Another system that I find quite interesting is that used by Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, in which players can change profession as often as they wish - as long as they have the appropriate requirements. Anyone can become a wizard, but they'll have to spend time as an apprentice first, and learn all the skills needed.

Then you've got systems like Talislanta, whereby anyone can learn anything they like, but which your chosen archtype defines your initial skillset - ie, what you've learned up until the point you begin play. As it's so time consuming to learn entirely new skillsets, it's really just not worthwhile for people to completely change their style of character.

Of course there are also some systems in which "class" doesn't mean "profession", and in which such classification becomes important. In World of Darkness muds you're going to want things like vampires and werewolves, and these creatures should have clearly separated powers. That doesn't mean that every werewolf has to be the same, but equally it doesn't make much sense if they can potentially learn how to transform into a bat.

01-08-2004, 09:41 AM	#63
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	The important thing to keep in mind is that it's not as black and white as "class-based" and "classless" - there is plenty of middle ground. On one extreme you've got the full-on cookie-cutter class system, whereby everyone picks a class which completely defines their present and future abilities. At the other extreme, you've got the classless system whereby everyone is exactly the same, which ends up being more like a single-class mud. But I think most people would agree that the preferable solution lies somewhere in between. There are plenty of pen&paper roleplaying games which take the extremes - with RPGs like D&D at one end, and ones like RuneQuest at the other - so I don't think you can realistically draw any direct connection between the quality of roleplaying and the type of class system used. But what I find more interesting are the RPG systems which take a middle ground. The Rolemaster system, for example, provides an interesting take - hundreds of classes, each of which can learn any skill, but at varying costs. Thus (for example) a wizard could become deadly with a sword, but would pay several times what a warrior would. Equally a barbarian could learn spells, but at such an extreme cost it generally just wouldn't be worthwhile (except for perhaps a little dabbling on the side). This allows players to customise as much as they like, but tends to pushes each character in a certain direction. Another system that I find quite interesting is that used by Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, in which players can change profession as often as they wish - as long as they have the appropriate requirements. Anyone can become a wizard, but they'll have to spend time as an apprentice first, and learn all the skills needed. Then you've got systems like Talislanta, whereby anyone can learn anything they like, but which your chosen archtype defines your initial skillset - ie, what you've learned up until the point you begin play. As it's so time consuming to learn entirely new skillsets, it's really just not worthwhile for people to completely change their style of character. Of course there are also some systems in which "class" doesn't mean "profession", and in which such classification becomes important. In World of Darkness muds you're going to want things like vampires and werewolves, and these creatures should have clearly separated powers. That doesn't mean that every werewolf has to be the same, but equally it doesn't make much sense if they can potentially learn how to transform into a bat.