Why RPG Class Systems Are Still Relevant Today

This video covers an article on RPG game design that piqued my interest. It discusses character classes, and why I believe that they are in fact, not outdated!

The article went on to mention that the number one most outdated RPG mechanic in video games was character classes and goes on to list Skyrim as an example,

[MalacayHooves]

In Skyrim you can choose from any of these greate classes: stealth archer, stealth archer, or ... stealth archer.

[smuggrog]

Personally, I have always preferred class systems that are more like backgrounds or archetypes that act as a starting point for your character. The class might give you a bonus to certain skills and few abilities out the gate but it doesn't restrict you from taken skills/abilities from other archetypes as you level up your character. Honestly the main reason why I enjoy classes in rpg is from more of a role playing perspective then a mechanic perspective, tbh. I just like to be able to give my characters a past in the world and having a bonus to skills and abilities that reflect that past. It just a cool feeling when my barbarian is skilled with greataxes, light armor, survival skills, and has a rage ability at level 1.

[thorinpeterson]

Someone saying that a game mechanic is "outdated" is definitely not a designer.

Frankly, classes are useful for preventing homogenization between playthroughs. The Skyrim meme that everyone ends up playing as a stealthy archer is great evidence to support this. Classes should not be seen as blocking off certain abilities, but instead granting access to exclusive abilities and gameplay functions.

In tabletop RPGs a well designed class offers the player an ability or mechanic that is unique and only accessible by being the class in question. In videogames the same principle holds. In World of Warcraft the Mage, Warlock and Priest classes are superficially similar, they wear cloth and cast magic, but each have special utilities that make them excel at something different. Warlocks can summon other players around the world, Mages can conjure food and water, and Priests can cast healing magic.

If you remove classes you will find that every single character becomes a pile of the best stuff, every time. The homogenization is taken to the extreme via players natural inclination to optimize.

Any system that does not allow the player to acquire every skill and ability has a class system anyway, it's just hidden from the player.

[a_guy_in_orange]

Throughout this video I was shouting min maxing at the screen, because that's whats happening: as a player we go into Skyrim thinking "I want to play a wizard" and so you focus down all the stuff that can max magic and dump physical. So why does literally everyone end up a stealth archer? It universally works and you can build your character into without even trying or meaning to- it's second nature to snatch and horde anything with a weight of 0, meaning you will have just SO many arrows and after that all you need is a random bow and BAM stealth archer, sure you CAN put points into stealthing or bow damage but like. . .you don't need to? Where as with magic or swords you NEED to pump magika or stamina but you can feasibly play stealth archer with 0 investment making it free to play even when min maxing for another "class"

[tallymanz]

Honestly, I'm kind of confused that people really think the class systems in rpgs are outdated and need to be done away with. There's a few open ended "whatever skills you want" type games that I've liked and thought were better for it, but I've also seen plenty that try to use that as a back of the box feature and fall flat with it.

Creating a character that can specc into anything can be fun in a shallow sandbox game like skyrim where character and world interactions and combat are brief and low detail, but for something deeper I'd like for something like a rogue to play differently from a mage and have mechanics that play into itself rather than having to share its toys with the mage and either have a completely insular set of mechanics that you wouldn't either bother speccing in at all unless you were going full rogue, or something that's shaved down and feel more like an add on you throw onto another class template.
That's not even talking about the narrative, where there would absolutely be a big difference between a guy who has daggers and lockpicks as opposed to someone who throws fireballs. Part of the fun of dragon age for me had always been looking at the mage and templar conflict from an outsider and mercenary perspective, that would be completely shot to hell if the game just treated my character the same as a mage.

[rhett]

I am in favour of both and it depends on the type of game that is being made.

Although I will note that I am actually a little biased towards locked specific classes, things like warrior/thief/mage actually incentivise me to get creative on how best to roleplay/optimise this specific class without becoming a Jack of all trades.

What’s interesting is the full quote “Jack of all trades, master of none, better that than a master of one.” Might lead you to believe that it would be better if we gave the player the option of JoaT, but here’s the thing, being incredibly powerful is also incredibly boring. Being a master of one, means you have to plan around your well defined skill set in order to tackle any problem.

[gameraven]

A much better example than Skyrim would be Divinity: Original Sin 2. I think that does the classless thing very well and is the direction that we should look toward. It still has "classes" at the beginning to determine your starting weapon and some suggested skills, along with being your ability choices for any followers you pick up. You can, however, on custom characters, fully optimize and change these to fit your playstyle. Even on the followers you recruit, you gain the option to alter their starting stats once you reach Act 2. D:OS2 is one of my favorite games because of that freedom.

For tabletop games up this same alley, look to World of Darkness. I think more systems should resort to a more freeform system like that. Have abilities that you can mix and match that aren't locked behind a class. In D&D, for instance, I don't want to have to dip 6 levels into way of shadow monk to get shadow step. It's a cool ability that could work very well for certain character ideas I have, but you've gotta homebrew and work with your DM to get that if you're not a monk. Some of the characters I have that I WANT to have a shadow-step like ability, it would not make sense for them to be a monk. A classless system solves this lack of freedom.

I can't say Skyrim was the best example they could have used, but I definitely agree with their sentiment. Classes are just predefined suites of abilities. Those abilities should not be locked from level one. I think classes are fine to have as guidelines, but a system should be built with customization in mind. Have a freeform system of abilities and feats, like D:OS2, but then have some "classes" that are just a "hey, here's some abilities that when paired together, create that typical RPG class you have in mind."

[the_markoman]

One important thing to point out is that Skyrim is a SINGLE player game. Whereas DnD is a CO-OP game. Skyrim's system works because you need to be able to take care of yourself in a big world of adventure, so removing classes for more access to flexible builds makes sense. In DnD you're working together with a group, and if you had the same flexibility here then there's a good chance you'll end up with players making very similar builds, since they no longer require the support of other players to make up for the down-sides of their class, they can just train whatever skills they're lacking in as if it was a single player game.

[zappodude]

Here's one way you could mitigate the problem: restrict the number of weapons/spells/perks the player can equip at any one time. Rather than being able to pause the game, open the inventory, and pull out the perfect tool for any situation, the player would be restricted to a loadout they've built beforehand. They could still unlock every option in one playthrough, but would be quite limited in their options during a single fight or adventure. They would have to prioritize specific perks they like and pick ones that have good synergy with each other. Combinations that make the game too easy can be eliminated by making those weapons take up the same slot. Limiting the player's opportunities to change loadouts would be important too - maybe restrict it to their house/camp/base/what have you.

I think a system like this would allow players to come up with their own "classes", while ensuring that every combo has weaknesses.

[justsomedude]

Classes, or builds give games better replay value because there's just some things you cant do, in Skyrim you can top all skills and become leader of all the guilds (in most cases without even having to use skills associated with those guilds) in one playyhrough, I replay every other ES game (yes even arena) but in Skyrim it feels like ive already done everything

[kolardgreene]

This goes back to one of the core appeals of RPGs: not just choice, but meaningful choice. A system that provides at least some direction to your player is usually better than a system that provides no direction because it allows the designers and players to engage in more meaningful experiences. I applaud Bethesda for trying to revolutionize their systems as the years go by, but there's a good middle ground in there somewhere (many people would say Morrowind or Oblivion).

[leoricsfall]

Great explanation mate, it's always nice to have some guidance and a starting point instead of spending hours trying to figure out what to do or lose a lot of time as you make irreversible decisions.

[battlemode]

D&D was supposed to be a social game: by picking classes you were locked into a playstyle meaning you had to work together as a team to overcome problems. Today's kids want it all, want it now and won't have any limitations, even if those limitations create fun game experiences.

[hopefulhyena]

There are games, mostly ttrpgs as far as I've seen but I'm not the biggest gamer, who have a classless base game, but provide "example paths" for people who like class systems. I also like it when a class-based game has a "create a class" system. Because you still get an extreme freedom of choice, but you also can always stay true to your concept and not always gravitate towards the same playstyle over and over again like with what famously happens to new skyrim players with the stealth archer. You don't have to worry about becoming a stealth archer if your created custom class never gets any significant bonuses to archery.

[EQOAnostalgia]

I'm oldschool... also getting old lol, if a game is open ended without a class system i don't enjoy it as much. I like having a reason to re-roll a new class and go through the game again or different combinations with party members etc... etc... it was A LOT of the replay value back in the day and... it just doesn't wash off i guess lol idk.

In EverQuest Online Adventures in particular the sense of class accomplishment and uniqueness was palpable. You KNEW you filled a role and were needed in some regard at all times.

At the end of the day i want a reason to go there, and back again... AGAIN!

[Rod_Silva]

A game, by its definition, is an intellectual activity where at least 2 outcomes are possible "Win or Lose" where chance plays an important role to make the player think what will be their strategy in any situation.
Having said that, multiclassing can be more interesting and all, but when you have the freedom to max out every stat is like playing chess with all Queens as your pieces against regular pieces.
Not having limitations imposed by the classes takes out the element of chance/surprise because you'll be prepared for everything, therefore you won't need to create a strategy or even think, making it less of a game imo.

[Kummitusvlur]

In all honesty the only TES game where premade classes mattered was Arena. Daggerfall gave it the killing blow by introducing both the Custom Class and the early form of skill advancement. In Morrowind and Oblivion the premades were meaningless as they hampered the player's advancement, while custom classes were a massive powergaming tool. And you could max up everything in both games (it was just rather annoying in Morrowind).
I think it will ultimately depend on the type of game. In MMOs and single player RPGs where you control a party, classes have their place. Every character in the party has a specific role. In single player open world character where it's the player on it's own I think a hard class system is a no. Give me archetypes, starting presets and ways and reasons to specialize on a specific archetype in a class-less or class-lite system, but don't beat me over with a ward stick for an uninformed choice at the start of the game.
And ultimately here is the thing. "Hard Classes" should go and be replaced by specialize towards specific archetype. Give the player the chance to figure out what interests them in the game and feels fun and let them go towards. It's more organic, more immersive and interesting and leaves open the possibility to still alter the path if the playtstyle doesn't feel entirely right or perhaps some kind of RP opportunity comes up. The problem with older games was that they almost always expected you to know from the start what you are going to do, which when it worked you was nice, but when it didn't and you had to restart the game...

[Vulcanfaux]

I guess it kinda depends on the type of rpg you talk about, games like skyrim where you only make and play as a single character I see flexibility to be nice, let's you focus in one area if you like or multiple if you prefer. But in rpg's where you go in with a party of characters, I think having more rigged class structures are better, let's you more easily figure out what character is going to tank all the hits and which class is gunna be doing all the healing. Sub classing can allow a limited amount of flexibility, but I still feel that in those types of rpg you will end up subclasses to either cover a classes weak point or to strengthen what they are good at. An assassin is usually already really fast and great at dealing critical hits with daggers, subclassing them as an archer usually just means they can still move very fast and deal lots of crits, but now they can also do it at range. Meanwhile giving a tank class a mage subclass doesn't really help them much, as they normally have low mp and intelligence to begin with.

[caligulawellington]

Classes are an essential part of the role playing experience. You play the role of someone. And that special someone is the character in the game. Considering how many builds are out there for Skyrim only shows that a lot of people have a NEED for it. A protagonist with both strengths and weaknesses is a lot more interesting that a protagonist who's good at everything (known as a Mary Sue). And there's even a meme on how people try to play different characters in Skyrim, but always end up as a sneak archer due to game mechanics and how the game is balanced. And there are also mods available to add classes, but only as starting stat bonuses.

In earlier elder scrolls games you had to pick a class, but you could still spend time and money on levelling up skills that doesn't belong to your class. So you could still play as a mage who is good at using a bow, but it takes more practice and your bow skill does not affect your levelling progress. I do hope classes are re-introduced to elder scrolls 6.

[allenyates]

They aren't outdated. It's just an option. I prefer not to use classes but my players really like them. My home brew system uses classes instead of ability scores. It's actually worked out incredibly well.