# Three Traits of a Good Class



## delericho (Sep 12, 2013)

Not bad, but I think I would go with:

- It does something distinct.

If your class can be built using another class built a specific way... then what you have is a build, not a class.

- It does something well.

This is something that comes out of that "tiers" discussion for 3e that I dislike so much. Basically, the class needs to be able to do what it says on the tin, do it properly, and not tread (too much) on the toes of another class. If your Blackhand Assassin isn't any good at, well, assassinating people, then it's not worth bothering with.

- It needs to be customisable enough.

In a class-based system, your class is probably the single biggest building block in the construction of your character, but it is still only _one_ building block. If all Blackhand Assassins look exactly the same, most likely you've done something wrong. There should be some scope for customising the character beyond that. (And probably more than just "pick a few feats", as was the case with too many D&D 3e classes, such as the Paladin or Rogue.)

But at the same time, you don't want _too_ many options, both because that introduces extra complexity, and also because there are some things that should be core to the class and not up for removal - the Wizard's ability to cast spells, the Assassin's ability to assassinate, and so on. Some sort of middle ground is probably in order.


----------



## ToddBS (Sep 12, 2013)

Super Genius Games has a series of "Talented" classes for Pathfinder, like "The Talented Fighter". They start with a basic layout, fighters get d10, full BAB progression, etc. But the class abilities are all a la carte, and chosen from an extensive list of "talents". This is done by the player to customize their particular _character_, but I don't see why the GM couldn't use the entire spectrum of all class abilities to design _classes_. Paizo has done something similar in at least one adventure path with the Chevalier prestige class, which bestows a handful of great abilities and creates a campaign-specific, happy-go-lucky cavalier-esque character without the mount (despite the word chevalier referring specifically to the mount), but it only lasts 3 levels. After that, the character can return to being a fighter, rogue, bard, whatever but still be quite obviously a character of that particular campaign.


----------



## 1of3 (Sep 12, 2013)

With a class model like that classes become meaningless. You could take a point buy modell or free traits. It makes sense, if you turn it around: Make a character, then tell us which organisation teaches this specific combination of tricks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 12, 2013)

1of3 said:


> With a class model like that classes become meaningless. You could take a point buy modell or free traits. It makes sense, if you turn it around: Make a character, then tell us which organisation teaches this specific combination of tricks.




I think this gets into some interesting questions of cognitive dissonance.

Why is a class meaningless in this system, but in, say, the 4e monster system, monsters aren't meaningless? Or in the 4e powers system, powers aren't meaningless? What is the essential conveyer of "meaning" here?

I think it's possible to switch it around and remove classes entirely, too, but the authority to make classes is here given to the DMs for a specific reason: because they are usually the ones who determine the setting and structure and thus the relevant conflicts and possibility for heroes (though it can be done the other way around). If the Blackhand Assassins are going to be useful or not is largely up to the kind of enemies and adversaries the DM supplies: dungeon crawl games aren't going to use them, intrigue-laden games might. 

The ability to decompose this to its base elements is, in my mind, kind of a strength: it allows DMs to roll their own easily. 

But at any rate, I think the interesting question here becomes: what does it take for a class to have "meaning"? Certainly in the fiction of the game, and in the mechanics they possess, a Blackhand Assassin and a Crystal Seer are distinct...what are they lacking?


----------



## Kingreaper (Sep 12, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But at any rate, I think the interesting question here becomes: what does it take for a class to have "meaning"? Certainly in the fiction of the game, and in the mechanics they possess, a Blackhand Assassin and a Crystal Seer are distinct...what are they lacking?



If classes are to be at all significant you need to be picking a class, and getting mechanics based on that class.

"Building your own class" is just a flexible, non-class-based system with "and now call it a class" tacked on the end.


----------



## 1of3 (Sep 12, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why is a class meaningless in this system, but in, say, the 4e monster system, monsters aren't meaningless? Or in the 4e powers system, powers aren't meaningless? What is the essential conveyer of "meaning" here?




Class is a short key for the type of character. If you would ask "What's that again?", there are too many.




> The ability to decompose this to its base elements is, in my mind, kind of a strength: it allows DMs to roll their own easily.




I do not consider the GM to be so central for the campaign set-up. If the world belongs to the GM, the chars belong to the players. Otherwise both is shared by everyone.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 12, 2013)

Specific I find a truly horrible goal unless you are intending to write a very focussed game. To take one of my favourite games at the moment, _Monster of the Week_, the classes include things like the Luchador - a former masked Mexican wrestler who is now, for whatever reason, hunting monsters. But Monster of the Week is a highly specific game about people trying to stop ... a monster of the week. You're all trying to do the same thing - and if you want to run another type of game play another game. And specific leads to another question - classes are normally exclusionary. Let's say you want to play an assassin who's _Fearless_ and will assassinate a dragon but doesn't want to be seen and in fact specialises in _Melting Into The Crowd. _Do you need to invent a class for this? Or do you just take abilities from the two classes - in which case you don't have a class system at all, but a point buy system that offers packages? (In MotW you can take a limited number of advances from other playbooks so the Luchador might have a couple of moves borrowed from the Chosen by the end).

Specific works, in my experience, not as classes but as packages within classes. Instead of the Grey Blade, the Guttersnipe, and the Thrilling Acrobat you have one Rogue class that can be made mix and match. But if someone wants to lock down their choices into one of the archetypes they get a package deal bonus (in part to make up for the drop in power from not being able to pick the best). Or it works in a game where everyone is assumed to be a rogue (or monster hunter or teenage monster or whatever) and the purpose of the classes is to differentiate within that specific category. 

Efficient works. It, however, needs the right sort of game to support it. The classes for most of the Apocalypse World family (Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, Monster of the Week) fit onto a double side - and so do the non-casters in Dungeon World (my current wizard doesn't because his entire theoretical spellbook is on his character sheet and he just ticks the ones he has). And Dungeon World is a great game - if you're interested in efficient class design look to that family of games for inspiration.

Translatable is nothing more than another way of saying "Constrained point buy". It's useful for development purposes but doesn't reach to the heart of anything.

So what should classes be in my opinion?

*Bold*
*Inspiring/Inspired*
*Flexible*

*Bold*. A class should be bold. It should do impressive things. If a class doesn't have abilities, probably right from level one, that lead to a significant proportion of the table saying "I wish my character could do that" then it fails. Mostly because if the abilities are forgettable then the player in question is going to forget them, which means they will take much longer and be much more frustrated playing them. (This is one of the core 4e failings - the various attack powers for PHB classes are too simmilar so people forget which different ones they have). The biggest issue with this design is to make sure that people wish they could do that not they think they ought to be able to.

*Inspiring/Inspired *There are two measures of a class's inspiration, and both are important - but to be good a class needs only one. *Inspired* classes are normally generic (like fighters, wizards, and rogues) are for when people come to the game with a clear character concept independent of the system already in mind and it fits the game's tone and power level they should be able to make something pretty close using the classes presented to them without much trouble. _*Inspiring*_ classes on the other hand are much more specific and should lead to the reaction "That's a cool concept. I want to play one of those." (For me the Luchador I mentioned fits - as does the Malediction Invoker in 4e; a cleric with a shard of their deity's power and who hurts themselvs using it). Others have different takes - and every inspired class should have a number of inspiring options of course.

*Flexible*. I don't care how good a designer you are. My vision is not going to match exactly up to yours and I need ways to tweak your vision to better match up to mine. Options are necessary; we've all used pregens at some point or other - would you want to use one for campaign play? I wouldn't - especially not without the ability to guide how my character grows.

I'm now going to say that your Seer of the Crystal Dragon is an awful class. It consists of nine abilities, one of which is purely reactive, and of the other eight abilities all are usable only once per day - with three being coincidental. This isn't bold. And the ability to do a little occasionally isn't something I find inspiring (it certainly isn't an inspired class). And at level 8 you automatically get a dragon scale? Wait, what?

I'm going to offer the seeds of an alternative.

*Seer of Wind and Stars*

(Because honestly? The Crystal Dragon is far too specific - if you want to connect a seer of wind and stars to the Crystal Dragon, be my guest).

Seers of Wind and Stars live partly in the now, and partly predicting the future. Able to see the future in the heavens, and to predict the lives of others, most Seers of Wind and Stars are employed either by farmers or by merchants to predict, and even control the weather. Surprisingly few are employed by gambling syndicates because their death becomes predictable and very unpleasant. And you always know the weather.

_Basic Ability_
Determine Fortune (Three times per short rest you can hand out _Advantage_ by predicting auspicious moments)
or
Alter Fortune (Once per extended rest you can change a dice to a natural 20 or a natural 1 after it has been rolled)

_Combat Ability
_Starlight Conjuration. (Sacred Flame at will)
or 
Biting Wind. (Lesser Wind Blast at will)
or
Prescience (All attacks you make are made with _advantage_ - but you only start with proficiency in rogue weapons)
or 
Avoid Doom (All attacks against you are made with _disadvantage_ - just a pity you start with very little armour proficiency (either none or leather) so this is useful but requires investment)

_Advanced abilities (pick one per level - aimed at a 5 level class - may also pick basic abilities)_
Truly Perfect Preparation: If you have half an hour to plan and the ability to throw a horroscope advantage on all rolls by your party to set an ambush and for the first three rounds in an ambush. Note that this cancels and is cancelled by Never Off Guard
Never off guard: Neither you nor your party is ever surprised in combat, and gain advantage on checks to see through bluffs whenever someone promises you something they shouldn't.
Cold Reading: Gain Advantage on the second and subsequent charisma checks you make against any given mark.
Just stand right _there_: Ranged attack of some sort with a recharge mechanic - most of the damage done is "coincidence" that in the right game can be anything up to and including a surprise anvil or grand piano drop (although generally not so silly)
Suggestion: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Clairvoyance: If the Seer does nothing else in the turn they can move their perceptions.
Starlight Nova: Something like Prism
Entrancing Aurora: Hypnotic Pattern
Strand of Starlight: A cutting laser.
Fortune on the Wind:  The winds bring you something useful
Comforting Wind: Short distance flight.
Thunderstorm:  Call Lightning
Northwind: If it ain't broke...

It's all thematically consistent, but out of it I can build an awful lot of different approaches to th world.  And can be used for anything from an utterly coincidental precog who can predict the weather to a thematic gish of several sorts.  It's deliberately set up so there are three pure concepts under the same banner (the coincidental precog, the starlight scryer, and the weather mage) - but can drift into a lot of territories depending on how people want their scryer to specialise - combat focus that picks up armour proficiency gets impressively well defended, or two handed weapons hit hard.  And there are probably broad concepts I haven't seen there.  Still fits onto one page.


----------



## n00bdragon (Sep 13, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think this gets into some interesting questions of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Why is a class meaningless in this system, but in, say, the 4e monster system, monsters aren't meaningless? Or in the 4e powers system, powers aren't meaningless? What is the essential conveyer of "meaning" here?




Monsters ARE essentially meaningless in 4e. There is no reason that a Goblin Hex Hurler (MV p155) has 46 hit points aside from the fact that it is a level 3 controller with 14 constitution. Every other level 3 controller with 14 constitution has the exact same HP. It has nothing to do with the monster being a small natural humanoid much less a goblin or a "hex hurler" whatever that is. Particularly since fresh monster creation is almost as easy as looking up an appropriate monster for an experienced DM the monsters found in printed material are little more than suggestions. Most modern RPGs share this philosophy because it makes modifying monsters or homebrewing your own much easier, most just don't make it so simple you can do it on the fly.

Meaning is given with how you put those building blocks together. If you wanted to make a class that shoots fire at people you can certainly just give it abilities that deal a nebulous quantifier of "damage" to people, perhaps with an attribute to the damage so that rings of fire protection help against it but if you really want to evoke that feeling of fire you should make it behave like fire. Make it deal ongoing damage or light up flammable terrain. On the flip side if you start trying to figure out a proper "point cost" for parts of abilities like setting something on fire you end up playing Mutants and Masterminds which is an unholy cluster**** of unbalance.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 13, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think this gets into some interesting questions of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Why is a class meaningless in this system, but in, say, the 4e monster system, monsters aren't meaningless?




Because monsters are a tangible thing within the game world.  "That is a large red dragon."  "That is a goblin hex-hurler."  Not a meaningless statement.

On the other hand "That is a level 13 elite brute" would receive blank incomprehension within the setting - not one of those words would be understood by someone in the setting as having their metagame meaning.  This is because the 4e monster design system is ultimately a very tight set of benchmarks for freeform monster design.



> Or in the 4e powers system, powers aren't meaningless?




The spells are directly meaningful.  The martial powers are generally abstractions of approaches and opportunities.



> What is the essential conveyer of "meaning" here?




Would someone within the setting have a clue what you were talking about?



> I think it's possible to switch it around and remove classes entirely, too,




As most popular RPGs that were created from scratch since Traveller (1977) have done.  Classes have advantages and disadvantages.  Although White Wolf sort of added them back.



> The ability to decompose this to its base elements is, in my mind, kind of a strength: it allows DMs to roll their own easily.




If classes are that easy to make, unless you have a collection of bold abilities making up a class (as the Apocalypse World family does) ultimately you've a packaged point-buy system rather than a class based one.



> But at any rate, I think the interesting question here becomes: what does it take for a class to have "meaning"? Certainly in the fiction of the game, and in the mechanics they possess, a Blackhand Assassin and a Crystal Seer are distinct...what are they lacking?




Oh, both have meaning.  But if an RPG that wasn't tightly tied to a specific setting decided to sell me as crunch a Blackhand Assassin and a Crystal Seer as separate and distinct classes I'd put the game straight down on the grounds it was so unbelievably padded that it felt the need to waste pages on that, unless it was an intrigue game with those being major factions.  My attention to minutae is limited, and I think it's way beyond that of most people.  (I'd also put it down on the grounds that all Crystal Seers are effectively identical)


----------



## MoutonRustique (Sep 13, 2013)

Three (don't judge me) thumbs WAY up ! Like,  WAY WAY up. We're talking exospheric levels of agreement.

Comment directed at blog post - I have not read the comments yet.


----------



## Ratskinner (Sep 13, 2013)

Kingreaper said:


> If classes are to be at all significant you need to be picking a class, and getting mechanics based on that class.
> 
> "Building your own class" is just a flexible, non-class-based system with "and now call it a class" tacked on the end.




I was under the impression that the DM would be doing the building, in order to define the world. In which case, I don't think this is a problem. At least, I wouldn't have a problem with it at the table. It seems to me like this might be a nightmare for designers, unless they started with a fairly "meta" system in the first place. Also, I'd imagine some customization would rely on multiclassing...so that would need to be taken into account.

The example class doesn't have any of the general mechanics listed (Hit Die, saves, etc.) Was this intentional? Do those things exist outside class? That might be okay, come to think of it.


----------



## Shayuri (Sep 13, 2013)

I'll say two things up front.

One; a giant book full of overly specific classes is something I find personally kind of repulsive. It reminds me far too much of my old Palladium days.

Two; I am not opposed, however, to the idea of a kind of 'class construction set' where classes can be deconstructed and reconstructed according to rules, to personalize them for a specific setting. Something like the Races book in Pathfinder maybe, only with more options presented.

Of course, in the end, that starts to look a lot like a point-buy classless system, albeit with a bit more structure in it. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it might be seen as undercutting the whole emphasis on class that you have.

If classes are so specific that anyone can build a 'class of one' that only they have and has any combination of approved abilities, then you don't really have a class anymore. 

That's not what you're proposing, of course, but it would represent another point on the same continuum. 

My preferred take on classes is for a class to be relatively broad in its overall mission statement, but then allow for significant flexibility in the assignment of its particulars. A good example would be how Pathfinder handles some of its classes.

A 'rogue' is a 'sneaky, skilled guy who strikes by surprise.' There are endless iterations of that possible though, via the selection of Talents and various alternative class kits. If there were released rules that one could use to customize the Talents list, and introduce new alternative class kits, that would be fine. Even great. 

So yeah, I like the notion of seeing class as a kind of archetype, which the player can then narrow down and make specific via a robust system of customization built into the class. Wizards select school affiliations and arcane bond foci and perhaps choose a kit to reflect slightly variant mechanics. Fighters have combat moves and bonus feats and more alternative sets of abilities that change 'fighter' into 'fearless warlord' or 'howling savage.'

And so on.

You could do Fearless Warlord or Howling Savage as separate, specific classes of their own too...but why? If one basic core mechanic, with relatively minor variations, can represent both, treating them as offshoots of a single class just makes sense to me. The specificity you're talking about doesn't have to be reflected by individually constructed classes. Just pick a broad class that comes close, and tweak to suit your taste. Rules to cover those tweaks would be great though.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 15, 2013)

First, class is defined by behavior, not a unique set of abilities. What you are defining is, at best, highly unique subclasses of subclasses. It's more like an "Apple Computer" software programmer rather than a software programmer under the class of designer. In D&D, class is the role Players are playing at, learning, and gaining proficiency in. Fictional persona portrayals are irrelevant (though fun), the real challenge comes from mastery and prowess within the game. Subclasses are not here to sell the players a cool power or ability in a game. Subclasses should be the Custom Design option for players first and foremost. Sure, throw in a few for the starting campaign area. D&D has some traditional subclasses in it's historic setting. But let the players play the broad class and define their own unique approaches within it. Someone certainly could have played their Fighter into a Ranger or Paladin. Or, if they are really enterprising, they can write up their own subclass (or class!)and you can convert it to the game mechanics you're using behind the screen.

What makes a good core class? They have an identifiable behavior unlike any other. A Fighting-Man engages with everything as a combat. They live under the terms of power and control. A Magic-User engages with everything as an exploration of design. They grow through the process of learning and discovery. A Cleric engages with everything as a person. They spread their understanding to everything they encounter and thereby gain wisdom within their particular understanding based upon its relation to everything  else. There are other means of designing classes, but not ones that challenge the players as games. The trick is, don't let your understanding of the world become the definition of every class. Don't make every class a designer, creator, or author, if you are one. Let the players engage with an imagined, yet existent exterior world, something they cannot do alone. Lastly, a core class must overlap in engagement with the game world in a potentially shared manner with the other classes. D&D classes are all adventurer-types, not home schoolers. A Class like "Innkeeper" isn't going to play well unless it's the only class available.


----------



## Quickleaf (Sep 15, 2013)

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]
Another reason why lots of highly specific classes might not work is that clarity of intent and player follow-thru can vastly differ. Many players and some DMs don't have a narrow set up of the campaign world's themes, and prefer to find it during play. To start out and say "this campaign is focused on intrigue" would be a turn-off to that emergent play style.

This gets back to the idea of class breadth serving to keep players engaged in different arenas of the game (5e's combat, exploration, and roleplaying is one example). A flexible broader class - and a good muliticlass system - lets a player expand their character into the unfolding story...rather than require the two to be in synch from the get go.

Effectively the same options might be present in a list of 100 classes, each essentially stripping one of the Classic classes of its stuff. However this would be a nightmare for players to manage...I want to cast teleport, which class do I look to do that, Radiant Mage, Crystal Dragon Seer, Scholarly Wizard, or...? And if it becomes common for characters to have 1-3 levels in multiple classes, it dilutes the archetype that helps other players understand a PC's capabilities. "I'm a ranger" means something to players as a tool for party building, and expectation of where the PC will be most useful.

So here are the three things that broader classes do right:

1. Accommodate emergent (rather than focused) gameplay.

2. Encourage all players to participate in the various arenas of the game (if well-designed).

3. Provide a common table language (and ease of player character creation/leveling).


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 17, 2013)

howandwhy99 said:


> First, class is defined by behavior, not a unique set of abilities.



Errm, says who? I think that's exactly the wrong way to go about defining classes.
What you're calling class is what I'd maybe call an archetype. There's little reason for defining archetypes in a game system _unless_ they're also connected in some way to mechanics, e.g. if taking certain actions that are typical for a given archetype will grant you 'confidence points', then there's a reason to define them. Otherwise, just let the players make them up when creating their characters of even during play.


----------



## Kinak (Sep 18, 2013)

Like it! Tiny classes and a toolbox to build your own sounds just about perfect. It actually reminds me a bit of the old Warhammer rules, with little classes you chain together.

I'd like to see something like this as a ruleset, then setting books including the collection of classes you want for that setting. I don't think you really want to overwhelm the players with classes, so creating an expectation of how many you should choose for your home game would be worth its weight in gold.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 18, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> Errm, says who? I think that's exactly the wrong way to go about defining classes.
> What you're calling class is what I'd maybe call an archetype. There's little reason for defining archetypes in a game system _unless_ they're also connected in some way to mechanics, e.g. if taking certain actions that are typical for a given archetype will grant you 'confidence points', then there's a reason to define them. Otherwise, just let the players make them up when creating their characters of even during play.



And that' s not the D&D game, that's a story game. D&D classes aren't Queen, King, Bishop, Rook, Pawn. They are Chess player. It is the player that is the role player, not the character. Players are the ones actually performing the class. Character abilities can support that role, but they don't define it. I might be playing the Fighter role engaging with the combat game system, all while you're playing the Magic-User role playing in the magic system. Two different, highly mechanically supported games that are connected and partially overlapping. Think Puerto Rico, but we're not all playing plantation owners.

I'm suggesting we allow back into our understandings the playing of games in order to engage with their rules. The free form expression you're suggesting via archetypes isn't game playing, but storytelling. The act of innovation, not memory and strategy. The wonderful thing about D&D is that it is open and therefore infinite in its design. We can do both. And improve at doing both. And enjoy every different kind of joy that offers.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 19, 2013)

howandwhy99 said:


> And that' s not the D&D game, that's a story game. D&D classes aren't Queen, King, Bishop, Rook, Pawn. They are Chess player.



I'm not sure if I follow. Maybe I've misinterpreted what this article series is about. You seem to be trapped in 'classic D&D thinking'. I understood these articles as a reflection about how one might design a rpg system differently, getting free from old baggage. It's thinking 'what if' and try to arrive at a system that's maybe better then the system we all know.

Saying 'but this isn't D&D!' strikes me as a bit shortsighted and limited view.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 19, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm not sure if I follow. Maybe I've misinterpreted what this article series is about. You seem to be trapped in 'classic D&D thinking'. I understood these articles as a reflection about how one might design a rpg system differently, getting free from old baggage. It's thinking 'what if' and try to arrive at a system that's maybe better then the system we all know.



I'm asking others not to view all of RPG history through the almost purposefully limited understanding of today. There are so many ways to understand what we are doing here. To me, the current fashionable vocabulary loses just about everything the D&D game does well; the game has become lost in translation. And that so few people have any conception of the early designs of D&D doesn't make me think this is the same system we all know and love. So my better, being a relative term, isn't about some adoration of the cult of the new or being unthinkingly reactionary for olden times. It is simply rejecting the impetus, of my reading here, for an attempt at a definitive understanding of class in D&D. Better games aren't the one way better. And I'm willing to speak for ideas which be old, but are new to me as perfectly justifiable better game designs.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 20, 2013)

howandwhy99 said:


> I'm asking others not to view all of RPG history through the almost purposefully limited understanding of today.



Alright, and I'm asking others not to view all of RPG history through the almost purposefully limited understanding of yesterday 


howandwhy99 said:


> To me, the current fashionable vocabulary loses just about everything the D&D game does well; the game has become lost in translation. And that so few people have any conception of the early designs of D&D doesn't make me think this is the same system we all know and love.



To be honest, I'm not closely following what is fashionable today. I believe the current fave are systems which advocate player-enablement, allowing them an equal say in setting and encounter design, but I might be wrong about that.
I've been playing each edition of (A)D&D since the Red Box, so I know full well how the game was played. It was by trying other rpg systems available at the time, e.g. Runequest, that I realized how lacking D&D was in many regards. D&D did not deliver the kind of gaming experience I was interested in. So I stopped playing D&D some time after 2e was released. I only returned to the game when 3e promised some much-needed imporovements: a workable skill system and common mechanics for monsters and pcs. Unfortunately, the game broke down at about level 10-15. I was also seriously burned out as a DM by the incredible workload. Introduce 4e: For me, another welcome step in the right direction. Skill challenges, the best tactical combat system ever, and transparent math making the DM's job an easy one again.

Yet, what no edition of D&D so far got right, imho, is the class system, except maybe OD&D (which I didn't play) with the clear separation between fighting-man and magic-user, and the cleric as a hybrid of the two. From Red Box D&D to 3e, classes have been added to the game without rhyme or reason. There was no common method behind them. 4e's was the first system that seemed to have some thought behind it: A clear distinction based on roles and power sources. It's an approach that worked - to a certain degree.

I believe there is value in thinking about class systems and applying a logical, systematic approach to their design can only be good. But if the chosen approach will actually result in a better game can only be decided by playtesting and the findings will likely be different from group to group, since not all players are looking for the same things in their games.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 20, 2013)

There has been many long years of confused and not very good game design and I agree with a lot of what you say about the need for improving games. However, my relatively recent experience is delivering fun, enjoyable games, but in the currently considered "bad" way. I too am looking for game designs which recognize and give mechanical support for class play, although in a very different manner. I don't want to toss out 40 years of game design because of long term confusion and limited talking points of current design conversations. D&D already is a great game, it's just poorly understood. What I'm suggesting is classes be defined again as behavior within system play. In part that includes assigning players game abilities necessary to enable themto overcome the challenges in those systems, if they are playing that class. But it's not these specific abilities defining the class. It's the focus of play on the starting system, a different system for each class. 

Talking about class systems in games can lead to the creation of more interesting systems based on class and, yes, we'd see a wide variation in playtest results due to the variety of desired game play.  That's all good, but I didn't see much improvement in my games from 4e. I pretty much skipped it altogether. It's an exception-based game, small in size, similar to MtG - the most successful game of that design. 3.x may have felt better after the confusion of 2e, but it was a massive redesign based on largely misguided game designs theories from the 90s. I now I see how skills (or ability "checks") are inhibiting of game play, not supportive of it. Can we head further down the path of the contemporary story turn-taking games in design? Yes, of course, and we will and definitely should. But let's not stifle growth here. Growth is not eradicating all memory and comprehension card games early games for the one true game theory.  How many people are talking about RPGs which don't play or even resemble storytelling designs though?

I think we are looking for two very different things and that's okay. For me, class is among the most defining elements of the games I play, role playing games. And classes are by far the most mechanically defining because they are the roles for the role playing. They are the scopes of challenges faced by players throughout the entire game. Class design and class understanding not only less important in story games IMO, they're completely unnecessary. It's hard to see where RP comes into those games. To me, they are about character portrayal and narrative creation, not game play or role play. Thinking exclusively within that perspective it's easy to understand why class games/RPGs would be considered an antiquated relic which have little to no place in RPG design. Class might as well be a meaningless grouping of game abilities with a theme as that is about the limit of them in this understanding. 

What are we really getting at with aggregate power groupings as class? How is that improvement? Perhaps better is really narrative techniques applied to classes as labels? I don't think we're not moving in a bad direction, we're just not moving in the direction of D&D.


----------

