Community

This is something that's been bugging me, and on more levels than one.


Recently there has been a lot of conversation about classes on this board, which is no surprise considering it has been the focus of a lot of dev talk. I see a lot of people talking about it, but I don't know if people are running off of false assumptions or not. Frankly, I'm not even sure if my beliefs are correct, so I thought of this topic so we can speak plainly and generally about the construct of "Class", and what it means for a game platform.

While this is relevant to D&D Next classes, it's not about the classes of D&D. It's about the concept in general, and how best to apply it. Try to keep the discussion (If any   within such framework.


Alright. The way I see it is this, plain and simple:

1. Classes are merely a construct of in-game mechanics.

----Simple enough, without rules to govern, classes don't exist. Neither does the game. 

2. Classes can only exist when restrictions are applied inside and outside the class. In fact, they are defined by restrictions.

----In other words, if every character has equal access to every in-game mechanic then there are, mechanically, no classes. The game would be classless by default.
 

3. Classes, therefore, are limited in "uniqueness" primarily by two governing factors:

    a. The number of in-game mechanics.

    b. The number of restrictions willing to be placed on said mechanics.

----What we can gather from this is the biggest thing to note: Classes are separated primarily by differences in mechanics, and that the larger the difference in mechanics, the greater the "Uniqueness" between classes.

4. Other minor factors can affect classes as well, though these are minor and typically informal in nature. If it's not a difference in mechanics, it is merely superficial.

----For instance, flavor text and miniatures. Neither of these has a stated affect on the rules, and it should be noted that actual restrictions (Paladin's Alignment) will be different in that they are "Required" to be followed within the RAW, modulations notwithstanding. These superficial differences even extend to sacred cows such as "Magic"--If a spell has the same effect, damage, range, properties, ect., as a warrior's attack, they are the same.
 

Hmmm....

With that, I'll propose another statement which is relevant to the topic at hand.

1. Variety is what makes D&D fun. I don't think anyone will argue that the human-generated unpredictability of D&D is what will make the game more interesting than any computer-generated video game. Thus, variety (IN GENERAL) is necessary to a very large degree in order to have fun.


By default, however, classes can only limit variety. This is logically constant, as any restrictions indicate a reduction of possible outcomes. That isn't to say, however, that all limitations are bad--Balance is also an important cornerstone in games, and in robust systems it can often only be achieved through restrictions. Therefore, one can not say that variety causes fun, but rather it correlates with fun.

Regardless, the most variable system will be classless. That undoubtably allows for the most open-ended gaming, but is it the most fun? What do classes contribute in exchange for a decrease in variety, which we can assume correlates closely to fun?


I can think of two outstanding things.

1. Balance, as previously mentioned. It not only prevents certain builds from vastly over-powering others, but ensures that most builds will be fairly operable.

2. Simplicity. Imagine trying to choose from every single power, feat, weapon, and skill in the Character builder, regardless of class, race, or most other restrictions. I wouldn't doubt it if the mathmetical outcomes measured near googleplex.

With that said, balance can be achieved still by placing restrictions on features through progression trees or prerequisites, which are both in ways similar constructs to "Class". Simplicity, however... Either you remove mechanics or add restrictions. At some point you'll achieve the same effect as "Class", only under a different name. Themes? Backgrounds? Once broken down, one can syllogistically identify them as one and the same. 

So does "Class" bring anything to the table other than simplicity? Is the concept nothing more than a balancing device or developer crutch? Am I wrong in my assumptions? So far off base I'm irredeemable? Poke away, please. I want to know what you guys think.


(Post Script: I hate the way this forum formats paragraph breaks ) 

Well at the most superficial level class is a stylistic choice the devs in the game use classes because that is a style of character generation associated with DnD and the devs do not feel that those asking for a classless system out weigh the people who like classes.

Of course there's the simplifying aspect since it gives a handy basis around which to focus a character so you can cut more stuff off the list when picking feats, skills, and what have you.

Furthermore classes come with expectations that can be fun to fufill or to turn on their heads a bit depending on how you wanna play at the time.

Classes provide a ready made identity you can assume to verying degrees based on your skill and comfort level that make it much easier for new players to 'get' the game. More than once i've seen a new recruit's eyes light up when they realize each of the dnd classes they are looking at corresponds to a class or character type from some fiction they are already familiar with. How many times have you heard someone tell a newbie that a cleric is just like a white mage?

I think balance has another aspect.  Since a class is a package of mechanics that are, for the most part, inseparable, each mechanic need not be balanced against each other mechanic.  One class may have a few key mechanics that make it effective, while another may have a smattering of smaller flavorful mechanics with a few primary mechanics that are less mechanically optimal than the first class' key mechanics.  By packaging mechanics into classes, you can more easily contain the balance.