"I haven't played the game so to the degree that it is actually like classes as opposed to skill bundles I don't know."
...Classes are "skill bundles".
You can get nambly about "but classes have unique mechanics" or something, but that's very far from a universal truth. As the reality is that can only happen because the devs have locked specific skills and mechanics behind a class that an otherwise more open system could let you pick and build from.
An open skill system could simply dump the more novel mechanics into limited feat options so that you can only modify your overall play style to lean into a particular archetype instead of taking everything. It's part of how some long standing systems like GURPS even has done it.
I continue to not understand what the arguments really is in this thread. It seems to be one of nonsense for the sake of argument.
You don't understand what the arguments really are, and then attempt to evaluate what you don't understand.
Understand first. Evaluate second. Otherwise the evaluation itself is nonsense.
Unfortunately given I quoted and responded to a direct statement you made, if you wish to claim the argument is misunderstood then you're going to have to make a more clear argument. It was an invitation for you to reassess your argument for hopefully better context or comprehension.
Instead you've argued the idea that skills cannot form classes, and framed it from the subject of there being missing mechanics or locked out elements that shape classes. And in doing so it seems you're characterizing skills themselves as the scope of a skill based system, which is itself a rather large mistake.
Which is addressed even by the points previously made. The inclusion of passives or special "class only" skills only exists in very specific context of very specific games. Skill systems similarly seem to be getting interpreted by you to mean something very flat and generic that doesn't facilitate player specialization for adopting roles.
Which just cycles to my point on how GURPS runs directly counter to that sort of supposition.
What is it about a skill system that uses point buy or other mechanics to limit your chosen skills, passives, access to mechanics, etc, that seems to be an issue for you? What makes that not a skill system replicating a class?
What about classes being an amalgam of skills and mechanics makes you think they aren't replicable from a table of trainable skills, traits, etc in the open framework of a skill system? How do you reconcile that skills systems are themselves more pliable than just lists of action skills, but can in fact include conditional passives and modifiers which can serve to alter gameplay to suit specific roles and classes, as opposed to the apparent simplification of skills into some one-dimensional iteration of character design?
And all of it is irrational on the extended point that all of this doesn't exist in polar extremes, as most any system mentioned thus-far exists on a spectrum of freedom of control over character design.
I was being polite by saying I don't understand, as otherwise I would have simply stated it was an irrational argument being made. Do not abuse politeness to make meaningless swipes.
UO isn't class based. Why thank you for pointing that out Sherlock I never claimed it was. Yet here they are making classes with the skills in a skill based game.
Archeage is making classes from skills.
Every Elder Scrolls game makes classes from skills.
I had multiple examples of what I claimed because it's obvious that it can and has been done.
It's irrelevant if the game officially has a class called a warrior if you can make something that resembles exactly that with the skills.
My entire point was that you can make a class with skills. In fact at it's core a class is a themed skill template.
You are basically trying to argue that a prebuilt house is not the same thing as a house that you build with four walls, a door, a window, a floor and a roof. When those are the components used to make that prebuilt house.
When I was programming a MUD and wanted to make classes I would design a themed template of skills to make that class. Like a Dark Knight, who would get fear and life taps, and unholy auras, while getting shield, plate, and weapon skills.
You want to talk about something that shouldn't be difficult to understand? How about the fact that skills are used to make classes?
Remember when you were completely wrong about games using skill templates to make classes? Ah good times.
You're welcome, Watson.
UO allows Classes to be approximated with skills. It does not allow Classes to be made with them because such are more than just of skills.
Archage classes aren't just skills. They also include passives. So much for that.
Morrowind classes aren't just skills. Some include spells. So much for that.
Your Dark Knight could wear plate and use a shield. That you specify that suggests some classes of that game couldn't wear plate or use a shield. Were those variances in allowed equipment skills, or aspects of the classes other than... like perhaps D&D's class restrictions on weapons and armour.
I remember when I was completely correct in saying skill templates can't make classes. That good time keeps rolling along.
UO is making classes with it's skills. Archeage is making classes with it's skills. Elder Scrolls is making classes with it's skills. You can make a class with skills in a skill based game.
Skills can be passive. So much for that. UO spell resistance.
Skills can include spells. So much for that. UO magery or necromancy.
Skills can include class restrictions or abilities. So much for that. UO Bards.
Not only are you wrong at this point, you're just trolling.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
UO isn't class based. Why thank you for pointing that out Sherlock I never claimed it was. Yet here they are making classes with the skills in a skill based game.
Archeage is making classes from skills.
Every Elder Scrolls game makes classes from skills.
I had multiple examples of what I claimed because it's obvious that it can and has been done.
It's irrelevant if the game officially has a class called a warrior if you can make something that resembles exactly that with the skills.
My entire point was that you can make a class with skills. In fact at it's core a class is a themed skill template.
You are basically trying to argue that a prebuilt house is not the same thing as a house that you build with four walls, a door, a window, a floor and a roof. When those are the components used to make that prebuilt house.
When I was programming a MUD and wanted to make classes I would design a themed template of skills to make that class. Like a Dark Knight, who would get fear and life taps, and unholy auras, while getting shield, plate, and weapon skills.
You want to talk about something that shouldn't be difficult to understand? How about the fact that skills are used to make classes?
Remember when you were completely wrong about games using skill templates to make classes? Ah good times.
You're welcome, Watson.
UO allows Classes to be approximated with skills. It does not allow Classes to be made with them because such are more than just of skills.
Archage classes aren't just skills. They also include passives. So much for that.
Morrowind classes aren't just skills. Some include spells. So much for that.
Your Dark Knight could wear plate and use a shield. That you specify that suggests some classes of that game couldn't wear plate or use a shield. Were those variances in allowed equipment skills, or aspects of the classes other than... like perhaps D&D's class restrictions on weapons and armour.
I remember when I was completely correct in saying skill templates can't make classes. That good time keeps rolling along.
UO is making classes with it's skills. Archeage is making classes with it's skills. Elder Scrolls is making classes with it's skills. You can make a class with skills in a skill based game.
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Unfortunately given I quoted and responded to a direct statement you made, if you wish to claim the argument is misunderstood then you're going to have to make a more clear argument. It was an invitation for you to reassess your argument for hopefully better context or comprehension.
Instead you've argued the idea that skills cannot form classes, and framed it from the subject of there being missing mechanics or locked out elements that shape classes. And in doing so it seems you're characterizing skills themselves as the scope of a skill based system, which is itself a rather large mistake.
Which is addressed even by the points previously made. The inclusion of passives or special "class only" skills only exists in very specific context of very specific games. Skill systems similarly seem to be getting interpreted by you to mean something very flat and generic that doesn't facilitate player specialization for adopting roles.
Which just cycles to my point on how GURPS runs directly counter to that sort of supposition.
What is it about a skill system that uses point buy or other mechanics to limit your chosen skills, passives, access to mechanics, etc, that seems to be an issue for you? What makes that not a skill system replicating a class?
What about classes being an amalgam of skills and mechanics makes you think they aren't replicable from a table of trainable skills, traits, etc in the open framework of a skill system? How do you reconcile that skills systems are themselves more pliable than just lists of action skills, but can in fact include conditional passives and modifiers which can serve to alter gameplay to suit specific roles and classes, as opposed to the apparent simplification of skills into some one-dimensional iteration of character design?
And all of it is irrational on the extended point that all of this doesn't exist in polar extremes, as most any system mentioned thus-far exists on a spectrum of freedom of control over character design.
I was being polite by saying I don't understand, as otherwise I would have simply stated it was an irrational argument being made. Do not abuse politeness to make meaningless swipes.
I don't look at all your posts so I was unaware of your direct quote earlier. I'll seek it out and perhaps respond unless the contents of it are largely what is presented here in which case I'll simply respond to this post.
And I'm back...
I see no evidence of your claimed direct quote of one of my posts, so I'll just assume you are mistaken for some reason.
I did make a direct quote by of you that stated:
"I continue to not understand what the arguments really is in this thread."
You claimed a lack of understanding, to which I responded. Perhaps you were mistaken about your own level of understanding.
Anyway...
Yes, I've argued the position that skills can not create classes.
Skill based system are based on skills. That's what makes them skill based. Class differentiation exists in all games with classes. Without there is no point in having classes.
Point buy systems vary. It depends on the framework that surrounds it. If the game has classes and restricts what can be bought with points based on that it a class based system. If it has no such constraints it isn't a class based system. In some cases, it's both.
Champions Online has both classes in the form of Archetypes and Freeform which is essentially a level based point buy system.
Archetypes have only two choices to make for their character build and each choice only has two options. Freeform can pick and choose from every powerset in the game with next to no constraint. None of the powers within those sets are skills.
Nothing bothers me about skill based systems. I need not reconcile the contrasting merits of class and skill based systems. Point buy systems can be class based, or not, or both. It depends on how they are designed.
Differentiation is better demonstrated by examination through the purity of extreme, and it's not as though instances of such don't exist. Arguing from the best position possible to demonstrate my points is rational.
Politeness is not the word I would use to describe a claim of misunderstanding soon re-characterized. I also wouldn't use it to describe someone referencing a direct quote that doesn't seem to exist. Confused is as charitable I can go.
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Oblivion:Classes
In Oblivion, a class is a combination of a specialization (Combat, Magic or Stealth), favored attributes, and major skills. Your character's class determines what skills you will be most proficient in, and this in turn affects how you level.
Classes that non-player characters (NPCs) use can be found in the article "NPC Classes".
One extra class on this page is "CharacterGen". This is given to the player right at the start of the game, before the conversation with Baurus during which a class is chosen. This class is basically the warrior class, except with Strength and Intelligence rather than Strength and Endurance. It is shown in the stats page of your journal as "-".
Character Creation Tools can be very helpful in determining which standard class or custom class will work best for your playstyle.
The game literally let you choose from standard classes or make your own custom classes by combining skills. Something you are in essence doing in any skill based game. Making any argument against this fact about as water tight as a screen door on a submarine.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Not entirely, at least in the case of Morrowind. Some of the classes came with spells as well as skills at creation, so those at least are not entirely skill based. Otherwise, the class system seems as you describe.
That demonstrates that when your game is primarily skill based you can make classes by differentiating their inherent capacity in bundles of skills.
For class based and skill based to be interchangeable, all that now needs doing is taking a highly differentiated class system where characters have widely ranging abilities with many of them other than skills and hammering it until it fits a skill based system hole.
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Not entirely, at least in the case of Morrowind. Some of the classes came with spells as well as skills at creation, so those at least are not entirely skill based. Otherwise, the class system seems as you describe.
You seem to have this weird idea that skills and spells are different things when spells are nothing more than a type of skill and are understood to be so by everyone but you. apparently
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
"I see no evidence of your claimed direct quote of one of my posts, so I'll just assume you are mistaken for some reason."
Then you may wish to visit an eye doctor since you responded to the post with the quote in it, and my response on this page holds it as well. You clearly are not in the habit of reading the full posts you are responding to. Put it in a quote box this time to help you.
I sincerely hope this is not you being intentionally dishonest to such a great degree.
And it seems I've forced the truth of it, that you regard any system where you adopt a role through any mechanic as class.
Skill based systems are not simply lists of skills, that is an overly reductive view. Even Titan Quest and Grim Dawn parses skill trees so players pick passive and active skills to assemble roles from the divergent mechanics the skills themselves provide, with the addition of passive player starting affecting gearing to further augment the role.
And you repeat your mistake here;
"If the game has classes and restricts what can be bought with points based on that it a class based system."
This is nothing but a circular argument. Any game that wants to enforce the concept of balance in play and or party dynamics, is going to place some limitation on players reach across skills. This can be done in various ways from simple investment cap to padding out different categories to ensure the player will have some functional skills towards end game. It does not mandate at any point players being pushed to pick specific classes.
Hence my whole point referencing GURPS, as opposed to your circular argument of a hypothetical.
Hyperbole is never rational.
It's clear you've made your definition of class based systems fudgey enough to mold around a variety of scenarios that others do not characterize in the same manner, which is the main reason for most the conflict it appears.
Certainly we could throw the word confused into the conversation, but it seems best aimed the other direction.
I am currently looking for an MMORPG where game play is based on skills you select not a class based system. I am tired of class based game play.
Skill Based MMOs base their character development systems not on a simple levelling. While other games allow you to succeed in battle just with in-game skills, the Skill Based MMOs are challenging players. The winner is the one who plays better than others: the most accurate shooters, the fastest warriors and the most thoughtful strategists.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
"I see no evidence of your claimed direct quote of one of my posts, so I'll just assume you are mistaken for some reason."
Then you may wish to visit an eye doctor since you responded to the post with the quote in it, and my response on this page holds it as well. You clearly are not in the habit of reading the full posts you are responding to. Put it in a quote box this time to help you.
I sincerely hope this is not you being intentionally dishonest to such a great degree.
And it seems I've forced the truth of it, that you regard any system where you adopt a role through any mechanic as class.
Skill based systems are not simply lists of skills, that is an overly reductive view. Even Titan Quest and Grim Dawn parses skill trees so players pick passive and active skills to assemble roles from the divergent mechanics the skills themselves provide, with the addition of passive player starting affecting gearing to further augment the role.
And you repeat your mistake here;
"If the game has classes and restricts what can be bought with points based on that it a class based system."
This is nothing but a circular argument. Any game that wants to enforce the concept of balance in play and or party dynamics, is going to place some limitation on players reach across skills. This can be done in various ways from simple investment cap to padding out different categories to ensure the player will have some functional skills towards end game. It does not mandate at any point players being pushed to pick specific classes.
Hence my whole point referencing GURPS, as opposed to your circular argument of a hypothetical.
Hyperbole is never rational.
It's clear you've made your definition of class based systems fudgey enough to mold around a variety of scenarios that others do not characterize in the same manner, which is the main reason for most the conflict it appears.
Certainly we could throw the word confused into the conversation, but it seems best aimed the other direction.
My eyes are fine. If you don't quote me directly using the tool the forum provides don't expect my notice or response. I don't track your posts otherwise for the most part.
Skill based are a list of skills. That's what makes them skill based.
Grim Dawn and Titan Quest both have abilities in their trees, none of which are skill based by system.
If a game has classes it's a class based game regardless of whatever is added to that base. Other types of games can have any system, aside from class based.
GURPGs isn't class based, last I looked. Aside from that it's been decades since I last looked at so I can't remember much about it other than feeling the HERO System superior.
My definition of class based games are those class based. They may include other elements so long as they are class based. It's not rocket science.
If you can't get my position that class based is class based and that not isn't, the issue is not on my end.
I am currently looking for an MMORPG where game play is based on skills you select not a class based system. I am tired of class based game play.
Skill Based MMOs base their character development systems not on a simple levelling. While other games allow you to succeed in battle just with in-game skills, the Skill Based MMOs are challenging players. The winner is the one who plays better than others: the most accurate shooters, the fastest warriors and the most thoughtful strategists.
That's a different application of the term skill based than the OP is speaking of. That person is looking for a system where the abilities of characters are defined by the skills chosen rather than the class taken.
You are speaking of games where player skill contributes significantly to the outcome, which though also described as skill based aren't what the person is specifically looking for in this case.
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Not entirely, at least in the case of Morrowind. Some of the classes came with spells as well as skills at creation, so those at least are not entirely skill based. Otherwise, the class system seems as you describe.
You seem to have this weird idea that skills and spells are different things when spells are nothing more than a type of skill and are understood to be so by everyone but you. apparently
Skills and magic are different things in the vast majority of cases that have both. They are accessed differently, used differently, powered differently, and limited differently than skills. Further, in class based systems what magic a character can use if any is generally more confined than skills.
It's not a weird idea. Skills and magic simply aren't the same or treated as such in most MMORPGs, and games in general for that matter.
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Not entirely, at least in the case of Morrowind. Some of the classes came with spells as well as skills at creation, so those at least are not entirely skill based. Otherwise, the class system seems as you describe.
That demonstrates that when your game is primarily skill based you can make classes by differentiating their inherent capacity in bundles of skills.
For class based and skill based to be interchangeable, all that now needs doing is taking a highly differentiated class system where characters have widely ranging abilities with many of them other than skills and hammering it until it fits a skill based system hole.
I think that would be a bit more difficult to do.
Upon playing Oblivion myself, I found what was described as classes were actually just bundles of skills that started at a higher percentage. Each character seemed to start with the same two spells, so there was no differentiation there.
It seems no more genuinely "class based" to me than Ultima Online which had the same template approach and the freedom to bypass it to select your own assortment.
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Not entirely, at least in the case of Morrowind. Some of the classes came with spells as well as skills at creation, so those at least are not entirely skill based. Otherwise, the class system seems as you describe.
You seem to have this weird idea that skills and spells are different things when spells are nothing more than a type of skill and are understood to be so by everyone but you. apparently
Skills and magic are different things in the vast majority of cases that have both. They are accessed differently, used differently, powered differently, and limited differently than skills. Further, in class based systems what magic a character can use if any is generally more confined than skills.
It's not a weird idea. Skills and magic simply aren't the same or treated as such in most MMORPGs, and games in general for that matter.
I can't believe that you played ESO and spouted that nonsense.
And I'm bringing up ESO specifically because it's a hybrid system with class skills and general skills that anyone can use.
There is no distinction made about which skills and ultimate you can slot. You can use all class skills or no class skills or, what most do, a combination of the two.
Spells are just skills and there is very little difference between a skill called a spell that comes from using a destro staff that creates an AOE DOT (wall of elements) and a skill not called a spell that comes from the bow that also provides an AOE DOT (Volley.)
They even have similar range, area, duration, and damage output and that is just one of the multiple examples of skills that come from weapons or class skill lines, or non-class skill lines that are functionally almost identical.
There is nothing functionally special about a skill called a spell and one that is not.
If you want to talk about the lore and the RPG fantasy you can make that distinction but when talking about pre-built classes or build your own class it's a totally meaningless distinction.
And yes, you can build your own class in totally open systems and call it a Paladin or a Joe, or a Bertha. A class is not a name for a build reserved exclusively for when the developer does it for you, names it, and shackles you to its limitations.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Not entirely, at least in the case of Morrowind. Some of the classes came with spells as well as skills at creation, so those at least are not entirely skill based. Otherwise, the class system seems as you describe.
You seem to have this weird idea that skills and spells are different things when spells are nothing more than a type of skill and are understood to be so by everyone but you. apparently
Skills and magic are different things in the vast majority of cases that have both. They are accessed differently, used differently, powered differently, and limited differently than skills. Further, in class based systems what magic a character can use if any is generally more confined than skills.
It's not a weird idea. Skills and magic simply aren't the same or treated as such in most MMORPGs, and games in general for that matter.
I can't believe that you played ESO and spouted that nonsense.
And I'm bringing up ESO specifically because it's a hybrid system with class skills and general skills that anyone can use.
There is no distinction made about which skills and ultimate you can slot. You can use all class skills or no class skills or, what most do, a combination of the two.
Spells are just skills and there is very little difference between a skill called a spell that comes from using a destro staff that creates an AOE DOT (wall of elements) and a skill not called a spell that comes from the bow that also provides an AOE DOT (Volley.)
They even have similar range, area, duration, and damage output and that is just one of the multiple examples of skills that come from weapons or class skill lines, or non-class skill lines that are functionally almost identical.
There is nothing functionally special about a skill called a spell and one that is not.
If you want to talk about the lore and the RPG fantasy you can make that distinction but when talking about pre-built classes or build your own class it's a totally meaningless distinction.
And yes, you can build your own class in totally open systems and call it a Paladin or a Joe, or a Bertha. A class is not a name for a build reserved exclusively for when the developer does it for you, names it, and shackles you to its limitations.
Forget ESO with the amount of clueless nonsense he has spewed forth I question if he has ever played a RPG at all.
I mean I can quote him if necessary but he doesn't know what classes are and he doesn't know what skills are. On top of that he continues to argue his point, which is just abundantly wrong, even after links to facts proving him wrong are put forth.
Most of this thread I was trying to explain how basic design like classes being made with skills works. I just stare at the monitor with my eyes wide and my jaw dropping at his replies that reinforce he knows next to nothing about the subject. I honestly don't know how to explain it in more simple terms to try and get him to understand such a basic concept in game design. What could I say that I haven't already? What links could I provide to be more clear?
The only thing I can conclude is either:
Or he is trolling. I'm leaning toward trolling because he is misrepresenting things on purpose and trying to weasel around semantics with his replies. I'm at the point where I'm just calling him out on his trolling BS because anyone with a basic grasp on RPGs knows that classes are made with skills. The only way someone is this dumb and contrary is if it's on purpose.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I can't believe that you played ESO and spouted that nonsense.
Not only ESO, but also UO, AC1 and NW.
Hell, even in WoW, spells are abilities like any other. Whether you bleed someone with your sword or smoke him with your mage staff, it's the same thing, both are skills.
Well, to that point, both Morrowind and Oblivion had classes based off of groups of specific skills.
Not entirely, at least in the case of Morrowind. Some of the classes came with spells as well as skills at creation, so those at least are not entirely skill based. Otherwise, the class system seems as you describe.
You seem to have this weird idea that skills and spells are different things when spells are nothing more than a type of skill and are understood to be so by everyone but you. apparently
Skills and magic are different things in the vast majority of cases that have both. They are accessed differently, used differently, powered differently, and limited differently than skills. Further, in class based systems what magic a character can use if any is generally more confined than skills.
It's not a weird idea. Skills and magic simply aren't the same or treated as such in most MMORPGs, and games in general for that matter.
I can't believe that you played ESO and spouted that nonsense.
And I'm bringing up ESO specifically because it's a hybrid system with class skills and general skills that anyone can use.
There is no distinction made about which skills and ultimate you can slot. You can use all class skills or no class skills or, what most do, a combination of the two.
Spells are just skills and there is very little difference between a skill called a spell that comes from using a destro staff that creates an AOE DOT (wall of elements) and a skill not called a spell that comes from the bow that also provides an AOE DOT (Volley.)
They even have similar range, area, duration, and damage output and that is just one of the multiple examples of skills that come from weapons or class skill lines, or non-class skill lines that are functionally almost identical.
There is nothing functionally special about a skill called a spell and one that is not.
If you want to talk about the lore and the RPG fantasy you can make that distinction but when talking about pre-built classes or build your own class it's a totally meaningless distinction.
And yes, you can build your own class in totally open systems and call it a Paladin or a Joe, or a Bertha. A class is not a name for a build reserved exclusively for when the developer does it for you, names it, and shackles you to its limitations.
ESO classes for the most part have spells to spell-like abilities for their actives.
Weapons abilities often have magical elements. You can't shoot a storm of arrows with one pull of a bow no matter how skilled you are. The same goes for putting up a damage shield when swinging a two handed weapon.
Mages Guild abilities are magical. Fighters Guild abilities are 50% magical. Psijic Order abilities are magical. Undaunted abilities are magical.
It is bloody hard in fact to make an ESO character free of magical aspects.
Whether magic and skills function identically depends on the system. In ESO that difference happens to be minimal. In some systems it's significant.
Class is never a meaningless distinction in a class based system.
What's next? Templars and Necromances are indistinguishable from each other?
You can make a build in a non-class system and declare it a Paladin, but you can't make a Paladin class because the system doesn't have classes.
In the context of RPGs and MMORPGs, a Class is indeed predefined, either precisely or within a narrow range of variance, whether it be by the game makers or hobbyists crafting their own for their personal campaigns.
In ESO, only Templars have Templar class abilities... only Dragonknights have Dragonknight class abilities... because that's how classes work. You can't Templar your way into being a Dragonknight and vice versa as ESO doesn't provide multi-class. You can be only one.
You're building your entire argument around a term that you're defining using said term. Nobody but you is going to ever get that.
And you're the one that claimed you scoured the comments. Failing to read the first sentence in a post with quotes around it is distinctly on you.
I didn't define the term class as it applies to RPGs, and later MMORPGs. Gary Gygax or one of his contemporaries did that.
Sections of a post in quote marks does not qualify as using the forum quote function. Your failure to use the quote function is on nobody but yourself.
In ESO, only Templars have Templar class abilities... only Dragonknights have Dragonknight class abilities... because that's how classes work. You can't Templar your way into being a Dragonknight and vice versa as ESO doesn't provide multi-class. You can be only one.
You can completely ignore that the game calls you a Templar or a Dragonknight if you want by not leveling any Templar or DK class abilities-- actives, or passives. Obviously not min-maxed since you miss out on a lot of powerful passives but you can do it and level nothing but weapon and non-class skill lines.
So what are you then? Are you still a Templar or DK?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
You're building your entire argument around a term that you're defining using said term. Nobody but you is going to ever get that.
And you're the one that claimed you scoured the comments. Failing to read the first sentence in a post with quotes around it is distinctly on you.
I didn't define the term class as it applies to RPGs, and later MMORPGs. Gary Gygax or one of his contemporaries did that.
Sections of a post in quote marks does not qualify as using the forum quote function. Your failure to use the quote function is on nobody but yourself.
And if you used the definition of Gygax and his contemporaries, then this wouldn't look so silly. Feel Free to quote where Gygax et al ever defined the term by using the term in the definition.
Making things up does not make for a good position to reason from.
Quote marks are quote marks and have a clear function of quoting things, and they were literally on the first statement made in the post you a) responded to and b) claimed you looked for. Try as you might, this is on you bud.
UO isn't class based. Why thank you for pointing that out Sherlock I never claimed it was. Yet here they are making classes with the skills in a skill based game.
Archeage is making classes from skills.
Every Elder Scrolls game makes classes from skills.
I had multiple examples of what I claimed because it's obvious that it can and has been done.
It's irrelevant if the game officially has a class called a warrior if you can make something that resembles exactly that with the skills.
My entire point was that you can make a class with skills. In fact at it's core a class is a themed skill template.
You are basically trying to argue that a prebuilt house is not the same thing as a house that you build with four walls, a door, a window, a floor and a roof. When those are the components used to make that prebuilt house.
When I was programming a MUD and wanted to make classes I would design a themed template of skills to make that class. Like a Dark Knight, who would get fear and life taps, and unholy auras, while getting shield, plate, and weapon skills.
You want to talk about something that shouldn't be difficult to understand? How about the fact that skills are used to make classes?
Remember when you were completely wrong about games using skill templates to make classes? Ah good times.
You're welcome, Watson.
UO allows Classes to be approximated with skills. It does not allow Classes to be made with them because such are more than just of skills.
Archage classes aren't just skills. They also include passives. So much for that.
Morrowind classes aren't just skills. Some include spells. So much for that.
Your Dark Knight could wear plate and use a shield. That you specify that suggests some classes of that game couldn't wear plate or use a shield. Were those variances in allowed equipment skills, or aspects of the classes other than... like perhaps D&D's class restrictions on weapons and armour.
I remember when I was completely correct in saying skill templates can't make classes. That good time keeps rolling along.
You can absolutely make classes in UO complete in build/lore and flavor , actually to join Fighters guild Thieves guild Mages etc you Must make certain skill masteries for ex to gain acceptance there also is entire overarching quest lines to support these choices that you must complete .
Really silly discussion at this point .
In some games you select your Class that defines your Skills .
In some games you select your Skills that define your Class.
The end result and playstyle are strikingly similar in everyway. The only real difference that has any meaning on this is that in Skill based games like UO you can build Hybrids for fun . A Ranger for ex . With GM Camping ,Cooking Tracking,Leatherworking , that survives in the wilderness making Leather armor to sell and food. It's a fun experience .. However do not try to raid with such a build , you need a Pure DPS build to be effective , EXACTLY like any Class driven game .
In ESO, only Templars have Templar class abilities... only Dragonknights have Dragonknight class abilities... because that's how classes work. You can't Templar your way into being a Dragonknight and vice versa as ESO doesn't provide multi-class. You can be only one.
You can completely ignore that the game calls you a Templar or a Dragonknight if you want by not leveling any Templar or DK class abilities-- actives, or passives. Obviously not min-maxed since you miss out on a lot of powerful passives but you can do it and level nothing but weapon and non-class skill lines.
So what are you then? Are you still a Templar or DK?
You can choose to not raise your class abilities. You can't choose to raise instead the abilities of another class. Should you get tired of doing without class abilities the only available to you will be those of your class.
So yes, you are still a Templar or Dragonknight. Choosing not to use your class abilities doesn't negate your class.
Comments
Instead you've argued the idea that skills cannot form classes, and framed it from the subject of there being missing mechanics or locked out elements that shape classes. And in doing so it seems you're characterizing skills themselves as the scope of a skill based system, which is itself a rather large mistake.
Which is addressed even by the points previously made. The inclusion of passives or special "class only" skills only exists in very specific context of very specific games. Skill systems similarly seem to be getting interpreted by you to mean something very flat and generic that doesn't facilitate player specialization for adopting roles.
Which just cycles to my point on how GURPS runs directly counter to that sort of supposition.
What is it about a skill system that uses point buy or other mechanics to limit your chosen skills, passives, access to mechanics, etc, that seems to be an issue for you? What makes that not a skill system replicating a class?
What about classes being an amalgam of skills and mechanics makes you think they aren't replicable from a table of trainable skills, traits, etc in the open framework of a skill system? How do you reconcile that skills systems are themselves more pliable than just lists of action skills, but can in fact include conditional passives and modifiers which can serve to alter gameplay to suit specific roles and classes, as opposed to the apparent simplification of skills into some one-dimensional iteration of character design?
And all of it is irrational on the extended point that all of this doesn't exist in polar extremes, as most any system mentioned thus-far exists on a spectrum of freedom of control over character design.
I was being polite by saying I don't understand, as otherwise I would have simply stated it was an irrational argument being made. Do not abuse politeness to make meaningless swipes.
Skills can be passive. So much for that.
UO spell resistance.
Skills can include spells. So much for that.
UO magery or necromancy.
Skills can include class restrictions or abilities. So much for that.
UO Bards.
Not only are you wrong at this point, you're just trolling.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I don't look at all your posts so I was unaware of your direct quote earlier. I'll seek it out and perhaps respond unless the contents of it are largely what is presented here in which case I'll simply respond to this post.
And I'm back...
I see no evidence of your claimed direct quote of one of my posts, so I'll just assume you are mistaken for some reason.
I did make a direct quote by of you that stated:
"I continue to not understand what the arguments really is in this thread."
You claimed a lack of understanding, to which I responded. Perhaps you were mistaken about your own level of understanding.
Anyway...
Point buy systems vary. It depends on the framework that surrounds it. If the game has classes and restricts what can be bought with points based on that it a class based system. If it has no such constraints it isn't a class based system. In some cases, it's both.
Champions Online has both classes in the form of Archetypes and Freeform which is essentially a level based point buy system.
Archetypes have only two choices to make for their character build and each choice only has two options. Freeform can pick and choose from every powerset in the game with next to no constraint. None of the powers within those sets are skills.
Nothing bothers me about skill based systems. I need not reconcile the contrasting merits of class and skill based systems. Point buy systems can be class based, or not, or both. It depends on how they are designed.
Differentiation is better demonstrated by examination through the purity of extreme, and it's not as though instances of such don't exist. Arguing from the best position possible to demonstrate my points is rational.
Politeness is not the word I would use to describe a claim of misunderstanding soon re-characterized. I also wouldn't use it to describe someone referencing a direct quote that doesn't seem to exist. Confused is as charitable I can go.
Oblivion:Classes
You can:
Classes that non-player characters (NPCs) use can be found in the article "NPC Classes".
One extra class on this page is "CharacterGen". This is given to the player right at the start of the game, before the conversation with Baurus during which a class is chosen. This class is basically the warrior class, except with Strength and Intelligence rather than Strength and Endurance. It is shown in the stats page of your journal as "-".
Character Creation Tools can be very helpful in determining which standard class or custom class will work best for your playstyle.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Classes
The game literally let you choose from standard classes or make your own custom classes by combining skills. Something you are in essence doing in any skill based game. Making any argument against this fact about as water tight as a screen door on a submarine.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Not entirely, at least in the case of Morrowind. Some of the classes came with spells as well as skills at creation, so those at least are not entirely skill based. Otherwise, the class system seems as you describe.
That demonstrates that when your game is primarily skill based you can make classes by differentiating their inherent capacity in bundles of skills.
For class based and skill based to be interchangeable, all that now needs doing is taking a highly differentiated class system where characters have widely ranging abilities with many of them other than skills and hammering it until it fits a skill based system hole.
I think that would be a bit more difficult to do.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Then you may wish to visit an eye doctor since you responded to the post with the quote in it, and my response on this page holds it as well. You clearly are not in the habit of reading the full posts you are responding to. Put it in a quote box this time to help you.
I sincerely hope this is not you being intentionally dishonest to such a great degree.
And it seems I've forced the truth of it, that you regard any system where you adopt a role through any mechanic as class.
Skill based systems are not simply lists of skills, that is an overly reductive view. Even Titan Quest and Grim Dawn parses skill trees so players pick passive and active skills to assemble roles from the divergent mechanics the skills themselves provide, with the addition of passive player starting affecting gearing to further augment the role.
And you repeat your mistake here;
"If the game has classes and restricts what can be bought with points based on that it a class based system."
This is nothing but a circular argument. Any game that wants to enforce the concept of balance in play and or party dynamics, is going to place some limitation on players reach across skills. This can be done in various ways from simple investment cap to padding out different categories to ensure the player will have some functional skills towards end game. It does not mandate at any point players being pushed to pick specific classes.
Hence my whole point referencing GURPS, as opposed to your circular argument of a hypothetical.
Hyperbole is never rational.
It's clear you've made your definition of class based systems fudgey enough to mold around a variety of scenarios that others do not characterize in the same manner, which is the main reason for most the conflict it appears.
Certainly we could throw the word confused into the conversation, but it seems best aimed the other direction.
How are you looking to be challenged?
Best Skill-Based MMO Games for PC | EnyGames<----pick a challenge. It's not like it's hard.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Skill based are a list of skills. That's what makes them skill based.
Grim Dawn and Titan Quest both have abilities in their trees, none of which are skill based by system.
If a game has classes it's a class based game regardless of whatever is added to that base. Other types of games can have any system, aside from class based.
GURPGs isn't class based, last I looked. Aside from that it's been decades since I last looked at so I can't remember much about it other than feeling the HERO System superior.
My definition of class based games are those class based. They may include other elements so long as they are class based. It's not rocket science.
If you can't get my position that class based is class based and that not isn't, the issue is not on my end.
And you're the one that claimed you scoured the comments. Failing to read the first sentence in a post with quotes around it is distinctly on you.
That's a different application of the term skill based than the OP is speaking of. That person is looking for a system where the abilities of characters are defined by the skills chosen rather than the class taken.
You are speaking of games where player skill contributes significantly to the outcome, which though also described as skill based aren't what the person is specifically looking for in this case.
Skills and magic are different things in the vast majority of cases that have both. They are accessed differently, used differently, powered differently, and limited differently than skills. Further, in class based systems what magic a character can use if any is generally more confined than skills.
It's not a weird idea. Skills and magic simply aren't the same or treated as such in most MMORPGs, and games in general for that matter.
Upon playing Oblivion myself, I found what was described as classes were actually just bundles of skills that started at a higher percentage. Each character seemed to start with the same two spells, so there was no differentiation there.
It seems no more genuinely "class based" to me than Ultima Online which had the same template approach and the freedom to bypass it to select your own assortment.
And I'm bringing up ESO specifically because it's a hybrid system with class skills and general skills that anyone can use.
There is no distinction made about which skills and ultimate you can slot. You can use all class skills or no class skills or, what most do, a combination of the two.
Spells are just skills and there is very little difference between a skill called a spell that comes from using a destro staff that creates an AOE DOT (wall of elements) and a skill not called a spell that comes from the bow that also provides an AOE DOT (Volley.)
They even have similar range, area, duration, and damage output and that is just one of the multiple examples of skills that come from weapons or class skill lines, or non-class skill lines that are functionally almost identical.
There is nothing functionally special about a skill called a spell and one that is not.
If you want to talk about the lore and the RPG fantasy you can make that distinction but when talking about pre-built classes or build your own class it's a totally meaningless distinction.
And yes, you can build your own class in totally open systems and call it a Paladin or a Joe, or a Bertha. A class is not a name for a build reserved exclusively for when the developer does it for you, names it, and shackles you to its limitations.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I mean I can quote him if necessary but he doesn't know what classes are and he doesn't know what skills are. On top of that he continues to argue his point, which is just abundantly wrong, even after links to facts proving him wrong are put forth.
Most of this thread I was trying to explain how basic design like classes being made with skills works. I just stare at the monitor with my eyes wide and my jaw dropping at his replies that reinforce he knows next to nothing about the subject. I honestly don't know how to explain it in more simple terms to try and get him to understand such a basic concept in game design. What could I say that I haven't already? What links could I provide to be more clear?
The only thing I can conclude is either:
Or he is trolling. I'm leaning toward trolling because he is misrepresenting things on purpose and trying to weasel around semantics with his replies. I'm at the point where I'm just calling him out on his trolling BS because anyone with a basic grasp on RPGs knows that classes are made with skills. The only way someone is this dumb and contrary is if it's on purpose.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I've only played RPGs for 35 years, and MMORPGs for 20ish.
I know what classes are. I also know what they aren't.
You obviously can't say the same.
He just has to win on the Internet, he can't accept being wrong.
No big deal. That's what the ignore function is for.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
ESO classes for the most part have spells to spell-like abilities for their actives.
Weapons abilities often have magical elements. You can't shoot a storm of arrows with one pull of a bow no matter how skilled you are. The same goes for putting up a damage shield when swinging a two handed weapon.
Mages Guild abilities are magical. Fighters Guild abilities are 50% magical. Psijic Order abilities are magical. Undaunted abilities are magical.
It is bloody hard in fact to make an ESO character free of magical aspects.
Whether magic and skills function identically depends on the system. In ESO that difference happens to be minimal. In some systems it's significant.
Class is never a meaningless distinction in a class based system.
What's next? Templars and Necromances are indistinguishable from each other?
You can make a build in a non-class system and declare it a Paladin, but you can't make a Paladin class because the system doesn't have classes.
In the context of RPGs and MMORPGs, a Class is indeed predefined, either precisely or within a narrow range of variance, whether it be by the game makers or hobbyists crafting their own for their personal campaigns.
In ESO, only Templars have Templar class abilities... only Dragonknights have Dragonknight class abilities... because that's how classes work. You can't Templar your way into being a Dragonknight and vice versa as ESO doesn't provide multi-class. You can be only one.
I didn't define the term class as it applies to RPGs, and later MMORPGs. Gary Gygax or one of his contemporaries did that.
Sections of a post in quote marks does not qualify as using the forum quote function. Your failure to use the quote function is on nobody but yourself.
So what are you then? Are you still a Templar or DK?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Making things up does not make for a good position to reason from.
Quote marks are quote marks and have a clear function of quoting things, and they were literally on the first statement made in the post you a) responded to and b) claimed you looked for. Try as you might, this is on you bud.
Really silly discussion at this point .
In some games you select your Class that defines your Skills .
In some games you select your Skills that define your Class.
The end result and playstyle are strikingly similar in everyway.
The only real difference that has any meaning on this is that in Skill based games like UO you can build Hybrids for fun . A Ranger for ex . With GM Camping ,Cooking Tracking,Leatherworking , that survives in the wilderness making Leather armor to sell and food. It's a fun experience ..
However do not try to raid with such a build , you need a Pure DPS build to be effective , EXACTLY like any Class driven game .
I happily accept I am wrong when I am show to be wrong.
So yes, you are still a Templar or Dragonknight. Choosing not to use your class abilities doesn't negate your class.