Distinct Roles vs. Multi-Role Classes

Eronakis · April 2022

I'm a big proponent for group centric gameplay. That comes at a price because it all comes down to role distribution for classes. Like in Everquest, you had distinct roles classes were meant to fulfill in your group. Often, when you couldn't fulfill those roles (pre-mercenary) you were bottle-necked and couldn't do group based content. Groups would fall apart because of the long wait times to find one distinct role. On the other side of the coin, you have a game like WoW where each class can 'spec' it various roles. Which in theory believed it could mitigate the distinct role problem Everquest had. More than likely, healers/tanks would spec into DPS and those roles would be diminished.

I want to focus this thread on player desire for wanting specific roles in their party. There are advantages/disadvantages for both methods of role distribution. (I understand there are a copious amount of variables to consider regarding this discussion, trying to focus on the player desire if possible)

Distinct Role: Singular role, you know that if you have this class in your group they will perform that role. Each class will probably have strong role identity. IE: Tank/Dps/Healer/Slower etc.

Multi-Roles (Spec): Multi-Roles here would traditionally be like the WoW system where you have to spec into a distinct role for your class, but can spec out of that role at the cost of gear dependency. IE: Some classes can be pure DPS, others can be multi-roles like Tank/Dps/Healer. Think WoW.

Multi-Roles (Sub): There would be a distinct Primary Role (Tank/DPS/Healer) then there would be Sub roles within each of those Primary Roles. IE: CC, Debuffer/Buffer, Slower etc)

Multi-Roles (All-Hybrid): Hybrid Roles are sort of similar to the Sub Role method, however, every class is a Hybrid with 2 roles. IE: Tank/DPS, Tank/CC, DPS/CC, DPS/Debuffer, Healer/Debuffer, Healer/Buffer. This would be based off ability access like Sub Roles; IE: simply swap out abilities roles depending on encounter.

The point of this thread is to get a sense of the communities opinions on what they prefer between the two and why? Either way, the designer will have account for the disadvantages and work around it. I guess it's sort of like, pick your poison. There is no right way to do it without having issues.

I'd like you guys to take a poll by commenting here instead of voting. I think this thread would have more response if it stayed in the Pub.

POLL

Option A - I prefer the Distinct Role Method

Option B - I prefer the Multi-Role (Spec)

Option C - I prefer the Multi-Role (Sub)

Option D - I prefer the Multi-Role (All-Hybrid)

Option E - I prefer a different role distribution method (explain in thread)

cameltosis · April 2022

Short answer: Option B

Long Answer: I don't really care, as long as the combat roleplaying has some depth.

By that, I mean that not only should the combat roles play differently from one another and dramatically change the way you experience combat, but there should also be meaningful choices you make about your role beyond the initial selection.

For example, when I played SWTOR, the combat roleplaying was extremely shallow. Playing any of the trinity roles really didn't change the gameplay at all, the way you approached combat was basically identical. Learn a rotation, execute rotation, repeat. Boring.

On the other hand, vanilla LotRO's combat roles played extremely differently. Going through the game as a champion (melee dps) versus a loremaster (cc) was a breath of fresh air. You had to pay attention to different things, you had to take very different tactics to combat and simply learning a rotation was never enough to be a good player.

The reason I chose multi-role (spec) rather than distinct roles is simply to cater to the average modern gamer. I feel like every role should come with a DPS spec that can do 80% damage of a pure dps role. This is a pure convenience thing. We've seen what happens in the past where distinct roles exist: the slow classes (tank and healer) are too boring for most people to play. They don't want leveling to take 50% longer than a DPSer. So, giving everyone a DPS spec is just good sense to help get more people playing non-dps roles.

Ungood · April 2022

Option E:

Ideally, Roles are a Bad Plan, as they end up with someone expecting someone else to enable their gameplay.

IE: a DPS expects the Healer, to just sit around and heal them, basically enabling the DPS to run around feeling as king shit killing stuff, while someone else babysits them, and if they die, they blame the healer for not saving them.

This is why "roles" overall, are fading away. Simply put, players are there to have fun, not babysit other people, or get blamed for someone else's incompetency.

Personally, I like the idea of being able to Custom Build what your character can do, with little to no limitations. If you want to heal, cast spells, and use a great sword, I don't see why you should not be allowed to do so.

Now DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) gives a player 20 heroic levels, and allows them to mix up to 3 classes during those 20 levels. Each class having 3 Enchantment Lines. They have a Racial Line, and I think 5 universal Enchantment Lines. Once they make it to 20th, they enter the Epic Levels 21 - 30th, where they can mix upwards to 3 epic destiny lines.

This allows a player to do pretty much anything they want, and play any way they want, and still be viable in content. Sure, some builds are better than others, and there are some advantages and disadvantages to spreading or focusing, but overall, it all comes down to how you want to play, and then you can build your character for that.

Which I think is really the best way to make a game happen.

Adamantine · April 2022

MMORPGs, in my opinion, should focus on creating longterm motivations to play the game.

For this reason, I want my classes to be "rich", i.e. they should have a wide array of options to handle any situation, keeping it interesting to play them.

In Vanguard, I felt this wasnt done optimally. Some classes had amazing flexibility, like Necromancer. Others have been horribly restricted, like Warrior.

What Vanguard did pretty well though is that every class felt different to play. Thats what I would want to further expand on.

In this regard yes - I want a certain flexibility. All classes should have secondary roles.

I dont want too much though. All classes also should have holes in their array of abilities, and they shouldnt be master at everything they can do, only at one thing.

So, sure, a Paladin should be able to make a good makeshift healer, but they shouldnt be outright as good as a full healer, such as a Cleric.

Neither should a Cleric be so tanky that they can actually replace Paladins. They should make decent offtanks, though. At least if they're wearing plate armor setups, like a tank.

So my pick is definitely option A.

AlBQuirky · April 2022

This is a tough one to answer. I like "the idea" of set roles. I like the way that creates major differences between players, especially "how they approach/play the game." But that rarely happens and many times is more of a detriment that a help.

I abhor the "everyone can do everything" school of thought, though. That ends being a bland, gray mixture of sameness. On the plus side, anyone can be the healer or the tank so no excessive wait times, unless players simply don't want to play those roles.

Somewhere in the middle is somewhere I can not define.

The "weapon change" never seemed to take hold of me. I think GW2 had that mechanic if I'm remembering right. FFXVI's(?) method of "jobs" is interesting, but is in the realm of "everyone can do everything," but it takes time.

Even in EQ1, I liked the hybrids (Rangers, Bards, Druids, Beastlords, et al), yet they paled when compared to straight-up roles like Warriors, Clerics, and Enchanters. They were capable, but not quite as good.

Really, doesn't it boil down to how a player wants to play the game? Are they seeking doing max damage (DPS), or do they prefer healing others, or do they controlling opponents through taunts, blocks, or mesmerizing? Too man players today want to max damage, in my opinion

Ungood · April 2022

AlBQuirky said:

This is a tough one to answer. I like "the idea" of set roles. I like the way that creates major differences between players, especially "how they approach/play the game." But that rarely happens and many times is more of a detriment that a help.

I abhor the "everyone can do everything" school of thought, though. That ends being a bland, gray mixture of sameness. On the plus side, anyone can be the healer or the tank so no excessive wait times, unless players simply don't want to play those roles.

Somewhere in the middle is somewhere I can not define.

The "weapon change" never seemed to take hold of me. I think GW2 had that mechanic if I'm remembering right. FFXVI's(?) method of "jobs" is interesting, but is in the realm of "everyone can do everything," but it takes time.

Even in EQ1, I liked the hybrids (Rangers, Bards, Druids, Beastlords, et al), yet they paled when compared to straight-up roles like Warriors, Clerics, and Enchanters. They were capable, but not quite as good.

Really, doesn't it boil down to how a player wants to play the game? Are they seeking doing max damage (DPS), or do they prefer healing others, or do they controlling opponents through taunts, blocks, or mesmerizing? Too man players today want to max damage, in my opinion

This is why I like DDO.

You can make what you want, but you will need to make tradeoffs.

case in point, If you want to add in Cleric levels to your Rogue so you can cast healing spells, you lose your capstone, and you will also loose several ranks in some rogue abilities that you might not want to give up.

Just like if you planned to be a raid tank, you would need to focus on that, and that means you could not gray out, you would need to max those traits to be good enough to maintain being a tank.

Like I said, trade offs, where you could do a lot, or you could focus, and there would be pros and cons to both ways to play, and these would be choices that the players themselves would need to make, on what they want from their game time.

Case in point, I have a Raid Healer, Pure Cleric, apex heal spec, ready to raid, and flagged, Lined up in DDO, but my main is more a jack of all trades, self healing, solid combat build that I use to dungeon run.

Which is great, that puts the design and build into the players hands.

[Deleted User] · April 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User] · April 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Adamantine · April 2022

Um.

I dont think multiclassing in D&D works very well.

It worked kind of okay in AD&D with multiclassing, i.e. non-humans. A fighter/mage or cleric/mage was kind of okayish balanced there.

Human dualclassing however was already OP by its very definition, and dont get me started on how illogical it is that humans can dualclass while everybody else has to multiclass. Thankfully it was basically impossible to abuse too much because of the prolonged times needed to learn the new class, before the old class would unlock again, and at least in P&P hardly anyone had ever enough stats to pull it off anyway, with needing 15 in all important stats of the original class and 17 in all stats of the new class.

With D&D3 and successors however it just doesnt work much at all. Sure, you can make a fighter/rogue or something like that, easy, no problem. I especially liked ranger/rogue since they kind of works together especially well. Also, make sure to start as a rogue and have a lot of Int to pull this off well enough so you can handle the basics, mostly find traps, disable device, and lockpick, without having to spend too many levels into Rogue.

But you cannot make a multiclass with any spellcaster without ending up grossly underpowered. In D&D3 they tried to fix that with prestige classes like Mystic Theurge, but even then it wasnt too well balanced through the levels.

Slapshot1188 · April 2022

A/C

I always prefer to see roles in my Role Playing game. If you think Roles are bad, then a Role Playing Game is probably not ideal for you. It's like going into a shooter but saying you would prefer there to be no shooting. We can talk about how to select a role or if/how to change them... but if we want to eliminate them then you are in a whole different genre.

Now most of the choices posed DID include Roles, but in different ways. I will explain why I chose A/C and strongly prefer it.

I want to play as a character. I want to see that character develop and grow and become better at his (or her) specialty. There can certainly be hybrids... a stealthy assassin that dabbles in magic for instance. So I am fine with those (to me that falls under C). It simply destroys my sense of character progression if I can say... well this morning I will be a mighty Warrior and wear plate armor and specialize in swinging a Halbard, but that that afternoon I will be a Mage who wears robes and wields a wand. I never, ever remember any of my characters in games like that. I distinctly remember the ones where that character had a defined role... in DAoC I was a mighty Hero (tank), in wow I was a stealthy Rogue (never respeced), EQ I was a Druid. I remember each of those characters distinctly, even though I have not played them in years.

Today, I not only cant remember all these "hybrid" or role-swapping characters... but I can barely even remember the games they were in.

Edit to add: I viewed this thread as about MMORPGs, but if some are discussing non-MMORPGs then I can see the attraction of non-Roles. But in my RPG... there damn well better be a role.

Adamantine · April 2022

Slapshot1188 said:

I always prefer to see roles in my Role Playing game. If you think Roles are bad, then a Role Playing Game is probably not ideal for you. [...]

Roleplaying and playing a party role are two completely unrelated concepts.

One is playing a believable character. Having a backstory that makes sense.

The other is into what you specialize in a group setting. Its purely technical.

Slapshot1188 · April 2022

Adamantine said:

Slapshot1188 said:

I always prefer to see roles in my Role Playing game. If you think Roles are bad, then a Role Playing Game is probably not ideal for you. [...]

Roleplaying and playing a party role are two completely unrelated concepts.

One is playing a believable character. Having a backstory that makes sense.

The other is into what you specialize in a group setting. Its purely technical.

Not really unrelated. I think I explained that in my post.

I do not think that your robe wearing arcane caster would suddenly wear armor and be a frontline warrior in a group... Your character's roles naturally impact how it meshes into any group. I am fine with a Role that dabbles in different areas (My light casting assassin) but strongly against respecing each time you enter a group or anything resembling that.

Mendel · April 2022

I think the only real answer here is A.

Classes are a way to restrict the tendency for everyone to do everything for themselves. I refer to it as the Tank-Mage syndrome. The developers can use classes to restrict how powerful an individual is, and to develop dependencies on classes to fulfill certain combat roles within a group (or even raid). Classes allow specialization to exist within a game world.

The problem with classes is that in order to progress through the game (either vertically or horizontally), characters have to engage in fighting -- that was the only method described in detail for gaining experience in the original D&D. It's also the easiest to code. Things like playing a role, coming up with plans and ideas, melting magical items (another easy to code), or donating money in-game were all left out of the XP cycle by cRPGs and later MMORPGs.

Developers can use classes to provide balance, something that is especially important to the players in a computerized game where the only means of progression is by fighting.

[Deleted User] · April 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Nanfoodle · April 2022

Im more about a good game and not all games being the same. That being said, my 2 fav MMOs of all time are ESO and EQ1. I love ESO and the freedom to make my class my own but I do miss option A, where classes are unbalanced but all shine in an area that makes people wanting to team with them and how they can synergize with each class. We have too many ESO style games but the market is out there (IMO and many others) for more games with an EQ1 class system. I would pay good money to get lost in a quality game that did just that.

Scorchien · April 2022

I'm definitely in the A . Distinct Role .. and IMO

1. Certainly brings more and better social aspects to an mmo .
2. Makes for much better encounters, and gives more flexibility and options for the devs in dialing up these encounters
3.Systems like ESO ,BDO GW2 , altho can be fun for a bit , they have a real face roll feel to them , encounters are limited on scope and imagination and just overall easier ..

KnightFalz · April 2022

Adamantine said:

Slapshot1188 said:

I always prefer to see roles in my Role Playing game. If you think Roles are bad, then a Role Playing Game is probably not ideal for you. [...]

Roleplaying and playing a party role are two completely unrelated concepts.

One is playing a believable character. Having a backstory that makes sense.

The other is into what you specialize in a group setting. Its purely technical.

Not entirely. The party role can exist independent from role-playing and any sort of character background. However, to be believable role-playing characters must have a background that includes elements supporting their ability to do their game role.

Eronakis · April 2022

Wargfoot said:

Mendel said:

Developers can use classes to provide balance, something that is especially important to the players in a computerized game where the only means of progression is by fighting.

I think classes inhibit balance.
A skill-based system would allow players to build whatever they desire but with limits (limited skill points)

In a class-based system the healing output vs. damage output is a constant stress point. (just as one example) and it never seems to get fixed. If people can mix and match skills instead of rock/paper/scissors you've infinite variety.

I see all kinds of complaints in a class based system you just don't see in a skill based approach.

I'd encourage you to check out my class balance thread I wrote a while ago. You can view it Here.

Xiaoki · April 2022

Specific roles work because if you dont have defined roles then every class is a "Jack-Of-All-Trades/Master-Of-None", which usually devolves to people wanting to play the Lone Wolf that doesnt need anyone else which, in turn, is terrible for group play.

GW2 tried that approach and then moved away from it with the first expansion.

Groups with strangers are just me doing my own thing and you doing your thing, no group synergy and no teamwork.

It can work, but the combat has to be completely different than any normal MMO. Probably more like Monster Hunter.

Ungood · April 2022

Adamantine said:

Um.

I dont think multiclassing in D&D works very well.

It worked kind of okay in AD&D with multiclassing, i.e. non-humans. A fighter/mage or cleric/mage was kind of okayish balanced there.

Human dualclassing however was already OP by its very definition, and dont get me started on how illogical it is that humans can dualclass while everybody else has to multiclass. Thankfully it was basically impossible to abuse too much because of the prolonged times needed to learn the new class, before the old class would unlock again, and at least in P&P hardly anyone had ever enough stats to pull it off anyway, with needing 15 in all important stats of the original class and 17 in all stats of the new class.

With D&D3 and successors however it just doesnt work much at all. Sure, you can make a fighter/rogue or something like that, easy, no problem. I especially liked ranger/rogue since they kind of works together especially well. Also, make sure to start as a rogue and have a lot of Int to pull this off well enough so you can handle the basics, mostly find traps, disable device, and lockpick, without having to spend too many levels into Rogue.

But you cannot make a multiclass with any spellcaster without ending up grossly underpowered. In D&D3 they tried to fix that with prestige classes like Mystic Theurge, but even then it wasnt too well balanced through the levels.

give DDO a Try.. you might discover it's great fun.

Eronakis · April 2022

Slapshot1188 said:

A/C

I always prefer to see roles in my Role Playing game. If you think Roles are bad, then a Role Playing Game is probably not ideal for you. It's like going into a shooter but saying you would prefer there to be no shooting. We can talk about how to select a role or if/how to change them... but if we want to eliminate them then you are in a whole different genre.

Now most of the choices posed DID include Roles, but in different ways. I will explain why I chose A/C and strongly prefer it.

I want to play as a character. I want to see that character develop and grow and become better at his (or her) specialty. There can certainly be hybrids... a stealthy assassin that dabbles in magic for instance. So I am fine with those (to me that falls under C). It simply destroys my sense of character progression if I can say... well this morning I will be a mighty Warrior and wear plate armor and specialize in swinging a Halbard, but that that afternoon I will be a Mage who wears robes and wields a wand. I never, ever remember any of my characters in games like that. I distinctly remember the ones where that character had a defined role... in DAoC I was a mighty Hero (tank), in wow I was a stealthy Rogue (never respeced), EQ I was a Druid. I remember each of those characters distinctly, even though I have not played them in years.

Today, I not only cant remember all these "hybrid" or role-swapping characters... but I can barely even remember the games they were in.

Edit to add: I viewed this thread as about MMORPGs, but if some are discussing non-MMORPGs then I can see the attraction of non-Roles. But in my RPG... there damn well better be a role.

Totally agree. A combo of A/C is what I am thinking so as well. Having a primary role and a secondary sub role creates the class to have more role substance.

I think the Primary Role has to be clear and distinct, which determines how you approach encounters. While Sub Roles are nice to have but shouldn't determine a meta for group compositions.

The intent of the thread is which one of these options best mitigate the Everquest issue of not doing content because you need specific roles in group and waiting in group for hours before you can do anything. Also, the WoW issue, where no one wants to spec into tank/healer because DPS is superior and easier. I think A/C approach has potential to mitigate both.

KnightFalz · April 2022

E: Role Flexibility

Any system where characters are not confined to a single role, or where the content can be approached with a wide variety of group compositions preventing excessive dependency on certain roles.

Examples of the former are ESO, FFXIV, and Rift.

An example of the latter is City of Heroes.

Slapshot1188 · April 2022

KnightFalz said:

E: Role Flexibility

Any system where characters are not confined to a single role, or where the content can be approached with a wide variety of group compositions preventing excessive dependency on certain roles.

Examples of the former are ESO, FFXIV, and Rift.

An example of the latter is City of Heroes.

Funny that you mentioned Rift. What killed RIFT for me was the change made just before launch (or just after) where you could just respec when you wanted. (They also changed how you acquired skill trees) The Alpha of RIFT was amazing and I never enjoyed the launched game nearly as much.

Ungood · April 2022

Xiaoki said:

Specific roles work because if you dont have defined roles then every class is a "Jack-Of-All-Trades/Master-Of-None", which usually devolves to people wanting to play the Lone Wolf that doesnt need anyone else which, in turn, is terrible for group play.

GW2 tried that approach and then moved away from it with the first expansion.

Groups with strangers are just me doing my own thing and you doing your thing, no group synergy and no teamwork.

It can work, but the combat has to be completely different than any normal MMO. Probably more like Monster Hunter.

To be fair, GW2 trying to put in roles, also damn near cost them their game. Their income numbers tanked hard from that move. I hear they are just finally recovering from that apex blunder, but, we can also see that they ended any nonsense of trying to put roles into the game after their first expansion. So that whole role thing, was a "Lets try this - That sucked" kind of event.

With that said, lets put some blame where it belongs, their Dungeons/Fractals were very poorly designed, and very myopic in how you had to beat them, they were in the purest sense just DPS challenge, as such, max DPS was the most effective way beat the dungeons. So all builds that were intended to be used for Dungeon running, gravitated towards that direction of Max DPS.

Since you could not build a tank at all as the vast majority of dungeon mobs simply one-shot downed you, the roles were DPS, DPS+CC/Buff, DPS+AOE Heal, but since you did not need to give up DPS to add in some utility, there was no reason not to go full on DPS, regardless of what other utility you brought to the group.

In that vein, gameplay was a product of encounter design, as opposed to class design.

It's funny, because they made gear like Nomads, to give the illusion you could tank, when they designed the encounters in such a way that you couldn't.

But that game and how it worked, was purely a fault of encounter design and not class/build design.

In the flip side to that, in DDO, players make Self Sufficient Builds (Similar to GW2) all the time, and that game is designed with the sense of roles, like Healers, Tanks, CC, Rogues to disarm Traps, and a slew of other things.

So it can be played any way you want to play it, that is up to the player to decide how they want their game experience to be.

Ungood · April 2022

Eronakis said:
The intent of the thread is which one of these options best mitigate the Everquest issue of not doing content because you need specific roles in group and waiting in group for hours before you can do anything.

The best way to do that, is to either eliminate roles, or make it so anyone can do anything.

The two games I enjoyed the most were DDO, and GW2, and both games were built on the concept of group finders being able to say "First 5 and Go" or the more well known tag of "All Welcome" and just pick up enough random anyone's, of any class, and get to getting the dungeon done.

This is a real thing in some games.. and from my own first hand, and many years long, thousands and thousands of hours experience, it makes the most fast, fun, and enjoyable dungeon runs ever to exist.

You want to solve the "Wait" issue, D (maybe E) is how you do it.

olepi · April 2022

I like skill based systems with no classes the best. Next would be a hybrid mixture of classes. For example, my ice blaster in CoH can do massive damage. But he also has holds, slows, sleeps, storms, etc, so can function as a mezzer/CC.

Fixed classes with little variation are the worst. For example, the Cleric is a healer in many games, so people say "need healer" and they want a Cleric. But if the enemies are debuffed with 30% less damage, 30% less protection, and are held/mezzed, you don't need a healer at all. But groups still reject those other abilities and expect a Cleric.

Howdy, Stranger!

Distinct Roles vs. Multi-Role Classes

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Distinct Roles vs. Multi-Role Classes

Comments