[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[Brian Hook]

At 06:03 PM 3/8/01 +0000, matt wrote:

> Yes, it's quite lame. I remember a thread here a year or so back
> that just made me sick. It wasn't just a thread about the thief
> class in your game. It was a thread about how to make one specific
> thief ability work better. The implicit assumption being that we all
> have thieves and that we've all ripped off our thieves from D&D.

For an adventure oriented RPG, the archetypes make sense for at least
two reasons: familiarity, and the more scientific "permutation of
ability axes".

If you were to define your basic types of characters, irrespective of
the names or the specific abilities, you would often end up with a
list like:

  - melee combatant: monks, warriors, brawlers
  - non-melee combatant: archers, snipers, magic users
  - healer/non-combatant: shaman (optional)
  - stealth (optional)

Then you have variants on the above based on hybrids and more detailed
restrictions that are irrespective of the archetypes.  Effectively an
archer and a mage are the same thing, with just a minor detail in what
their specific weapon is.  A druid and a wizard in EQ are the same
basic archetype with the contrived difference of "nature" vs. "magic"
and damage-over-time vs. direct damage.  In PSO, they whittle it down
to three archetypes: caster, melee and ranged weapon.  Buffers/healers
aren't represented, and neither are sneakers.  Choose your way of
killing and be happy =)

There's nothing wrong with these archetypes, because for most combat
oriented games that's what it's going to break down to regardless of
genre.  Some RPGs will separate out physical combatants into melee and
ranged; and the non-combatant classes will have a variety of different
flavors, from priests to tinkerers to engineers, etc.  But in the end,
they kind of do the same things because combat mechanics dictate it.
And whether you want to use classes or skills, it still ends up being
the same.

For non-combat-oriented games, things like diplomats, bards, etc. can
make a lot of sense.

The stealth archetype is probably the most misused, because most RPGs
(computer ones, at least) aren't properly setup to handle the
infiltrator type.  The rogue in EQ is a prime example of this --
effectively worthless as a traditional thief/sneak type because the
game is not designed to take advantage of those abilities (primarily
because they're so freeform, e.g. climbing walls, breaking and
entering, picking locks, disguises, powerful sneaking etc. are not
easy mechanics to just insert without possibly completely breaking the
game).  Games dedicated to this, such as Thief or Deus Ex, are much
more successful, but they generally need to be designed for this type
of play style, whereas a more combat-oriented game can optimize for
combat and let the player choose the specific style.

I guess my point isn't that these archetypes aren't tired -- because
they are -- but sometimes the archetypes are reached through a thought
process that isn't directly derivative.  In my own experience I don't
say "What'll we call our ranger class?", instead I'll say "What about
a ranged combatant?" which often ends up becoming the traditional
ranger/sniper/archer.  It's an axis of differentiation, and there are
finite axes of finite length if you're constrained to being combat
oriented.

But that's because there's just not as much room to innovate while
still being able to balance a game predictably.  In some cases it's
even more restrictive, e.g. in a game where you have to wade through
hordes of enemies like Diablo, the choice of a
buffer/healer/non-combatant isn't even a choice because that style of
play isn't particularly valid.

Brian

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev