Rangers are the Symptom
I think that the multitude of discussions surrounding the D&D Ranger class act as an indication of an underlying problem or dissatisfaction with Class systems. Just like how a blister on your foot tells you there's something wrong with your footwear or gait.
This is exactly the sort of thing that irks me about D&D in particular, but also about class based systems in general. I've been playing for 14 years now, and although Classes, as a game construct, offer instant familiarity and understanding, they confound things together. And I think the Ranger has always been the greatest point of contention for this, except maybe 2nd edition Fighter/Mages, which are an excellent example of a disturbing use of game features. I know that one possible benefit of a class and level system is engineered game balance, but how often is that actually a problem for each of us (real question, not rhetorical)? Another benefit is ease of character generation and the creation of in-game conventions that lead to better ease of use for players (better able to make assumptions, for good or bad). Can this be just as well achieved by the use of things such as templates in a non-class and level system? Or am I missing out on something particularly special?
A discussion in gamegrene about Rangers (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/197) involves a lot of different views as to what a ranger is, could be or should be. Many of us have probably followed other threads elsewhere discussing the ranger in 3rd edition, 3.5, and seen Monte Cook's solution. My point is that there is no particular instantiation of the ranger that is broken, but rather that a class based system, even augmented with prestige classes or kits, is bound to inflexibility and a high potential for dissatisfaction with design freedoms.
It seems like when people plan out a concept for a ranger progression including multiclassing, prestige classes, feat selection and skill selection, that they're trying to build a particular sort of character. I know when I do this I often look at certain aspects, and think something like "I don't want spells. And I don't think he should be able to fight melee at all, because I don't envision that for him." And I can do things like just not carry a melee weapon, or not use one I do carry, but that's...dissatisfactory. And I also think things like "If this person trained so much at stalking and hunting, with a bow or crossbow, and not ever with weapons of war, why would he have the rest of these incongruent feats or abilities or statistics?". And then I weep tiny sad roleplayer tears. ;(
Ok, so I'm being overdramatic, but who else can agree with me, that the discussions around the ranger in particular indicate an underlying issue? Sorry if this has already been discussed somewhere, but it's my first post, and this has been on my mind for more than a few years.
P.S. Scott Free: Found you! It's Eric, from Edmonton. We still have your Witches of Eastwick, The Pledge, and...and...and...The Brotherhood of the Wolf! You moved before we remembered we had them and had to give them back to you! It's been a while, but how have things been?
- 317 reads
Games that have classes make you adhere to a particular pattern. It is a balancing mechanism that is simple and easy to understand. I have many problems with it. As a game of imagination it is unfortunate that at the outset you are presented with "packages" to buy rather than choices to make. There is an artificial uniformity to members of the same class. Although skill selection and races vary, many of the core functions and abilities remain. Classes exist because WOTC will make more money for having them. Doesn't anyone find it strange that there are no rules as to how to build a balanced class? Players are expected to mindlessly wait for the next rulebook, adventure, or supplement to allow them access to imagination.
In my mind the DM should be picking and choosing skills and abilities that belong in her game and connecting them to societies, guilds, orders, and factions in the game world. There should be adventure and mystery in the very process of improving your character. It is tragic that D&D players already know the abilities that they will acquire on the "level up." The disconnect between the game world and the rules is exacerbated in D&D. The predictable progression and lack of rules for the growth of skills with context has a generation of gamers oblivious to any alternative. I am afraid though, that most of the gaming community actually engages the game at the level of the rules. More and more I am coming to understand the mindset of the rules light perspective. By stripping away the rules that can so interfere with the perception of game, they hope to engage the players with the narrative and interact with the world not the rules.
Here is an excerpt from something I wrote elsewhere:
Games that rely on identifying characters with a specific "Class" limit the scope of the game. They make the game more predictable; they reduce the choices of the player; and they are driven by the marketing avarice of the game designer by fostering a need for players to constantly buy new sourcebooks to encounter originality.
Once you have determined what class someone belongs to, and how far advanced they are, you have gone a long way to determining all the skills and talents that they will possess. Further, these generic classes are separated from any specific institutions within the game world. Providing beginner players with a number of well-defined schools, orders, knighthoods, and professions gives them the direction that a newcomer gets from a system with Classes without artificially imposing rules on the game world.
Originality of the players in a fantasy game is paramount. A class-based system forces a player to build their character out of a pre-designed, pre-balanced (usually poorly), and pre-interpreted mould. They are able to window dress and make surface changes, but nothing more. Imagine if you were asked to design a concept for a new motorized vehicle. In a class based system you would be given the options of starting with a pre-designed Truck, Sedan, Sports Car, or Motorcycle. You would then choose colour, window tint, air-conditioning, etc. What you would quickly realize is that you weren't making a new motorized vehicle but buying a vehicle from a dealership. A class based system forces you to buy (or buy into) their product.
They also try to keep you buying into it. If they don't give you the ability to be creative, they know that you will keep coming back to them for the newest pre-digested template for your character. These sub-classes, prestige classes, and other inventions are nothing more than a marketing strategy designed to exploit a deficiency in the game system. They are designed to have more advantages than the classes presented in the standard rules to appeal to the desire of players to have the "best" character possible.
Any merits of a class based system, specifically ease-of-use for beginners, are entirely nullified by presenting some well considered schools in a skill-based system.
I'd agree that Rangers (or any class based woe) is a symptom and not the problem itself.
For some other contrasting reason though, I really like Class based systems. I don't however let character creation stem from Race>Class>Etc progressions. I try to get people to step outside of that and discuss exactly what it is they want to play, and then make some class combo suggestions that suit what they are seeking. This generally amounts in higher than usual average party level...but I'm okay with that. The Prior History rules from traveller are some of my favorite PC building rules out there, and the fact that tehre's a d20 version of those rules makes it even better. I've since applied those mechanics to all character creation so that the average starting level is 6 or 7 instead of 1 or 2.
Class based characters certainly have their drawbacks though, and it's one place where GURPS players and myself do *not* disagree.
As an evil Dm/anti-metagamer, I fidn classes crete a large nubmer of false assumptins that I often use to describe myself in game. I've called my sorcerors, wizards, shamans, sages, mages, and my personal favorite, priests (I doubt most followers of a church would look upon a sorcerror born to a cleric as any different than a cleric, despite soem slight varaition in abilities.)
Frankly, If' you're finding/feeling the class assumption is making things mroe tactically weak against the party, just wing it. Second, honestly, Id' have ot say the feat system allwos for a lot of customization. Also, I've allowed palayers to "sub" class abilities for feats taht I think are fair and balanced enough. But then, I've also allowed nerfed Illithids with huge disguise skills pose as human rogues to screw with people. I'm the msot rules-lax DM I know. I jsut warn players in advance that I will allow my npcs many of the same bizarre boons and customizations I allwo my players.
I'd like to point out I'm only talking about third edition. $ ed. doesn't interest me, and I really dont' feel like lurking in a cave to hutn down lost 2nd edition materials that I cna't even afford to hunt down and buy.
Customarily yours,
Theo
"Doesn't anyone find it strange that there are no rules as to how to build a balanced class?"
Actually, what I find even more strange is that I personally didn't notice that omission until just now, when I read your post. It's not as if I never thought of building my own classes - I've even taken a half-hearted stab at it myself before concluding that it would be too hard to balance it without knowing more about the way that WotC balanced things. Somehow, it never occurred to me that they really ought to tell us.
There's clearly a blind spot here, and it makes me wonder what else there is that I haven't realized I'm not being told. There aren't any rules for building skills and feats, either, or spells, or any of the various parts that make up a character. Monsters go the same way, though I think most DMs take a crack at that one anyway, despite the lack of guidelines. Aside from that, though? What other categories ought they enlighten us in?
Anyway, the issue of classes in D&D and the way they force you into archetypes is one that has been a pet peeve of mine for a while now. There are certainly ways to kludge around it, but they all involve fighting the system, bending it into positions it was never meant to be in. The closest thing there is to an official solution is the generic character classes in Unearthed Arcana. Generic character classes are more flexible than regular character classes, and they sort of start to approach a set of guidelines for building your own classes, but they still lack an essential element of variety.
Speaking of prestige classes, there's the same problem again only even more so. They look like they give you an escape from the standard set of classes, but only if you're willing to play THEIR character, not yours. Plus, they're something to fill up supplements with. This is one of the ways you know you've got a good supplement - no prestige classes.
"The closest thing there is to an official solution is the generic character classes in Unearthed Arcana. Generic character classes are more flexible than regular character classes, and they sort of start to approach a set of guidelines for building your own classes, but they still lack an essential element of variety. "
That starts down the slippery slope to a class-less system.
Well, maybe a class-less system is the best way to go.
Also, I've just realized that they DO have a whole chapter in the Monster Manual for making your own monsters. Oops.
Post new comment