{
"post": {
"title": "\"Intrinsic\" vs. \"skill tree-based\" class differences in a primarily single-player game?",
"selftext": "In a single-player class-based game where you pick your character at the beginning, would it be a good idea to have certain defining traits of the classes be permanently tied to the character, such as the Tank class inherently having more HP or the Sniper class having better base accuracy, assuming that the vast majority of items can be used by all classes?\n\nOr would it be better if all of the primary traits are tied to their skill trees instead, with every character being basically identical otherwise without any skills or signature items (like in Borderlands for example)?\n\nAnd would having primarily non-combat skills (loot modifiers, \"merchant charms\", fast travel abilities etc.) be locked to certain characters be a bad idea?",
"url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedesign/comments/138z55c/intrinsic_vs_skill_treebased_class_differences_in/"
},
"comments": [
{
"body": "In the end all systems work. Some people will like one kind of system over another. As a result you cant be all things to all people and will make choice.\n\nI personally like skills that anyone can learn. Some you can figure out a bit on your own, but if you want to get really good you have to get trained. The trainers are guilds and usually require exclusivity and enforce non sharing of their techniques."
},
{
"body": "Rather than say which one is better, it's more fruitful to look at what they can accomplish\n\nAttaching certain traits exclusively to certain classes can really differentiate them, especially unique traits and abilities. Look at any class-based shooter, characters will play and feel differently to varying degrees.\n\nUsing a blank template and then allowing the player to build their character with decisions gives them a sense of control and freedom. They have the freedom to combine skills and traits and build their own unique class themselves.\n\nBoth have pros and cons. The first option can be constraining, forcing the player into a specific playstyle that may get stale. The second option may make every character feel the same with only slight differences.\n\nI'd say that you likely want to incorporate elements of both. Have classes feel distinct from one another, while still having that cookie cutter flexibility of the generic or shared skill tree\n\nIronically, I think something like Borderlands does the mix well; each character gets their own unique abilities and skill trees, which allows each class to feel distinct while also having that templated progression",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Gonna have to disagree with you about borderlands making each class feel unique. My biggest complaint about the game is that classes feel basically identical until you're very high level - because they more or less *are* identical when 5 levels of progress only buys you 40% extra ammo capacity on one type of weapon.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "What about a skill tree system where the most unique and influential skills are the ones you unlock first?\n\nBasically the opposite of Borderlands' system disregarding action skills, as most of the gamechanger skills are capstones.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Then you *basically* have a normal \"initial differences\" class system, but where the decision on starting class is delayed and where it feels like you have less to be excited about working towards because you've already got your biggest \"perk\". Unless you're intending players to be able to get the powerful starting perks of multiple classes, I think this would be better done as a normal initial class system so that there's a conceptual difference between \"basic role traits\" and \"perks\"."
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "I like to think about these kinds of choice in terms of experience and fantasy. What do you want the player to think and feel making them? Is there some special value in making the choice? Do you want more class uniqueness and class envy or do you want the player to be able modify their build to be more tanky or snipery as the play? Does the choice offer some interesting trade off?Is player agency and power fantasy self-expression important to the net experience of your game?\n\nAt the end of the day mechanics are just abstract differences - if you want the system to have meaning to the player, you could define your experiential whole and say, ok my game is about stark contrasted in play through a with each class, so I want each class to be super distinct so that players want to try the other classes. Or you could say I want the player to tinker in the sandbox of proficiencies. Both are valid and I’m sure other goals could drive other options. But you should imo always be working toward moments where those choices or lack of choices yield something poignant to the whole product."
},
{
"body": "\nGame Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games. \n\n* /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.\n\n* This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.\n\n* Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design. \n\n* No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.\n\n* If you're confused about what Game Designers do, [\"The Door Problem\" by Liz England ](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ.\n\n\n*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*"
},
{
"body": "Why not both? Skill tree with \"auto leveling\" based on players choice."
},
{
"body": "Dark Souls, anyone?\n\nWhat I'm saying is, an \"intrinsic\" choose-your-starting-class system is just a \"skill tree-based\" upgrade-how-you-want system with some attributes/skills already pre-chosen.\n\nThere's nothing from an \"intrinsic\" starting class system from also having a *level-0* class with raw base stats ...like the Deprived."
},
{
"body": "Before thinking about whether you should do something or not, consider amount of work going into design and implementation of required features. It's usually easier to settle on one basic but extendable unit template. You could just add more exclusive skills and perks to different classes that are always unlocked, so you don't start with nothing."
},
{
"body": "For a totally new player, they may feel some form of decision paralysis when trying out skills for the first time and may be hesitant to invest themselves into more interesting skills for fear of inadvertently making things harder for themselves later with a poorly optimized build.\n\nIn a skill-tree based system, if you give every new character a \"level 1 proficiency\" in every skillset, melee, ranged, magic, stealth, technology, whatever it is, it let's the player explore them a small bit before deciding which one they want to spec into in the long term.\n\nIt means they can try out different combat styles before choosing to commit themselves down a particular path, but the general flexibility and mix-and-matchability of skill trees offers intrinsic support for a multitude of different and overlaping playstyles."
},
{
"body": "Your title says it all, it's the differences that you need to consider. Specifically, you should know the strengths and weaknesses of each to know which context to apply them to.\n\nIntrinsic is cool because it allows you to give someone really really overpowered skills and passives without actually overpowering them because you can pair that with weakness or give others similar power level intrinsics. You are 100% sure that more than 2 powerful intrinsics cant be combined on the same character, thus unleashing overpowered builds. However, it lacks diversity since you will always have 1 specific set of intrinsics per character. However, spin that into an advantage by having intrinsics to help the player learn about the class system in a game (for example, you wouldn't want a tank to take sniper abilities since that would make them much weaker comparing to either, so those intrinsics can keep them on a somewhat optimal path).\n\nOn the other hand, skills given to everyone can help with diversifying builds and finding what suits the player's build and playstyle. Generally, don't just give stats like hp since that narrows the options down to singular good vs. bad (more health vs. less health, more dmg vs. less dmg). It is good for stuffs that can work in between many classes, like tanks can have access to healer skills or archers get berserk skills from melee to increase bow damage and firerate. However, it can go out of hand and create overpowered strategies. In the context of singleplayer, that might ruin the experience if the intended experience is struggle instead of power.\n\nThere is no better, and that's why many games opt to use both. Skyrim has skill trees you can upgrade, and intrinsics that are dependent on race. Granted, the intrinsics are niche and usually negligible, but it still helps significantly. \n\nOr you can choose, but that's dependent on what you need. If you want a power fantasy, there's still a lot to consider. To display player's growth, maybe allowing the player to acquire those skills in the game is a good choice. However, if you want the player to feel strong from the start, intrinsics will do just that. Even, combine both. In Doom, the Slayer always have access to the brutal finishers, which helps significantly in establishing their power fantasy, but other gadgets like the flamebelch (Doom Eternal) or the BFG can only be unlocked much later in the game."
},
{
"body": "Intrinsic encourages more replayability, while skill tree encourages player choice.\n\nGenerally if classes are tied heavily into the narrative than intrinsic is better. For example dishonored 2 has 2 characters to choose from, functioning essentially as intrinsic classes with different starting abilites and different unlockable abilities. These two characters narratively have different personalities, different experience levels and a different link to the universes magic. One being a proffessionally body guard and ex assasin, the other being a princess trained by said assasin. As such it makes sense for them to be intrinsicly different. \nThe dragon age series also does this heavily. Though it's msot noticable with elven mages, due to the racism featured in the game and how mages pose a unique threat to themselves and everyone around them in that world.\n\nMost of the time RPG adventures focus more on player choice for progression. Ideally unless your gunning specifically for replayability and branching story paths, then you should aim for the character to be able to do everything in the game in a single playthrough should they put in the work. Of course this can be difficult to balance and may not be worth it for your game. \nBethesda RPGs do this, allowing you to max out every skill on a single character if you wanted to and put in the time required. As well as aquire just about every peice of gear on that same character (theres rarley a time when your permanently locked out of gear, such as the theives guild quest in skyrim which ends with you handing voer a skeleton key in return for armor.). \n\n\nThe usual compromise is to let the player specialize into 2-3 areas or generalize into many. Then provide them the option to respecialize if they want to drastically change their build. Many games do this, but dark souls 2 and elden ring handle it quite well (other than arbitrarily making a limited resource). \n\n​\n\nIf your player is a blank slate in an open world game advertising choice, then the skill tree is best. \nIf your player is in the shoes of a specific character and/or gameplay is tied to the canonical lore of the game, intrinsic elements will improve immersion and world building."
},
{
"body": "Dungeon siege was classless system. \n\nWizardry 8 was a combination. Somethings got better by using others class based.\n \nBoth were great systems and fun games. \n\nPurely skill tree systems are generally pretty simple no matter how complex the tree. But everyone knows them. They are easier to balance. \n \nSo personally id say it has more to do with your skill at system creation and the time available to test and balance. \nI mean I'm all for hero system type games way more than dnd style. But the complexity turns people off."
},
{
"body": "In my experience as a player, it can be very hard to come to a decision on something permanent like a class at the start of the game, particularly if I'm not sure which one I'll end up liking the most. Like, I might be drawn towards the idea of playing a sneaky rogue class, only to find out later on that I don't like the stealth gameplay as much as hitting things with a big stick.\n\nSkill trees carry a similar problem, though not nearly to the same degree-- there will always be the thought lingering in the back of my head, \"what if I regret how I spend my non-refundable skill points later on?\"\n\nSo if you ask me, I would prefer a system where you can easily re-spec to whatever playstyle you want to try. The Dark Souls games i've played are somewhat good about this; you play through the game speccing into what you want, and later on you unlock the ability to re-allocate your stats if you feel the need to."
},
{
"body": "There is absolutely no reason you can't do both, and doing both is usually a good idea.\n\nWhere you might not want to have initial differences would be in games where \"classes\" are supposed to be extremely flexible and first time players might need some time to figure out which directions they want to build in. Or if, like you say, you're doing a Borderlands where the core focus of the game is on the gear treadmill and you want player traits to be peripheral improvements to the weapons rather than a key focus."
},
{
"body": "I prefer a free skill tree. Classes railroad your options quite a bit"
}
]
}