So the original LBBs famously include three iconic classes for the player to choose from when making a new character for the game. Other early games break the available classes into two - those who use magic and those who fight with weapons and don't cast spells. Springing forth from the classic fantastic fiction of the day, these two "classes" or types of character are representative of the characters found in the inspirational stories which influenced the authors and players of the early game. For a quick experiment in the near completeness of this dichotomy of Fighting Man and Magic User, ask almost anyone to tell you about their character in general terms - Fighting Man or Magic User covers it almost every time. The details are just that, a minor uniqueness that sets the individual apart from the rest of the group of Fighting Men or Magic Users.
To be sure, while reading stories of high adventure one quickly runs across the character who is both fighting man and magic user, handy with a sword and yet able to throw a few magic spells about. One might ask, why have classes at all? And fresh from my exploration of the solitaire D100 Dungeon system, I am inclined to ask this question myself. Of course there are many classic examples of pure fighting men, such as Conan, Sir Lancelot, Sinbad and Robin Hood, and magic users including Merlin who don't seem to have much use for a sword themselves seem to be the norm, but the combination character also frequently appears (Kane, Elric).
Obviously, a design decision made by the inventors of the hobby to include character class in the White Box has influenced other designers to also use the concept of "class" to help create and define unique roles for each character in their game (so characters are not all alike and each contributes something unique). Picking a class or career is central to character generation in many games, but not in all as some designers early on saw class as unnecessarily restrictive and rather chose to rely on a skill system to define their character's abilities (Traveller, RuneQuest).
I believe one of the advantages to using a class system is that it gives the referee a bit more control over what sort of stories will emerge from play. Setting the cast of characters is a cooperative activity between the referee and the players and necessary for mutual enjoyment of long term play in my experience. (Characters that don't fit with the milieu are an immediate and ongoing problem.) So the inclusion of the Fighting Man tells us that combat will be a central theme of the action occurring at the table and that the ability to excel in combat is what matters most about this character. The Magic User introduces the supernatural and moves play into the realm of fantastic imagination, commands mass destruction, but requires a degree of protection. There we have the basics of the D&D genre, which has been repeated in many titles over the 45+ year history of the hobby..
The LBBs include a third class, the Cleric, holy warriors who have special power over the undead and are able to cast spells which protect and heal. The Cleric class stamps a unique flavor on the implied milieu of the Original Game, one which has persisted through the subsequent editions making religion and the gods count for something important. At a minimum, the gods intervene in the setting through their clerics. Without the Cleric, undead can be a more powerful threat and religion may take a back seat - which may be exactly what some referees desire (so they should remove the Cleric). The question of magical healing is left hanging if the Cleric class is removed, but that is easily addressed (or not).
Add a Thief class as Supplement I does and again the cast of characters in our story to be told changes. Thiefly things now inter the story - sneaking, breaking and entering, picking pockets and back-stabbing! There is an implication that adventures may take on a more urban setting, as many of the thief's best abilities are suited to an urban environment. To be sure, the Thief may be employed as a specialist in dungeon delving and that may be the sole intent of the referee who includes the class in their milieu, but I find playing an urban thief more rewarding. An entire campaign can be built around the adventures of a group of thieves and never leave the town/city.
The Character Class answers the question, "what is my character good at?" It helps the player get a feel for the character as a fictional entity separate from the player. It is therefore at the heart of role-playing. But it is only the start of fleshing out the imaginary "person", who also needs a background, some personality in the form of likes and dislikes, a few beliefs and some relationships. Unless the referee wants to dictate one or more of these features as part of the setting they can, and should, be left to the player's imagination. How much of this "character detail" the player and referee want to include in game play will vary from table to table, but is often a source of amusement for all.
This extra character detail tells us "who the character is" and need not be part of a character class or even a part of the game system mechanics. It is rather part of the role-play of the character which the player brings to the table. Unstructured can be good when it comes to exercising the imagination. Make character traits a part of the game mechanics and some players will look for the most advantageous combination of personality types and quirks. No, I think players should decide "who the character is" without regard to game mechanics. It's just more interesting that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment