Every class has a feature to distinguish it from every other class in the game. This not only allows them to fill a niche within the game world, but it also defines a class’ role. These are literally the tricks of that particular trade. Some of these signature features are as straightforward as a larger buffer of hit points and restrictions on weapon or armor choices. Others are more involved, such as spellcasting.
Without such a system, there is nothing that really makes one class choice better than another for a player’s play style. In this way, the class-based system is disadvantaged in that each class cannot be too broadly or narrowly defined. One of the workarounds found in classless, point-buy systems is to make such abilities cost-prohibitive for a player to purchase more than one. This puts the onus on the players – so long as the costs for abilities are balanced. If not, the designer has the same problem as if he had designed a class-based system that failed to hew that narrow line.
The balancing act is a problem at times. But, it is easier so long as you make use of archetypes. The common RPG archetypes are as follows: tank, band-aid, skill monkey, sneak, spell slinger, living weapon, naturalist, dilettante, face/mouthpiece/networker, and guardian. From basic concepts as these flow all other character types. These represent the prototypical niches that complement each other more for their affect on the rules than their literary counterparts do.
By understanding the roles these archetypes fill within the confines of the game system, it becomes easier to build the rules around the key roles the classes are meant to play. The same holds true for point-buy systems. While the rules may be packaged for ease of reference in a class system, the end result between the approaches is the same. Each rule that enforces the archetype defines the mathematical representation in relation to the core mechanic. For example, a rule that prohibits armor above a certain value for a wizard is a mathematical limit for how much nonmagical protection such a character can have against mundane physical attacks while playing up on the image of the robed figure wielding a walking staff and lightning at his fingertips.
When the basic archetypes have been defined, designers can mix components to create new ones. By knowing the value of the prospective abilities, the designer can ensure that no class is better than another. Due to the variety of approaches to the construction of roleplaying game mechanics, there is no way to measure how best to accomplish the mathematical balance between each class. That said, one should choose an ability that has the least impact on the game or can serve as the baseline average and give it a numerical weight of 1. Every ability should be compared to this standard and tested against the core mechanic to determine its numerical weight. The reason for this is because now matter how it is written, a power cannot be equal to all others. The best example of this is spellcasting. Besides, this is an excellent way to conduct playtesting.
The tricks of the trade should be relatively balanced as a package from one class to the next. The point is to create a role that complements, not eclipses, the others within the game system. Some systems do this by restricting the number of abilities a class has. Others use varying amounts of experience points for gaining levels to curb power levels. Still other systems curb abilities that have greater advantages than other abilities at different tiers of power. All of these, for better or worse, are mathematical representations of literary/storytelling concepts given tangible form. In effect: best guess estimates of how to proceed in creating the unique features we know as an archetypal class.
Previous:
Anatomy of Game Design: Skills
Next:
Anatomy of Game Design: Money and Economics