I was pondering as I often do about classes in RPGs - or was I self-analyzing my tendency to like contradictory game mechanics? maybe both - when I had a bit of an epiphany.
I've often argued that you "don't need" certain classes in your elf games. Barbarians are just a type of warrior, all casters might as well be wizards, etc. On the total flip side, I'm as much entrapped by the goblin-fueled black hole as so many others in the RPG blogosphere, where there are hundreds of classes ranging from 30 different kinds of "Fighter" (by my count) all the way to person whose dog is a ghost and brings them money.
Liz over at Magnolia Keep has two great blog posts (about combat and player skill respectively) deconstructing the reasons why different groups call the same thing different things for different purposes, and why the way we tend to categorize them is mostly wrong. I happened across these posts at around the same time I had these ponderings, and it fit the format, so here we are. Here is my own take on As My Balls.
Let's talk about what classes are, and why they are actually several different things.
Classes as Classification (Type 1)
This is the one I have argued in favor of in the past. The classic Warrior, Mage, Thief trichotomy is so ingrained into the zeitgeist of RPGs both tabletop and computer that I think it's fair to argue that almost all other classes are subsets or combinations of the three. There is a whole (ironically, classless) TTRPG by almost exactly that name. The original RPG had only fighters, mages, and clerics that were explicitly somewhere between the other two (thieves weren't until Greyhawk, despite their status as an RPG icon).
When using classes like this, the reason they were called "classes" to begin with is clear. They are broad classifications of types of characters. Stepping further back in time, the wargames that RPGs grew from had "classes" of troops, but one Light Foot and another Light Foot weren't the same. I don't think the basic classes were ever meant to be "the" options for characters, but rather the real characterization was to develop within the broader classification.
This is classes in their most literal sense and I like it for the narrative and thematic freedom it grants through its lack of mechanical specificity. Important mechanics are based on a broad category and the rest is worked out in person through play. The monk, archer, pirate, and dwarf in the party are of course different, but the class they all belong to only tells you that they do big hits and don't do magic.
The caster, martial and half-caster groupings essentially function as this kind of class in 5e, if you stopped there.
Classes as Archetypes (Type 2)
Give someone a fighter and it isn't long before they ask for a paladin. It only took a year from the birth of the hobby (from OD&D to Greyhawk) for this to happen in an official capacity. Granted, adding new classes was an obvious move to make and in part its status as a subclass was an attempt at giving Fighting-Men something exciting, but the point stands. With only three or four broad options, people just wanted more.
By now, a culture had begun to develop around these classes. There was some idea of what a Cleric or a Fighting-Man was like. In turn, there would have been players who wanted to play something a bit different, and for some a logical leap was to create a new class. To be fair, it's what Volume 1: Men & Magic tells you to do. A player can play as virtually anything, even a dragon, as long as the referee determines the progression.
For some, spreading out within the bounds of the broader "Magic-User" class either does not come naturally or does not feel as appealing as having a true mechanical differentiation. A Wizard, a Warlock, and a Sorcerer might be the same to me, but to other players this distinction really matters. (Sidebar: I actually think the level titles of OD&D lessened the freedom players felt here, because Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer and even Necromancer were defined game terms that were only differentiated by level). Take this a few steps further and you get to recent editions of D&D, which provide about ten-ish classes for players to build a character within. These are more specific than "does magic, hits things, or has skills" but still fairly general archetypes.
Everyone knows what the Bard is supposed to be. The class comes with not only mechanical expectations but roleplaying ones too. There is a whole default personality to fall back on if necessary - and I really don't mean this as a dig against modern D&D. If D&D's good at anything, that thing is being the standard, and this approach to classes makes it pretty easy for all players to get something they want out of it without expecting a specific kind of effort in return. With most bases mostly covered, players are free to put their effort where they want to.
This middling number of classes is enough to create a "best of" of well-known fantasy character archetypes while not being expansive enough to induce high levels of analysis paralysis.
Classes as Options (Type 3)
Multiclassing in 5e comes close to bridging the gap to this next one, but I'd argue that it doesn't quite cross it because the classes are still designed with clear and separate individual identities and multiclassing is sort of an afterthought. 5.5e even more so, with the sweeping structural changes to classes making multiclassing less mechanically appealing. Pathfinder on the other hand very much seems to expect multiclassing and has more specific classes in greater numbers.
This is also where you are likely to stop seeing race-as-class entirely. Games that favor options for the players will prefer having races as another option to combine with your class rather than the defining characteristic of your character.
A great example of classes as options is Shadow of the Demon Lord, whose classes are in essence a menu of options to choose from when you level up. Games like Dragonbane or other Basic Roleplaying-based games also fit into this, being "classless" but with your profession and combination of skill selections primarily making up your character identity where your class normally would.
This is for the players who want to have lots of mechanical choices at their fingertips. When I say mechanical choices, I mean the ones that are written into the rulebook rather than presented by the GM. It's not necessarily just for powergamers, though this type of classes does create the kind of game most conducive to powergaming. Even many classless games, which I once thought of as the cureall to powergaming, lend themselves to optimization for those who don't specifically choose to play suboptimally. Having options kind of just does that.
This approach to classes is great for those who value the progression of their character being written into the game for them to strategize their way into rather than abilities being handed out at the GM's judgement. I will grumpily admit there is merit to that, despite my own preferences for diegetic progression.
Classes as Specific Fantasies (Type 4)
 |
| When all of these seem like reasonable classes, you are in Type 4. |
The complete opposite end of the spectrum from Classification is when you are no longer grouping characters into classes, but creating bespoke classes for character concepts. This is what GLoG classes do. You come up with what you want to do and a class can be made for that. And that character fantasy can just as well be Conan or Aragorn as it can be a werewolf unionist or the classic "weird little guy".
In Type 4, the more classes available to the players the better, and these games are usually designed such that creating a class is quick and easy, maybe even doable in ten minutes before the start of your first session.
Classes as Nonexistent (Type 0)
The philosophy of classless systems counterintuitively shares a lot with the countless-classes philosophy of the extreme end of Type 4. Both of these kinds of systems want the players to have game mechanics ready to go for exactly the character they want to play. While I was writing the section for Specific Fantasies classes, I remembered an interview with someone from Chaosium (I apologize for not remembering the actual source!) where they discussed having played a game with a player whose character was a dolphin in a mechsuit.
That is GLoGgy as hell.
 |
| Follow the arrows as classes get more specific. |
And I think this hits the crux of why I am drawn to the seemingly contradictory ends of the spectrum. Type 1 and Type 4 aren't actually so far apart when what you want is something that allows the player to do what they want to do without too much bloat. I consider classes a useful and intuitive player-facing tool for this, which explains why I love the two ends of the spectrum and have a soft-spot for classless systems. I consider an excess of mechanical options to be bloated, gameable, and come with a lot of baggage, which explains why I don't Types 2 and 3. But those are just, like, my opinions, man.
