There will always be best builds. Even with no builds, there will still be a best set of equipment, or best set of stat allocation; Failing that, there will be a 'best title' or 'best name'. Thats just how things work.

Removing fun factors to try and eliminate the amount of 'best builds' is a severe mistake, IMO.

Skill-based systems can be incredibly hard to balance, even if you're ridiculously careful with how you plan them out. There are some ways to prevent jack-of-all-trades builds, just as there are ways to prevent someone from super-over specializing.

There are many commercial games you can take a look at for suggestions here, one of which you mentioned.

Diablo II uses skill synergies to 'force' certain builds to be good/bad, despite the fact that they'd be awesome/[profanity] outside of synergies.

It also uses a resistance system, to prevent someone from completely focusing on one thing (Physical damage, one type of elemental damage, etc). It doesn't work as well as it should in a continual online environment, but its certainly something you can use as an example.

Its also a severe mistake to cripple builds to only be good at one thing (ie make 'PvP builds' and 'PvE builds'). Those will come about by themselves through min/max'ers, no need to push them even more.

I'd look into restricting builds based on skills being required by other skills, limited by stats, percentage-based skills (be careful there; Be *very* careful), exponentially difficult to reach 'top' skills and a variety of other methods that have been utilized.

Star Wars Galaxies, Diablo II, ShadowBane and UO might be good games to look at for reference; Even if you haven't played them, there is a wealth of information on the internet about how the respective systems work.

My favorite example of a game where many builds are viable is Magic: The Gathering. Okay, maybe it's not a roleplaying game. But it is massively multiplayer, with hundreds of thousands of players worldwide -- and it is played online, by at least tens of thousands, if not more. (And it's sort of roleplaying, since you play the role of a powerful planeswalker ans spellcaster, but that's stretching it.)

The point is that in M:TG, there are hundreds of excellent possible decks that are played, and even established deck types change frequently as the metagame ebbs and swirls.

This is created by a few conditions:
First of all, there are five "formats" of gameplay and a player can play in as few or as many formats as he likes. The first is open format, which most players play without realizing it. There are not hard rules and no tournaments, and you play whatever cards you want.
Beyond that, there are tournament formats. These are Type 1 (all cards are allowed, but the number of certian powerful cards that you can have in your deck is restricted), Type 1.5 (same as T1, but the cards are banned instead of restricted. This is a huge difference.), Type 1.x "Extended" (as T1.5, but a different banned list and only new-ish cards are allowed), Type 2 (as T1.x, but even newer cards yet and another different banned cards list), and Block (only the very newest cards are allowed, yet another new banned cards list).

The banned and restricted cards lists keep the most powerful cards from dominating the scene. They try to balance them as they make them, but sometimes things fail -- when every build has to either include or make serious adjustments for a certain spell, they usually ban or restrict that spell once it becomes clear that the spells is hurting the fun of the game. Those spells are called "broken". Usually, the builds that use that spell are still very powerful even after the spell is banned/restricted, showing how "broken" the spell truly was.

On the other hand, the formats keep refactoring themselves. Even Type 1, the most permissive of all the formats rules-wise, is constantly changing because of new discoveries of deck archetypes, gaining in popularity of certain decks, and the introduction of new cards into the arena.

I am primarily a Type 1 player, and even in Type 1 there are at least 6 or 7 "Tier 1" builds - more than the number of good classes in most MMORPGs. Then there are probably a dozen popular "tier 2" decks, which are not super-powerful but are fun enough to play and win consistently enough to have widespread use in the game. Then there are decks like those I have been playing lately - "tier 3" decks which really aren't all that strong, but prey on the weaknesses of the tier 1 and 2 decks in order to upset the balance that they so precariously keep. So-called "rogue" or "metagame-based" decks keep the big boys on their toes - and because they are usually played only by their ingenuitive creators and a rare few others, the number of such decks is beyond easily counting.

Of course, there are always the crap decks that rarely if ever win, too. But people play them because they're fun, or when they do win they really piss the other player off.

Dunno if that helps. :-)

When a game centers around combat, classes/skills that are optimal in combat will reign supreme. Just the way it is. If you don't want to focus on non-combat activities, then you need to allow different routes in combat that make all the classes equivalent or useful in combat. Some primary roles:

Damage dealer- This is a class that excels in raw damage output or circumventing defense. Ideally, this role is not also a primary tank, though that is a good secondary role. High usefulness in solo play. Recommended concepts: Barbarian (high damage output, limited armor, evasion), Rogue (High accuracy, critical hits, special defense evasion IE armor penetration or similar, low resilience/armor), Fencer/Duelist (similar to rogue), Wizard (High damage spells, slow recovery, poor defense)

Tank- This is a role that can take alot of hits. This role is often the lynchpin of grouping and usually requires good support to stay alive/minimize damage and to make sure bad guys stay focused on the tank. High usefulness in solo play. Concepts: Knight/Fighter (High armor, low evasion, decent damage output), Cleric (combo of support and tank, rather poor accuracy and evasion), Monk (Good evasion and resilience, but low armor)

Buffer/Support- Usually a spellcaster, this role is very useful for increasing ally abilities such as evasion/defense, armor, accuracy, etc. allowing a group to take on more powerful threats. Generally moderate fighting and defensive abilities are recommended so as not to eclipse pure damage and tanking classes. Moderate usefulness in solo play. Concepts: Shaman, Priest, Bard, Enchanter

Healer- Also generally a spellcaster, this role is valued for its ability to restore stamina, health, magic etc. and is crucial for quick recovery as they generally have solutions to status ailments. Again, lessened fighting abilities are recommended to compensate for the increased resilience from healing. Largely the inverese of the damage dealer. Moderate usefulness in solo play. Concepts: Priest, Light Wizard, Paladin

Debuffer- The inverse of the Buffer, Debuffers generally lessen the abilities of opponent's through status ailments and effects. A huge force modifier, combined with a buffer, they can make damage dealers incredibly dangerous. Debuffers offensive ability tends to be limited to damage over time and may have weakened defensive abilities (in which case pets are recommended to supplement). Moderate usefulness in solo play. Concepts: Shaman, necromancer, evil priest, dark wizard

Manager/Crowd Control- An essential role in grouping if there is any kind of AI, the manager makes sure only desired enemies are engaged, that they stay engaged, and to the right targets, usually through taunts, magic, etc. This role often has abilities that limit or modify opponent aggression (or redirect it to other targets!). Moderate usefulness in solo play. Concepts: Bard, enchanter, jester/dancer

By splitting out roles, you help ensure a greatter number of choices and roles. Optimization is unavoidable and balance is tricky if you don't stick to a zero sum formula, but at least this way you have 6+ optimal configs instead of one or two :-)

Merchant characters will just be used to fund their REAL character (combat specialist). That's not such a bad thing, but I think having a Thief type class is better. Same kind of thing but much more desirable.

Trade is something that is only much good between players. Having all items buyable in a shop is plain boring so the need for a merchant class is much less.

Midmarch wrote:

Merchant characters will just be used to fund their REAL character (combat specialist). That's not such a bad thing, but I think having a Thief type class is better. Same kind of thing but much more desirable.

Trade is something that is only much good between players. Having all items buyable in a shop is plain boring so the need for a merchant class is much less.

Perhaps I should clarify: I wasn't quite talking about these classes, but the possibility of adding different ways to go throughout the game, and thus playing differently. In theory, that should cancel(or at least make it harder) the possibility of uber builds, as a brute warrior could never make a successful scholary.