Skills, Classes and Guilds

[moab]

After reading lil'bit's posts in Ask Staff I had to ask myself - and you - are we better off getting rid of classes and going with a selection of skills?

Here are a couple of ideas:
Everyone starts with a pick of four or five basic, reasonably comman skills:
1 language
1 choice of weapon attack skill
1 choice of weapon defense skill (parry, disarm or misc skill below)
1 of sap, subdue, shield use, <insert other skill>

2 misc skills from second class skills or additional languages

if you have karma you would get additional choices to play magicky characters here.

EVERYTHING else would be taught in game.  Find a PC or NPC, pay them, subjugate yourself to them, whatever and learn the skills they have to teach you.  Spent five in-game years learing how to stalk Vestrics and want a change of pace?  Join Kadius and learn tailoring for the next five or the Byn and learn how to be a soldier, maybe adding six new skills to your list.

Maybe you would still branch, but differently - if you're smart you can branch, if you're dumb you might branch, but maybe get dead-ended because you lack insight.  Go find a teacher and they'll help.

*ponder*

I think classes are an artifical way to create a pretend "balance" in the game.  Everyone uses the example of the the thief with a mon fireball as an explanation of why we have classes and in this case, it might happen - but he would have to find someone with those particular skills to teach him how to pickpocket or cast magick - and likely will have to pay dearly for it.  And in the end - so what.  You have a thief with a fireball.  Now - weren't we just discussing how to make magickers a bit more fearsome?

[mansa]

I would abuse the system and become the uber mansa.  I think it's fine the way it is, now.   The only thing I would change is giving a certain guild a certain skill that I fell is making it a crippled guild.

[My 2 sids]

Although I'd be open to a different type of skill choosing process, or even some new classes or subclasses, I don't think this idea will work out.  Our characters have to last long enough as it is to build up skill levels appropriate to a master whatever.  To start out with even fewer skill levels would, for me, be asking too much.

[Delirium]

Dude. You pick sneak and hide and backstab and pickpocket and palm and listen get them all to master so you can teach them. I'll pick dual wield and parry and slashing and piercing and kick and bash and disarm. Then we can teach each other all our skills and be UBER WEAPONZ OF MASS DESTRUKSHUN!

[Marauder Moe]

I don't like ideas that tempt the powergaming demon inside of me.

I wouldn't mind the idea of a sub-subguild option, though.  Perhaps split it into one choice of a crafting/fighting subguild and one social subguild (languages, listen, accents, barter).

Anything further seems like it would be too flexable/abuseable.

[Ktavialt]

All in all, I'm in favor for a class-less system, though I voted dumb idea
b/c it just wasn't set up right :P. I'd post more, but I'm about to go hit
the bars for a little bit so I can't.

- Ktavialt

[crymerci]

In general it doesn't seem like a bad idea, except that this is the kind of decision that is usually made before a MUD opens, not changed a decade later.

The thing that made me vote "dumb idea" was this:

EVERYTHING else would be taught in game.  Find a PC or NPC, pay them, subjugate yourself to them, whatever and learn the skills they have to teach you.

The problem with this system is that PCs don't live long enough.  Say you have a master of fire magick...she's so good she's practically an elemental.  She takes on a select group of apprentices to learn under her.  But she dies before imparting all her knowledge.  Now no one can learn that top tier of knowledge.

Learning from NPCs is, IMO, too prone to be unrealistic or twinky.  At the very least, it means less PC to PC interaction.


Anyway, I don't think there's much wrong with the current system.

[EvilRoeSlade]

The only thing I would change is giving a certain guild a certain skill that I fell is making it a crippled guild.

What skill?

[Miee]

Ktavialt, you're not hitting bars.  You're hitting one of the ilovebees.com payphones.  Admit it.

I'm wondering if Ktaie there, was thinking of a weighted system.  I'd like it, but I immediately see a few problems from the start.  One is that people can still min/max and the other is that people are going to come on here and complain that skill <x> is so powerful and it should cost more and n00b/twink <x> was twinking out with it and skill <y>.

Without the use of a thermal detonator or a plasma grendade, we can't solve that last one, you little tunas.  :p

If we switched to this system, what if we listed the skills for our P.C.s in a weighted order (say Slashing, Tailoring, NinjaBackflip, Ride) and the approving Imm had to check and make sure that combination was ok.  Well, it would solve most of the potential balance problems until some little bastard (Yeah you.  No, not you.  That one over... yeah, you, ya little punk) figured out how to min/max those.  Also, do we really want a period of time greater than 24 hours?

But that's my (very poor) solution to such a problem.  I think if we could get this to work, it'd be great and allow for more flexibility, but as of yet, I just don't see it.

[Agent_137]

I think it's fine as it is. If you got a warrior/thug who wants to learn to make knives, let him get some one to work with him, log it, try and try, log it, try some more, log it, and send it to the mud asking for an extra skill.

Alternatively, there is the system like in fallout.
You start out, and you see a full list of all skills. You pick a few skills as your specializations, and you gain those at a double rate. Everything else is learned slower. But you -can- learn everything else. You could modify this to have your choice skills have a bonus, ...nah... it works for an RPG but not for this game. Hurrah status quo.

[Krath]

No, for many many reasons. If you wish to know PM me. But I am highly against this idea.

[Halaster]

I wouldn't be too fond of this type of system the way you have it suggested.  The game's focus would change from roleplaying to skill acquisition.

I wouldn't mind seeing, however, taking away some skills from guilds, and making those guild-specific subguilds.  For example, you could have a warrior with some basic stuff.  He could have a subguild choice of weaponmaster - which would give him more weapon profs than normal, plus some weapon-crafting abilities, and maybe even a higher start% in a weapon skill.  Or, he could choose the archer subguild, and get archery, fletchery, and so on.  The difference in this and the current system is that the 'base' guild would have less skills, and the subguilds would have more.
*shrug*  Just my own ideas, they don't necessarily represent anyone else's.

[Modest Mouth]

I wouldn't mind seeing, however, taking away some skills from guilds, and making those guild-specific subguilds.

Although my experience within the Armworld is somewhat limited, I can see the advantages of following this approach. The obvious one being solving the problem of 'cookie-cutter' warriors.

Although it seems to me that the problem of a generic warrior is something that could be dealt with in game, by utilizing what skills you want to develop and shunning the rest.

But eh, if there were to be a change in char gen, I would prefer it follow Halaster's suggestion.

[Ktavialt]

Ktavialt, you're not hitting bars.  You're hitting one of the ilovebees.com payphones.  Admit it.

I'm wondering if Ktaie there, was thinking of a weighted system.  I'd like it, but I immediately see a few problems from the start.  One is that people can still min/max and the other is that people are going to come on here and complain that skill <x> is so powerful and it should cost more and n00b/twink <x> was twinking out with it and skill <y>.

Hennessey's, Redondo beach, now owns $40 more of my money between
this post and my last, prolly a three hour span of time. Slow drinking, but
I got my Contracts class in law school coming up in a few hours and I
needed the break, thank you very much.

I just didn't like his grouping of "You need one weapon skill, one defense
skill, etc." Suppose that was just an example of his, though.

My main concern, which this seems to address, though I think the exact
setup he gave isn't the ideal one, is this:

It would be nice if changes were made so nobody could say "Oh hey,
this guy's good with crafting, can drive a wagon, and can barter well, he
must be a merchant and therefore cannot use a sword." This meaning, it
would also be nice to see a merchant, or magicker that -could- fight. Not
well, not nearly as good as a warrior, but able to hold his/her own for
a short while.

Without going too much into the drawbacks which make me dislike the
original poster's style, since I'm currently trying to do case briefs for my
upcoming class, and I don't have the time for it , here's my proposal
that I think would be both beneficial and with few drawbacks:

Give everybody the chance to learn every skill (magick of course is still
dependent on being born with the ability). Give everyone the starting
"guild" skills of the guild of their choice, then...

Allow for a command that lets you pick a focus of sorts for your
character (not a dwarven focus). You can focus on things like "weaponry",
"merchantry", "magick", "stealth". You pick one, and in essence, it means
what you spend your off-time, not-logged in time, concentrating on. Maybe
even it includes online time - just things you try to comprehend in your
head when sitting at the tavern.

For the skill set that falls under "weaponry", "stealth", or whatever your
particular focus is, knowledge and ability in them will come to you faster
(ie. the current rate of skill learning). For all skills that do not fall under
the skill set, knowledge and ability in them goes much slower, and if you
don't use them often enough, skills will eventually deteriorate. Of course,
when they deteriorate, they won't go all the way down to zero. They'll
only go down to a certain point.

Also, you may change your focus, however this should be something that
only changes at your logout, so people won't "focus magick" cast a few
spells, then "focus weaponry" and fight a few gortoks. Maybe even only
is changed weekly, else someone might log in, cast spells, then log out,
then tomorrow, log in, fight, then log out.

Of course, the above is just a hypothetical example of the groupings of
skills that I'd use, and I'd probably even change it, but it's close enough to
give the jist of what I'm trying to show.

- Ktavialt

[Delirium]

I think a couple warrior subclasses could fix this perhaps. A moderate cap in a weapon of choice and maybe the ability to kick and bash. Not any better than, say, a moderately skilled burglar or assassin would ever get, but enough to defend themselves in a pinch.

This way you could see a merchant with the ability to swing a weapon. Not as well as a seasoned warrior, but he's learned a thing or two about defending himself and his precious wares.

Or a gemmer that used to be a mercenary. Etc, etc..

[crymerci]

I like the alternative that Halaster put forth, where it's more like dual-classing than the current system.

Delirium's idea is good, too.  We have subclasses that give you a couple of the "fringe" or specialized combat abilities, but none of the subclasses gives you a weapon skill (that I can think of).

[Larrath]

Ideally, I would like to see Armageddon as a mostly classless MUD.

What does that mean?  Classes would still exist, but they would go like this.

a) Regular
b-g) Elementalists by Temple
h) Psionicist
i) Sorcerer

Everyone will be able to learn everything that mundane people are able to learn, and guilds will be used for other stuff.

Subguilds would still exist, but the idea is that if a merchant wanted to become a ranger, or pick pockets in his free time, assuming he will continue with this hobby for twenty years, his skill will not be capped.


I have no idea how this can be done right now, perhaps just because I'm tired.  Still, it's a nice notion and maybe, someday, it will be solved and implemented.

[Sir Diealot]

I'd like the idea of Classes, the BIG CLASS (warrior, ranger, etc.) being removed, to make way for a choice of two or three subclasses, instead.. Like Spear-Fighter or Stone-Crafter or Pick-Pocket or General Warrior (less proficient starting, and with a lower cap on spears than a spear-fighter)..etc. etc. ad nauseum.. it'd make combinations a LOT more varied, and would add to reality by adding to customization.

[JollyGreenGiant]

I think that the original idea in this post actually removes variation from characters rather than creating it.  Think about the characters that you have played, and what skills they had.  If you could just pick and choose, there are probably a few skills you'd want with every character, such as listen and scan.  Then consider that in a pick-your-own-skills system, there's no allowance for variation on skill caps.  Without a complicated system of synergies between skills, everyone that picks the skinning skill will have the same learning rate, the same skill cap, etc.

You also lose certain types of specialization, some skill-related and some not.  If you've played a variety of classes, you've probably run into a few, probably without even knowing about it.  One example of this is that rangers can quit out in places where other classes cannot.

Then there's the whole question of learning new skills instead of branching, and so on.  I agree with the assertion that this would shift the focus of many people too far to skill acquisition.

[wizturbo]

This is what I would like to see.

ALL guilds gaining what I call 'everyman skills'

What does this mean?  Certain common skills be available to every single class, but with a low score that cannot be improved.  Everyone should be able to listen, scan, hide, sneak, and use a basic weapon, or any other 'common' skills that really anyone should be able to do.  Its absurd that you cannot hide because you didn't choose such and such guild.  Sure, your hide skill will blow and anyone who scans will find you (and i mean anyone, because they'll have the same 'everyman' ability to use scan).  

That means if my merchant wants to leap behind a couch in the Bard's Barrel to hide from a horde of angry kanks, he can do so.  He'll suck at it, and literally anyone in the game can find him, but he has that option.  It also means a big warrior thug type CAN try and easedrop on a surrounding table, it'll be really hard to get it to work and he's likely to miss out on a lot of the conversation, but he'll have the option to try.  

These are all things anyone in zalanthas should be capable of attempting, but only their 'guild' would allow them any opportunity to really become good at it.  Personally, i'd say don't even put the skill on your "skills" list, just have everyone in the game naturally have a certain level of these everyman skills.

I'm also FULLY for making these 'everyman' skills race specific.  A half-giant literally might not be able to hide anywhere, they're too stupid and big :-)  Where as an elf, even a merchant one, should be able to hide/sneak/steal with some very basic proficiency.

[Angela Christine]

We have some everyman skills: contact, barrier, dual wield, two handed, sheild use, cooking, analyze, and maybe a couple others that I'm not certain of.  I assume some classes have really low caps on dual wield and shield use, but they are somehow necessary to the calculations used by the combat code so everyone gets them.  It is kind of funny when you have dual wield but no weapon skills, so you can suck with weapons in both hands!  

It would be nice if changes were made so nobody could say "Oh hey,
this guy's good with crafting, can drive a wagon, and can barter well, he must be a merchant and therefore cannot use a sword." This meaning, it would also be nice to see a merchant, or magicker that -could- fight. Not well, not nearly as good as a warrior, but able to hold his/her own for a short while.

I think the introduction of subguilds helped with this quite a bit, although they were introduced a little before I started playing.  I had a secret magicker become a soldier, not a very good soldier and s/he sucked at armed sparring, but somehow s/he managed to fool everyone well enough to work as a guard for a couple IC years, and no one suspects a person in a guard's uniform to be a magicker.  :twisted:  So it isn't impossible to pass as something else, especially with good subclass choices.  It would be funny if a warrior claimed to be a mage and got himself gemmed.  He couldn't actually do magick, but anyone that attacked him when he was out mining obsidian would get a surprise.  :lol:


I think "passing" as something else would be easier, and character concepts much more flexible, if we had . . .   Two Subclasses For Everyone!  

A mage or merchant that took two combat subclasses still wouldn't fight nearly as well as a warrior, but he might have enough combat skills to pass.  A warrior or thief that took two merchanty subclasses still wouldn't be as good at crafting or NPC trading as a real merchant, but he could do pretty well and would make a better "traveling trader" than a real merchant since he could ride from town to town with his goods much more safely than a real merchant.  It would also make some combinations available that aren't currently possible, like a sneaky leatherworker (the armorcrafter subguild doesn't get skinning, so if you have a guild without skinning then you have to buy all your hides, which sucks).  Most subclasses give you 2-4 skills so it wouldn't make PCs hugely more powerful, just more tailored.



I don't mind classless systems, but I think it is far too late to convert Armageddon now.  That isn't a project they could do one Saturday, it would take months and would probably require a pwipe, extended downtime, and other unpleasantness.  And classless systems like the one proposed DO focus players on aquiring skills much more than branching does.


AC

[Delirium]

pwipe

<cringes in terror>

NEVER post that word again!

[TooLazyToLogIn]

I must admit it would be an interesting concept to do it like the first poster said...you start off with base skill everyone has, then you join could join guilds or other poeple to learned varied amount of skills at various levels.  Unfortunately whether we do it this way or are allowed to pick skills from the start people would either begin on focusing on aquiring skills or find the most uber template.  Let's face it the only reason we would want to choose our skills is to make our char. more uber.

                    Something about the game i hate right now is how sometimes you lack the skill to Rp something really cool or can't find someone skilled enough to Rp something cool...I hate having to go through 1 RL month of training my 25+ years old whatever just so he can begin doing basic things that he should already know just due to the fact he is alive.  I don't want them to start uber but don't the rest of you get tired of training the same old skill over and over.

                      I would like to see more wieght added to subgiulds though...I hate the definate nature of the main guilds, ya you can try to Rp around this but just too obvious to try to be something when your skills support it....eg merchant class/hunter, trying to be a full time hunter...if you say Rp being a bad hunter but bad hunters are just plain dead hunters.

[Mr.Camel]

The only thing I don't like about the current system is that it restricts a character from learning. What I mean is, lets say your character has a merchant guild and you ended up joining the byn. While you would most definately suck for some time, I don't see why you can't become as good as the other ones with enough time and training.

A classless system sounds ideal, but wouldn't work because of the reasons pointed by others before me, mostly the short lifespan of PCs. So I'd like to keep seeing guilds/subguilds, but I would rather see a guild as being starting skills, and no more. How good you can get with a skill should be determined by stats/race instead of guild, IMO.

And you should be able to learn(a.k.a appear in the skill list) almost all the ordinary( non-magicker, etc) skills given the appropriate teacher and effort.

And I completely agree with wizturbo about the 'everyone' skills.

[Sir Diealot]

Only problem with that is that sorcery is Learned, not Inborn like elementalism.. So we'd have everyone eventually become Sorcerers.

[Ammit]

So we'd have everyone eventually become Sorcerers.

I thought of that problem when reading the thread, but then realised sorcerery could still be restricted based on karma. So yes, while everyone with sorcerer karma could always become sorcerers, they're given the ability to play them because they're trusted not to abuse it.

I personally think classes inhibit roleplay and would love to see arm become classless. Unfortunately I think it would require such a big change and would be a lot of work that it's unfeasible.

[Anonymous]

I personally think classes inhibit roleplay and would love to see arm become classless.

Classless systems both solve and create a big problem.

In a classless system you no longer consciously or subconsciously can pick out someone's  guild.  Right now if you've played a few guilds you can pick out who would be a threat in a room alone and who wouldn't if you guess their guild.  Even if you don't intend to do this it's a challenge to remember that your PC doesn't know that Player X who is Guild A has no weapon skills.

The problem a classless system creates, though, is that unless certain skills are made incompatible you can end up with a Sneaking, Hiding, Scanning, Sword-swinging Fire Elementalist.

But if skills are made incompatible then you still end up knowing that that Fire Mage doesn't have a weapon skill.

[Twilight]

You could also change the way that subclasses are handled.  As it is, while there is a variety of subclasses, they might not necessarily be an exact fit for your background.

What you could do is take all the skills that subclasses get, and then assigned a certain number of points to each skill.  A character would get, say, 10 points to spend on skills, and three skill slots.  Listen might cost 5, guard 3 and a language 2, etc.  There would be standard caps on all of these skills, but choosing certain skill combinations (which ones unknown to players) would decrease max skill levels of certain skills (because I don't think the same skill in two different subclasses necessarily have the same max currently).  This would just add in some flexibility to the system.  On the other hand, people might choose the same ones over and over.  Or, and I am guessing this is the case, certain combinations could be considered just too powerful or easy to abuse, yes, even with subguild skills.

Not that I really like the above type of system.  It smacks of ROM.  I like the current system.  But, its an alternative.

[mansa]

I've seen a merchant have a weapons skill.  I've seen a sorcerer have a weapons skill.  I've seen a burglar turn -into- a sorcerer.  The game -is- flexible, if you work at it.  Now...when I say work at it... I mean...

These characters have been alive at least 9 months RL.  That's a major accomplishment in itself.  These people weren't killers or hiding in the 'rinth.  These characters had trainers, and were out in the real world, and some of them were -deep- into politics.  It is possible to do these things, but it takes a long ass time, and you better have a damn possible and well-thought-out reason for this.

I like the way the game works now.  And..  heck.  You could always special app some crazy character with five arms that receives a third attack each combat round.  Or one that turns into a tembo.

[X-D]

I like Twilight's idea for subclasses.

It may smack of ROM, but again, it is only subclass, the skill maxes I think would remain the same because it is a subclass skill and would not branch, I'd go for it myself. Hell, I'd trade armor repair for skinning on my armorcrafter right now.

Hell, I'd be happy to just be able to trade out a single subclass skill for another at chargen.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

In concept alone, I support this idea. However, I have always looked at it like this.

You should start with a class-list of skills.

During your life, you should be able to branch out into a new carreer if you like without Immmortal intervention. Thus, all skills need to be learnable, other than those which you have been born with, such as elementalism.

I do not support NPC teaching at all, but I do support PC teaching greatly.

There should be a cap of total skills points available to you. Maybe base it on your race, of perhaps on your intelligence, or maybe, just a broad, across the board cap.

You need to be capable of locking your skills where they are. In some games, this might become twinky, but in Armageddon, you cannot even see your skill levels, so it can't be twinky. This way, you can adjust your character's persona and there would be no two characters alike.

The point is that you cannot expect to know everything in the world, but there is no way you should have to be a warrior or a merchant for the rest of your life.

[wizturbo]

I've seen a merchant have a weapons skill.  I've seen a sorcerer have a weapons skill.  I've seen a burglar turn -into- a sorcerer.  The game -is- flexible, if you work at it.  Now...when I say work at it... I mean...

These characters have been alive at least 9 months RL.  That's a major accomplishment in itself.  These people weren't killers or hiding in the 'rinth.  These characters had trainers, and were out in the real world, and some of them were -deep- into politics.  It is possible to do these things, but it takes a long ass time, and you better have a damn possible and well-thought-out reason for this.

I like the way the game works now.  And..  heck.  You could always special app some crazy character with five arms that receives a third attack each combat round.  Or one that turns into a tembo.

Your completely right there Mansa.  Thats why I recommended the everyman skills, opposed to being able to 'learn' any skill.  Everyone should be minorly proficient in some things.  As for 'special' circumstances where characters gain skills outside of their guild to any level of real talent over the 'everyman' level, the immortals can always add that if its realistic.  But players shouldn't have to special request the ability to hide and scan at a minor level of proficiency, these are skills any 5 year old would have playing hide and go seek.  

As for all complicated or 'powerful' abilities, immortal assistance should be required.  Both for simplicity sake, and as a checks and measures to prevent abuse.

[jmordetsky]

I would abuse the system and become the uber mansa.

Me too.

[Miee]

I would abuse the system and become the uber mansa.

Me too.

I just special-apped an uber mansa.

[Armaddict]

I've played on muds, RPI ones, where players could select the skills they wanted, and I hated all of them.

[Anonymous]

I've played on muds, RPI ones, where players could select the skills they wanted, and I hated all of them.

There were planes that didn't fly the first time, you know.

[Ktavialt]

I've played on muds, RPI ones, where players could select the skills they wanted, and I hated all of them.

I've seen lots of those as well, and hated them also, but the reason I
hated them is that you could select as many skills as you wanted, but the
more skills you selected, the more experience you needed to gain levels.

Like CRW said regarding the planes, just because someone else does it
poorly, doesn't mean it can't be done well.

[wizturbo]

There were planes that didn't fly the first time, you know.

This is true, but if it fails the plane crashes, right?

What people are saying, is that other RPI muds that have tried this have failed.  I'd rather not risk the best mud in the world, just to see if the skill system change would make it the best mud in the world + +

:-)

[Anonymous]

What people are saying, is that other RPI muds that have tried this have failed. I'd rather not risk the best mud in the world, just to see if the skill system change would make it the best mud in the world + +

             Bet they said the same thing when they were adding in permadeath, or sub-guilds or crafting...for the game to be the best it has to continue to evolve, it is the only reason it has come this far.  I like 7DV idea...The amount of work this would involve is tough but i bet it was the same with coding sub-guilds and getting the crafting system going...if it turns out bad nothing will stop us from going back...on that note i would also like to see all stat indicators removed.

[jstorrie]

Since your character's class and subclass represent their training and learning up until the point the player begins playing them, I don't think there's any need to put in some sort of classless system.  If it took your warrior twenty years to learn how to do the basic warrior skills, and he has the lifespan in which to try study burglar skills for another twenty, I'm sure you could just send the log in and have the immortals give you some skills, you know?

It would take so incredibly long for any character to 'learn' a new class that the overwhelming majority would die before they did.  It's much less work to have the immortals tweak a few outstanding characters now and then than to completely rewrite the entire skill and learning system.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

So, incredibly long to learn a new class ...

No. That is not accurate.

I myself have learned maybe 3 or 4 RL classes in the space of 7 years. Fastfood employee, undisclosed occupation, stockroom worker, sculptor, painter, artist, basketball player .... maybe more than 3 or 4 classes, come to think of it.

If you put in the time, you should be able to do it, and you should be able to do it without Immortal assistance.

[Modest Mouth]

I myself have learned maybe 3 or 4 RL classes in the space of 7 years. Fastfood employee, undisclosed occupation, stockroom worker, sculptor, painter, artist, basketball player .... maybe more than 3 or 4 classes, come to think of it.

Not sure if this is on the same level as a class.

In Arm, I'm a warrior: I've been a caravan guard, a latrine janitor, a mercenary, a leatherworker, a raider, and an assassin in the past 7 years. Although each one might rely on different skills, the basics are still the same.

Something more comparable to RL might be: I'm a computer technician. In my spare time, I do cross-country running, break-dance, draw, play the saxophone and harmonica, work at bookstores and build architecural miracles with Legos. Now, if you asked me to be doctor, a nuclear physicist, or enlist in the military, I would tell you to sod off. Although I -do- many things, my "class" is still a computer technician. It is what I went to school for, it is what I trained for, and it is what I love. WHen I get hired, it won't be because of all my other activities, it will be because I have the skills necessary to be a comp tech.

My vote is still the same: Keep the system, if anything, give more flavor to sub-guilds and take some away from the generic classes.

[Anonymous]

This is true, but if it fails the plane crashes, right?

Right, but old Orville and Wilbur didn't just decide that because Leonardo couldn't make it work then it's impossible.

What people are saying, is that other RPI muds that have tried this have failed.

Other muds have tried to balance permadeath, roleplay and player-killing and failed as well.

I'd rather not risk the best mud in the world, just to see if the skill system change would make it the best mud in the world

Where's the risk?  I've toyed around with Diku muds enough to know that chargen changes don't mean you have to wipe out player characters.  If something didn't work it could be fixed or pulled off the game.

[Avril]

I voted "good idea", even though I don't agree with it at all, simply because the game needs a classless system... Not that things will ever change. In fact, I remember some staff member once said something to the extent of "magickers can't hide". It wouldn't surprise me to hear that most of the imms, who have become accustomed to the class system over the course of years, felt that way. Still, magickers live such dangerous lives that I'm surprised they don't get the hide skill straight off.

Skill-picking, with the use of a fixed ammount of skillpoints, might make a good extention to the already available class system. If properly integrated, the current guilds would become nothing more than specific combinations of skills. The whole whiran repertoire of spells could fit into a single "skill" chosen at character creation, charged so many skill points that, unless the player placed a major cap on it, it would be difficult to take on the major aspects of another class. Some skills might exclude each other - a nilazi psionic, for instance, ought to be impossible without a special app. Best of all, the addition of a "custom class" wouldn't need anything like a player wipe, as the original system would still be there.

As it is now, if you can carve both rocks and wood, you're definitely a merchant. If you try sneaking in the desert... Ranger. Disarming or subduing people in the sparring ring? That makes you a warrior. It's extremely easy to tell what someone can do, and how well he can do it, by knowing what just one of his skills is.

A stonecarver who forages his own rocks, using a combination of alertness and stealth, would not realistically have the ranger/stonecrafter combo. Why don't stonecrafters, who spend most of their life working stone, ever get better at it than at sneaking around the desert? Because they haven't picked the merchant class? Well, that doesn't really make sense... At the moment, quite a few character concepts fail to get off the ground, or indeed, fail to be envisioned simply because no class/subclass combination exists to satisfy them. By allowing the players to decide the extent of their expertise in whatever preset skills they've chosen, even though they can't develop new skills without massive effort and immortal intervention, the game would suddenly offer a whole lot of customizability, and thus, a whole lot more variety than it has now. Not only would it ensure that merchants and magickers won't be treated like wimps, it would also allow a whole variety of character concepts to prosper.

Some overpowered skills and abilities might cause a few problems with this setup, though, and some hidden skills (like offense and defense) might have to come out in the open. There's also that set of abilities, like ranger quitting and desert sneak/hide, that would prove cumbersome to recode and reintergrate. When balanced properly, however, this system would outclass and practically contain the one that exists now.

[Miee]

I was under the impression that the hidden offense and defense skills were like contact and barrier.  Everyone gets them automatically.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[Akaramu]

I'm all for more custom subguilds, while leaving the main ones untouched. For obvious reasons there would be nore magickal, mindbender or sorcerer abilities available in any subguild, but the common ones... hide, archery, etc... could be available to anyone based on some limited choice system at start, if backed up properly via background. I also think it should be possible for anyone to learn a subguild skill at a low cap later in their career without a chance of ever getting good at it. *shrug*

[Kalden]

People are far too predictable right now. I can walk around and guess classes, and half the time I will be right. It's annoying and restrictive, and it's the reason that I don't play Armageddon anymore. The biggest intrigue killer comes with the elementalists/sorcerors and thieves. A stronger combat subclass could help, but it would be heavily abused.

Skills should not be all or nothing.

[jhunter]

People are far too predictable right now. I can walk around and guess classes, and half the time I will be right. It's annoying and restrictive, and it's the reason that I don't play Armageddon anymore. The biggest intrigue killer comes with the elementalists/sorcerors and thieves. A stronger combat subclass could help, but it would be heavily abused.

If it's merely because you can guess what guild someone is maybe your focusing too much on the OOC aspect of things.

*shrug*

Also, as you said your only right 50% of the time so it can't be that bad.

[Bogre]

People are far too predictable right now. I can walk around and guess classes, and half the time I will be right. It's annoying and restrictive, and it's the reason that I don't play Armageddon anymore. The biggest intrigue killer comes with the elementalists/sorcerors and thieves. A stronger combat subclass could help, but it would be heavily abused.

Skills should not be all or nothing.

They aren't all or nothing, really. And sometimes people can be predictable, but you've gotta ignore that part of it.

[Modest Mouth]

People are far too predictable right now. I can walk around and guess classes, and half the time I will be right.

And what's wrong with that?

If I'm a hired sword, then I want people to be able to look at me and think that I'm the best sellsword in all of Zalanthas, which is why I charge crazy high prices.

If I'm a desert guide, I want to look like I'm ready for a sandstorm to drop at any second so that people will feel safe if I'm in their group.

If I'm a merchant, then I want to look like I'm makin' sid so that my competition knows that they are outclassed.

The point is, more than 50% of the people who populate the world would want you to guess their class, because it is a necessary part of their profession.

The other 50% are all theives and should be shouted at the moment they enter the tavern.

[Anonymous]

People are far too predictable right now. I can walk around and guess classes, and half the time I will be right.

And what's wrong with that?

Plenty.

I'm a warrior, you're a thief.  If I can guess that, then I can assume I'll have a decent shot at killing you.  If you subconsciously or consciously guess the guild and have played here for a while, then you have to work to not let that have an effect on your roleplay.  You have to make yourself roleplay out that you just aren't sure how dangerous someone is instead of just 'knowing' that if you get them in a locked room you will win.

Obviously only staff can truly know what's up, but it's still not a good situation.

I'd rather people go by how you roleplay, not what identifying skills you've displayed, and doing away with guilds is the best way to reinforce that.

[Modest Mouth]

Again, I don't see that as being a problem. Let's plot out this scenario:

Bob is a trained fighter. He has been a mercenary most of his life and he has seen the hairer side of battle. He has killed men, and he is still alive, which should say enough about his combat prowess. He is dressed in chitin-armor bearing the scars of those fights.

Joe is a thief. He has cutpurses since he was old enough to skin from the law. He has stolen, and he still has both of his hands, which should say enough about his thieving prowess. He is wearing the garb of the city life, so he can move from mark to mark easier.

Now, if Bob meets Joe in a tavern, is it unreasonable and OOC for Bob to believe that he could take Joe in a fight?

No. In fact, it is perfectly in character for Bob. Have you ever been to a bar with a bunch of Marines? Same thing. They start eyeing ever male up and down looking for a reason to get in a fight, cause they know they can take just about anyone in there.

Alright, so Bob comes to the conclusion that he can take Joe in a fight. Hell, in his mind, he can take just about anyone in a fight. So, Bob's player starts guessing at Joe's guild. Very OOC and twinkish, but let's roll wit it. So Bob's player guesses thief. Congrats, Bob's player guessed that he is a thief, so Bob starts span scanning. Well, know everyone knows OOC that Bob's player is a damned fool. If Bob's player had kept his OOC knowledge from affecting the game, then everyone would be a lot happier.

The weakness you describe is not about the game, it's about the players.

[Anonymous]

Again, I don't see that as being a problem. Let's plot out this scenario:

Bob is a trained fighter. He has been a mercenary most of his life and he has seen the hairer side of battle. He has killed men, and he is still alive, which should say enough about his combat prowess. He is dressed in chitin-armor bearing the scars of those fights.

Joe is a thief. He has cutpurses since he was old enough to skin from the law. He has stolen, and he still has both of his hands, which should say enough about his thieving prowess. He is wearing the garb of the city life, so he can move from mark to mark easier.

Because as soon as Joe does something that identifies him as thief guild there is no question who will win in a straight up fight.

If there were no guilds, then Bob might think he could take Joe, but in the back of his mind he has to be wondering if Joe dresses that way but is actually a well-trained fighter.

[jhunter]

If there were no guilds, then Bob might think he could take Joe, but in the back of his mind he has to be wondering if Joe dresses that way but is actually a well-trained fighter.

Even with the guilds you can still do this...it's not really that hard to do.

[Anonymous]

Even with the guilds you can still do this...it's not really that hard to do.

Yes, but I think it's not a far leap to imagine that people take advantage of guild guessing, even subconsciously.

Bob the 2-day warrior is talking to a gruff looking dwarf.  The dwarf talks about riding south to a village.  In the process the dwarf does something that pegs him as most-likely having a non-combative subguild that Bob picks up on, so, despite the dwarf's gear, Bob now has it in the back of his head that he can take that dwarf out, knock him off his kank and kill him for sid.

What if Bob is the sort of player to take advantage of that?  Even if he doesn't mean to be the sort who takes advantage of it, knowing subconsciously they you have the edge over someone in a fight can't help but to alter your actions as a player.  Either you take advantage of it or you overcompensate.

[EvilRoeSlade]

The other 50% are all theives and should be shouted at the moment they enter the tavern.

That isn't funny, especially since your post seems to support this kind of behavior.

[jhunter]

jhunter wrote:
Even with the guilds you can still do this...it's not really that hard to do.


Yes, but I think it's not a far leap to imagine that people take advantage of guild guessing, even subconsciously.

Bob the 2-day warrior is talking to a gruff looking dwarf. The dwarf talks about riding south to a village. In the process the dwarf does something that pegs him as most-likely having a non-combative subguild that Bob picks up on, so, despite the dwarf's gear, Bob now has it in the back of his head that he can take that dwarf out, knock him off his kank and kill him for sid.

What if Bob is the sort of player to take advantage of that? Even if he doesn't mean to be the sort who takes advantage of it, knowing subconsciously they you have the edge over someone in a fight can't help but to alter your actions as a player. Either you take advantage of it or you overcompensate.

I agree, but it also does prove the point that it's not a problem with the game but with some of the players.

If you are thinking realistically and roleplaying that way, the ooc knowledge of what guild someone is shouldn't come into play. I haven't had a problem personally separating the two. I alway bring it down to this one simple question:

What, would my -pc- do in this situation having the knowledge he/she does?

*shrug*

[Modest Mouth]

Modest Mouth wrote:
The other 50% are all theives and should be shouted at the moment they enter the tavern.


That isn't funny, especially since your post seems to support this kind of behavior.

Nah, I was trying to take the exact opposite position. My point was that it is okay if your character can draw his own conclusions from what he witnesses in the game, that that is totally fine IC. What is not okay is when you draw conclusions OOC and let those affect the way you play, such as shouting at thieves in a tavern because they wear footpads and spam scanning.
Eaxmple:

I can beat up that guy because I am the hardest warrior in the world. I've merced with the Byn, saw my share in fighting with the north, and did a stint in the Arena as the only undefeated gladiator in Allanak. I've seen the sharp edge of the blade and I've laughed it off. = cool line of thought

I can beat up that guy because, despite the armor he is wearing, he knows how to hide which means he can't have very good combat skills so I could probably take him because I choose warrior and my skills should be higher. Plus, I think it was that guy who stole from my last character, so now I'm gonna tell everybody my excuse for killing him was because he was so thiefy...ectect.= wack-ass line of thought

Modest Mouth's point:

Abolishing classes/subguilds because it can be abused by bad players is -NOT- a good enough reason to get rid of it.

[Dresan]

The way guilds currently are you would have to be real dense or a complete newbie not to figure out what someone was after spending time with them.  You don't have to be looking for it or anything but if a person climbs on a mount and wields two weapons then they are a ranger, it takes a split second for the human mind to put one and one together.  Now that doesn't mean someone will abuse this knowledge but it's the same as someone telling you a plot line it sorta ruins the genuine suprise and take away from some of the mystery of the other character.

[X-D]

Though, its not that hard to hide your guild either,  or at least make people come to the wrong conclusion, specialy with a good subguild choice or even using skills you do not really have.

Just a comment.

[jhunter]

Something else too, I think some cross-blending of some crafting skills would help alleviate this a bit. Like:

How come a stone crafter who knows stoneworking very well cannot craft simple weapons of stone?


Same with those that can work wood?

Still leave the more advanced sort of weapons to the weaponscrafters and merchants (the ones that use more than one material).

There are other examples I can't think of right now.

[Delirium]

How come a stone crafter who knows stoneworking very well cannot craft simple weapons of stone?

Simply limitation in the way the crafting code works, I think.

[Sir Diealot]

Shouldn't be too hard to fix..add the simple-craft weapons to the skillset..va-boom..it's done.