If we had a 'Commoner' guild...

[mansa]

Don't think there should be magicker subguilds.

But, there is no reason why magickers can't learn these things through hard practice, work and study...right now.

In order to get the coded bonuses of weapon skills, you have to ask for immortal involvement.  That's one reason to not go through with it.

[Twilight]

Several years ago the immortal response to having karma subguilds, and magick using subguilds in particular, was a flat out no.  Unfortunately, that post seems to have disappeared (it was the same one that gave us quite a few new subguilds at the time) so I can't give you the specific reasoning behind that.

When I think of the commoner guild, I can't help but recall the pre-crafting era merchant guild.  Seems like people want a range of some of the best abilities (scan, listen, bandage, etc) in the game, with crafting, with weapon skills.  I'm sorry, but in my mind its just not going to happen.  Especially weapon skills.  Your average commoner should't be any more proficient with a weapon that your merchant or magicker is.  Those classes, in my mind, are set to what the average commoner is capable of in combat.

I like LoD's idea, I just think he has the wrong approach.  There are some skills that every single class has.  Your language.  Your psionic skills.  Dual wield.  Cooking. I think there are 7 or 8.

A commoner working the way LoD proposed in my mind would start with the 7 or 8 skills common to any character.  Skill max would be the lowest that any guild gets in that skill.  You would also choose a subguild at character creation, and get the regular skills/maxes from that.  You could choose to play the character forever as it was, or you could change class warrior, and gain those starting skills/maxes of a warrior in addition to what you have.

No weapon skills at start.  No multi-talented skillset with everything people really want in one character.  Rather, a character you can build your sub-guild era (if you will) IG background with IG.  I honesty think that is the only way something like this would work.

[Cale_Knight]

Several years ago the immortal response to having karma subguilds, and magick using subguilds in particular, was a flat out no.  Unfortunately, that post seems to have disappeared (it was the same one that gave us quite a few new subguilds at the time) so I can't give you the specific reasoning behind that.

Not too long ago I suggested the same thing and was told that there were "reasons" why magicker subguilds would never happen, but that these were secret reasons that I would have to find out IC.

[Medena]

Class systems force you to inherit some weaknesses in your character.  In classless systems, players tend to end up with skill groups that tend to minimize weaknesses.

I agree. And thanks for your whole post on this. I thought you made a sound argument against a classless system. I think you are right that pretty soon all hunter type characters would have the very same set of skills, the best of warrior and ranger.

Myself, I kind of enjoy the fact of having to work with the weaknesses the guild gives me or of having some skills I didn't even want, just as I enjoy working with the random rolls of stats. I like to dream up my perfect character then work with the one I actually get after character creation.

Much as I love working with weaknesses and personality flaws in a character, I probably would not choose to give myself any in the code.  And I'll bet most of you wouldn't either.

I think the guilds are fine just the way they are. With the current guilds and sub-guilds, the combinations of skills is nearly infinite. Besides, our characters are more than just a bundle of skills.

[Maybe42or54]

Weapon skills: Piercing, Chopping (north)
                     Piercing, Slashing (south)
                     Dual Wield (higher south), Shield Use (higher north)

I don't know. I'd prefer people be able to pick the weapon skills they want, without regards to where they live. Some of my Pcs southern Pcs have only used chopping weapons, as northerners like to wear wood armor. I don't like that part.

Crafting skills: Basket Weaving, Lumberjacking (north)
                     Stoneworking, Rope Making (south)

I don't know about that. Rope making is kind of useless 90% of the time and sometimes you don't even waste the material. I would go with tool making for the south and dyeing for the north. It would balance out Lumberjacking's bonuses a little more than basket weaving.

Social skills: Haggle, Listen

Branch(es): Value

[/quote]

[Lazloth]

// apologies for the minor derail

I read a lot of game design articles and interviews with game designers.  Games that have gone from classed to classless or vice versa during beta tests usually show that the class system has more character diversity

I think Steve Jackson will disagree with you, and afaik is still in process of creating a MMO* based on GURPS.

Class systems force you to inherit some weaknesses in your character. In classless systems, players tend to end up with skill groups that tend to minimize weaknesses.

A classless approach doesn't mean characters won't have a weaknesses - only that the players get some choice in where that weakness falls.

Can you people who argue for a skill-based system all honestly tell me that the characters you would build wouldn't be more powerful than existing classes?

I've read game designers' blogs, posts and years of the min-max argument; this is the biggest pro-class argument, that the killer combo exists, and optimum configurations which become archetype templates will be found. You saw this in UO and other MMO* systems where players gravitate to normalized builds so they can compete on the same plane.  Would that mean that all players adopt the same skill composition?  I'd like to think no.

In the context of Arm, and specifically in this discussion, it could be a very interesting approach if the developers wanted to experiment with a 'commoner' class that started at a primitive base and afforded branching in various [presumably non-exotic] directions .. but certainly a juggling act to balance.

[flaran]

The solution to everyone picking the best skills in the choice would be to weight skills...

Say, we think that backstab is too powerful of a skill for just any warrior that wants it, it is 10 points.. While, at the same time, Dyeing might only be 2-3 points.

[spawnloser]

Since we'll never get classless/guildless or magicker subguilds (which I'll agree should never happen)...

Compromising a bit between Rindan and Larrath...what does everyone think?  ( The "->" indicates a skill that would have to branch.  I've listed possible maximums and things for branched skills to branch from.  The terms used would be in relation to other guilds that get the skill)

Piercing (average)
Slashing (average)
Shield use (average)
Duel wielding (average)
Twohanded (average)
Rescue (below average)
Flee (average)
Cooking (good)
Skin (average)
Bandage (average)
Lumberjacking (average)
Value (good)
Listen (average)
Climb (low)
Forage (good)
->Parry (below average branch from something)
->Guard (below average, branch from rescue)
->Haggle (average, branch from value)
->Bandage making (average, branch from bandage)
->Woodworking (average, branch from lumberjacking)
-> Stoneworking (average, branch from woodworking)
->Scan (average, branch from listen)

[flurry]

I think there are a lot of neat ideas here, and overall I'm very much in favor of a new class along these lines.   I like Rindan's suggestions (although I might quibble with one or two skills, or certain caps being too high.  Ultimately, that's out of player hands anyway though, so I'm not worried about the fine details).

However, I must say that, IMHO, it needs a different name than 'Commoner'.  That's way too broad.  All of the other classes, the vast majority of the time, are commoners.   It's also potentially confusing to new players (who might not understand that they're going to be a commoner, whether or not they pick that class).

One possible alternative that comes to mind is "Laborer".

[jcarter]

Of all the crafting skills to give, why give everyone in that guild lumberjacking?

[X-D]

I'd be amazed if a PC with some planks and poles could not sell them to other pc's for a tidy profit, Hell, I know clans that would hire him pretty much just for that skill alone.

Basides, it a good solid basic skill.

[spawnloser]

Of all the crafting skills to give, why give everyone in that guild lumberjacking?

Because it's easy and simple...

Actually, now that I think about it...
I'd almost rather this...

toolmaking
>stonecrafting
>woodcrafting
>>lumberjacking

...and I say this to make it more friendly to both North and South in game.

[Vesperas]

I'm not even going to bother reading through the growing slush of "pro-classless" here, but I will add my opinion.


If Armageddon ever inherits a "classless" system, I will quit, because it will be doomed.


My favorite type of game is classless, HOWEVER, after several years of playing them, I will say that they draw twinks, PKers, and power-gamers like CRAZY.  Armageddon has its share of these, but for the most part, it's under control--the particularly lazy get naturally weeded out during the app. process, the obvious are run off by the over-protective oldbies, and the ones that left over eventually learn or are so subtle in their naughtiness that they arn't really a problem to the game.  

Classless games also encourages the "I can do everything" type characters, and I HATE those.  Great concepts, right, the Jack-of-all-Trades.. until EVERYONE is a jack-of-all-trades.  You'll not even be able to log on without running into your common sword-wielding-jeweler-tailor-magicker-with-uber-sneak.

So, in conclusion...


Classless Armageddon == Bad-Wrong.

[jhunter]

If Armageddon ever inherits a "classless" system, I will quit, because it will be doomed.