Skills and Character Class

[staggerlee]

So I seem to have hit a bit of a wall as far as character progression goes.

Basically my problem is that I started a character based on a personality and not a career goal and didn't worry about the class too much.  Now that the character's personality has developed, the class seems to rather severely limit my options.

So basically the question is, how do people who've been playing for longer than I have deal with that?  Do you just write your character with a career goal in mind in mind and not waver from it?

[X-D]

That and/or, Learn new skills in the direction you need. Yet another reason for PC to PC interaction. Not easy, but certainly possible. Course might want to ask staff to make sure. I mean, Odds of your uber warrior of doom getting backstab and fireball is rather slim.

[psionic fungus]

I get completely frustrated with the ridiculous manner of skill progession almost every other character.  So my character works for Kadius, and would feasibly learn cloth-working to supplement his jewelry-making for the House, but since I'm a Class Burglar, this will -never- happen (without staff intervention).  But hey, I am good at <a skill>, so I have suddenly aquired the ability to...<do some things that branch from that skill> What?  Why?  How?  Right!

I have been promoting ways to allow for character skill adaptation for a DECADE.

It looks like 2.Arm is -not- going to address this issue.

It makes my very frustrated and sad.

[Lizzie]

I try to combine a little of both. Each gets equal weight. The "playability" of a character's personality, and the "playability" of the skillset, AND - the playability of the two combined. That I think is most important.

If you play a character who is has a deathly fear of sharp objects and is too dainty in personality to ever use a club, then you probly shouldn't pick "warrior" as a primary class. If, on the other hand, you want a character who is rough and tumble, not afraid of a fair fight, probably not afraid of an unfair fight either, who doesn't give two craps about silks and pretty things and fancy equipment, and has as much nimblelness with his fingers for crafting as a bahamet, then you -probably- shouldn't pick a merchant as a primary class.

On the other hand, the rought and tumble guy could be any of several possible primary -combat-oriented- classes, and you could always pick a crafter sub-class in case he ends up in that sort of position ICly.

And the delicate fearful lovely city fancy boy - could pick merchant with a combat-oriented sub-class, in case he ends up having to beat people over the head for sids.

[psionic fungus]

I guess my problem is that, as a writer, I come up with character concepts that are more complex than a simple game Class.  I do not make a Race/Class combination and then 'play the game' to see what happens to him.  I start with a fairly developed character concept that I feel I would enjoy writing/playing, and then attempt to fit him into the box that Armageddon requires...

This only works 20% of the time, at best.

[Barzalene]

I just go with it. Sometimes you end up in careers in which you're not going to be strongest fastest best. But long as you're bringing something to the table it'll all work out. I prefer personality based pc's myself. The skilled stuff - it can even be fun to have the challenge to work around.

[Lizzie]

I think it's just a lot easier to "rule out" than to "add in" when it comes to picking a skillset.

You know what your character is like, what you intend for his general physical traits (is he a bruiser or a delicate flower?), his overall personality, his manner of speech, the type of environment he was brought up in and aspires to live in.

So you know what would probably NOT work.

Rule those things out, and pick from what's left over.

[mansa]

I also find it annoying.

Example:

I had a character that would realistically do SKILL B, but did not have SKILL B.

From previous playing of the character class, I know that SKILL B came from SKILL A.

However, my character would -never- do SKILL A, thus preventing me from branching to SKILL B, which my character -would- do.

And immortals don't usually give you SKILL B in exchange for SKILL A, since SKILL B usually is more powerful than SKILL A, and isn't quite a 'fair' exchange.

[staggerlee]

I guess my problem is that, as a writer, I come up with character concepts that are more complex than a simple game Class.  I do not make a Race/Class combination and then 'play the game' to see what happens to him.  I start with a fairly developed character concept that I feel I would enjoy writing/playing, and then attempt to fit him into the box that Armageddon requires...

This only works 20% of the time, at best.

I think that's basically the issue.  I make a character, pick a roughly appropriate class and then discover that my interactions with the world and other players may not always be leading me in the direction I planned.

I just go with it. Sometimes you end up in careers in which you're not going to be strongest fastest best. But long as you're bringing something to the table it'll all work out. I prefer personality based pc's myself. The skilled stuff - it can even be fun to have the challenge to work around.

But that's a pretty good point.  There's no need to be the best at everything.

So with that in mind how debilitating -is- it to play a role that's totally unsuited for your character class? Can you get by playing a magicker in the byn? A warrior piloting a wagon around trying to make coin as a merchant?

I mean I'm in it to play a personality first, but taking a role you can't handle skill wise seems a good way to end up dead or unable to afford food.

[Barzalene]

Well, yup, there's unsuited and UNSUITED. I guess maybe the thing to do is to try it for a while and ask yourself am I having fun? Try it a little longer and ask yourself am I still having/not having fun. If you're definitely not having fun, I'd try taking Mansa's advice.

[Coat of Arms]

With a skill structure as rigid as Armageddon's, I believe the staff should willingly and readily allow players to adapt their characters outside of the "box" (guild) that they've been put in, provided that the requested change/exchange is reasonable. Unfortunately, at least for me, this has never been the case.

[Malken]

That's why you should have the option of picking your subguild after a certain amount of playtime instead of at the character's creation.

[bardess]

Actually, if you roleplay learning a skill and file a skill request, I think you can change your class.

I hope that the imms don't yell at me for this, but I filed one and he (or she?) asked me if I wanted to change my entire guild, because I hadn't used any of the skills (not even once).  But I didn't because it had already defined my character.

This may be an option if you haven't used any of you skills and if you and the imm both decide it would not jar things ICly.

[jhunter]

The staff will do additions of skills dependant on a case by case basis from what I've seen. Unless you're looking to make your pc "good" at everything they do I don't think that it's an issue. If you have rp'ed in game the training of something that you don't have the skill for and send the logs in to the staff with a request I'm sure they'd do something to help you out. Obviously, certain combinations such as magickal abilities to a non-magick user or giving backstab to non-stealth classes are probably not going to happen.
I personally prefer the class system as it keeps people from being good at all sorts of odd combinations of things unrealistically or for purposes of p-gaming. The way it is now allows the staff to prevent such things.

[psionic fungus]

A decade worth of research and development!
Ain't gonna happen on Armageddon!

Tri-Role System[/url]"]
First, there would be somewhere around 30 roles (occupations, hobbies, or lifestyles similar to current sub-guilds in skill-set and focus, but with branching skills) for play within the game world, the number can go up or down, and change with the game, it really doesn't matter, but for example's sake I am going with the following roles I have previously listed. You would choose three of these classes to create a customized skill-set to match your background. I envision the character creation process looking -something- like this:

Code Select Expand


The following roles are available for play, please pick two roles that represent the major
occupations and/or lifestyles of your character, and a third representing a lesser interest
of your character. List each role seperately and choose by name or number. Type 'list' to
see this list again or 'help <role>' for more information.

01) Archer        11) Guide           21) Scribe
02) Artisan       12) Hunter          22) Spy
03) Assassin      13) Jeweler         23) Tailor
04) Burglar       14) Leatherworker   24) Thug
05) Carpenter     15) Mason           25) Trader
06) Crafter       16) Medic           26) Weaponcrafter
07) Chemist       17) Mercenary      
08) Entertainer   18) Nomad      
09) Fighter       19) Pick-Pocket
10) Guard         20) Scout        

> Spy

You have chosen the role 'Spy'.  Is this correct (y/n)?

> y

Please pick a second role representing a major occupation or lifestyle of your character.
Type 'list' to see the list of available roles again.

> 22

You have already chosen the role 'Spy'.  Please select another.

> 20

You have chosen the role 'Scout'.  Is this correct (y/n)?

> y

Please pick a third role representing a more minor interest of your character:

> Mercenary

You have chosen the role 'Mercenary'. Is this correct (y/n)?

> y


Okay, we now have a class-based system that allows for a wide-variety of custom-skill sets. The first two choices would contain skills, branched and not, with a certain skill cap. The third would contain the same skills, no branching skills, with the original skill-cap halved.

Now to address adaptability. I would like the ability to change roles given to PCs. Major roles (occupations/lifestyles) could be switched out with minor roles (interests), and minor roles could be switched out with any role. Un-shared skills of any dropped minor roles (interests) would freeze, and if needed for balance, once unlearned could not be switched to again. I also see class switching being restricted to once an IC year, or whatever seems appropriate for balance issues...

And some more faux code to illustrate how things could work, using the above skill-set as the base for my example:

Code Select Expand


> change role scout chemist

But you have never shown interest in being a Chemist!

> change role mercenary chemist

You have become interested in becoming a Chemist, but no longer find the life of a
Mercenary to be appealing.

> change role scout chemist

You have recently shown interest in becoming a Chemist. It is too soon to change your
role, please wait a few months.

[TIME PASSES...]

> change role scout chemist

Your interest in being a Chemist has become a major part of your life, while the role
of Scout has fallen to the wayside.


A quick over-view of my solution.  =P

[Angela Christine]

A decade worth of research and development!
Ain't gonna happen on Armageddon!

And none of that would help if your life takes a drastic left turn moments after approval.  


Once (after a discussion about the plausibility of a commoner staying fairly clean) I created a young woman with the background of a whore, who was changing careers (because becoming an old whore is never a smart move).  Despite having a neurotic obsession with cleanliness, she intended to join the Byn.    I figured she spent most of her teens trying to be soft and pretty working in a brothel, so she'd never be an elite enough combatant to be guild Warrior, but guild Assassin seemed to offer a reasonable amount of martial potential.  I needed a subguild, so I decided that during her years in the brothel she learned a little bit about herbalism and medicine, mainly dealing with "feminine problems" but also had some experience bandaging up the girls after a customer got too rough, so I gave her the Physician subguild.  The guild/subguild choices were mainly based on her predicted future, with only a tenuous basis in her past.

The hygiene fetish was her downfall:  within a couple of hours of creation (long before she could have found a Byn Sarge) she was spotted by a noble and scooped up to be an aide.   :x  You can't very well turn it down when somebody offers a cushy job like that.  Sure, an aide can make a pretty good assassin, but in her case she had few opportunities to do any sparring, much less fighting.  I think the only skill from her main guild that she used was to climb up onto a shed or something in the noble estate when she wanted a few minutes alone.     She did many, many merchant-type things, lots of shopping, plenty of tavern sitting, and way too much time dusting off when the cleaning code was first introduced.    A merchant or even a pickpocket would have been 1000 times more appropriate guild for the character she turned out to be,  but she was stuck as a dumb assassin.


I guessed wrong about what kind of person she was going to be, and she was stuck with a pile of inappropriate skills (and no hope of ever branching some appropriate skills) as a result.  I'm not sure that any character creation system could prevent this from happening again.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I wish, and of course would never expect, but I wish that we could dump this narrow view of Armageddon players being so likely to become twinks, and get with the program of universally-learnable skills.

In this system, there is a points system whereby there is a limit of points attainable across all skills. It uses either intellect as a cap, or has an across-the-board cap. In Armageddon, I'd suggest an across the board cap.

You can either have players select a few skills that they start out with, or force them to learn everything in game. I'd lean towards allowing a fraction of the points to be spent on skills they know when they join the game.

You can either have skills erode with unused playing time, or you can have a system of lock/unlock that would be useful for when you begin to reach that cap. In Armageddon, I'd suggest simple messages like, You know all that you can know - You know just about all that you can know - You know about half or what you can know - etc to let a player know where their points stand. I'd also suggest errosion of skills over unused playing time. This way, if you log out for a month, you don't lose skill, but if you play for a month and never use the skill once, it might errode, or will errode unless you have locked it.

It's a simple method to ensure that folks can become whatever they want to be. Balance? The points system balances it all, and yeh, there will prolly be a prime number of skills, etc, but honestly, this game isn't built on your coded talent, it's built on social talent as well, and the desire and ability to roleplay. Despite that, it needs to be backed up by coded skills.

What's the damned hangup with that?

[Coat of Arms]

I guessed wrong about what kind of person she was going to be, and she was stuck with a pile of inappropriate skills (and no hope of ever branching some appropriate skills) as a result. I'm not sure that any character creation system could prevent this from happening again.

An unrestricted learn-through-play system could prevent that.

If character creation let you pick a number of skills appropriate to your character, rather than one of six guilds and a subguild, you could have started out with a character that looked something like this:

Bandage
Herbalism
Sneak
Hide
Listen
Minor Fighting Prowess

Now your character becomes an aide even though it had never crossed your mind when you created it. In Arm1.0, you'd be shit outta luck and things would go like they did for AC, with a character who has a bunch of unused skills and lacks a bunch of skills she'd realistically earn through a career as an aide. In a more flexible system, her employer or one of her superiors would be able to teach her haggle, value, perhaps she'd learn how to eavesdrop while standing around at fancy dinners (without the need to work on a completely unrelated skill in order to branch it), and perhaps the noble who hired her might even employ a tailor to teach her aide how to make/repair silk garments.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Nice. This, even though it's not exactly what I'd like to see, would certainly be a step up.

[NoteworthyFellow]

I guessed wrong about what kind of person she was going to be, and she was stuck with a pile of inappropriate skills (and no hope of ever branching some appropriate skills) as a result. I'm not sure that any character creation system could prevent this from happening again.

An unrestricted learn-through-play system could prevent that.

If character creation let you pick a number of skills appropriate to your character, rather than one of six guilds and a subguild, you could have started out with a character that looked something like this:

Bandage
Herbalism
Sneak
Hide
Listen
Minor Fighting Prowess

Now your character becomes an aide even though it had never crossed your mind when you created it. In Arm1.0, you'd be shit outta luck and things would go like they did for AC, with a character who has a bunch of unused skills and lacks a bunch of skills she'd realistically earn through a career as an aide. In a more flexible system, her employer or one of her superiors would be able to teach her haggle, value, perhaps she'd learn how to eavesdrop while standing around at fancy dinners (without the need to work on a completely unrelated skill in order to branch it), and perhaps the noble who hired her might even employ a tailor to teach her aide how to make/repair silk garments.

I hate to bring up other RPI MUDs, but this is how Harshlands does things, at least at the character creation process, and I like it quite a bit.  Well, it's very similar to this, anyway: you select a starting "guild", like in Armageddon, but all it really does is give you a few starting skills.  You then have points to spend on other skills, rather than the Armageddon system of selecting a subguild.  You can also go unguilded and select skills free-form.

Now, I'm playing Armageddon instead of Harshlands for a few very good reasons mostly having to do with the settings and playerbases, but that doesn't mean I can't like Harshlands' character creation and apparent skill system better.

[Gimfalisette]

7DV's idea of a system where you have a certain quantity of points to spend on whatever skills you want is very much like Star Wars Galaxies' system was at the beginning of that MMO. And I loved it, as did many people. Most people picked a career path and stuck it through to the end; there was a lot of prestige in being a Master Doctor or a Master Droid Engineer or whatever. But some people would just pick and choose a bit here and a bit there from various career paths. And yes, there was definitely some career min/maxing, but hey that happens in ARM too. Everyone had the same 250 points to spend on skills, and if you didn't like being pwned by the pistoleer/fencer, well, you could go ahead and drop your tailor/dancer skills in favor of becoming more combat-oriented.

[psionic fungus]

Okay, so this turned into a classless discussion.  As some of you may not recall, this is what I have promoted from the beginning (and where most of my ideas have developed over years).  I have explored various ways to make 'balanced' classless systems.  I support classless systems.

However, many players and staff of Armageddon do not.  Thus, I have tried to come up with a compromise the has the main benefits of a class system, while having the main benefits of a classless system as well, the 'Tri-Role System'.

And none of that would help if your life takes a drastic left turn moments after approval.

Please explain to me how this is?  Your character's life does not start with entering the game.  Your role picks should suit your background, and if your life changes drastically from your background when you enter the game you can start making your skills reflect that change immediately.  How does this not address the issue?  Did you read what I posted?

I would like the ability to change roles given to PCs. Major roles (occupations/lifestyles) could be switched out with minor roles (interests), and minor roles could be switched out with any role. Un-shared skills of any dropped minor roles (interests) would freeze, and if needed for balance, once unlearned could not be switched to again. I also see class switching being restricted to once an IC year, or whatever seems appropriate for balance issues...

No... This wont let you ignore your background and the skills you chose to represent it.  But it -does- let you adapt your character to everything that happens once you are in game.  That's a -huge- reason why it is designed the way it is.  Adaptation was a central theme from the beginning of my brainstorming on this, and it just boils my brain to see the adaptive aspects downplayed and/or ignored.

Let's take your example, Angela.  Currently, many people may choose classes how you did, based on what skills you -might- use in the future. With my system you would -always- choose roles that fit your background, as you would be able to adapt as you lived.  So you made an Assassin/Physician, and ended up doing many 'merchant-type things', and would've prefered being a merchant or a pickpocket?

Think about how this would work with my system, really think about it.  First, you pick your 'main' role in life... Which you say is was a whore.  A whore is not specifically on my list, but we'll just say 'Entertainer' as it seems relatively close, and I don't see any coded skills being necessary. Next, you say that you are a clean freak, this could either be a 'Medic' or more likely an 'Aide' (oops, not on my list).  Finally, your character was interested in learning to fight, and had probably been in a scrap or two, being her whorish self, so we will give you the 'Fighter' role as an interest.

Now, your brand-new character will all your fancy (near worthless) skills gets hired by a noble as an aide.  Well, in my example you already had 'Aide' as a major role, to assist with your cleanliness fetish, so you are well on your way there.  'Entertainer' also seems like it could be appropriate... and 'Fighter' would be easily switched for 'Trader' or 'Medic' or 'Jeweler' or 'Artisan' or 'Pick-Pocket' or whatever seems appropriate.  If that became a more major part of your life than entertaining or being an aide, skill-wise, you would be able to adapt to further develop this.

So where's the problem?

Your background is a part of your character's life.  If you ignore it, you are a shitty roleplayer.  That doesn't mean that you should be locked into that life-style or career forever, with little chance of adaptation. Thank you.

[LoD]

I guessed wrong about what kind of person she was going to be, and she was stuck with a pile of inappropriate skills (and no hope of ever branching some appropriate skills) as a result.  I'm not sure that any character creation system could prevent this from happening again.

Did you ever send the Immortals an email describing the change in your character's life, and how a different, but related, class such as pick-pocket would actually make a lot more sense?  If so, did they include a reason why they would be unwilling to do this?

My problem with the classless system proposals is that it smacks of min/maxing and unrealistic game play perpetuated by OOC motivations. I've never had a problem making a concept fit to a skill sheet.  Mostly because I operate under the belief that my character's skills are a culmination of an entire lifetime rather than the last couple years.  This is an aspect of the game that seems to consistently be overlooked.

Zalanthas, when speaking of most commoners, is not a literate society.  There are no centers of education.  No schools.  No universities.  No libraries.  It's hard enough just trying to earn a scrap of food for your family to survive much less finding time to bother with learning some completely new artistic or professional skill.  You have to remember that your competition, should you even learn basket weaving from watching other crafters in the Merchant House with which you are contracted, are going to be master basket weavers.  People who were brought up in a family that did basket weaving and taught their children to weave baskets.

People spend an entire childhood and early adulthood learning a trade which you want to suddenly tack onto your ranger/physician because you think that standing around a crafting hall for a few hours entitles you to something.  Zalanthan people, including your characters, would likely be so consumed with being the best thing they can possibly be, that a broad and unstructured classless system would be unrealistic and encourage poor RP on the part of the players.

What you see as strict guidelines and rigid class structures are actually reinforcing an idea which I fully support. I prefer a game world of niche and narrow class structures because it helps to keep things interesting and make people useful.  If anyone could learn any skill simply because they want to, it lessens the impact of those choices and removes some of the effects those choices have on the game as a whole.

I'm not against having a more flexible system that allows a few more combinations, or perhaps grants the player a little freedom over the skills chosen, but I do want to keep a game world that forces people to respect the choices their character has made, and further respect the difficulty inherent in switching careers/professions down the road.

It shouldn't be impossible, but it shouldn't be frequent or easy.

-LoD

[Angela Christine]

I guessed wrong about what kind of person she was going to be, and she was stuck with a pile of inappropriate skills (and no hope of ever branching some appropriate skills) as a result.  I'm not sure that any character creation system could prevent this from happening again.

Did you ever send the Immortals an email describing the change in your character's life, and how a different, but related, class such as pick-pocket would actually make a lot more sense?  If so, did they include a reason why they would be unwilling to do this?

That's crazy talk.  I made my bed, I'll lie in it, by gum.  Also, at the time that this happened I'd only been playing a few months, 0 karma, and I didn't want to be a pest.  With experience I've gotten better at avoiding concept-derailment.  (Play a half-elf and nobles hardly ever try to hijack you, regardless of how clean you are.)  



I did once read a story, perhaps even back on the old GDB, about a guy in the long, long ago who started life as a stone cleric.  He joined a military type group, and seriously neglected his spells for months, while paying attention to scheduled sparring and other fighterish things, until one day the staff changed his guild from stone cleric to fighter.  No more stone cleric, just pure fighter.  That was probably a freak thing, but it seems possible that if your guild becomes wildly inappropriate for what you are doing in life some adjustments may be negotiable.

[staggerlee]

I guessed wrong about what kind of person she was going to be, and she was stuck with a pile of inappropriate skills (and no hope of ever branching some appropriate skills) as a result.  I'm not sure that any character creation system could prevent this from happening again.

Did you ever send the Immortals an email describing the change in your character's life, and how a different, but related, class such as pick-pocket would actually make a lot more sense?  If so, did they include a reason why they would be unwilling to do this?

That's crazy talk.  I made my bed, I'll lie in it, by gum.  Also, at the time that this happened I'd only been playing a few months, 0 karma, and I didn't want to be a pest.  With experience I've gotten better at avoiding concept-derailment.  (Play a half-elf and nobles hardly ever try to hijack you, regardless of how clean you are.)  



I did once read a story, perhaps even back on the old GDB, about a guy in the long, long ago who started life as a stone cleric.  He joined a military type group, and seriously neglected his spells for months, while paying attention to scheduled sparring and other fighterish things, until one day the staff changed his guild from stone cleric to fighter.  No more stone cleric, just pure fighter.  That was probably a freak thing, but it seems possible that if your guild becomes wildly inappropriate for what you are doing in life some adjustments may be negotiable.

Given what I've heard here, I'm leaning more towards that approach myself.  Probably just run with it a while and see where it takes me.  It'll likely be more fun to be organic about it and see if things become useful.

If it's a total disaster, I suppose that'll just mean I get to try again with a new character.

[psionic fungus]

I don't think that people should be able to quickly or easily learn any skill they choose.  That is why I designed the system to require time between switching skills, and additional time between learning the basics of a 'role' and being able to master it.  It should take a considerable amount of time to do something like this, but I see no reason why a hardened mercenary, after years of guard-work, could not settle down to life of weapon-crafting and guitar-playing and -in time- become good at (or even master) these skills as well.

I don't think that anyone should be able to learn any skill at any time, I agree that this could lead to increased min-maxing, 'unrealistic' skill-sets, and characters that have learned multiple life-times worth of skills.  But the system I designed was specifically made to address those issues as well.  It's not perfect, I'm sure, and there are balance issues that would have to be hammered out after it was coded and testable, but I think it is far superior to a rigid and static system.

Zalanthas, when speaking of most commoners, is not a literate society. There are no centers of education. No schools. No universities. No libraries. It's hard enough just trying to earn a scrap of food for your family to survive much less finding time to bother with learning some completely new artistic or professional skill. You have to remember that your competition, should you even learn basket weaving from watching other crafters in the Merchant House with which you are contracted, are going to be master basket weavers. People who were brought up in a family that did basket weaving and taught their children to weave baskets.

Tribal societies were/are not literate.  No centers of education.  No schools. No universities.  No libraries.  Yet these societies show -much less- specialization in individuals than ours does.  In a tribal society most people know how to do most things.  There may be a few special ciricumstances, such as shamans (or only men hunting), but for the most part everyone can do everything.

People spend an entire childhood and early adulthood learning a trade which you want to suddenly tack onto your ranger/physician because you think that standing around a crafting hall for a few hours entitles you to something. Zalanthan people, including your characters, would likely be so consumed with being the best thing they can possibly be, that a broad and unstructured classless system would be unrealistic and encourage poor RP on the part of the players.

Again, in tribal societies (at significant portion of 1.Arm) there is very little specialization.  In the history of human socieities, specialization has increased as our technology increases.  Since Zalanthan societies are technologically somewhere between the stone-age and the feudal, we could assume that there is much less specialization than in our current society.  You can just as easily say that most Zalanthans wouldn't be good at -anything- other than unskilled manual labor as claim they should be "consumed with being the best thing they can possibly be".

Mostly because I operate under the belief that my character's skills are a culmination of an entire lifetime rather than the last couple years. This is an aspect of the game that seems to consistently be overlooked.

This is your belief, the way you play your characters.  I have never seen this 'aspect of the game' mentioned in documentation or by a staff member.  That could be a big reason why people 'overlook' it.  It's -your- construct, not an aspect of the game at all.  As Angela demonstrated, many people pick their skill-set based on what they -hope- their character will become, not on what their background is.

There is nothing in the class documents or the character creation documents that says picking a Class based on your chracter's potential is the 'wrong' way to do it.  Nothing says that Classes represent the culmination of a lifetime worth of practice.  If it were so, a 40 year-old Warrior -should- start with much more advanced skills than a 14 year-old Warrior, right?  And it should be easier for a 14 year-old Warrior to adapt to a different lifestyle than for a 40 year-old, correct?

In my system, the 'roles' you pick -would- be related to your background, and this would be expressed in the documentation.  I would not be against starting older characters with slightly higher skill levels. At the same time, I think older characters should learn -slower- than young ones, and take longer to change roles, should they attempt to do so.

[LoD]

Tribal societies were/are not literate.  No centers of education.  No schools. No universities.  No libraries.  Yet these societies show -much less- specialization in individuals than ours does.  In a tribal society most people know how to do most things.  There may be a few special ciricumstances, such as shamans (or only men hunting), but for the most part everyone can do everything.

Sure, when everything consisted of chopping weapons, skinning, archery, throw, hunt, sneak, hide, ride, and cooking with some potential to be rudimentary craftsmen with leather, tents, tanned hides, bone, and wood.  We're not talking about a complicated society here with a variety of roles, so it's not even remotely the same beast as those characters living in a large settlement or civilization where open trade and some technology has greatly increased the amount of possible roles, along with competition for those roles.

Now, if we sat down one of these tribesmen and asked them what skills their father had, and grandfather had, and great-grandfather had, do you think they'd be similar?  Do you think that there would be much difference from father to son in a tribal environment such as this?  Or would it be more likely that the father taught his son what he knew, who then taught HIS son what he knew, and on and on.  And in a static environment where the tribal people have struck a nice balance with nature and themselves, would there be any reason for them to change?

If you pulled aside one of the philosopher's of Ancient Rome, do you think he'd have a good idea of how to track a deer through the forest?  Build a shelter?  Know which berries were poisonous in the wilderness?  Be able to skin and clean a fresh carcass?  Hold his own against a Gladiator in the arena?

Likewise, if you pulled one of the Huns out of his army, do you think he'd know anything about crafting a jeweled necklace?  Mixing herbs together to make a medicinal tea?  How to navigate and hide within a large city-state environment?  Or do you think he's probably only ever been concerned with the handling the jobs that concern someone in his position?  The skills and abilities necessary to succeed at the narrow and niche role he plays within his society?

I simply argue for the latter and say that Armageddon would be little different.  I don't see the need for an automated system allowing for skill changes, and that for the few characters that might demonstrate the need to completely or even subtly change their character's skill sets, the objective command and emailing the Imm Staff provides both the proper channels and challenges that should exist to reinforce the choices you make as a player.

It's fine for us to disagree.  You obviously want automation and the ability to change your character whenever you feel they need to adapt to their new surroundings.  I don't feel that's necessary.  And, judging from the way classes are being designed for Armageddon 2, the Imms don't feel it's necessary either.

-LoD

[psionic fungus]

If you pulled aside one of the philosopher's of Ancient Rome, do you think he'd have a good idea of how to track a deer through the forest? Build a shelter? Know which berries were poisonous in the wilderness? Be able to skin and clean a fresh carcass? Hold his own against a Gladiator in the arena?

You might be surprised how much of that information a Roman (or a Greek, preferably) philosopher would know.  Back when the lack of printing presses made books rare, and references were few and far between, memory was the number one sign of an intelligent person, and they remembered as much as possible.

I think you missed part of my point. There is going to be no empire in 2.Arm, no Allanak, no Tuluk, no equivilent of Rome.  There -will- still be tribal societies that should be much like those on Earth.

Zalanthan societies are technologically somewhere between the stone-age and the feudal, we could assume that there is much less specialization than in our current society.

Yes, the societies range to the feudal, where there is some specialization.  But this amount of specialization is still much less than that in our society, and individuals in a feudal society -did- require a broader range of skills to survive.

Yes, -if- there is a guild system of apprentices, journeymen, and master crafters, you should probably not be able to become a master unless you start at a young age.  However, it was not uncommon for crafters in such systems to never make it past being a journeyman, and we have no idea if there will be systems like this in place in any of the new Zalanthan societies.

Likewise, if you pulled one of the Huns out of his army, do you think he'd know anything about crafting a jeweled necklace? Mixing herbs together to make a medicinal tea? How to navigate and hide within a large city-state environment? Or do you think he's probably only ever been concerned with the handling the jobs that concern someone in his position?

Jeweled necklace?  No...  Did Huns make them?  I'm sure he could probably tie some sinew to a pretty rock, though.  Mix herbs together to make a medicinal tea?  Yes, quite possibly he could.  Why wouldn't he?  Navigate and hide within a large city-state environment... Does it even exist for a Hun?  If so, I'm sure he could adapt to it after a decade, yes.

My system wouldn't allow for a quick or an easy transition from being a soldier to a jeweler, anyhow.

I don't see the need for an automated system allowing for skill changes, and that for the few characters that might demonstrate the need to completely or even subtly change their character's skill sets, the objective command and emailing the Imm Staff provides both the proper channels and challenges that should exist to reinforce the choices you make as a player.

It's fine for us to disagree. You obviously want automation and the ability to change your character whenever you feel they need to adapt to their new surroundings. I don't feel that's necessary. And, judging from the way classes are being designed for Armageddon 2, the Imms don't feel it's necessary either.

AGAIN, not -whenever-, but yes, I do believe characters should have the ability to adapt without staff intervention.  I think the staff should be free to add to the game, inhabit it, and make it come alive.  I think they should spend as little of their time possible dealing with mundane clan issues, skill changes, custom items, or many other jobs they currently do that could be automated.

The staff, according to their posts and the blog, initially considered both Classless and Classed skill systems.  They decided on a Classed system, but the playerbase (according to the polls, of course) is almost exactly split on the issue.

I have been trying to promote COMPROMISE.  We can have a system that addresses adaptability and keeps characters 'appropriately' skilled.

I also still fear many ramifications of the chosen Class system, which I have mentioned elsewhere, and which Raesanos (or anyone else) has never addressed.  We'll just have to wait and see how it works, but, from what he have been told, I feel it is over-complicated, convoluted, and even more difficult to match Class to Concept than the current system.

Granted, it will give some new options, and it will probably take a year or three to get bored of trying them... It still encourages players to create characters based on the Classes, not write characters they are interested in playing and fit them to a skill-set, which is one of my major issues.

Strict classes reinforce the 'game' model of Zalanthas more than the 'simulation' model, and I vastly prefer Armageddon as a ' fantasy world simulation' over a 'fantasy game'.

[LoD]

I think you missed part of my point. There is going to be no empire in 2.Arm, no Allanak, no Tuluk, no equivilent of Rome.  There -will- still be tribal societies that should be much like those on Earth.

You don't need an empire like Rome to replicate the social system on a much smaller level.  All you need is an environment that mimics or simulates the larger version; a sedentary community, agriculture, government, sophisticated and sustained commerce with multiple sources, socioeconomic classes, innovation, construction, etc...

My guess is that you are underestimating the size and diversity of roles within these initial settlements if you believe they're going to be as base as a Native American or Mongol tribe.  Simply from the blog on the Daja, we can see that the settlement will be much more complicated than a simple tribal environment.

The game has lasted 15 years without much trouble using the same basic system.  The system is being redesigned and I've faith in the Imm Staff that they will create something that will address the bulk of the player's desires while keeping the framework of the game they want represented intact through policy or code that you may still find limiting or restricting.

The largest issue is that you don't know how the new system will work.  And there's really not much use in belaboring these points until we see the finished system.  And it's never "too late" to tweak and change things.

-LoD

[psionic fungus]

And people say -I- like to argue...  Why do you ignore half my post, LoD?

My guess is that you are underestimating the size and diversity of roles within these initial settlements if you believe they're going to be as base as a Native American or Mongol tribe. Simply from the blog on the Daja, we can see that the settlement will be much more complicated than a simple tribal environment.

Did I say that everything would be tribal?  NO, I did not.  I said that there -will be- tribal societies, and there -will not be- an empire.  I did not say that there would not be any feudal societies, in fact I said:

Yes, the societies range to the feudal, where there is some specialization. But this amount of specialization is still much less than that in our society, and individuals in a feudal society -did- require a broader range of skills to survive.

The game has lasted 15 years without much trouble using the same basic system.

Without much trouble for you.  Been nothing but trouble for me.

The system is being redesigned and I've faith in the Imm Staff that they will create something that will address the bulk of the player's desires while keeping the framework of the game they want represented intact through policy or code that you may still find limiting or restricting.

I have faith that the staff will do their best.  I am -positive- that since the playerbase is divided on the issue, and the Class system has been annoucned, that the 'bulk' of player's desires will not be addressed.  As I said, and as you can research for yourself, the staff considered a Classless system, which means at least some of the staff agrees with the Classless proponents on the issue of adaptability.  You make as many assumptions as I do about 'the framework of the game they want represented'.

The largest issue is that you don't know how the new system will work. And there's really not much use in belaboring these points until we see the finished system. And it's never "too late" to tweak and change things.

I know how we have been told they will work.  And I do not agree with it.  Until we are told more, or otherwise, I will assume that the information we have been given is up-to-date, and correct.  I also assume that while the Class system was decided on, it has not been coded or perhaps even thought about, and was put on the back burner to allow Raesanos to work on the RMBT and other code that is needed immediately for world-building.

[Gimfalisette]

So I seem to have hit a bit of a wall as far as character progression goes.

Basically my problem is that I started a character based on a personality and not a career goal and didn't worry about the class too much.  Now that the character's personality has developed, the class seems to rather severely limit my options.

So basically the question is, how do people who've been playing for longer than I have deal with that?  Do you just write your character with a career goal in mind in mind and not waver from it?

To return to the original question: I create my characters with a very detailed, distinct personality and I also give them career goals to start with. I haven't yet had a circumstance where the character ended up in a completely wrong career for them, although there have been some small shifts. Most of the time, the careers I pick for my characters have nothing to do with coded skills anyways. (Bard, aide, noble, scavenger.)

I guess my advice would be to concentrate on the parts of the job/career that are non-coded. Speaking as a leader, having a smart, adaptable player in the role of minion is far more valuable than having Skill XYZ. Given a good minion, I can always find something for that minion to do, regardless of their skillset.

[Marauder Moe]

To emphasize what Gimf said...

I played a guild_merchant who survived about a year and a half as a Byn runner.  I don't think he ever won a sparring match.  He could just barely kill a gortok or a gith.  His subguild didn't help out either.  Still, he did survive and he was one of his sergeant's favorite runners.  She practically begged him not to leave.

You don't need skills to succeed and your character doesn't need to be good at what he/she does for a living for you to have fun playing them.

[Barzalene]

Wow, -just as an aside- it's funny how there seems to be two types of players (or two types of ways to begin a pc) those who really believe you should know exactly who your pc should be, and those who like find out as they go. Just interesting.

[staggerlee]

Personally, I thought I knew who my character was, but a personality on paper isn't anything like a personality let loose in the world.  Things happen fast out there, and other people can have a ton of impact on where you end up going.

Or that's been my experience anyway.

[Gimfalisette]

I have tried to do the "personality as you go" thing and it just never works out for me. I end up with a boring character who doesn't have enough going on and that I don't enjoy. Thus, I put a lot into the character before I start playing so that I don't have to store or get the character killed off due to my own disinterest in them.

I also find that personality is influenced a lot in game, by the characters and circumstances around me. But the basic "who" of my character doesn't really change. They just get mellowed, shifted, molded, but don't become fundamentally different.

[Versu]

I just wanted to say that it doesn't make much sense being able to roll a pick-pocket/thug and get sap and Not Bludgeoning weapons...


There's got to be a mistake with that.

Is it possible for my weapon skill to branch into bludgeoning eventually? Or do I have a sapper that can't hold a club, but can swing a sword?

[Archbaron]

I just wanted to say that it doesn't make much sense being able to roll a pick-pocket/thug and get sap and Not Bludgeoning weapons...


There's got to be a mistake with that.

Is it possible for my weapon skill to branch into bludgeoning eventually? Or do I have a sapper that can't hold a club, but can swing a sword?

Knocking someone out and using a weapon in battle are two different things, and we don't discuss skill trees here.

Welcome to the forums, but this thread is old, in case you didn't know.

[Synthesis]

As a side note (since it's your first post, I'll assume you're a new player):  about the last thing you should be doing is picking fights with a new pickpocket...much less trying to use sap.  The only more reliable way to get ganked would be to go up and urinate on a templar.

[manonfire]

I just wanted to say that it doesn't make much sense being able to roll a pick-pocket/thug and get sap and Not Bludgeoning weapons...

I've bugged that IG a few times.

[Barzalene]

I think you can adjust.
I had a military pickpocket who couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag. I dealt with that by just being an untalented fighter who offered other qualities to the outfit. That pc was actually promoted over the other fighter types. And for protection? She had a buff guy who watched her back. (No, she wasn't giving him any.)

That's just the first example that came to mind. But my response is, you may feel frustrated. And I hate when people tell me not to feel what I'm feeling because if I'm feeling something negative, then obviously I'm not feeling that way on purpose. But I think that after you're done being frustrated, you might enjoy the opportunity to play a position outside the box.

I don't know if the above is helpful, or just babble.

[Sokotra]

I just wanted to say that it doesn't make much sense being able to roll a pick-pocket/thug and get sap and Not Bludgeoning weapons...


There's got to be a mistake with that.

Is it possible for my weapon skill to branch into bludgeoning eventually? Or do I have a sapper that can't hold a club, but can swing a sword?

Hmm, yeah that does sound a little odd.  I guess you could just use the bludgeoning weapons for sapping people only, and use your daggers or swords for actual fighting.  That would kind of make sense to me.  I could imagine some thug carrying around a "sap" just for that purpose - when they actually are a knife fighter.  I can understand your frustration, though.  My question would be if staff saw some sort of problem or balance issue that we cannot see when they did this... unless it is just something that got overlooked.

Oh, and I did think problems with skill limitations were going to be addressed in Arm 2 with a different system that would allow a wider range of choices and flexibility for characters.

[Delstro]

Until we know how this Dual Classing works, which sounds exactly like the system we have now, with two main guilds and no subguilds, we can't argue how good it is. Assuming Dual classing is what I think it is, I think PF's Tri Class System is a great compromise.

[Kill4Free]

I read the first page of stuff then got bored and skipped the second, but I do have an idea of what is being talked about.

I think the class system is fine, even in that one person's example, who made a burglar and works for kadius as a merchant.  Thats fine, no really big problems there.  My current character has a fairly similar situation, except a few degrees worse.  Its fun playing like that, as even though everyone thinks you do one thing, if they found out what you really do they would be like, wtf?!  Its pretty fun to see how long you can pull something like that off without someone realising it (this isnt what I have, but it is an example of the situation) say, being an assassin, weapon crafter, then going around to everyone bragging about how good of a forester you are.  You can just do foresting if you want, may not be great at it, but hey, if you get bored you still have another profession to fall back on!!

And granted there are some pretty much useless profession combo's I will give you that.  But if you pick a combo that is so obviously stupid, then you deserve to get stuck with it.  Say for instance a Warrior guard, or merchant acrobat.

Some flexibility may be useful, if you get stuck, and to a limited extent, that already exists, it may take a while and you have to justify it, but it is possible should you find yourself in such a roll.  So my final answer to those who find themselves doing things that they didnt design there character for (unless it was say an accident during character creation that you didnt intend even at the start), just play it out, have some fun

[jcljules]

I Say for instance a Warrior guard, or merchant acrobat.

Whats wrong with a warrior/gurad? 

[Zoan]

Warriors already get all the guard skills. But I'm sure that subclass guard gives a starting boost to those skills, no?

[Kill4Free]

I Say for instance a Warrior guard, or merchant acrobat.

Whats wrong with a warrior/gurad? 

Yes you do get a small initial boost to guard, but that extra ability is so small, it pretty much wastes your subguild.  You would be better off with warrior bard!

[Sokotra]

Yes you do get a small initial boost to guard, but that extra ability is so small, it pretty much wastes your subguild.

That kinda sucks... now I would have to say that it would be nice for things like that to be fixed.  Do you not, at least, get a bonus to rescue or some other things like that?  I would expect a little something extra if you picked warrior/guard.

[Kill4Free]

Basically, just read the subguild in the helpfiles, and read the warrior class in the subguild.  Most of their strengths overlap.  Warrior guard is fine if you want to pick it for rollplaying, but in terms of character strength there are better choices you can pick.
You arent intended to just randomly pick a guild and subguild off the top of your head, most characters take half a day to get approved, so you gotta put some thought into it.

[Angela Christine]

I just wanted to say that it doesn't make much sense being able to roll a pick-pocket/thug and get sap and Not Bludgeoning weapons...


There's got to be a mistake with that.

Is it possible for my weapon skill to branch into bludgeoning eventually? Or do I have a sapper that can't hold a club, but can swing a sword?

Hmm, yeah that does sound a little odd.  I guess you could just use the bludgeoning weapons for sapping people only, and use your daggers or swords for actual fighting.  That would kind of make sense to me.  I could imagine some thug carrying around a "sap" just for that purpose - when they actually are a knife fighter.  I can understand your frustration, though.

Aren't there some bladed weapons that can be flipped, so that you can use the blade or the pommel?  Or maybe that was just for larger weapons, like spears and bladed staves?

Or maybe I imagined the whole thing, because I can't find the helpfile now.   

But if such a command existed, it would make sense for it to be applicable daggers and other bladed weapons that have substantial pommels or pommel nuts.  As a weapon the blunt end of a sword or dagger would do very little damage, but should be sufficient for sapping.   

[brytta.leofa]

Aren't there some bladed weapons that can be flipped, so that you can use the blade or the pommel?  Or maybe that was just for larger weapons, like spears and bladed staves?

One of the southern noble houses has/had some like that.  Haven't seen 'em in general circulation.