Setting ones skill level

[Morgenes]

My point is that I believe where training should start has been pointed out by a player already in this thread (hand to hand combat).  If you look at Army training, and most martial arts, they start you off by learning about your body before putting any kind of weapon in your hand.  It seems to me that it would make sense to train your recruits to the point where they can handle themselves before getting involved with things that might end them in an accident.

[evilcabbage]

Well, the army doesn't teach a lot of hand to hand combat, actually, and to be honest? The army puts a weapon in your hand very early in your training, and you learn a lot -about- that weapon before you actually start putting it into practical application.

[Delirium]

To elaborate, since I seem to have sparked a debate: you can roleplay with and work with what we've got codewise and very effectively train people of far lesser skill. You can. It requires a little forethought and interaction beyond kill amos but you absolutely can. Hell, you could do it before disengage and nosave combat. I've done it and seen it done. Is the system perfect? No. There really is no such thing in a text based game. But it's what we've got and it works well.

however, this is a derail from the original idea. While I'm not personally sold on it being necessary I can understand the occasional desire to purposefully botch a skill check - any skill check - so perhaps a 'nosave skills' option? Obviously when that is toggled you would not learn from your failures.

edit: and is the use of cross training unarmed and weapon combat really a debate? Come on! Burly sergeant Amos isn't going to hold a shield and let runner Malik whack at him with a padded weapon and then maybe teach runner Malik not to get cocky by socking him in the jaw when Malik's guard is down? Then lecture him about reflexes? Work with me guys. That is not meta gaming. That's playing a code based roleplaying game!

[Jherlen]

I agree with Delerium in as much as I think the "Sarge fighting a newbie in the sparring ring is always in danger of killing him" argument doesn't really hold up and there are coded ways to get around it already. That said, I like the idea for reasons beyond just the sparring scenario.

[Morgenes]

I also want to apologize for diverting the conversation.  From my standpoint the idea is a sound one, however the issue is the number of skill checks in the game and the irregularity to the way they are handled makes tackling a proposition like this pretty monumental.

[Narf]

I also want to apologize for diverting the conversation.  From my standpoint the idea is a sound one, however the issue is the number of skill checks in the game and the irregularity to the way they are handled makes tackling a proposition like this pretty monumental.

Is that true of only the idea to lower skill ranks, or does it also apply to the 'nosave skills' idea where you toggle something that causes you to automatically fail skill checks?

[Morgenes]

I also want to apologize for diverting the conversation.  From my standpoint the idea is a sound one, however the issue is the number of skill checks in the game and the irregularity to the way they are handled makes tackling a proposition like this pretty monumental.

Is that true of only the idea to lower skill ranks, or does it also apply to the 'nosave skills' idea where you toggle something that causes you to automatically fail skill checks?

Both.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I also want to apologize for diverting the conversation.  From my standpoint the idea is a sound one, however the issue is the number of skill checks in the game and the irregularity to the way they are handled makes tackling a proposition like this pretty monumental.

Yeh, I thought it might be a complicated situation to try handling.

Could nosave be expanded to include blanket arguments, such as nosave offense journeyman, nosave defense novice, etc, with a nosave group default to return things to where they should be? Would that be an easier solution, if the idea was even tackled in any manner? Because the way I see it, what we're conversing about is really changing a skill from it's current level to another level, and storing the first level's number value, and then reverting to that original value when we're done gimping ourselves.

I dunno. But this topic is really about discussing the merits of the idea, it's not really a plea for anything at this point.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I should say that once you have a method to change a PC's skill level from a to b, and store the value for a, so that the PC can change it back to a, it should become pretty easy to apply it to all skills. It's not skill checks that I'd think you have to worry about - it's the literal skill level that governs those checks.

Isn't it?

[Twilight]

My point is that I believe where training should start has been pointed out by a player already in this thread (hand to hand combat).  If you look at Army training, and most martial arts, they start you off by learning about your body before putting any kind of weapon in your hand.  It seems to me that it would make sense to train your recruits to the point where they can handle themselves before getting involved with things that might end them in an accident.

That is actually a fairly modern concept.  If you take the romans, for instance, first you learned marching.  Then you got fit (learn about body I guess) and then you were handed a weapon.  No hand to hand training.  Even in the east, a common soldier was basically taught his weapon.  If you are teaching someone to fight in a sword fight...you teach them swords, not hand to hand.  Modern dojo training is for sport, not combat.

As to the complications of code, couldn't you make the command put an affect on the character (removed when they reset their skill) that would be a simple minus to skill, and thus work like an equipped crafting tool, essentially, on the ultimate skill level of the person?  

[Morgenes]

As to the complications of code, couldn't you make the command put an affect on the character (removed when they reset their skill) that would be a simple minus to skill, and thus work like an equipped crafting tool, essentially, on the ultimate skill level of the person? 

Not really, no.

I should say that once you have a method to change a PC's skill level from a to b, and store the value for a, so that the PC can change it back to a, it should become pretty easy to apply it to all skills. It's not skill checks that I'd think you have to worry about - it's the literal skill level that governs those checks.

Isn't it?

The issue is that how skill level is pulled varies from command to command.   It has been standardized somewhat, but it's not 100%.  I'm probably over speaking the complication, but it is significant effort to make sure that every retrieval of a skill throughout the over 500 skills that are in the game to make sure they all will work properly, as well as make sure they all handle gains differently, so each will have to be handled to cut learning. 

Beyond that combat complicates things further due to the sheer number of skills that are incorporated into one melee round.  If any one of those is being intentionally nerfed (by this command you guys are proposing), it would have to potentially block all learning from combat.  I'd be concerned about missing a skill gain.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Hmmm.

Two questions - first, isn't learning handled in one place per skill? I understand If it's not, then ... no, it's the checks that raise skills, not the skill's function ... gawd. Yeh, I see your point.

What if you did a blanket state that halted all learning from any skill at all, if any skill was being nerfed?

So, by setting my slashing skill to novice, my PC can not learn any skill at all until my slashing skill is reset to default. That way you wouldn't have to dictate which skill is not being learned.

No, you would still have to change every check to account for that blanket state too.

Wow ... yeh, this would be a pretty big undertaking for the reward.

I forget who suggested nosave skills, but I just wanted to reply to that. The main reason that nosave skills wouldn't' work is because although I am retarding my slashing skill in order to teach someone, I am not nerfing my defensive skill in order to get hit more. Nosave skills would turn everything to novice or whatever, which wouldn't look right - suddenly I'm being struck as though I am not the defensive master I am, when all I want to do is graze Bob instead of doing unspeakable damage to him.

[Riev]

I know skills can be set to no-gain, and I know staff have the ability to affect your character's attributes... but I think extending that functionality to the playerbase, so far as how they work, would probably still be pretty monumental. I'm not sure its a good idea to allow players access to editing any part of their character file.

I still think it would be nice to have a "change effort <skill name> <parameter>" that only affected that one skill, and on use would add a no-gain flag on skills. I'm not saying its easy or clean, just... it would be nice.

[Is Friday]

Just turn into an alcoholic once you're a clan leader and have to train the recruits.

Byn Sarge arrives from the north, drinking from an upended keg.

Byn Sarge says, "Okay fucking new guys. Try to hit me."

Morgenes: I can think of a few code penalties that already exist in game that could be modified or replicated to imitate the request here.

[evilcabbage]

I think it was mentioned that going to sparring drunk was actually considered abuse and was frowned upon heavily by staff.

[Is Friday]

I think it was mentioned that going to sparring drunk was actually considered abuse and was frowned upon heavily by staff.

Fuck that. All of my great combat PCs have been alcoholics. When I played a Salarri Agent she forced her hunters to drink every time they "won" a sparring match. Iron gut, iron will!

[Quirk]

Is fist fighting really meta gaming?  Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way?  Isn't that kind of the point?

The problem is that combat basics change immensely depending on your range and mode of combat.

Boxers for instance duck and weave close in. Ducking and weaving would be utterly useless in longsword fighting, where you'd be looking to parry or dance back out of the way. Boxing starts with punching and bagwork, medieval longsword training tends to start from basic stances, positions that leave you readied to attack or defend, and movements out of these. There isn't really a lot of crossover, much as being a good boxer doesn't give you much to work with when you start grappling beyond fitness and balance (and balance is maybe questionable, certainly from my grappling experience kickboxers can come in with habits which are actively counterproductive to mounting a defence against grappling as they're used to keeping their centre of gravity way too high).

It strikes me the largest roleplay opportunity people are keen to see here is regarding combat. I think the sergeant who can't stop whaling on recruits is the biggest problem driving demand for this. Perhaps it would be possible to have a general modifier to attack - some multiplier that served as input to the combat code - so people could temporarily set their ability to attack to a weaker level than their maximum. This could be a multiplier that affects every skill checked when the attack happens and disables learning for those skills while maximum effort isn't being exerted, or something simpler still that intercepts a successful hit decision and randomly changes it to a fail with some pre-determined probability. It would be more targeted than the ability to nerf any skill and so I think it might be more doable?

[evilcabbage]

Is fist fighting really meta gaming?  Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way?  Isn't that kind of the point?

The problem is that combat basics change immensely depending on your range and mode of combat.

Boxers for instance duck and weave close in. Ducking and weaving would be utterly useless in longsword fighting, where you'd be looking to parry or dance back out of the way. Boxing starts with punching and bagwork, medieval longsword training tends to start from basic stances, positions that leave you readied to attack or defend, and movements out of these. There isn't really a lot of crossover, much as being a good boxer doesn't give you much to work with when you start grappling beyond fitness and balance (and balance is maybe questionable, certainly from my grappling experience kickboxers can come in with habits which are actively counterproductive to mounting a defence against grappling as they're used to keeping their centre of gravity way too high).

It strikes me the largest roleplay opportunity people are keen to see here is regarding combat. I think the sergeant who can't stop whaling on recruits is the biggest problem driving demand for this. Perhaps it would be possible to have a general modifier to attack - some multiplier that served as input to the combat code - so people could temporarily set their ability to attack to a weaker level than their maximum. This could be a multiplier that affects every skill checked when the attack happens and disables learning for those skills while maximum effort isn't being exerted, or something simpler still that intercepts a successful hit decision and randomly changes it to a fail with some pre-determined probability. It would be more targeted than the ability to nerf any skill and so I think it might be more doable?

Do you know what ducking does when someone is swinging at your neck? Or what weaving does when the guy is trying to jab you in the face? I think it's oftentimes called "dodging attacks in a reflexive manner". Seems to make an awful lot of sense that you would want to learn about REFLEXES and FOOTWORK in a more basic fighting form before you learn your more advanced weapons tactics.

Also, you say simpler. I think Morgenes just explained that the code changes necessary to make this possible are a near-monumental feat that are difficult enough where it's almost infeasible to perform such a task.

[Desertman]

Is fist fighting really meta gaming?  Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way?  Isn't that kind of the point?

The problem is that combat basics change immensely depending on your range and mode of combat.

Boxers for instance duck and weave close in. Ducking and weaving would be utterly useless in longsword fighting, where you'd be looking to parry or dance back out of the way. Boxing starts with punching and bagwork, medieval longsword training tends to start from basic stances, positions that leave you readied to attack or defend, and movements out of these. There isn't really a lot of crossover, much as being a good boxer doesn't give you much to work with when you start grappling beyond fitness and balance (and balance is maybe questionable, certainly from my grappling experience kickboxers can come in with habits which are actively counterproductive to mounting a defence against grappling as they're used to keeping their centre of gravity way too high).

It strikes me the largest roleplay opportunity people are keen to see here is regarding combat. I think the sergeant who can't stop whaling on recruits is the biggest problem driving demand for this. Perhaps it would be possible to have a general modifier to attack - some multiplier that served as input to the combat code - so people could temporarily set their ability to attack to a weaker level than their maximum. This could be a multiplier that affects every skill checked when the attack happens and disables learning for those skills while maximum effort isn't being exerted, or something simpler still that intercepts a successful hit decision and randomly changes it to a fail with some pre-determined probability. It would be more targeted than the ability to nerf any skill and so I think it might be more doable?

Do you know what ducking does when someone is swinging at your neck? Or what weaving does when the guy is trying to jab you in the face? I think it's oftentimes called "dodging attacks in a reflexive manner". Seems to make an awful lot of sense that you would want to learn about REFLEXES and FOOTWORK in a more basic fighting form before you learn your more advanced weapons tactics.

Also, you say simpler. I think Morgenes just explained that the code changes necessary to make this possible are a near-monumental feat that are difficult enough where it's almost infeasible to perform such a task.

How many years do you have in training in hand-to-hand combat designed to kill human beings and what is your frame of reference for realistic medieval style combat? I would be curious to know.

[Is Friday]

I would put in my two cents but y'know, I'll let the experts handle this.

[evilcabbage]

i'm pretty sure it's 100% feasible to -duck under a horizontal swing aimed at your neck-.

[Twilight]

i'm pretty sure it's 100% feasible to -duck under a horizontal swing aimed at your neck-.

Perhaps.  And then your combat instructor would hang his head in shame, because you forgot you had a weapon in your hand and should have parried.

[evilcabbage]

So I should waste effort to parry when I can duck and cut him in half. Great idea.

[Yummri]

I'd like to say again that I really like this idea. But it is one of those things where I can see solutions both coded and none coded to achieve the same result.

As a new player in this very situation. It can be very difficult to get training that won't result in my character being killed outright. I was told this walking in and thankfully the caln I've been in have been really good at taking precautions to make sure that training does not kill. Through the use of Mercy to stop a killing blow and the limitations of their own weapon use for safety(and all was handled in a way very IC). So I think that a better awareness can defiantly fi the combat side of things. But things can happen.

I know that hand-to-hand can be just as dangerous sometimes because of the massive stun damage some characters can get off with a simple punch.
If a Sargent or any other leader is too skilled to fight then they should task another member with training a group of recruits or bring in and encourage training with other people not of the clan.

In other areas simply rping out the fail should work. it would work for me but I can only speak for me.

Would a simple mode command work? ie mode normal/throw. This stops all skill gain across the board. So you wouldn't need o take into account all skills  just a blanket no gain. And it would automatically give a 50% fail chance to all rolls. Toggle it off to return the values to normal.

Like I said. I think this would be incredibly useful. But I do see how a little more care and thinking on a players part could fix it to a good degree too. Is it metagaming to use a weapon you couldn't instantly kill people with, I don't think so. It can be explained icly.

"I can't use this weapon on you. I'm too good with it and when I'm using it, instinct takes over." / "Sorry we can't use that weapon because even a pulled blow can kill until you get a little tougher"

[Riev]

To me, Yummri, I just can't handle the "Sorry, I can't use this weapon because instinct takes over" excuse just feels laughably weak. Its an excuse because the code doesn't allow us to swing lighter, or give the opponent more of a chance to hit you, and whether a master swordsman or a decent axe man, you're probably capable of the typical "This person is a child, I'll pull my swings and let them get a hit in" sort of situation.

I'd also SERIOUSLY like to get away from the example of someone killing someone else in combat. Clearly, people are saying this has a moderate chance of being handled by the player. There must be other examples where this would be useful, such as in an RP scenario. The item crafting comes to mind, as well as the idea of 'fooling' someone into thinking you're worse than you are.

I'm telling you, it would be kind of awesome to be a "spy" in the game, because you started off as a 'Nakki, and spent 2 in game years training... got someone to ink a pretty decent Tuluki tattoo on your neck and hands, and moved to Tuluki to join the Legions. But you always... ALWAYS sparred at less than your best, unless in a trusted environment where the enemy wasn't watching. Until that one day that the Templar comes in to watch you, and you just -murderate- them unexpectedly.

How would I roleplay that out, now? Roleplay -every- sparring match I have, being a bumbling fool, etc etc? Combat at less than your best isn't about metagaming or fooling the player behind the PC. Its about fooling the PC and everyone else, so that nobody knows your true skill. Are Zalanthans just incapable, due to the "harsh desert environment", of purposefully forcing an action to fail, when they've every ability to make it succeed?