It's all about 'dat skill, 'dat skill, 'dat skill

[Pale Horse]

So as not to de-rail a thread in progress:

No, because many reasons:

One is that there are critters you can only see at advanced or master scan in the wilds that rightfully should only be seen by Rangers, this would make them hiding pointless.

I honestly believe they ruined barrier when they made everyone master contact, because before that I had a few characters that had high barrier and could literally vanish from clan leaders enemies and the like, now that's nearly impossible because even at master barrier they break your barrier most of the time.  While I don't care if someone earned master contact, I do care when Joe noob is breaking my shit.  This would be the same for stealthy types who aren't masters at hide.

Giving people master skills I don't feel is the answer, but giving people the ability to EARN it, that I'm down with. Plus I hate how easy it is to build sniff based on skills you have and don't.

Here's a radical idea:

Make all (mundane) skills attainable by any guild, at all levels.

Blasphemy, I know, but let me explain this thought.

Make all mundane skills attainable by any guild.  Everyone could still attain mastery of a skill, but it would require the use of the "teach" command to actually skill gain.  You would never be able to branch from that skill, either, as it is not part of your branching skill tree..because you are not part of the guild that naturally gets and branches from it.  That does not mean you couldn't learn a branched skill, you just can't get it naturally and would have to have someone with it teach it to you and then continue to teach you in it if you want to "get gud."  Apprenticeships actually become a coded-backed thing IG.  The starry-eyed merchant with dreams of becoming a hardened mercenary joins the Byn and spends their days getting the crap beat out of them (and put back in during latrine duties).  They were not born with the skill-set of a warrior and it does not come naturally to them as someone who is guild Warrior would.  They see everyone surpass them time and time again..but now, they have a chance to grow into a decent fighter if someone dedicates time to teaching them outside of "attack the dummy" and "sparring" sessions.

Sure, everyone benefits from the times when the Sarg is using "teach" during sparring practice, and everyone gets a boost..but "that guy" always seems to be a little bit slower than everyone else.  While everyone else is getting "+1, +1, +1" to their Slashing Weapons skill through sparring, Amos (guild:merchant) has to wait for someone to teach him.  Because he's guild:merchant and will never have the same innate ability that a warrior has.

Maybe, one day, Amos wakes up and realizes that while he's now fairly decent (journeyman skill in Slashing Weapons and Apprentice in Shield Use), he's never going to equal the raw ability of a natural warrior...But that does not mean he can't be a trained warrior.  Or, on the other hand, maybe he wakes up and realizes he no longer wants to pursue this path and goes back to what feels natural to him..merchanting.  He doesn't loose the benefit or skills he picked up during his days as a merc, but he will never progress further (journeyman to advanced) or pick up any other warrior skill (kick, bash, etc) unless he seeks out someone to spend the time to teach him, again...and pour time into making sure he progresses.

But Pale Horse!  What good will guilds be if everyone can do everything?
The same good they do, already, and IMO the very purpose for which they exist: defining your character.  Malik is guild:ranger.  That is what he is.  That is what you made him to be, it's what his background was designed to show him as and what you intend to play them as.  He will always be a ranger.  What's the problem if he spends a year of his life or howevermuchtime of the Player's time convincing his buddy Talia to teach him how to knife someone in the back?  It's a skill that's not natural to him..he'll never progress beyond the fumbling attempts (and probably get himself killed to the first bahamet he attempts to backstab and gets his head bitten-off while waiting for the command lag to tick down), he'll never branch from it..unless he puts IG time into being taught this skill.

But Pale Horse!  This will just lead to ability combinations that are OP!
More OP than what?  And in what circumstances?  Generally when I hear arguments to this effect, its from the portion of the player base which favors combat.  In this case, I do agree that it is a legitimate concern.  Having a Warrior with journeyman level backstab, throw and the ability to sneak and hide would make a killer without peer..unless they run into another warrior who did the same.  Or an assassin who naturally comes by part of this skill set and can progress, naturally, through it while the warrior has to wait upon the mercies of their teacher to teach them..and hope they don't die and then put them through the effort of finding another teacher who won't tell them to shove off.
In the instance of the "Swiss-army-knife-warrior" I think that my proposal for how they go about learning new skills and progressing in them once learned would be a sufficient trade-off.

But Pale Horse!  What's to prevent Talia the Assassin, Malik the Ranger and Amos the Warrior from teaming, teaching their skills to all of them and running around OP?
What's to prevent this from happening already?  Each of those guilds have skills in common and nothing is preventing them from teaching each other to their guild's maximum already.  And if they want to progress beyond the hard-cap for their guild?  Talia the Assassin wants to have Advanced Slashing Weapons?  Get Amos to use "teach" to teach her.  Since its a high level, its going to take a lot of time and "teaching" to progress.  Remember, skill gain does have a coded limit on how much progression can be gained in a certain amount of time.  You wouldn't just sit and repeat "teach talia slashing weapons" over and over and over and expect to see a rise.  And if someone did do that, then they're no better than any other twink and will eventually be found out and suffer the consequences for breaking the rules.  I would dare to say they would be found out even quicker than a twink is, now, because of the slow progression of out-of-guild teaching needed to progress and out-of-guild skill.  Talia the Assassin has master level slashing weaponry at 2 days played?  Something's rotten in Denmark.  Open up an investigation to see if they've been twinking.

But Pale Horse!  This doesn't prevent someone from twinking!
What's your point?  Nothing outside of banning someone's account from the game will prevent the capability for someone to twink.  I am proposing a method for someone to, IG, spend IG and RL time progressing their character in a fashion that they choose.  They put the effort into learning this round-about and hard way to get a skill.  Why not let them enjoy the fruits of their labors?

But Pale Horse!  What good are sub-guilds and all the work Staff has put into re-vamping the guilds?
The same good that guilds and sub-guilds already are: natural progression.  Amos the Merchant/Slip-knife will still be his natural merchanting and slip-knifey self.  His skill tree will still branch "fancy-silk-undy-making" from "rock-cutting."  His hide skill will still stop at "just-enough-to-not-really-do-what-he-wanted-to-do."  With this other system, nothing has changed.  He just, now, has the chance to become more than that through the IG effort he puts into it..and the IG efforts of another player character who teaches him.  Interaction all around!
This isn't a way to cheapen the work put into the re-vamps by Staff.  Their work is top-notch, IMO, and I celebrate their efforts at improving the game wholeheartedly!  I do admit to not seeing how this would cheapen or invalidate their work, though.  Everyone can't become as special as someone else, even if it were codedly possible in theory.  The sheer amount of time and effort to satisfy the urge to "gotta catch 'em all!" would be staggering..and let's face it.  You all are going to die and loose the work put into the Warrior-Ranger-Assassin who mastercrafts silky-f-me-undies eventually.  99% are going to die before their warrior gets to journeyman in throwing, let alone having hide, kick, climb, sneak, etc, at any level.

As for the Warrior-Ranger-Assassin who mastercrafts silky-f-me-undies that does survive...what about 'em?  Their character spent a lifetime learning how to do this.  I say, like anyone else who dedicated time and effort into getting "that gud," let them enjoy it!  Many people can't keep a character alive (or don't want to keep a character alive) past a few months.  By the time they die, their Burglar might have had rock-cutting to journeyman, parry to apprentice and arrow-making at novice.  And that's if they didn't pour their time into learning out-of-guild skills and left their natural skills at starting levels.  And if they did and left themselves with a shitty-Burglar...what's the problem?  All the other Burglars are far beyond them and are carrying out grand-pianos under their coats while Amos, here, can't burgle a rock in their pocket without being caught.  The fecker spent all his time decorating with feathers and got caught by the Arm because of it.

In my eye, this idea wouldn't detract from anything and add much.  This game, for all it's code, combat and player-base that is skewed towards thinking it's "murder, murder, murder," is still a Role-playing game.  You have a character, and I think this would just add to character development.

[Taven]

I have a few questions:

1. Are you proposing that ANY guild can reach mastery in any skill if given enough time with a teacher? Or are you proposing a hard lower-level cap?

2. As I understand it, this system would heavily favor those who can keep their PCs alive multiple RL years. What's your answer to these "super characters"? Do you have concerns about players playing more "safe" until they can max out their taught capabilities?

3. Would there be any coded limit as to how many "extra" skills a PC of any given guild could learn?

4. Is this going to give players who play peak an even greater advantage then they already have? (Off-peakers will be less likely to find people to teach them)


In general, I think the idea of PC skills being more flexible with time and allowing them to have little limited hobbies or interests is a neat idea. I'm just not sold that this is the best way to do that.

[Jihelu]

I like it /if/
There is a limit to how many skills you could gain or perhaps a yearly thing like:
You could only branch a new skill one every five years or some shit, so make it count.

[Asmoth]

I would totally be down for a sorta "classless" skill system.

I think the answer should be ease of learning by class instead of hard cap.

Right now I could make a subguild pastrymaker, who I know will never get better than advanced, which is crazy and unrealistic because if I keep said pastrymaker alive for a year or two real life and whatever that translates to in game, he's gonna get better.

I think that there should still be skills that are class skills persay, but I think they should just learn faster for that class, like Ride, Rangers and half-elves learn that shit like wicked fast, where a merchant, he will learn it slower, but not have the cap on the skill.

So Ranger/Half-elf might be able to goto Master ride in three months of playing where merchant might take a year.

This in my mind would be more realistic, because as it sits now, at least how I take it, is you reach this level where you just stop learning, your character becomes a retard incapable of improvement because his skill hits advanced or journeyman.

So I'd be all for some type of spin that unlocks the potential of any player, hell might make some monsters too like a merchant who spends two years in the byn and turns into a killer, all while turning a tidy profit as a merchant (just an idea).

But alas, for all I would love this, I think it would take too much retooling from the staff side of things, and I don't know that they would want to do the work or if it were even possible.

[Pale Horse]

To clarify some things and answer some questions:

I am proposing that any guild could learn any mundane skill to any level so long as they have a teacher who can teach them and is willing to put in the time and effort.  However, learning an out-of-guild skill requires someone to "teach" you, and there isn't a guarantee you will pick up the skill when "taught."  This would be determined by the level of the skill that the teacher possesses and the Wisdom score of the trainee.  Once you do pick it up, it will be at novice level and any attempts to progress with have to be through the gain given by the "teach" command.

For Example (with made up figures):

Amos Warrior with a Wisdom score of Average wants to learn Stone Crafting and does not have the sub-guild which gives it.  He goes to Malik the Merchant who has it at Journeyman.  Malik attempts to teach Amos.  Based on Malik's Journeyman level, his skill has a base 15% chance of being successfully picked-up through the teach command by a non-merchant.  Amos, with his Average wisdom, only has a 10% chance of learning an out-of-guild skill.  This equals out to a .015% chance that the skill will be picked-up.

Let's say that Amos finally does learn the skill.  Now, at Novice level, he has to seek out someone with a higher score than he to have it progress.  Let us say his numeric value is 15/100, where 100 = Skill level-up.  Amos goes to Talia, who also has Stone Crafting at Journeyman.  She teaches Amos.  With her journeyman level, she can only impart a gain of 5/10 per teaching command used.  Amos' wisdom only allows himself to gain 2/10 per teaching session.  .5 * .2 = .1.  Amos now has a Stone Cutting skill of 15.1/100.  He gets taught again..but it doesn't raise his score because of the limit to how much may be gained through "teach" in a certain time period.  Also, as this is an out-of-guild ability and Amos has no natural ability to learn stuff outside of wacking things with bone swordz, he can't go out and naturally get a skill gain through use.  Not very realistic, but it was how I first thought of this system to prevent the Warrior-Ranger-Assassin who mastercrafts silky-f-me-undies from running rampant.

I will admit that I did not have off-peak players in mind when I was thinking up this idea.  I did have the average player in mind and yes, deliberately made it something extremely difficult and hard to achieve.  Long-lived PCs would have the advantage in this, but that's only if they bother to take advantage of it.  Those PCs who live longer than other PCs already have an advantage through extra time alive to raise skills, develop connections, gather gear and amass wealth.  This is the nature of a perma-death game.  With the difficulty put in place to learn a skill that's not native to your guild to a reasonable level, I would think it would not give an even further advantage to a long lived PC and exacerbate the ability of an off-peak or average player to compete with a long-lived PC or a player who has the time to dump into developing their character.  It's a trade-off: Ignore your main guild and easier to learn abilities in favor of the fun of dumping your efforts and time into learning an ability not native to your guild, or put your work into the guild and sub-guild you chose and have fun from there.  Amos the Warrior's player may have had a lot of fun developing the ability for them to Stone Craft to a high degree at the expense of time and effort put into learning their guild's abilities.  Amos is now less skilled in combat than Malik the Warrior who's player did create and play them as a warrior, and only as a warrior, from the start.  Both are having fun and one isn't "better" than the other except where hard skill levels go in a main and sub-guild.

If someone does complain that it's somehow unfair or that they feel penalized for their Merchant being less-skilled than they would have liked, because they put their time into learning Slashing Weapons...I admit I have no empathy.  This isn't an idea to "level the playing field" and make sure everyone has a gold star.  It is an idea to give the possibility of someone having at least a part of the gold star..and maybe even a bigger part of it, the more effort and time they put in.  I'm a proponent of the value of personal work and effort yielding reward, even in a game setting.  And, I hope, there isn't anything in the system I'm proposing that would detract from what is available to everyone already, be they off-peaker Malik, average Amos or time-dumper Talia.

[Taven]

To clarify some things and answer some questions:

[TAVEN'S SUMMARY/INTERPRETATION OF WHAT WAS SAID]

• Any mundane skill could reach any level, including master, on any guild, provided they spend enough time with experienced teachers
• Learning a skill would have a degree of randomness connected to wisdom, which would make adding a skill to your list very difficult, which a higher chance the more often you're taught
• A learned skill has no natural ability to progress and must be taught to see any skill gains
• A learned skill must always be taught by someone higher then them to advance in skill level
• Because of the intensiveness required to progress with a learned skill and limitations on playtime, this will balance it out
• It does favor long-lived, but the game as a whole favors them

Hmmm.

Here's a thought: Make wisdom the deciding factor for what your skill level is capped at, instead of only having it decide how quickly/slowly you learn. You want to be a master at numerous skills outside of your guild, you better be absolutely incredible. It could also be used to be the deciding factor as to how many extra skills you could learn. So if you're wise, you can have a broader range of skills and can be better at them. Jihelu's idea of limiting how many skills you could learn in a RL period is also a good one.

I also don't think that having the skill only advance by the teach command is very practical. I'm all for heavy emphasis on RP and having a mentor so you really know how to learn something, but I think that having ANY advancement be based on teach is too much. Why not let people advance normally when they learn it, but to have them bumped up to the next level need a teacher? IE, if Amos is an "apprentice" rank at the skill at 40 points, and to reach "journeyman" he has to have 50 points, make it to he can be the same as anyone else up until he has 49 points in a skill. But for that remaining point to be given, he needs to get multiple lessons from a teacher. That'd be a better work-around, anyways.

Overall, I'm still not sure how I feel about the idea. I like the idea of having people able to put time and dedication to increase what they can do, and I like the idea of over time being able to reasonably increase what you know, so you're not locked in to the same skill set you picked at creation. But... I still have doubts. One of them you already brought up, which has to do with the quality of the teaching lessons for the teach command, and so on.

I'll have to give it more thought.

[Jihelu]

I mostly just wish teach wasn't as terrible as it is now.

Please no paragraphs on how I'm stupid and how teach is the best thing ever, please.

[Armaddict]

You get a single line then.

[Pale Horse]

To clarify some things and answer some questions:

[TAVEN'S SUMMARY/INTERPRETATION OF WHAT WAS SAID]

• Any mundane skill could reach any level, including master, on any guild, provided they spend enough time with experienced teachers
• Learning a skill would have a degree of randomness connected to wisdom, which would make adding a skill to your list very difficult, which a higher chance the more often you're taught
• A learned skill has no natural ability to progress and must be taught to see any skill gains
• A learned skill must always be taught by someone higher then them to advance in skill level
• Because of the intensiveness required to progress with a learned skill and limitations on playtime, this will balance it out
• It does favor long-lived, but the game as a whole favors them

Hmmm.

Here's a thought: Make wisdom the deciding factor for what your skill level is capped at, instead of only having it decide how quickly/slowly you learn. You want to be a master at numerous skills outside of your guild, you better be absolutely incredible. It could also be used to be the deciding factor as to how many extra skills you could learn. So if you're wise, you can have a broader range of skills and can be better at them. Jihelu's idea of limiting how many skills you could learn in a RL period is also a good one.

I also don't think that having the skill only advance by the teach command is very practical. I'm all for heavy emphasis on RP and having a mentor so you really know how to learn something, but I think that having ANY advancement be based on teach is too much. Why not let people advance normally when they learn it, but to have them bumped up to the next level need a teacher? IE, if Amos is an "apprentice" rank at the skill at 40 points, and to reach "journeyman" he has to have 50 points, make it to he can be the same as anyone else up until he has 49 points in a skill. But for that remaining point to be given, he needs to get multiple lessons from a teacher. That'd be a better work-around, anyways.

Overall, I'm still not sure how I feel about the idea. I like the idea of having people able to put time and dedication to increase what they can do, and I like the idea of over time being able to reasonably increase what you know, so you're not locked in to the same skill set you picked at creation. But... I still have doubts. One of them you already brought up, which has to do with the quality of the teaching lessons for the teach command, and so on.

I'll have to give it more thought.

All good points, and ideas to which I would not be adverse.

I had first thought to limit the amount of out-of-guild skills a single character could learn based on wisdom, as brought up, and had bandied the idea around in my head but ultimately came to the conclusion that it would be too much of an (uhg!) "unfairness" to all players (note: I absolutely detest using "fair" as a measurement, standard or argument for reasons I won't go in to and have nothing to do with this topic).  My own stance on a "leveled playing field" aside, it felt too skewed in favor of prioritizing wisdom over everything else at character creation, regardless of guild or race.  This way, any character of any race and guild combination can have the potential with the only limitations being self-imposed by the player's choice at creation.

As for the limit on skill gain being restricted to the "teach" command gain, I'm more than open to seeing a change in that.  This was a limitation I put in despite my own personal feelings.  I think this is, indeed, too restrictive but figured we should start at a baseline that everyone could agree was maybe too much, and then go from there.  I hadn't thought of restricting skill-level advancement to a teacher, though.  My own ideas leaned more towards reducing the amount of skill-gain for an out-of-guild skill and then multiplying that by your wisdom score.  Something like: Out-of-guild skill gain = .5(wisdom-score X racial adjustment).

[RogueGunslinger]

I mostly just wish teach wasn't as terrible as it is now.

Please no paragraphs on how I'm stupid and how teach is the best thing ever, please.

Teach is okay, I guess? Never noticed it helping ym characters lear quicker, but I also rarely run into people who use it. I just wish it would bypass skill-timers, and be-useful beyond the kind of small range it currently is.

[Armaddict]

On to the original idea, which I forgot to include in my previous semi-snark directed elsewhere...

I've actually grown far more sympathetic to the class-less cause over the years, so long as it's done correctly.  In this particular model, the example of incorrect, in my mind, is everyone having access to everything.  In all RPG's, I cease to consider them true RPG's if I have a moment I realize that no matter what character-design decisions you make, you end up getting everything anyway.  Regardless of time invested, regardless of checks...if everyone has the capability of everything, it pulls me out of the play.  So classless is okay, so long as there is:
a) A limiting factor to how far you can go, which lends importance to decisions made.
b) An appropriate balance to prevent metaplay, i.e. a bunch of people who all work the same way because why-would-you-do-it-any-other-way?!

To keep it short?  Yes, a shift to classless would be ideal, as long as you also take in that Yes, this will take a -long- time to change the way everything class-oriented is interacting with each other and to maintain diversity via suitable systems of options.

[Kryos]

Thanks for the kindness, Pale Horse, its appreciated.

As for the topic at hand, there are some 'generic' skills I would not like to see passed on, for reasons brushing against was has been said.  For game balance, some things need to be unattainable unless you pay for them in some manner.  Scan, climb, and direction sense being learned over time though for anyone, as some other skills already anyone can pick up as a template, would have my full endorsement.  Further, one's stats already dictate a certain level of proficiency in mundane skills at the least, including the ones I listed, so aptitudes are accounted for in that manner inherently.

[azuriolinist]

I would be all for a system like this. I'd rather there were no caps to the skills as it should be possible, given tremendous time and effort, to master a skill. Skill gains for out-of-class skills should be incredibly tiny (adjusted a bit by wisdom) compared to those of a PC's own guild, and I agree with the idea that a PC must be taught before being able to get to the next level of a skill. It would then still be possible for off-peak players to advance, albeit at a slower pace.

I'd limit the skills one can branch out of being taught to maybe... one skill every IG year... heck, maybe even every few IG years, so that we don't see PCs trying to branch each and every (mundane) skill that exists in a little amount of time, and it is made an actual effort.

[evilcabbage]

but pale horse

what prevents people from teaching other people branched skills?

[Pale Horse]

but pale horse

what prevents people from teaching other people branched skills?

Nothing!

[evilcabbage]

and that is why this gets the cabbage seal of disapproval. sorry.

[Pale Horse]

I just noticed that someone has changed "Nyralia" to "Nyralia" in my original post.

..or was it always like that?  Someone bring me my tinfoil hat!

Edit: Gasp!  It wasn't changed!  Nyralia's name cannot be written!  She is to be forgotten under the new regime!

[Inks]

Rathustra changed too.

[Dar]

I can actually envision something like a Skilless Guild.
You start with contact/barrier skill only.

13-15 old 200% benefit from being taught a skill. Any taught skill that you agree to learn is placed on your skill tree.

15-17 old 100% benefit from being taught a skill. Each teach has 1/3 chance of placing a skill onto your skill tree.

19-24 old 50% benefit from being taught a skill. You become capable of improving the skills you have up to 20 points above what they are, but they're all capped at maximum 60. You've got 1/10 chance to learn a new skill if taught.

24+, You have 1/100 chance to learn new skill, 1/10 chance to have your skill increase by 1% per teach. You can increase the skills you already have by practicing up to 20 points above whatever you were taught via teach, but no more.

All other guilds have the last two benefits.
19-24: 1/10 chance of learning new skill at 19-24 age, but all of their skills are capped at maximum 60, unless taught someone 20% above
24+ 1/100 chance to learn a new skill. 1/10 chance to have your skill increase by 1% per teach (Remember, for teach to be of use, the teacher will need to be more skilled. So you cant be taught from 89 to 90, unless someone's ... at 110%?).  But their natural skills can be increased to whatever cap naturally via practice.