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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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".

Quote
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.

Quote from: "psionic fungus"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

Quote
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.

Quote from: "psionic fungus"
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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'.

Quote from: "psionic fungus"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

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

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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'.

Quote
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.

Quote from: "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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Versu on July 11, 2008, 05:55:49 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Versu on July 11, 2008, 05:55:49 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Versu on July 11, 2008, 05:55:49 PM
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.

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.

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

Quote from: Kill4Free on July 12, 2008, 05:17:34 AM
I Say for instance a Warrior guard, or merchant acrobat.

Whats wrong with a warrior/gurad? 

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

Quote from: jcljules on July 12, 2008, 06:40:52 AM

Quote from: Kill4Free on July 12, 2008, 05:17:34 AM
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!

Quote from: Kill4Free on July 12, 2008, 12:21:45 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Sokotra on July 11, 2008, 08:15:09 PM

Quote from: Versu on July 11, 2008, 05:55:49 PM
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.   

Quote from: Angela Christine on July 12, 2008, 08:06:07 PM
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.