[LittleJohn]

I prefer a class-based system.

Originally Posted by (Azeroth @ Dec. 24 2003,10:42) So what I was getting at is that, as in real life, limiting and categorizing a character by one particular "Class" is like saying to me "you can never have any other job than being in Sales".  While it may very well be true that *that* is all I would ever want to be...the lack of choice is bad.

On the code I'm developing, players choose a class at creation.  And can progress in that class the entire game.  Or, if they want, they can "dual-class" when they reach a new player level. (There's a difference between player levels and class levels).  If  they dual-class they stop gaining exerience for their previous class, and start gaining experience in their new class.  They'll keep any skills they've learned from their old class.   They won't recieve any hero feats (or not as many... depending on when they switched over), and won't be as strong of a [mage/fighter/thief/etc].

Then there's also the option of multi-classing at creation, which is only available to humans, elves, half-elves, and gnomes.  Multi-classing is where a player advances as 2 classes at the same time, with experience they recieve being divided between both of their classes.

As far as "your skills make the profession" theory, I'd say I have to disagree.  A person can go through 4 years of electrical engineering school, but when he graduates he gets a job as a dictionary salesman.  When people ask him what his profession is, he'll say "I'm a dictionary salesman"... in spite of the fact that he has all the skills to be an electrical engineer.  Same thing in the fantasy world... if a person was trained since birth to be a master pick-lock... but gets employed by The Red Wizard of Azakanassa to fight in his army.  That person would say, "I'm a fighter", not "I'm a thief".  Although he might tell you, "I'm a fighter with many thieving abilities."

[Azeroth]

While it is true that you could spend quite a bit of time learning one particular skillset, and then never use it in your occupational career...I think it still defines you.  I started in sales when I was 21, did it for quite some time...but when I moved to a different state was unable to find a job in sales.  So I managed a Pizza Hut.  Then I worked at a prison.  But as soon as a sales position opened up I forsook the prison job and quickly took the sales position.

My point is this: I suppose "your skills define your occupation" is not necessarily valid...touche.  *But*, to say that they don't to some degree define you is wrong.  To limit a character's possibilities by offering him/her a "tree" or "multiclassing chart" or whatever...is fundamentally flawed.  No matter how much multiclassing someone does, he/she is still bound by the limitations of that class/multiclass.  

Overall I suppose a good argument could be made for either side.  What I find is that when one tries to "improve" upon a class based system, the end up changing it and improving it with elements of a classless system.  So why not just go classless and call it good?

[JilesDM]

Originally Posted by A person can go through 4 years of electrical engineering school, but when he graduates he gets a job as a dictionary salesman. When people ask him what his profession is, he'll say "I'm a dictionary salesman"... in spite of the fact that he has all the skills to be an electrical engineer.

This is actually the best argument that can be made for a skill-based system. In a class-based system, your skills are inextricably tied to your profession. Addressing this very problem is, in fact, one of the primary goals of many skill-based systems, which decouple skills from professions entirely.

[Delerak]

Jiles that makes no sense. Your skills are NOT tied to your profession, I think that is the point. People grow and become different, just because the warrior has kick, bash, and disarm, doesn't mean the warrior cannot become a well off smuggler who has a sharp tongue for business, and a sharper blade by his side. You have to understand that the skills do not define you or your character, they simply give you what you were made to have. Some people are natural fighters, it's in their blood, hence warriors. And some people are intelligent, witty, undeniably quick with their minds, these can be magic-users or rogues. What I'm trying to make you see is that whether you have a class-based or a classless it's still not going to matter, the problem with classless is that you have no starting point for your character's persona, he is just sitting their with a bunch of skills YOU the player picked, and so she has no way to start out in the gaming world except for you to decide more things that are probably not going to stay flush with the character's persona, since you picked all of the skills for character you have to make a lot more decisions like how they would react to this or that situation. With a class you at least have somewhere to start and then work your way up into the character's personality and "profession".

[OnyxFlame]

Delerak, you're neglecting an important factor here. In a classless system, what says you pick what skills your char will have when you create him? I know some muds work that way, but not all by any means. And even if you do start out with several skills, what says you're any good at them? If you start out with a minimal skill level in them, and then discover you'd rather learn something else instead, you can always neglect that skill and learn others.

In DM, the only skills you start out with are the absolute minimum required to function in game - fluency in the common tongue, and in your racial language(s). After that, what you learn is entirely up to you. Some combinations are next to impossible to learn properly, but that doesn't keep you from trying to learn them anyway. And since there *is* no skill for "talking your way out of a situation where a baron wants to kill you" or "persuading someone to do what you want" or "becoming popular", there are plenty of ways for chars to do things they don't actually have skills for.

[Azeroth]

Thank you OnyxFlame.  Apparently I wasn't articulating myself well enough because that has been one my main points.  I think one of the ways a classless system is more realistic is *because* you don't have to choose your skills form the beginning.  Ideally each character would start with the very basic skillset (as you described, with the racial language and a few other remedial skills), then they have the freedom to gain whatever skills they wish...whatever is suitable for their path.  

Skills all start out at an unskilled level, and upon usage grow.  Skills that are neglected...atrophy.  Just like riding a bike, you may never forget how but you might be a bit rusty after 20 years of having not ridden one (at the very least you might not be able to pull off that bunny hop you did when you were 10).  Anyway, I think the lines have clearly been drawn in this debate.  There are those who like class based and those who like classless.  And neither side seems to want to budge *chuckle*.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by (OnyxFlame @ Jan. 04 2004,12:54) Delerak, you're neglecting an important factor here. In a classless system, what says you pick what skills your char will have when you create him? I know some muds work that way, but not all by any means. And even if you do start out with several skills, what says you're any good at them? If you start out with a minimal skill level in them, and then discover you'd rather learn something else instead, you can always neglect that skill and learn others. In DM, the only skills you start out with are the absolute minimum required to function in game - fluency in the common tongue, and in your racial language(s). After that, what you learn is entirely up to you. Some combinations are next to impossible to learn properly, but that doesn't keep you from trying to learn them anyway. And since there *is* no skill for "talking your way out of a situation where a baron wants to kill you" or "persuading someone to do what you want" or "becoming popular", there are plenty of ways for chars to do things they don't actually have skills for.

I'm not saying you have to be good at them. I'm saying your character will have no base to grow from when you have no class. I can classify people in the real world, and you can do it on games, that's why they are their. When you don't use classes you leave everything in the hands of the player, who probably just wants every combat skill that the game has. And I am just speculating here, I don't know what classless is all about, but I do know it has too many holes, especially if we are talking about being in character. Classes help shape and create the character because you the player pick what your character is going to naturally have, then you go from there. Plus, when you have a class-based system you can still have skills added by the staff of the Mud. In a classless system I doubt this ever happens because apparently everything is "open" for you the player to gain at your own leisure. I don't see that as being much fun.

-D

[tresspassor]

Originally Posted by And I am just speculating here, I don't know what classless is all about

If you don't know what it is all about how can you claim that a class based system is better?

Originally Posted by but I do know it has too many holes, especially if we are talking about being in character

...err then how do you know that?

The real problem is that you cannot say one system will promote better roleplay then another. There is NO WAY that a class or classless system will allow more rp.

Example 1)

A player builds a long description of his/her character. Detailed history stuff. The administration then help the player build a character with skills based off that player character's history.

So if your character grew up on a farm that was burned down by pirates and then joined a roving band of marauders then you may get skills like:

Agriculture, swords, shield, horseback riding, leather armor, fishing.

How does this make it "harder" to role-play that character?

In this example, if this character was going to be put into a class system what would you classify them as? Fighter/Warrior? Does that really make it easier to RP this character (who grew up on a farm, knows how to fish, knows his way around a sword but has never worn plate mail)?

Example 2)

Your character dies so it is up to you to create a new character on the same game, now the admin don't need to make a character for you (or walk you through the process).

So you make up your character history, detail everything out. Basically your character was a pirate who burned down a farmstead and then ran off to join the circus.

So your skills are:

Sailing, Rapier, Elephant Training, Juggling, Pick Pockets, and Trading

Now, what would you classify this character as? Possibly a Thief or maybe a Merchant? And explain how this makes it easier to roleplay this ex pirate ex circus worker.

Class or no class it isn't going to make RP easier. That is like saying "what is more fun, apocalyptic or cyberpunk"

[The Doctor]

Delerak posted: I can classify people in the real world.

Yes, people are classifiable, but think about this. A Jewish man is about to be born, he speaks with God, and during this conversation he choses his hair, eyes, stature, a string of text that defines him to others, and a name his friends can call him. He really wants to be painter... but no, Jewish men dont get the Painter class choice, so he has to be a merchant....

I do not know about you, but if I was going to compare Role-Play Mud char. creation to RL, then I would think it through....

Classifiably I am Classless. I like to read, cook, womanize, mud, study, photograph, play musical intruments, statical theory fascinates me, philosophy, theology, meta-physics, make buisness stratedgies, and fight. That is me IRL to a degree... The only thing truely classifiable about me is that I am a white caucasian male, early twenties, and sexy.

I prefer a Class-less Skill-Based Mud. By which I mean that not only is it classless, but your skill increases by using the skill in a manner realistic to learning irl, not by accumulation of XP. For example IRL I am a guitar player, if I play what i already know I dont get better, if I attempt something too hard I do not get better either... I have to find the most effecient material to practice given my time commitment and skill. A true Skill Based system, done well, uses this type of system.

The question of balance has come up early in the thread too...
Some distinguish balance issues being different in PvP. It is. However balance is not always solved by obvious means... OnyxFlame mentioned that in Dartmud a young fighter has the advantage over a young mage... In toe to toe fighting this would be true... however there is no mention of any reason why the mage would not run away, being that death by a pure fighter in DM is not exactly instant, especially if the fighter is young. The young mage has the advantage of a different social enviroment than the fighter... most fighters are solitary, young mages have many friends whom just by being associated with would make a would be assassine think twice. Young mages also have spells that help them survive easier than a young fighter. What OnyxFlame meant I believe is that if a young mage and young fighter fought till the death the fighter would win... this isnt the nature of Dartmud so it is a moot point... Balance is a broader issue than just winning fist to fist.

The next question in relation is Permadeath... wether or not you have Permadeath greatly effects how you design skills and classes and such in your mud. Permadeath makes everything you do important... who your friends are, who your enemies are, what image you project, etc... nothing is then meanial... because you could die because of it... perma. Becoming an expert acrobat for instance... is it really worth it ? Attempting your first swan dive into a pool, land wrong and break your head, no one is around, your corpse rots and your soul is taken by the goddess ? Being able to evolve in an unrestricted PvP perma-death mud is essential to survival, classless-ness allows you the freedom to move through changing political structures, social circles, and economic malfunctions with greater ease. There are penalties involved in learning skills that conflict with each other, so as to not have demi-gods running around. Being a phenom of a "multi-classer" in Dartmud takes time and wit, so if a char can live that long without ****ing off the wrong group of people then they earned having the flexiblity and power of being a jack of all trades. But a good assasine, or mage with wit could kill the multiclasser just as easily as the other way around... But the mutliclasser is more powerfull in less tangable ways. It is complex, my post and the rest of this thread really dont do this issue justice... there are many nuances to consider.

Despite the outwardly non-logical statement Jiles made, if you pick his brain you will find he has very detailed thoughts on these things, and if given the opportunity has very valuable insite to Mud Creation. Honestly his statement did make sense. How I read it: Noone likes to be put in a box, boxes define people who are enslaved to some title, free minds dont define themselves by their skills, they define themselve by who they are. Their skills are a secondary effect of who they are. The purpose that drives us toward learning one thing or another defines more acturately than the skill itself.
Correct me if I am wrong Jiles.

LittleJohn, *I* do not define myself by my occupation... *I* am not a Crimminal Justice Professional... *I* am *I*. Nor do I define my mud characters by their skills or their class, I define them by what part of myself I am choosing to express and the purpose or "role" that character will have within a given enviroment, skills I choose to learn will help to fullfill that purpose.

[Delerak]

I guess literature isn't one of your "many" nuances of life. Learn to spell.

[Delerak]

I'll put it bluntly now. Having a classless mud makes your character too flexible to change. If you think everyone is a Rennaisance Man you know nothing about people.

-D

[Yui Unifex]

If you don't want everybody being a Rennaisance Man, then you simply make skills atrophy. There, problem solved.

[Delerak]

Heh, good point.

[Azeroth]

Holy CRAP!  I think I mentioned skill atrophy at LEAST 10 times.  It blows my mind how little people really read of your post and then turn around and insult you, or disagree with a point of yours they obviously don't even understand.  I mean, there is no problem disagreeing on a subject.  But Delerak...you made points, others refuted them.  Again, I mentioned skill atrophy as a way of balance numerous times (review my posts).  If all you can do is insult someone (spelling...jeesh like we don't all have a typo occur occasionally) when they disagree constructively with your opinions then all you do is make yourself look childish.  I had respect for your thoughts and was trying to consider your veiws until you did that.

[Delerak]

No, I remember you mentioning it, I just didn't have anything to say about it, the concept of skill atrophy, (degenerating, lowering the skill level, whatever) is pretty skewed in a roleplayers viewpoint simply because some people won't forget one thing just because they are learning another. If the 20 years old veteran mercenary stopped his carreer for 10 years then came back, he would still be deadly, sure he'd be a little rusty, but with your notes about skill atrophy, he'd be a novice again. Depending on how you coded it, maybe it would work, I have never seen it.

-D

[Azeroth]

Well, you are right in the analogy of the 10 year hiatus. You don't *forget*, but you are definitly rusty. That is how skill atrophy should work. I am not saying if you don't use a particular skill for one year you go from 75% to nil. We are trying to figure out a balance method as we speak...but a small percentage of loss over time to reflect the neglect should suffice.

On a side note, let's try and keep the remainder of this string civil No reason for any of us to lash out at one another. I think we can all learn from one another, and from one another's ideas. I certainly have gained some insight on what flaws there might be in the system I am seeking to create.

[Delerak]

Bah. This is the internet, I have a right to not be civil. I'll keep civility if I ever meet you in the real world.

[Mierza]

Um... okay, straying away from civilities and onto my thoughts of skill levels.

Atrophy: Sounds like a good idea, somewhat realistic. My point of view on this, however, is that most games don't progress to pass ten years very often. In fact, most games I know hardly really actually have an IC time anymore, even if they originally started out with a system of one.

Now, there are many games also that don't have changing worlds. A player can make their own SL, or participate in staff ran quests, but you examine the universe after a few months and it's exactly the same as it was before -how many MUD's actually re-write room descriptions as the scenery changes -from something like seasons to man-made destruction such as battle scenes.

My point here is that if your world is going to change substancially in the time it takes for a player's skills to degrade, then fair enough -that is realistic. However, what's the point of trying to be realistic in a game system where the player -looses- a part of them, attempts to regain it.. but that's a simple never ending cycle. Now, if a player was to loose part of their skill, and the world around them changes, then they gain it again, and their world changes again? Fair enough. That is called a story.

I also have a question -how often do characters gain skills, and then not use them for say, 10 years IC time, anyway?

-btw I'm not dissing atrophy, just trying to present issue's where I still haven't seen other people's point of view yet.

As for skill systems, anyone played um.. Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction? Games like that aren't normally my piece of cake.. but I played mostly for game experience, and I'm glad for it. Anyway, those that have played it before would have an idea of the skill system there. For those that don't, here's a basic outline:

To start with, you get to choose a character. Each different character has a different class, for example, amazon, barbarian, sorceress, etc.

Say we choose the sorceress class, then she has three areas she can specialize in: Cold spells, Lightening Spells, and Fire spells.

Each time a player 'levels up' they get a new skill point, which they can spend in either of the three areas.

Inside each spell type (cold, lightening and fire) there is a tree branch of skills starting from easier skills, to more powerful ones.

I like this kind of system because it allows for classes, whilst still allowing for diversity. Three players playing a sorceress character, could each be different. Each might specialize in one chosen area, or they may choose to be more diverse and select skills from all areas.

As for balancing a system like this, to be fair between classes, I'm pretty sure with a bit of thinking it can be done -I mean diablo did it, and I'm sure there are some MUD's out there that must do likewise?

Anyway, it's sleep time, and I appologize if any of this thread is hard to read, but I did want to get my thoughts down, even if just for my own thought process. If there are any questions about the meaning behind my words, feel free to ask.

~Mierza.

[Azeroth]

You ask good questions Mierza.  One of the major factors on this system is our permadeath system.  We are using a modified d20 system in our mud.  The permadeath layout is straight d20 (with the exception of our removal of "hit points" in favor of a two tiered health system (physical damage and pain damage) but that is a whole different thread heh).  Character's on our *will* eventually die.  Real-time is not a good choice, because like you said 10 years is 10 years.  So, we will have some sort of time setup on the mud (that detail hasn't been fully decided at this point).  I am thinking our timeX6 should work.  Then 2 months IRL is a year on the game.  Again, it still needs some thought.

With permadeath and accelerated time, skill atrophy and selection becomes all the more relevant.  You would have a lifespan in mind, you would RP even better (because what hack n slash player really worries about fleeing from a scary monster for fear of their life when THEY CAN'T DIE heheh), and it would give more meaning to everything they do.  Sorry, didn't mean to get off on that rant.

As for diversity think of this system:

Your character is a 16 year old human.  She was born into a noble family so she already has more opportunity than most.  She decides that she wishes to learn the ways of the arcane.  Now, living in Daltimorn (the capital city of Galavant), she has no Arcanic guild in her home town.  She will have to choose to learn under a master from a guild located elsewhere.  Ok now she has to choose which.  There is "Academia Arcanus" in Nocktwar (the foremost source for Arcane knowledge in the realm), or if she wished a darker path she could go for "Guild of the Skull" which really only teaches the paths to the Necromantic.  She would have many different guilds to choose from and each guild would offer her advantages/disadvantages.

*All* of our guilds have RP intertwined with them.  They offer the character a sense of identity, while still bearing a choice.  Will she choose the guild with the widest spells selection, forsaking some of the more focused and powerful magic?  Or will she choose a racial guild and learn the magic that has been passed down through generations of her people?  And she may also find books or tomes later that she can also learn spells from.  Etc.

Now I am not saying these same results can not be accomplished through a classed system...but why even do a classed system when you can have the ease and realism of this type of system?  The sky is truly the limit!

[Realedazed]

I kinda skipped to the end of the post, so forgive me if this has been said before. But I am all for classless, but my pet peeve is when a character is a jack of all trades. I love specialization, since I know when I RP I like to feel like my character is 'special' and not just a cookie cutter character.

I played Inferno once and was a crafter, later on I was a druid. With my crafter, I did pick a pre-made character - all the trade related skills where easy to learn (they cost about 4 builds each) and almost everything else was a bit harder to learn (about 6-8 builds each). I customized my druid myself. I picked druid magic, herb lore, animal lore and a leathercraft as a hobby for my low cost skills and everything else was alot higher.

Here I am babbling on and on again. But what I am trying to say is I like the idea of ALL skills being open to all players. But each players' hard and easy skills should be different.

Also, I think it is a good thing to allow players who speciallize in one thing a bonus. Maybe a broader list of swords or forge, or a special attack for fighters.

Well, thats my 6 1/2 cents,
I'm heading back to bed.

[shadowfyr]

Originally Posted by (Azeroth @ Jan. 06 2004,11:34)  You would have a lifespan in mind, you would RP even better (because what hack n slash player really worries about fleeing from a scary monster for fear of their life when THEY CAN'T DIE heheh), and it would give more meaning to everything they do.

My only complaint with this philosphy is that you can't introduce trully evil mobs with complete castles into the game. For example a Lich. Now a lich isn't going to be RPing, most people if they are lucky will never meet it, dealing with it allies again and only having hints and its lair will be out right lethal. Permadeath leaves any lone hero as a corpse and could wipe out the half the people that tried to defeat it in a large group. This is perfectly reasonable in a story, but no sane player would ever attempt it if they knew that the odds where 90% that they would lose everything in the attempt.

OK, so this isn't exactly RP, but a group of people jabbering at each other and some wiz running a completely fake battle, with no lair in site, isn't exactly epic in scope either. If you do create an area you can't aim for "extremely lethal, but maybe someone will eventually manage to figure out enough to get through", because logically the character can't know about anything they learned before if they RP properly. The result I would assume is to aim for something dangerous, but which someone into H&S muds would consider completely pathetic. Odds are they would be right.

There are things I am considering pulling on the mud I play at, when I eventually apply to become a wizard, that I would never even try on a permadeath one, because getting past them *requires* knowing how badly you screwed up the last time you tried it. Suggesting them on a full RP and permadeath game would probably never make it past the initial proposal...

Of course considering the fact that I probably died close to 100 times in the first two months I played (and maybe 40 times since), I may have another reason to be a tad biased. lol

All in all, I have to agree to an extent on the classless issue. Their may be legitimate situations where guilds and classes make sense. There are also ones, like the thief guild on the mud I play, that would have worked far better as a set of aquired and secret skills, with the apparent nature of the character belonging to some other guild. I think that if you do go with a class system, you have to consider when it *won't* work and make appropriate adjustments for those from the start.

[Mierza]

I have a few things that I'd like to say here.

First of all, in relation to the side topic between Azeroth and shadowfyr's "permadeath/lifespan" I'd like to link a very interesting article titled A Letter from a Dungeon by Ernest Adams.

Although the above article is most generally related to 3d games, it points out some very interesting topics to think about. You may need a Gamasutra.com account to read it (I'm not sure) however the account is free, and the resource is worth it.

Now, the next thing I'd like to address is skills in relation to classes. Although I don't want to deviate from the topic onto skills, I think it best to explain the current system that I am personally researching into for my own game. It's something like this, and does support the more "non-class specific" MUD rather than the class specific, but I'll address that later in my post. It's something like this:

******

Basically anyone can learn any skill, aslong as they meet the requirements needed to learn said skill.

For example a chef wanting to make pizza needs:

* The ingredients to make a pizza.
* The utensils to make a pizza.
* To be healthy enough to physically make a pizza.

He can get the basic knowledge of how to make a pizza from watching tv, from eating it from another chef, from being told the recipe, from basically anywhere.

Of course, this doesn't mean he'll be good at it.

The quality of the pizza is affected by the quality of his ingredients, utensils, and his health.

For example, if he uses pizza dough, tomato sauce, cheese, ham, and pineapple.. he's gonna have a ham and pineapple looking pizza.

If he has dirty hands when he starts cooking, he's gonna have an unhygenic ham and pineapple looking pizza.

If he doesn't have a cooking tray to put the pizza on when it goes in the oven, he's gonna have a lop-sided, unhygenic ham and pineapple looking pizza since he didn't have a flat surface.

I'd also love to have the ability for improvisation. Which means that if he has dirty hands, he can put on surgeons gloves which makes the process a little more hygene. If he has some olives, he can add that to the ingredients, which means he now has ham, cheese, pineapple and olive pizza. If he finds something else to use as a cooking tray, then that serves the same job as the cooking tray.

Get me?

Now, skill development.

Lets break down our example a little more and say he needs to know the skill 'make pizza dough' before he can make a pizza. He still needs the knowledge of how to, and he still needs the ingredients, utensils, and health.

Unfortunately, making pizza dough is slightly more complex than just topping a pizza and baking it. He'd need to know that he needs eggs, flour, and whatever else goes into a dough bread. He needs to know that he has to knead it.

Simple skills are earned by knowledge/common sense. Aslong as a player has basic knowledge of how to top a pizza and bake it, they can do it.

However, because someone knows how to do something.. it doesn't mean they know how to do it good. This is another factor that will affect their ability to 'make the dough'. It's just practice. The more they know, the more they're capable of doing. The more they're capable of doing, the better they get.

I don't want 'perfecting' a skill to be something repetitive and tedious, but I don't want everyone to be expert chefs, combatants, architects, and what not straight away.

Learning things requires resources. Resources are gained over time. I don't like the idea to make players wait real hours to get resources, but rather they gain it through role play. This means that skills are learned through players, and not mobs. Anyone can go to a mob and learn everything. But people will have to role-play with each other to learn skills from other players.

***********

In an earlier post, I spoke about using a system similar to the one used in Diablo 2, where there are several classes to choose from, and each class has level and tree-branched structured skills.

My point is, that in real life people choose professions that let them work towards developing high leveled skills that they otherwise couldn't learn. But does this stop them from learning basic skills? No.

Last night whilst working on my own game, I was considering a 'beautician' type profession where a player could work to be a hairdresser. (I've seen this done in MUD's such as Archaea and it's worked pretty well.) However, I thought, in real life it doesn't take a scientist to put your hair into a pony tail.

So... getting back to my point again, why not have a set of 'general' skills that are available to generally everyone to learn. Things like basic cooking, basic sewing, basic combat even. (I mean who can't learn to throw a punch, simply by seeing someone do it).

This way, you leave options open for specialized skills that could be more class specific, ie a combat class could have some martial arts punching. This allows a player who chooses to learn how to punch -properly- to actually do so, and thus limit their chances of hurting themselves more than their opponent. And with the chef profession/class, sure anyone can cook toast, but it takes training to cook something more exotic.


Just food for thought.

[Azeroth]

Man this is great stuff.  I guess I have opened a can of worms with the whole permadeath thing, but I think it is at least partially relevant to the topic of class vs. classless systems.  I think many of these things tie into one another.  In fact I think of one element is left out it is almost a puzzle missing a piece.  Anyway...what I wanted to say.

Permadeath - I think Shadowfyr has some good points in relation to this whole "lich scenario"...but then again we have to consider something.  Powergaming in the past has had the attitude of "Oh, it's a 300 year old Elder Wyrm!?  No problem, I have a +29 DragonSlayer sword"...powergaming has conditioned players not to fear for their characters...heck let's try it.  If we die we only lose half our experience...no sweat.  But think about RL here.  Ok Shadowfyr...you have the opportunity to go seek out a group of 50 seasoned navy seals and try to kill them all.  Oh and if you wish you can take 5 of your closest friends...and we will give you a gun or two.  Do you really think you would want to do this!?  This is why I think permadeath really makes a difference in a class vs. classless system AND in relation to RP.  Permadeath makes a player *cherish* and really focus on how their character would react.  This also affects what skills they would need.  The classless system we are working on not only allows them to choose what skills they want to help define their character, but they can also choose *where* to gain these skills.  This fact alone allows for more RP and more affects on storyline down the road.  The chance your character could die has to always linger in your mind.  We have already planned to encourage party play on this mud.  And honestly there is much less focus on combat and more player controlled cities, interaction, and so forth.  If things go as planned there will be much more players interacting and RP'ing the world out than players interacting with NPC's.  I think that is the biggest problem with "RP Enforced" muds today (but again that is another thread lol).

As far as skills and how they should be done.  I guess you can go any number of ways with this.  Mierza makes some compelling points and I will have to chew on them a bit.  I believe that overall...a character needs to have the ability to learn any skill at any time.  *But* they also have to *work* to get their skills up there.  As the chef takes years to perfect his pizza technique (and to decide which flour makes the best dough, which are the best toppings, and what temperature to proof the dough...etc.), an arcane spellcaster must also spend years perfecting his/her technique (deciding which spell components to use, enunciation of the proper words, etc.).  I think these are good ideas and I hope that more than just my team can come up with some systems and truly inspires our players.  Thanks for all of the insight.

[LittleJohn]

Originally Posted by My only complaint with this philosphy is that you can't introduce trully evil mobs with complete castles into the game. For example a Lich. Now a lich isn't going to be RPing, most people if they are lucky will never meet it, dealing with it allies again and only having hints and its lair will be out right lethal. Permadeath leaves any lone hero as a corpse and could wipe out the half the people that tried to defeat it in a large group. This is perfectly reasonable in a story, but no sane player would ever attempt it if they knew that the odds where 90% that they would lose everything in the attempt.

LOL... you obviously haven't seen the code I'm developing (well, you better not have.. 'cause I haven't released it yet).  Introducing completely quest based areas.  It's a bit ambitious.. but every monster (including liches and demi-liches) in the AD&D monster manual is going to be hard-coded in.  Each with their own personality traits and AI.  And with quest-based areas, the "boss" of the area (or the lich in this case) will react accordingly if his lair is being invaded.  If some idiot of an adventurer decides to storm the place by himself, the Lich (being very smart) can successfully deploy whatever methods he has in preventing this lone adventurer from reaching the first floor.  Of course.. this doesn't make very well for a hack 'n slash mud.. and that's the way I want it.. so experience is best gained from some other means than simply dispatching monsters.

[Jherlen]

Interesting remarks about your skill system ideas, Mierza - the crafting system I had in mind for my own game was designed to work in much the same way. For other skills, though, I'm requiring a basic prerequisite knowledge: if I have no clue how to fight with a sword, I won't be able to parry someone else's attacks with one, much less do something like counter his blows. Mages just learning basic spells would have no hope of successfully casting something more advanced.

Conversely, someone who's already skilled in a certain type of magic will have better luck learning magic in general than someone who's new to magic completely. Someone who's already mastered the use of three weapons will have an easier learning curve picking up a fourth.

About permadeath - though I don't see how its related to the classless/class based question, I still think it's a good thing to have on a MUD, for most of the reasons already mentioned. Systems which have no consequences for dying lose their sense of reality (and maybe that's the connection to the class vs classless debate, because I don't see class systems as realistic either) and lose the sense of danger and tension while playing.

It all comes down to what you want to do, once again. A class based system lends itself more easily to hack and slash "action" type muds geared towards the Bartle killers and achievers, and probably isn't the best place to have permadeath. A classless system will find more friends in the explorer/socializer crowd, which also seems to be more friendly to permadeath systems.

Permadeath is a good topic for another post, though - someone should create it if they like.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Azeroth @ Jan. 06 2004,23:13) Permadeath - I think Shadowfyr has some good points in relation to this whole "lich scenario"...but then again we have to consider something. Powergaming in the past has had the attitude of "Oh, it's a 300 year old Elder Wyrm!? No problem, I have a +29 DragonSlayer sword"...powergaming has conditioned players not to fear for their characters...heck let's try it. If we die we only lose half our experience...no sweat. But think about RL here.

Let me first start out by saying that realism as a model for game design is highly limited in its capacity to show us what is fun. Not all of us are pansy RPers interested in simulations and realistic characters =). IMO, invading a Lich fortress is about a thousand times more fun than any sort of crafting, trading or political system.

It's important to note that classes are fundamentally geared towards games, not simulations. They provide an easy way to quantify your party and your own skills in the context of the game world. This quantification is well-established in gaming history: You do not see chess players spending skill points on their Rook to allow them to move diagonally. The only possible way one would want a class in a simulation is if you wanted to simulate the life of a prototype, and most designers that choose to merely simulate real life don't like that.

[Mierza]

If you're thinking about a class based system, here is a format that I would consider using:


Each class has several professions available. For example, someone who chooses an Artisan class may have blacksmithing, woodworking, or seamstress/tailor professions available to them.

Professions are broken down into skill tree branches, for example blacksmithing has an armory skill branch, and a weaponry skill branch.

A character can earn skill points during RP, Quests, or even just time.. but they all have a maximum of 90 points that can ever be reached and spent.

So, lets say we make an Artisan character, and they decide to focus on their Blacksmithing. To become a Master Blacksmith, they'd need to master both armor and weapon smithing.

Say the character starts with their weapon smithing. Spending one skill points allows them to learn basic use of the tools involved. Spending three skill points on basic tool knowledge, allows them to get a higher tool knowledge. The higher the knowledge and practice, the higher the ability and chance of success when forging an item.

Okay, so say weapon smithing costs 15 skill points to Master, from learning the basic tools and procedures to get started, to crafting a dagger, then a small axe, then a sword.. each new skill costing a few more points to gain until they finally Master all the skills of weapon smithing, wich adds up to

Now, to completely Master a skill type like blacksmithing, for example, you'd need to spend 30 skill points in that area. Blacksmithing can also have several branches you can follow, like weaponry as one branch, armor as another branch. It takes 15 skill points to master each branch.

Master weaponsmith = 30 skill points
Master Armorsmith = 30 skill points

Therefor, to become a Master Blacksmith, you'd need to invest 60 points. And you'd have 30 skill points left over to spend in more trivial skills like swimming, basic cooking, etc.

Now, how atrophy got me into this?

Well, in real life you can only Master so much -or you can be a jack of all trades, but that's self explianatory.

Let's say our character here spent all his 90 points- 60 on being a Master Blacksmith, and the remaining 30 on some trival social skills -5 of those are spent on knowing how to cook seasoned and stuffed roast chicken with all the trimmings. -Hey, he's a big man, likes to eat well, and isn't married yet.

Now, our hero wants to invest some of his time learning to sing so that he can impress a pretty young maiden into marrying him. This means that he gives up several cooking points and now suffers on cans of baked beans.. after all it takes 5 minutes to heat, and making a roast takes hours.

Subtract 3 of his cooking points, add those 3 resources into his swimming area, and hey presto, he's sacrificed to learn his new skill -and still only got his 90 points, keeping him statistically equal to everyone else.

Ofcourse this is just a thought from the top of my head, and it'd need to be tried and tested before use.. as well as a skill system written up for it, but it's more food for thought none-the-less.. and something to think about if you want to choose a class based system. (Though I suppose you could modify it for a non-class based system too.)

Anyone had similar methods? Has it worked?

*****

On another point, I think that Yui just highlighted a very good perspective. Whilst trying to make a realistic game, there are times when this has to be sacrificed in order to leave some 'fun' in the game.

First of all, picture it like a movie. Realistically? Alot of the fun action parts we see in high speed chases, heavy shoot outs, and the like, are not really realistic -they're there for entertainment. But it's all on the lines of bordering some kind of realism as set by the boundaries of the film. -What I mean by that is, different movies have different boundaries of what is realistic and what isn't. For example, in a modern day movie like rush hour, you don't see people casting magic, slaying dragons, or flying unaided. However in films such as dungeons & dragons, and X-men, such things are not unrealistic.. but they still have their limitations (like generally one super power each).

The point I'm trying to make here, is that they don't go into every tiny detail to proove realism. Like, they don't (usually) show the heroic male's 20 minute toilet excursion or the supeer beautiful crime fighting womans leg shavingm nose hair trimming, moustache waxing.. And it's for a reason.
-It's just for fun.

Take Grand Theft Auto and all its sequels, for example, and you'll see how characters get to steal cars, murder people, blow up buildings, go beyond the boundaries of every day life. Why? Because it's fun. Sometimes going on a mad massmurder rampage can be wickedly satisfying.

-That's why I like to offer incentives for all the different types of players out there. Although balancing them.. can be a different story.

When it comes to choosing between a class vs non-class system, you really have to think "What kind of playerbase am I aiming for?" and "Do I want to attract RP players who are more interested in realistic skill approaches, or would I prefer some hack and slashes who want easy to use stat systems? and make your choice from there.

[OnyxFlame]

Ok, here's an idea for a classless skill-based system for you guys to chew on.

DM has a system wherein a guy with combat skills can't easily learn magic (but he can TRY), and a guy with magic skills finds it nearly impossible to learn combat skills (but he can TRY). This is because the skillsets conflict, making the difficulty of learning a point in a skill much higher than if the person didn't know opposing skills.

Ok, so take this to a new level. What if every skill in the game conflicted to some degree (possibly even negative conflicts?)? For instance, if you learned to use a sword, you'd have a slight slowing of your ability to learn to use axes. If you learned to mine, it'd be relatively easy to refine your ore into metal and smith items out of it, but it'd be harder to make clothing or carve fine details into wooden items. If you learn fireballs, your progress in a spell that damages via a rain of ice would be somewhat harder, but since it's still magic, not as hard as it could be. You could still have a guy who knew every skill in the game, but it'd take him 10 years to learn them all because some of them would be slow as ####, and most chars don't last that long (in a permadeath system anyway).

Difficulty of learning a skill would be based on what skills you already knew, and to what levels of expertise. A crappy swordsman would learn hafted easier than a master swordsman, for instance. The problem I see with this is calculating the difficulty of learning a healing spell when you already know a fireball (fairly high conflict - it's still magic but an opposite result) and herbalism (low conflict or possibly negative conflict, depending on if the majority of herbs are for healing purposes). When your char gets old enough he'll know a lot of things, and calculating how all of them would come together to affect a new skill would be tricky.

Now skill atrophy I'm not particularly fond of, because if you have a mud with 70 spells or more, it'd get tedious to have to practice all of them every day. But if you use it, I think the best way to implement it would be to have your skill level determine the rate of atrophy. A master swordsman wouldn't be likely to forget how to swing a sword for a long time, but some guy who just picked up a sword yesterday and piddled around with it for a while wouldn't need much time to forget how to use it.

Ok, that's my Really Long Post of the Day.

[Azeroth]

To be honest, I see some of these comments and they immediately strike me as "powergaming" statements. I don't have a problem if someone wants to learn *all* the skills in the game and have them all 100%. I also have no problem if someone wants to have an invincible character and allow "suspended disbelief" to help them have fun. But that isn't the group our mud caters to. That being said, I find nothing wrong with these P.O.V's. I took the advice "create a game you would want to play". Anyway, I think if you are going with a class based system, Mierza has some great ideas.

Anyway, I guess the original idea of this thread was to compare class vs classless and now we are really talking about our own opinions about which is better...and not really comparing and contrasting the two at all (I am guilty). Either way, there has been a lot of good info here. Thanks to all

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by (Mierza @ Jan. 07 2004,07:25) When it comes to choosing between a class vs non-class system, you really have to think "What kind of playerbase am I aiming for?" and "Do I want to attract RP players who are more interested in realistic skill approaches, or would I prefer some hack and slashes who want easy to use stat systems? and make your choice from there.

Hey Mierza, what makes you think class-based=hack n slash? and classless=roleplay? That's a huge statement to make, just because a mud uses classes doesn't mean it can't be a great roleplaying mud, and your whole "point" system for classes seems real silly if you are going to making a roleplaying mud, bringing any kind of number into the minds of the player will just annoy them if they truly just want to roleplay, they will only care about the emote command. What you want is a skill tree where they don't choose when they learn it but CAN learn new things. All this classless stuff makes me sick to my stomach, I've played classless muds and they had no roleplaying whatsoever, at least my definition of it, I like to see beautiful areas and a great code to go with it, no colors, definitely permadeath, have to have descriptions for your characters, I've seen roleplay enforced muds with Bob has arrived. Bob flies east. I wanted to vomit, the word roleplay has declined so much in today's mud world it's kind of pointless trying to argue for anything when it comes to it because everyone has their own little belief of what it might be, like playing Final Fantasy X on your playstation is roleplaying. I think I've gotten off a little rant now though, and the whole classless thing just gives me the shivers.