[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.