[dragon master]

Originally Posted by (The_Disciple @ Sep. 26 2004,15:28) Originally Posted by (dragon master @ Sep. 26 2004,11:59) Although D&D is one of the first RP games, it actually focuses a lot more on how powerful your character is, what skills and feats he has, how many orcs he can kill, than on the RP aspects. Much more than any one of the three RPIs. It certainly can be played that way.  It also certainly doesn't have to be. You do know that the story basis for Armageddon came from a D&D game world, right? You seem to have a mentality that if someone doesn't RP the way you think they should, it's not RPing.  There's no reason to have such a close-minded worldview.

D&D has levels, I just find it hard to say that there is any realism in that. Whenever I have seen D&D being played, there is often much more of a focus on killing monsters and gaining levels(which mysteriously make you better at things completely unrelated to killing monsters) then there is to developing a character and a viable world.

Though, I will admit that D&D is much much much more RP oriented than many muds. It still isn't the "pinnacle of RP" or anything, just the game that everything else is based upon. That means that it isn't perfect for RP and so you shouldn't say "D&D has classes, so classes are best for RP" (although D&Ds multiclassing system is much better for RP than most class-based muds).

And at least I don't think that the most RP oriented mud would be a "glorified chat-room with character sheets". I mean, all you can do in a chatroom is talk, there is much much much more than that to RP.

And the fact that the story basis for Armageddon came from a D&D game world? So? You also know that Armageddon use to be a hack and slash game? So the idea for the Armageddon RP game came from a hack and slash game. Does this mean hack and slash games are great examples of RP just because an RPI got ideas from them?

[The_Disciple]

D&D has levels, I just find it hard to say that there is any realism in that.

That's part of what I'm calling close-minded.

First, make the realization that any game system, any, is an approximation of reality.  It is, further, something of which the characters in it are typically unaware.  A 3rd-level fighter is not aware that he's a 3rd-level fighter.

What a level system is is a way of representing that certain individuals excel above others.  I am not saying it is the ideal way to approximate such a thing, although I think it's a pretty good one for the purposes of a game.

Let's take two guys.  One has taken a basics in boxing class at his local YMCA.  The second is the heavyweight champion of the world.  I don't think there's anything unrealistic in saying that we could choose to model them as both being members of, let's say, the fighter class, with the champ being a higher level.  It represents in simple, easy to grasp terms, that the second guy can fight better, take more punishment in the ring, etc.

Could you also model that in a good purely skill-based system?  Of course you could.  That doesn't invalidate the level-based model.  At the core of a level-based mechanic is the belief that people improve at what they do with experience.  There aren't a whole lot of people in the world, especially in the professional world, that don't share this belief.  Just look at the experience requirements for nearly any job opening.

Whenever I have seen D&D being played, there is often much more of a focus on killing monsters and gaining levels(which mysteriously make you better at things completely unrelated to killing monsters) then there is to developing a character and a viable world.


This is also certainly true about most MUDs or other similar multi-user games.  You'll notice I'm not trying to assert that they're all that way, which is pretty much what you're doing.

And, finally...

And the fact that the story basis for Armageddon came from a D&D game world? So? You also know that Armageddon use to be a hack and slash game? So the idea for the Armageddon RP game came from a hack and slash game. Does this mean hack and slash games are great examples of RP just because an RPI got ideas from them?

I guess it's easy to counterargue anything if you always just pretend your opponent said something stupid instead of what they actually said.  I'm sorry, that isn't exactly winning me over.

The point is this:  there are a lot of cool stories built up around D&D.  You could almost call it its own set of mythologies.  Now, I'm NOT saying that the fact that there are a lot of cool, rich stories built around the D&D game mean that the game is inherently all about awesome roleplaying.  That would be stupid as discussed above.  What I am saying is that the fact that there are such rich backstories for the D&D worlds indicates that the converse, that D&D is all about mindless monster butchery, is probably not true either.

To look at it another way:  if the unique Dark Sun backstory can be fertile ground for a MUD like Armageddon to become this standout RP MUD, even though many MUDs are hack and slash, it stands to reason that the fertile ground of that backstory also could (and certainly has, as it happens) spawn D&D campaigns of similar standout RP.

D&D, like a MUD, is what you make of it.

[Valg]

"Dragon Master" wrote:
A skill-based, levelless system is pretty much required for a good RP mud. A classless system isn't really, but it definitely helps a lot. Also, judging from your comments, Saren, you have never played an RPI before, have you?

This is a ridiculous generalization.

Using our own system, we're class-based, and we have levels. You have skills, which require a minimum level, and they go up through use (dependent on challenge... mashing weak monsters over and over is unproductive for skill improvement). You can advance levels by combat (the most common), exploration, successful commerce, roleplaying, skill improvement, automated or custom-run quests, etc.

All interaction between characters is IC. We have storylines, quests, areas well-suited for "explorer" players, religions, cabals, etc. We've been around for over 10 years, so the storylines often run deep, and our IC libraries have megabytes of stories, historical accounts, etc. All our areas were written for our game, and tie together accordingly. All of these only make sense in a roleplaying environment- why would a hack-n-slash game invest all of those resources?

Now, all the numerical variables aren't IC. If anyone went around saying "I have an 87 in the sword skill", it would be frowned upon, and a staff member would probably talk to them about roleplaying. A character doesn't know they are at 47% movement points... they know they're starting to tire.

All games with automated combat have these kinds of statistics behind them. Good roleplayers know how to interpret these statistics the way you can self-assess your own RL talents. They are a means to an end.

Now, I've seen games that are skill-based and levelless, and the roleplaying was horrible. It was technically enforced, but the game didn't support it well, and the players were boring, slipped OOC when it suited them, and nothing was really going on. Am I supposed to discard those conclusions and say "Oh. But they didn't have levels and called themselves an RPI. The roleplaying must have been good."

We have a strong roleplaying community on our game. The newer players tend to be a little rough while they work their way up to our level of roleplaying, but the veterans range from "good" (stays in character, has a basic role that they stick to, etc. Does enough to stay within our rules at all times, but doesn't go too far out of his or her way beyond that.) to "amazing" (carefully crafted virtual people, with a past, a present, and a future). I've been there a long time, and that's my impression of our playerbase. Am I supposed
to discard those conclusions because underneath the characters, we're tracking statistics in a way you don't like?

Sorry, Dragon Master, but you're taking a very immature stance on all of this. You're trying to boil down an issue with a great deal of nuance ("What is good roleplaying?") and pigeonhole it based on a few arbitrary, reductionist 'laws'. Skills or no skills, levels or no levels, classes or no classes... roleplaying can exist or not exist in any game.

[dragon master]

Ok, games can have roleplay with levels. It's just that levels are unrealistic and will only cause probelms with roleplay. Why do some roleplaying games have them? Well, these are my reasons.
1. It is pretty much the standard and the mud doesn't feel like changing them.
2. There is a focus on something other than roleplaying(like pk) where levels would provide an advantage.
3. Levels are much simpler to do and the game is not run on a computer( like D&D)

Now, why do levels detract from RP? They are completely unrealistic. Now, maybe it would be possible to make a level-based mud have a realistic level system but I haven't seen it yet. With any level-based mud I've seen, you get levels to get more powerful, but how do you get levels, you kill monsters, maybe solve quests. I can kill a bunch of uber monsters, gain a few levels and be better at picking pockets. But, wait a second, how did I get better at picking pockets if all I did was kill monsters? How do I misteriously learn the "backstab" skill, or whatnot just because I killed enough monsters or solved enough quests.

Maybe a level system could be designed to be realistic but it would need something like a "killing stuff" level where you kill stuff and gain leves that just make you better at "killing stuff" and nothing else, a "thieving level" where you ONLY gain levels by stealing, not by killing monsters and the higher level you are the better you steal... But I have yet to see something set up like this. And gaining levels for good RP shouldn't be done period in my opinion. A player's RP ability is a skill the player has and is therefore completely OOC, this means it shouldn't affect the character's ability at all. Reward the player for the player's RP (i.e. access to cooler races on his next char, etc.), don't reward the character.

In my opinion, for a mud to truly be RP based, the code should be designed to be based on the world, not the other way around. As in, you design a world, then you adapt it as best as possible to the code. You don't code something and try to make a world out of it. When using levels, usually a game takes something that is allready coded and trys to make excuses to cram it into the world rather than looking at the world and coding something different that would fit it. I mean, if somebody wanted to, they can take a completely hack and slash based mud, enforce RP, and create a world based on the existing code of the mud. Would there be RP there? Yes, if the players try hard enough. Would that mean that this mud used a good set up for an RP mud? No.

Roleplaying can exist on any game but not all games are designed to create the best roleplaying setting.

[The_Disciple]

It's just that levels are unrealistic

You can keep repeating that all you want. I'm still not buying it.

[dragon master]

Originally Posted by (The_Disciple @ Sep. 27 2004,21:54) It's just that levels are unrealistic You can keep repeating that all you want.  I'm still not buying it.

Maybe you should read my explanations then?

That's like me saying "the earth revolves around the sun and here's how I know..." and you saying "ah, you can keep saying that the earth runs around the sun all you want but I'm not buying it". Maybe you should look at some flaw in my explanation (and not some minor flaw that has nothing to do with the result) rather than assuming I am wrong and saying you won't buy it? Or you could just be stubborn and decide that levels are realistic because your mud has them so you want them to be but I think that deciding you won't change your view no matter the evidence seems to me to be more "close-minded" than I am being for stating a point and giving valid reasons for it.

[The_Disciple]

I explained my viewpoint in my first post in this thread, which you chose to ignore. I can't see any point in arguing further given that.

[dragon master]

Originally Posted by (The_Disciple @ Sep. 28 2004,18:58) I explained my viewpoint in my first post in this thread, which you chose to ignore.  I can't see any point in arguing further given that.

No, actually I didn't ignore it. I then posted my viewpoint which you are obviously opposed to, you said it was wrong and that I was narrow-minded because, basicly, I didn't agree with you, and then you completely ignored all my explanation. I really don't see a point of arguing any further as it is pretty obvious that levels are more designed for hack and slash then RP (and read my reasons in the previous post before you even think about saying anything about that) and the thread is about class-based vs. non-class-based, I used levels as an example for something and apparently it didn't work for the people who stubbornly persist that levels are best for RP. Well, if you're one of those people and haven't been convinced by now, you probly won't ever be so go back to arguing about classes, I'm tired of arguing, especially since my points are being ignored.

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (dragon master @ Sep. 28 2004,19:29) Now, why do levels detract from RP? They are completely unrealistic.

Sorry, that's not an explanation.

[dragon master]

Originally Posted by (The_Disciple @ Sep. 28 2004,23:02) Originally Posted by (dragon master @ Sep. 28 2004,19:29) Now, why do levels detract from RP? They are completely unrealistic. Sorry, that's not an explanation.

Yes, that isn't. You only quoted part of it, not the reasons I gave as to why levels are unrealistic.

[Baram]

Levels are unrealistic? Then why do I see them in real life all the time? Look at a job offer, take programming for example. You have Junior programmer level 1-3(some go higher), Senior programmer 1-3(again, some go higher), CTO which is generally the highest level, etc. How do you get into one of these levels? Experience.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Roleplaying can exist on any game but not all games are designed to create the best roleplaying setting.

I definitely agree with this statement. Designing any old game and trying to force RP can be very difficult on players if the game isn't designed to truly support RP. We see this on many, many muds and games in general. (Ever played on an MMO's RP server? You know how painful it can be!

Originally Posted by Now, why do levels detract from RP? They are completely unrealistic.

I don't quite agree with you 100% here. Levels are simply a quantification of qualities that make it more simple for a person to operate in a game. For example, I'm a pretty decent cook in real life. My husband is not. In order to reflect that in a game, I might be considered a level 10 cook, while he would be considered a level 1 cook. You then compare that to the overall level system to see how good you are. We could say that Morimoto is a level 100 cook (the best there is!, and then while I'm better than my husband at cooking, Morimoto puts me in the dirt. Obviously, if you go around in game saying "I'm a level 10 cook", then it would hamper RP, but no RP game should allow that kind of discussion involving numbers. The numbers are a tool to be used to help players judge who and what they are in the world, often in roles that are completely unfamiliar to us. (Are the really any level 100 paladins that can heal by touch out there? Please drop me an email if you exist!

I actually think of levels and class as an aid in RP. It gives definition within the game, allowing you to make judgements much like in real life. So, instead of listing a bunch of skills that your character has, you simply state what your character is, and other characters understand that because they know the definitions of what you are, much like in real life. For example, I could say, "I'm a medical doctor." You know that I probably know CPR and could possibly save your life if I stumbled across you after you'd been knifed. I could then say that I've been in practice for 15 years, and you'd probably know that I'm a decent doctor. Thus, if I'm on a game and someone says, "I'm a healer" and I can figure out that they're a level 20 healer, I'd have some idea about what they could do.

I simply don't believe that detracts from RP, though it can if the numbers are openly discussed. It can also detract from RP if people say things like, "I just learned how to backstab someone into oblivion!" Seriously, would you brag about something like that? That's simply a matter of RP and the person playing, though. I play with a group of people who would never say things like that.

Anyway, I'm not sure that I believe that levels are an RP deterrant, but I do agree that many players do not handle the RP around levels very well.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (dragon master @ Sep. 27 2004,17:53) It's just that levels are unrealistic and will only cause probelms with roleplay.

I agree. Levels are totally unrealistic. I mean, where in real life is there anything like levels?

Hmmm.

Education: 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade.... freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate student....

Career: Typical accounting firm: consultant, senior consultant, manager, senior manager, partner, managing partner.

Military: private, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, major, colonel, general.

Wow. On second thought, it seems like most areas of real life are "level based." Maybe levels aren't so "unrealistic" at all.

[Mabus]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ Feb. 05 2006,16<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]On second thought, it seems like most areas of real life are "level based." Maybe levels aren't so "unrealistic" at all.

Levels (and how they affect roleplay) are a matter of personal likes/dislikes, opinion and choice.

The examples given of school grades, military ranks etc. may seem to point toward real-life "levels", but they fail under scrutiny when comparing them with how MUDs treat "levels".

It comes down to game design choice, not comparisons with real-life.

If your system works with classes and levels, and your players enjoy them, then they are fine. If you choose not to use them, your system works and your players enjoy not having them that is also a wonderful thing.

The two main areas of concern should be:
1) Are you able to implement your design as you planned it
2) Do the players enjoy the game as designed

The rest are side issues and matters of personal taste.

-Dan

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Mabus @ Feb. 05 2006,16:25) It comes down to game design choice, not comparisons with real-life. ... The rest are side issues and matters of personal taste.

I totally agree. I have played level/class based systems, non-level/non-class systems, and tons of combinations in between.

They are all abstractions trying to simulate a fun version of "reality." None of them are more "realistic" than others, per se.

My point was just that a level-based system definitely has a real world, real life connection. It is folly to call it "unrealistic."

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Levels are unrealistic?

It depends entirely on the implementation. It is possible to have a fairly realistic level-based system, but such is not the case with the vast majority of implementations.

Originally Posted by Then why do I see them in real life all the time? Look at a job offer, take programming for example. You have Junior programmer level 1-3(some go higher), Senior programmer 1-3(again, some go higher), CTO which is generally the highest level, etc. How do you get into one of these levels? Experience.

And how many monsters does a junior programmer have to kill before they can become a senior programmer?

[eiz]

Originally Posted by