View Single Post
Old 03-17-2008, 10:01 AM   #36
Milawe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Home MUD: Stash
Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar
Posts: 653
Milawe has a spectacular aura aboutMilawe has a spectacular aura about
Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.

Here's the distinction between standard level-based and skill based systems that I think RPI players are trying to make: (I say standard because I know of at least one mud that does it differently, and I think that's why Threshold is objecting.)

In a level-base system, a character gains the level and gains abilities based on acquiring a general knowledge ('experience') for that level. The reasoning is that your character has "progressed" far enough in his/her field to suddenly know this ability.

In a skill-based system, however it's implemented, your character "practices" the same skill over and over, and performing that skill enough "teaches" them something. So, in order to get certain abilities, you have to pick which skill to perform repeatedly before you move further down that chain.

The realism really comes with the players and the administrators not the system, but the system can help promote realism. It all depends on the game. On an RPI, you could get a player who decides he's going to min-max the system and start spamming the 4 different abilities in order to skill up what he believes is best for leveling his character and PKing his enemies. Whether or not he gets busted, the "unrealistic" factors of the mechanics have already been exposed. On the other hand, a roleplayer could go to a level-based system and spend his/her entire time roleplaying studies for the abilities he/she knows is going to come when he/she levels. The idea is that using all their previously learned abilities from previous levels expands their "general" knowledge and unlocks a new ability for them. There have been plenty of times when I've been coding when I have a "Eureka" moment, and I've truly understood something new. I liken this more to a level system than a skill system. I haven't been learning about call_outs over and over and over. I code entire projects, and thus, I gain more knowledge in the area of coding in general. That player just brought lots of realism into a level system, and if that becomes the norm on the mud, it's going to seem more "realistic" than a system that allows people to simply write a script to spam an ability over and over to raise a skill.

Arguing that one is more realistic than the other one, again, is completely subjective. They are both systems that are abstracts of real life, and both can be powerful and useful tools for roleplaying. RPIs chose to use a skill-based system. It's neither more realistic or promotes more roleplaying. It's simply a game feature that helps define an RPI.

In addition, many of us keep assuming that "realistic" is "better" for roleplaying and that somehow being realistic is more challenging. That's not necessarily true. Playing a role where you have no basis in realism, making it believable and coherent, and selling it to an audience can be argued to be quite more difficult than simply basing a character off the Marquis de Sade and sticking it in some random fantasy/sci-fi setting. Realism is often nice for roleplaying because it gives you a strict guide to follow, and it's easier to keep everyone on the same page. If you have a group of good enough roleplayers, though, realism matters little as long as there's enough details in the game for everyone to be on the same page and those details are consistent, has patterns that players can easily follow and grasp, and the world operates in a believable manner. The key is building or finding such a world.

Honestly, if I wanted realism, I know this game called real life and the graphics are totally awesome.

I think RPI players would be taken more seriously if they quit using such judgement calls as "this is BETTER for roleplaying" or "this is more realistic". That's probably a very inaccurate statement anyway and not really what you mean. RPIs have picked systems that are harder for irresponsible builders and players to mangle and easier to police. This allows them to spend less time tracking down infractions and spend more time nurturing the game world. I'll attempt to explain.

In a level-based system, builders/coders often simply think of a cool power and stick it in wherever there's space. Often, they find a justification for putting that power in just because it's coded, and many times, coders/builders have no real thought behind the skills they're developing for a class/skill tree because there's no linear progression or guidelines. You often learn in "chunks" or across several systems at once. It takes a lot of effort to maintain a believable progression. So, often, you get a hodge-podge of abilities, often seemingly unrelated, all in one class. The linear progression of a skill-based system may have many branches, but the abilities come in a straight line, much like Civ's tech tree. You learn A which progresses to B which progresses to C, and sometimes, if you have A and B, Y becomes unlocked as well. This is much less prone to sloppy design (even though some games still manage it) because you're forced to already think of "what's next". And as is the norm for anything linear, this system is much easier to organize and organize well.

I think saying that a skill-based system is more "realistic" is a simplified and inaccurate term for what you guys really mean.
Milawe is offline