I am in the beginning stages of creating my own mud, trying to come up with a general layout of what I want exactly.  Since I plan for it to be a multiplayer mud with a large player base, I want to code the most popular concepts, which brings me to my question.

What is the most popular system when it comes to classes?  A player would have to decide which class they want at creation with a class based system and be limited to certain spells/skills whereas in a classless system the player could pretty much get whatever skills/spells they want by traveling guild to guild.  I would think a classless system would be more balanced than a class based system since you really do not have to attempt to balance the classes, but I think players might stick around longer with a class based system because they would have to have multiple characters to try out all the skills/spells.  Traveling around the mud world, I have seen systems where you get to choose 2 different classes, but personally I am not in favor of this system.   Maybe with a little information I will change my mind, which is why I listed it as an option.  Perhaps there is a concept that I am not aware of when it comes to classes.  Please tell me which system you prefer and why.  Any information will be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

Khadgar

I've always preferred a class-based system personally. The games I like to play are ones that have both RK and PK and a class-based system is, to me, a lot easier to balance when it comes to PvP than a system where people can pick any skill they like. Though I haven't stuck around on many classless MUD's much, I've yet to find one that did a really good job of balancing the PvP issues. No doubt they're out there, I just haven't seen them.

If you want a mixture of the two worlds, you can provide a class-based system that has some small amount of customisation within the class. Warriors could specialise in a certain type of weapon, mages in a specific school of magic etc. Of course, these options can be split into separate classes themselves, which is the way I'm doing things on my own MUD. I have one general "warrior" class and five weapon specialists, and mages, clerics, bards, and thieves are all split too (although there is no general mage class). You're right, it does encourage people to try out new classes to play around with all the different skills and spells available, and to my mind it also leads to different combat strategies rather than "Pick this, this, and this skill if you want to be powerful" which is the bane of a classless system, because although there are some rare people out there who will pick skills out of a pure sense of RP, most want to be a powerful character and will always go for the power combinations. This happens even in MMORPG's, and multiplayer Neverwinter Nights is especially bad for it.

I prefer a classless system, but they have to be done well to work and it's probably more effort. Instead of just balancing a few classes you gotta make sure every bleeping skill is balanced, and if you decide partway through that one of them is too powerful and nerf it, a lot of players who were abusing it will be displeased.

DM has a classless system, but with some of the advantages of a class system. You can TRY to be a fighter/mage, but you'll most likely never be a very GOOD one, because the skillsets conflict with each other and make your learning rate much slower. If you wanted to, you could break it down further and have sword use conflicting with axe use for instance, or certain types of spells conflicting with each other. This would make it #### unlikely that every warrior would be the same or that every mage would be the same, but may or may not be desirable.

I think it depends to a large extend on what sort of mud you're trying to create, and what you define as a "class". If by "classes" you mean "professions", then personally I'm against the idea of defining a character's abilities by his profession. I prefer having it the other way around - defining their profession by their abilities. You shouldn't achieve numerous fighting skills by becoming a warrior - instead, you should be considered a warrior because of your numerous fighting skills.

However it's also true to say that many players prefer fixed classes, particularly as they're much faster than customising everything - forcing new players to spend 15 minutes designing their character is going to put a lot of them off. For this reason you might want to compromise by creating a large set of predefined character concepts such as "mercenary", "warrior", "apprentice mage", etc, each of which begin with a number of abilities. New players could then either pick one of these predefined "classes", or create their own. IMO the important thing, though, is not to restrict players by those starting abilities. Once in the game, everyone should have the potential to develop in any direction they wish.

The hard part is preventing people from selecting the "best" skills. To get around that, you may want to introduce things like "talents" (one-off bonuses to specific areas of development that can only be selected during character creation), skill trees/webs (so you have to learn the weaker abilities in a field before moving on to the better ones), skill decay (so unused abilities gradually fade away), etc. In other words, allow people to develop whatever skills they like, but make it impractical to try and master everything - such characters should end up as jack of all trades, but masters of none.

Either you must be confused or I must be. If by "balance PvP" you mean "make it so no pfile has an inherint advantage in pkill over the others" then a classless system would automatically be balanced no matter how you set it up. You could make it so they never pass level 1 and get no skills or spells at all, but in pkill they'd still be "balanced" in the above sense; or make it so everyone is a ridiculously powerful godlike figure, and as long as the ridiculous godlike powers were *consistent*, you would still achieve "balance", in the above sense. Perhaps you have some other definition for "balance PvP"?

There is a similar dichotomy in realtime strategy games. Whether to make the different races basically the same, possibly with some subtle minor differences (Age of Empires II) or radically completely different (Starcraft, C&C). You could always go the route of the original Warcraft I: Have drastically different classes to choose from, but the differences would be purely aesthetic. Everyone would get for example an identical generic attack at level 5, but for warriors it would be called "kick" and for mages "magic missile", but would be identical in all aspects but name. Thus you'd have a system that was balanced and classless, but could retain the RPish elements like class guilds and playing the role of your character etc. In any event I assure you that I remain,
your faithful and obediant servant,
Erdos

I see your point, and mostly agree with it, but I think it also depends on how the system is set up. You seem to be saying that if everyone has the same abilities, they would HAVE to be balanced against each other - and I agree fully with that. However in most classless muds you cannot learn everything, and therefore it is perfectly possible to create one character with a better selection of abilities than another character. You could well argue "that's their fault for picking the wrong skills" - but then that same argument could be made for classes; it's the warrior's fault for picking the wrong class, when everyone knows that mages are more powerful.

Therefore in a situation whereby a character can only learn a limited number of different powers, but not later unlearn those powers to replace them with different ones, it is important that each of the powers be balanced against each other. In situations where powers are divided into spheres or disciplines, then you would only need to ensure that each such group of powers was balanced against the other such groups. When it comes to classes, you only need to ensure that the sum total of all powers for that class are balanced against the sum total of the powers of each other class.

Thus IMO the objective within a PK mud should be to ensure that, regardless of which powers a character chooses, they should always be roughly balanced against other characters of the same power level. Thus if Bubba decides to put all of his effort into summoning mobs to fight for him, while Boffo works exclusively on his attack spells and Biffo concentrates on his martial skills, each character should (on average) have around the same chance of winning a fight after the same amount of character development.

That's a very poor way to "balance" a PK mud though (which is the subject being debated). It means that at low levels the mages almost always lose, while at high levels they almost always win - regardless of the PK skills of the player. What you describe is more appropriate to non-PK muds, where differences in power between classes are not so important.

I'm a big classless fan.

But then I'm not coming from a PvP background either, I'm coming from a IF/Sim background. So Instead of making sure that the skills are balanced against each other, I need to make sure that the different groups offer as much fun as the other one do.

I have five different classes of skills: Combat, Magic, Thieving, Social, and Crafting. The challenge here, Is I want someone who has had 15-20 hours of playing to have the opportunity to have the same money earning ability as any other player.

So if you've trained exclusively in combat skills, you should be able to make X amount of gp in an hour after playing for 15-20 hours. But then if you've trained exclusively in the crafting skills you should be able to make the same amount.
Basically, Money is Power.

But at the same time, I have to balance the skills by having them be unique and fun to do.

*shrug*
-Ashon

I'm considering a new system for my mud which combines both worlds in
what I think is a good solution. At creation time a player can choose to
dedicate or to stay non-dedicated. As dedicated they go through a
class-based system whereas if they do not dedicate then it's skill-based
from the get-go. To contrast the flexibility of the purely skill-based
approach I intend to make some skills available to the dedicated streams
only, with the argument that if you are dedicated in a discipline you can
master it better than you could by splitting your attention across multiple
disciplines. However since we are also moving twards a levelless system
(though experience will still be a factor) at some point even a dedicated
player will move into the skill-based stream. Comments?

It sounds like you will have the prototypical classless game. If a player chooses to dedicate themselves to a particular field of study then they will learn more advanced techniques associated with that field. If they choose to spread their studies out (not dedicated) then they will have a broader range of skills but with less advanced techniques.

Even though there are only 21 votes so far, I am really surprised with the results of this poll.  I thought more people would vote for a class-based system.  Nevertheless, I am leaning towards a classless system where the character’s profession is decided by which skills they pickup along the way.  I like the concepts of skill/spell degeneration from lack of use and skill/spell branches.  

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about customization at character creation.  My objective is to come up with a way for players to remain interested in the game by creating new characters when they get tired of their old ones.  Players usually create new characters to try out the other classes, thus I have to make up for that somehow since I want a classless system.  What could be offered at character creation that could not be offered at any other time in the game besides talents (bonuses towards certain kinds of magic, weapons, etc as Kavir suggested) and customization with races?  I suppose there could be different starter cities as well.  

With a classless system you would only get a certain selection of skills/spells at creation, thus what determines base TNL?  Would it be a good idea for a player to customize this as long as it is within a certain range?

Hmm, Zebedee is a class based system - but by providing and limitting the choices available to players we make one character very different from another.

For example a warrior can choose to become a Crusher and deal huge crushing blows with a two handed weapon, or a Blademaster and use a smaller bladed weapon for two attacks a round while still being able to use a shield, or Ambidextrous to wield two weapons at once. When you then choose either racial training (which gives different races different bonusses on various weapons) or berserking (which gives you a big bonus with any weapon but you can't leave the fight) and even our simplest class has quite a lot of choice and flexibility.

Each of our classes has to provide something very different from all of the others, which means that we only have a few classes since a lot of peoples suggestions have not qualified, but this does mean that playing them is a different experience. If you play a necromancer up then it will be a very different experience to playing a warrior up.

Some players like certain classes and only play characters from that class, while others have a legend for every class. It all depends on the preference of that player.

A classless system would remove that distinction. Necromancers are the ones wandering around with a huge undead army - if anyone could do it then what would be special about necromancers. When a necromancer dies rather than being resurrected by a cleric their guildmaster summons them back as a zombie or wraith, or their own dark powers bring them back to life as a lich.

All of this stuff is possible in a classless system - but a lot harder to design, to balance, and to get right.

It sounds like you will have the prototypical classless game.

Not prototypical in comparison to what we currently have. Currently we are
purely skill-based. There is no opportunity to dedicate. And to that end we
do find that in particular, certain combinations are preferred over most others.

Almost every classless game I have seen replaces the class system with a skill tree*.  In order to reach the highest branches of a certain art requires a great deal of concentrated resources( wether it be time, exp points, etc).   If one wanted to reach those pinacles they would need to dedicate themselves to that form at the cost of learning from other areas.  In it's own way it creates the typical mud classes but, IMO, in a much more creative and flexible way.

Would you mind elaborating on what type of system you use then?  Is it an "every skill available whenever you are the right level" design?  If so then adding prequsite skills and setting up even a basic skill  tree should handle allowing players to dedicate.


* Skill tree and skill web are both systems I've seen implemented but the differences as far as my point goes is irrelevant so I use tree as a catch all term.

I personally prefer classless for the freedom to choose what I will.

IMHO, the key to a good classless system isn't balance, it's imbalance.  Skills shouldn't be gauged based on how well they work against all skills, but based on how well they work vs a particular type of skill.

PVP shouldn't be perfectly balanced, it takes the fun out imho.  The skill comes in using imbalance to your own benefit.  With a classless system you should encourage imbalance, while making sure that the "best" skills have an equivalent.

It requires some effort, but introduce new skills over time to combat un-reasonable imbalance.  You'll eventually acheive a working balance.  You shouldn't expect each player to be balanced against each other player, instead you'll end up with power circles.  Where player a can kill player b,  player b can kill player c, and player c can kill player a.

This is a good thing imho, because it encourages players to work in groups to "fill" in the holes where they're weak.

Spells and skills should affect a wide variety of things... perhaps not enough to individually change the tide, but a good player with alot of spell downs should be able to wear someone down to a manageable level over time.

It's a harder, more fragile balance than a class system would have, and it really does depend on the ingenuity of your players.  A few really explorer oriented players and you'll see undreamed of combinations.

-- Kwon J. Ekstrom

That is still balance. I don't think anyone has claimed that all characters should be equal in all things, only that they should be balanced overall, in much the same way as a classed system might work - a warrior would be better at fighting and worse at magic than a mage, but overall the two classes would be on-par with each other.

I definately prefer classless, but really like to tie skills into stats as well (some people are born warrior types, some are studious, some are.... - so if you are born a huge MOFO, with a lot of STR, CON and DEX then you will make a good warrior and skill advances and checks should reflect this), if at character creation you specify that you want a heayset, tall, brute of a char, with a tendency towards muscle rather than finesse or brains, then if later you decide you want to learn how to pick locks, and pickpocket, you are going about it all wrong and should be penalised (I know there are exceptions, but I try to generalise for simplicity in the game), there is no reason you cannot become a sneak thief, but physically you are better suited to clubbing them unconcious first if you want to see the contants of their pockets.

That said, I really limit skill levels, and amount of points. I have skills being able to be increased with use, but only up to a point.
It costs 1 point to learn a skill for the first time (you get 1 per level, and 10 at creation), you can pay extra points to increase it immediately if you really want to, or can go out and use it, but it will max out at 50%,
Then it will cost you 5 points to go up to 51%, and you can go out and practice more, but only up to 70%,
Next step, a further 10 points to go to 71%, and once again out to use and practice, but only up to 85%,
And so on, I am trying to limit characters to only being an expert in a very few skills, and a master of 1, maybe 2 at most (if you neglect and scrimp and save points)

Of course, there are quests that can be done to improve a certain skill up to a certain stage without the whole cost (sometimes no cost), and not just any trainer can teach any skill, at any level.

To further muddy the waters, there are many versions of some skills, this is done for RP reasons, watching the way someone casts fireball, gives an indication on who taught them (or where they were taught, schools tend to have multiple trainers, with a bit of overlapping, but all the same "family" of skills.

This was an attmpt to try and force players to work together more, your "warrior" might be able to slay all the guards but be unable to get the door unlocked. A master thief who is good with locks is easily able to get the door open, but he needs a legend fighter to get past the guards, And neither of them have a clue how to survive in the desert on the way there so they'd need a guide as well... At least thats the theory.

Before asking whether you want to use classes. Ask whether you are going to use levels. Obviously if you are going to use levels it is going to be pure-pk, or a godwars type mud without levels, which I think is much better. I never liked levels, they just set the game apart from a feeling of you being the character, and I prefer rp-enforced muds so levels definitely need to be tossed. Classless or Classes it doesn't really matter for a roleplay mud because you can make it work either way. I don't know what kind of mud you plan on creating so I can't give you accurate advice, if it's going to have a lot of work done on it and you're an able coder, go for level-less with classes, I find that it works much better if the mud implements classes then if they let people pick from a list of skills.

I think when you begin to talk about class vs. classless you start breaking open the box of stereotypes... Why does it either have to be PvP or RP? Why can't it be both? In real life we are PvP every day, whether it be competitive sports, rivalry among employees, or nation vs. nation. So here is the thing...if you want to keep it simple and focus on the inner workings of your combat system, spell system, etc. so you can truly enhance PK...then go with classes. It keeps it simple and allows you to quickly balance things so you can put your focus on constantly updating and improving skill selection and so forth.

I personally prefer classless because I am geared more towards RP. It isn't realistic to have a defined class because each character should have the option to choose their own destiny. Like it was already stated by KaVir, their skills should define their occupation, not the other way around. On our mud we have gone completely leveless and classless (classes are gone from the player perspective, though not from the code). Every new character starts with a generic "class", with a set of skills that is common to anyone. Then from there they can decide what path to take. Do they wish to be a farmer? How about an aristocrat? Maybe a craftsman? Whatever they choose they will have skills available to them that reflect that path. Of course they can diversify and gain more skills, but if the focus leans towards one group and away from others...their less-used skills can atrophy.

So, indirectly, they have chose their *own* destiny simply by what skills they focused on. A character advances through skill usage, as there is no experience to be had. The other way they advance is through RP. But, as in RL, there is plenty of PvP and even City vs. City, Nation vs Nation, etc. So I think you can have your cake and eat it to, it's all in what you are going for.

Az

I have a slightly different approach, for a slightly different type of game....

Whatever the new name of the MUD is going to be, it's always been about hit-the-ground-running total-pk, which usually implies a classless, levelless, raceless world. All players walk in with every skill at an arbitrary value (probably 50% or so) and increase skill level with "learning", which has a lot of facets; watching other people do it, failing at it, succeeding at it, etc.

A while ago (this project has its very large peaks and valleys) the team was discussing "getting rusty" with lack of use. In effect, a player will start to lose %ages (or however we measure your ability in the area) after a certain amount of time. This has the same effect that some of the other systems proposed; your character evolves into a specific skill set because he/she simply doesn't use the other skills enough to maintain a high level of ability in them. (Having skills drop to 0% and fall off your list of usable skills, and then only get back on through watching other people use that skill has been discussed. It's a fun one to think about; that, and having mobs learn and use skills as they see them performed.)

My couple of bits.

-Visko

<PK flag> -- the flag I'd like to see Synozeer implement to forewarn of the perhaps less broad focus of our ilk.

Obviously my definition of roleplaying is far different from Azeroths. You say you prefer classless because you are geared toward roleplay. Well, I believe classes make a better roleplay mud then a classless one does, simply because if you are an innovative roleplayer you need not customise the skills of your character. Your character is not defined by the skills but by the character's actions. If my human/warrior becomes a merchant, oh well, so I don't have a bunch of crafting skills, but I can still take on that role with the warrior skills and simply let him learn how to be a merchant. Just because he doesn't have the hard-coded skills of another merchant does not mean that he is not a merchant in the virtual world. Getting through to you?

While I agree that your actions defines your character...I think it's safe to say that in real life most of us are, at least in part, classified by what we do. Who I am, at least for now, is in part being in Sales. It is a career choice and I will probably always be in Sales. 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.

Anyway, I am not trying to say your method is bad by any means. I am just trying to strive for a more realistic view of RP. To me, choice is good. I think most RP'rs would agree. One of our slogan lines is "choice an identity, not a race; a home, not a starting point; a destiny, not a class"...I think a detailed enough classless system allows full customization for a player to make their character exactly what thier life leads them to be. Just my 2 cents.

Az

I'm still not understanding how you expect someone to customize their character with skills, then go into the world and roleplay into something else? Correct me if I am wrong but if you choose your skills when you start, then you are already setting your destiny, just as if you had a class, because you are choosing what you want your character to have then, not what he makes of himself in the game after he is created, right? A class however takes a basic set of skills, gives them to you, and says here, make something out of this, even if it seems utterly impossible for your merchant who has no combat abilities whatsoever to become a mercenary, you can still do it by roleplaying and actually BE a mercenary. Sure a mercenary who can make jewelry and cook up a storm, but you are still a mercenary because that's what your character became through roleplaying, not the skills you customize when you first started the character.

-Delerak

Class-based or class-less, I think it's important to remember aptitude.

Sure, in most games I can either pick a class of skills and be stuck with it forever and not be able to do something dramatically different, or I could pick anything I want and not give any thought to whether or not my character -should be capable- of doing these things.

Aptitude is so often overlooked. It's great that a mercenary can cook, and still be a mercenary. But if he's spending all his time improving his babka recipe, he's not spending all that much time doing merc stuff. And something's gotta give. In addition, I would hate to play a game that allows me to be proficient in *everything.*

I like limitations, it's what gives your character..character. Knowing that yeah he's a nasty buff uber blademaster who also happens to be lousy with defense.. or maybe the thief who can't cook at all. I mean, if he could cook, he wouldn't need to steal the food would he? He'd just make his own. And probably a lot better than that stupid bakery anyway.

Or what about the leathercrafter, why would he have -any- aptitude whatsoever in perfuming? I mean..the guy's sitting in a room filled with vats of bat guano for 10 hours a day, there's no way you can convince me he has ANY sense of smell.

Aptitude - that's a great key that's very undervalued and underused in many muds. Let the players decide what their characters are -capable of- and then give them a base set of skills that coincide with their aptitude, and allow those skills branch into more complex things related to the base set over time.

Actually you are 100% correct Delerak. You really *can't* customize your character much by choosing a bunch of skills at the start. That has been my contention the entire thread *chuckle*. I never mentioned it being advantageous to choose skills at the beginning at all. My original post mentioned the fact of starting with a generic character at the beginning, with a few basic skills...and then customizing their character throughout their life. So...that would even allow a once mercenary to leave that aspect of life to become a cook! Or maybe he is like Steven Segal and is a deadly cook. You have to expand your horizons a little I think Delerak. The entire point here is *choice*. If the player cannot choose different paths or a combination of them at any given moment in their journey...then it really isn't giving them full capability with their character. Their RP *relies* on their character's identity, which is made up at least in part by their occuption. Just some food for thought.

Az

I agree with Jherlen on this one. But, one comment was made about skill selection at the beginning being a killer because of not understanding what is needed. I think that is a philosophy often linked with combat oriented muds. While combat is essential to any thriving mud, it isn't always paramount. And good documentation relieves any stresses you might have as to which skills to choose. We have gone with some archtypes on our mud:

Aristocrat
Arcane
Bardic
Combatant
Craftsman
Divine
Laborer
Monk
Rogue

This is just the 1st tier of an almost endless system. *Every* skill in the game is under one or more of these. The thing is, you don't have to limit yourself to any one...you could choose to be any or all of these. But let's say a character was going to grow up as a farmer...he would select the laborer's guild in order to learn the skills of his trade. Let's say as a young adult he decides that farming is not for him and takes a skill he has also practiced all these years, smithing, and tries to become an apprentice for a local smith. Ok so this can easily be done and he doesn't have to worry about that being outside of his class, or waiting until he can multiclass. There are also people in our world who can train you to be a "grand master" of maybe a weapon, or perhaps you can learn spells from books you find. These are additional ways to strengthen RP in a way that also gives the character something related to occupation. I just think this blows the doors off any class system I have ever heard of.

Az

I think that's the whole point Jherlen, not every mercenary is going to be a massively strong fighter who can tear your throat out three ways, stab you five times, and parry a hail of arrows while doing it. I greatly admire people who can take a class that is not meant to do something and they do it with that class, because not every character should be the same. If every mercenary in a certain guild was all warriors, how boring would that be? Someone playing a merchant or undercover spy adds to the whole realistic side of the mud. Especially if you look at the real life side of it, not every person in the army can do 200 push-ups, 300 sit-ups and still be able to climb up a 30 foot tall rope, not everyone has that ability, nor does everyone have the personality for it, so some people in the army are not classed as warriors, they might be great thinkers and philosphers, so they are more of a mercantile class that has no choice but to join the army under a scrutinizing father who was a high ranking officer..

Anyway my point is that customizing your skills leaves you with no starting point, it leaves you kind of laying there with a set of skills you probably will use because you already set out what you want to do with that character instead of playing the character and reacting accordingly to what happens in character and then using your hard-coded skills if you need to. I bet if you can pick backstab - and you really want a strong character you will pick backstab, parry, kick, bash, - and so on, classes leave balance because it leaves your charater with more then just a set of skills, it leaves them with a small persona of their own, a warrior class will compensate for a small percentage of people who have the ability to fight well, whether it's innate or not only your roleplaying can tell, the same goes for all other classes on a good roleplaying mud, if you look at it the right way.

I prefer a class-based system.

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."

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?

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.

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".

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.

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*.

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

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

...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"

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.

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

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

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

Heh, good point.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.