Got a question for you folks.

Imagine this scenario - you're a roleplayer and you're comparing features of MUDs. What specific features would whet your appetites - ie what do y'all look for?

Cheers

* A theme I can wrap my brain around
* Relative ease of entry, but enough of a barrier (backgrounds, biographies, staff approval) to screen for quality as opposed to quantity
* An evolving storyline
* A chance to make a mark in the game world
* A sense that there's more going on than just my activities, as if the place is a living, breathing, changing world
* The ability to write long poses if I want
* The ability to change my character's appearance as circumstances demand
* And, last but not least, a feeling that there's an OOC community with a vested interest in shepherding the game along

I like the above. I would also add:
* A MUSH/MUX codebase (maybe MOO/MUCK, but I've not tried those)
* No automated content (no MOBs to fight, no quests to run)
* Closer to a consent-based resolution policy than not
* Time-based advancement, ideally, though a player voting +nom system is barely acceptable (no kill/quest XP! )

No automated content?

Can you describe "time-based advancement?"

MOO codebase can't be beaten, IMHO.

I don't want to "hunt" or "bash" for XP. That is right out. Nor do I want to be handed unimportant cookie cutter quests to do.

Time-based advancement is when you don't have to do anything in particular to get your advancement--it is based on real time. Space Opera (a PnP RPG) had something like this. In MMOGs, Eve's system is like this. My favorite MUSH atm is Chronicles of Amber, where you get your first point 1 hr after you're approved, your second 2 hrs after that, the third 3 hrs after that, etc.

about advancement.
No XP system.
No artifical Level system.

Only "Levels" should be more like Social status ranks, or professional ones (Novice, Journeyman, Master, GrandMaster and of course modern counterparts is it like Novice, Junior, Senior, Professor, Doctor ... something like that).

Skill advancement only through by usage, or studies (uses money and time) - with "twinky" prevention, so nobody get's idea of raising skills by scripting to do something repeately about one real month 24/7. It can be made possibly to do items/operations with that, but it doesn't raise skills more than setted maximum amount per real day.

No numerical values of skills / statistics shown to players.

I look for four factors in roleplay:

1. Is the storyline well thought out and original?
2. Is it plausible? In other words, does it make sense?
3. Is the baseline of the roleplay approachable? (Most roleplayers, you will find, are either attracted to (a) pure fantasy, (b) science-fiction, or © a hybrid of both.)
4. Does the staff support player manifestations? (Do they incorporate player input and player development in the roleplay?)

By 'specific features', do you mean things like theme, or do you mean mechanics, like XP gain, or are you not distinguishing between these two kinds of things?

No "exp" gain required to "level." Levelless.

No repetition required to do things - in other words, not having to type (or script) "kill critter" each time you want to hit something. A workable RP environment would handle the drudgery for you, so you can spend more of your effort working on emoting, using thinks, telling your comrades to retreat, etc. etc. etc.

Hunting not only not required, but unneccessary if one wants to succeed in the environment. If becoming "the most powerful and influential" character in the game means you have to go hunting to get there, I'm not interested.

Hunting only appropriate activity, RP-wise, for hunters. A politician, a noble, a soldier in a city-based army, should -never- feel the need to hunt. For any reason - except perhaps on a whim, and even then only if he takes along a few seasoned hunters to protect him.

A fleshed-out emoting system that makes "canned socials" unneccessary.

Permanent death. If a character can get a rezz, the game, by definition, completely eliminates the option of trained assassins and spies. If you kill someone and he comes back to life 20 minutes later, you end up being "outted" as the killer, and everyone and their brother knows who done it, with no hunting for clues neceessary. So much for intrigue.

A believable world. Smurf city is not an option, nor are races where each "humanoid" race is merely a "human with pointy ears." If there are races other than human, one would hope each other race has unique things about them that make them decisively NOT human, and the RP of those non-human traits are reinforced by the player base as well as the staff. In other words - if I see a halfling in a Tolkeinesque game, hitting up a Drow elf for some fun sex, I'm outta there.

A mostly mature player base. By that, I mean - the scene where the halfling hits up the drow for some sex is less likely to occur, if the player wasn't some 12-year-old kid with overactive testosterone raging through his groin.*

*Note, I didn't say it wouldn't occur. I said it is less likely to occur. You can't prevent that kind of thing entirely but you can reinforce and encourage more mature behavior if the playerbase doesn't consist primarily of children.

No vulgarity filters, of any kind.

No global chat channels, of any kind.

Jazuela summed up my reqs perfectly and I, try as I might, can't find anything to add.

Hmm. I am not sure I agree entirely with the permadeath issue. I mean, assuming someone has crafting and the like and those things "do" have some level system, hidden or otherwise, you still lose *a lot* if you die permanently. Another option is what would happen in a real world case where someone kills someone off, the assassin disappears, name changes, etc. One of the stupidest things I have ever found in the one I played at was, "We need to know who everyone is, so disguise just makes you look like, 'a mysterious stranger'." Well, that is just dumb. An assassin isn't going to fracking show up saying, "Hi there, I am Kagehi the assassin. How would you like to die today?" They are going to show up looking like a completely different race, if possible, a different class, if possible, under a different name, etc.

The victim shouldn't have a clue, ressed or not, who the heck killed them. Better yet, it should be a surprise, public, or done so that the assassin isn't even seen. If they don't *witness* "Blah backstabs you!", then they can't say that "Blah" did it. If its done in a public room with lots of other people, or at a masked ball, etc, everyone should be suspect. Maybe someone hired an assassin to give them special poison. Maybe they just got lucky and you are chasing an assassin when it wasn't. Maybe, like the ninja of old, the assassin is simply expert in some things that other people are not, and you can't tell who they are, because they only ply their trade when they are not making cloaks for guilds.

Why the hell is assassin always assumed, in completely ignorance of the way they function in even most halfway realisting fiction, as some special "class" that has to be 100% assassin all the time. It should be "anyone". The only people that know what they are should be their own guild. If you do have permadeath, it should be limited to cases where the assassin's identity is found out *by* the person hiring them, the assassin finds out, and the body disappears for too long for it to be ressable. If someone doesn't play by the rules and outs one without the needed intrigue, it had better be a major fool in their own guild. If its the guy that hired them, who figured out who it was, then started a new character... Well, that is cheating, and the assassin should have the chance to change name, appearance and plot to take out the cheater.

Point is, resses could work, if you did everything else right. The problem is, people don't think about how assassinations "should" work, what assassins would do to protect their identity, like having 3-4 names, from 3-4 different jobs in 3-4 different parts of the city. And the game environment, if it does cater to assassins, which is all permadeath does in this case (And I hate that kind of BS excuse which only helps one fracking type of player), then the game should make it "seem" as though the first persona/alias for the character logged out, then a new one logged in, to hide the fact that the "same" person just switched jobs to hide. The assassin should only be outed if you can "prove" that Kagehi the tailor, Zalgad the Merchant and Niclos the bower are "all" the same person using real clues. If Kagehi gets caught with his hand on the knife, he should disappear completely, because that persona is no longer viable, and finding the culprit should involve figuring out that Zalgad or Niclos is the same person. And if one of them stages their own death, so it appears that they permadied... then great, if not, they get caught. If the other players can't figure it out, too bad, etc.

Point is, ressing just means you adjust the RP, not that it becomes impossible, and if you make *anything* in the game reliant on usage and time, then you either have to cheat by making *everyone* change identity, while keeping some skills, which is almost as absurd, or you have to make up special rules, like permadeath for *all* cases, which only help one group of people.

Oh, and for that matter, why even make "any" permadeath? This is *supposed* to be RP. Why wouldn't/shouldn't the game itself provide a statement on ressing that **all** you remember is a flash of green and a moment of pain, but not who attacked you. The flash of green might be enough to hint at the fact that the assassin was wearing green. Unless the moron was the only guy in the entire city wearing green...

Anyway, I hope you see my point. Imho, permadeath is taking the easy way out, and makes for silly compromises and problems of its own, which don't entirely make any more sense than an assassin that everyone can point at and scream, "He did it!!" You are showing a lack of imagination if you can't figure out how to have ressing in a game world where some things need to be kept unknown. But heh, that is just my opinion.

Without exp, without levels, what penalty exists for death? If the focus of the game is on roleplay, levels and "points" of any kind for advancement are irrelevent and non-existent. The only kinds of games that penalize for death, without rendering the character permanently gone, do so by penalizing points. In a game where there are no points, there is no way to penalize for dying.

Not to mention, if death is commonplace, I'd say there's a pretty significant flaw in the game design. Death should be a BIG DEAL, ICly. Not OOCly as regards points and levels and other mechanics that have nothing to do with roleplay. I don't like "do-overs" because it devalues life. If you can easily get a rezz, there's no need to worry about dying, because it isn't really dying. It's just moving to a different part of the game for a few minutes, and returning with "less" than you started with. But - with the exact same character, knowing all the exact same people, roleplaying in the exact same way, for as long as you continue playing that game.

Boring. Boring boring boring.

I like knowing that in my next gaming session, my character might cease to exist. It makes playing it exciting, scary, gets the adrenaline pumping. I also like knowing, that if my character -does- die, I can create a new character, with a new personality, new looks, a new race, new goals, knowing no one ICly, starting not entirely from scratch (because now I know where you can find the hidden doodad that my previous character discovered), but at least being in a position where I can roleplay the newness of it all.

I've played tabletop roleplaying games for around 20 years, but have never encountered a system which lacked character advancement. The same is the case for computer roleplaying games. In fact I would argue that character advancement is one of the gameplay elements most commonly associated with roleplaying games, and that it is (perhaps ironically) even more strongly associated with CRPGs than roleplaying itself.

Most do - even permadeath, which penalises you by taking away all your points. However others penalise you with time (you have to wait around) or effort (you have to perform some activity to come back to life). In my old mud, the penalty for death was everything except your points - you'd lose your status, social contacts, even your name, but would be able to reinvest all your points into a new character.

I can think of plenty of settings for an RP mud that involve death being commonplace; it's only a flaw in the game design if the mud was specifically intended to have a low death-rate.

Honestly, that sounds like a serious case of abusing your OOC knowledge.

In my tabletop roleplaying games, when a player dies I would never force them to start completely from scratch. But if they tried to use OOC knowledge from their former character, I would put my foot down. Fortunately they're better roleplayers than to try something like that.

I meant for that to indicate that there is no way to remove IC knowledge, even if your character dies permanently. That's all I meant by that. I did not mean that I would USE that knowledge with a new character, or that I would expect everyone else to do the same.

Some things - such as knowing your way around the city your character was born in - make sense to know. Other things, such as the location of the hidden doodad, don't make sense to know. But erasing a pfile doesn't erase the player's memory, and one can only hope the player is mature enough not to abuse that information.

*delurks*

Musts:
*Mature players
*Active staff
*Active community
*A theme that has internally consistent logic
*Player run groups that can have an impact on the game world
*A moderate application process that keeps out those who have little interest in roleplaying

Preferences:
*OOC global channels and chat features so I can get to know the players I'm playing with
*Skill based advancement, rather than level based
*I never would have said this 2 years ago, but... a well organized wiki. I've fallen in love with the things.

Permadeath isn't on either list, if only because my attitude towards it can vary wildly. In short, it depends on the theme. If the theme is internally consistent and has permadeath, then it's fine. That meaning the world has to have a way to deal with such a thing that makes sense.

(Edited to add the bit about the wiki)

I agree with you completely about the assassin thing, Shadow. Any professional hit man (or woman) worth his salt will do the deed quickly, cleanly and with squeaky discretion. And any game designer worth his salt will know how to build mechanics to make it possible. Even some dood off the streets you (rhetorical) pay $5000 to kill  your cheating spouse isn't going to walk up and introduce himself. It works a little differently in a text environment than it does in downtown USA, but as I say, any designer with half an imagination can come up with mechanics to get around those barriers.

Likewise, the idea that there aren't penalties in MUDs beyond zapping "points" exhibits pretty narrow thinking. Players in the early GEnie days of Gemstone III feared death like the plague, and there was zero exp or any other numeric penalty involved. It's a very similar rut to the belief that "assassin" is a separate sect of people who are recognizable on sight, or that less than realistic death mechanics in a MUD signals bad design.  I would argue right alongside KaVir that the merit of death and resurrection  as a common occurance in a MUD depends completely on overall game design. Not every game is a RPI.

I think throwing a blanket  over the MUD genre and saying "this is always good" or "that is  always bad" is a pretty ignorant way to look at game design. Not every player wants the same thing out of a game and not every MUD has to have the same goals. Anyone who has done any serious game design knows that there are many different elements required to achieve harmony in a game, and no two designs are ever the same.  The only real way to judge whether the design of a game is good or bad is whether or not people play. If a game is fun, that's all that counts.

As far as advancement sans repetition , I'd be interested in any ideas on how to achieve this while maintaining balance and a sense of accomplishment.

Well then, isn't it a splendid thing that nass didn't ask us "what is wrong with..." or "what is right with...".

It's such a lovely thing, that he asked us to post what we looked for in an RP environment. You might think what *I* look for is silly - but I'm answering his question. Perhaps instead of criticizing my opinion on what I look for in an RP environment, you might write a post telling us what YOU look for in an RP environment. Since, afterall, that was the question asked.

This is a discussion board. Commenting on the posted subject matter is kind of the point. I disagree with the ideas that: The absence of permadeath in a game neuters "assassins," that there are no possible effective consequences to death in a MUD beyond "point" loss or permadeath, and especially that games without permadeath are ill-designed. If you don't want people disagreeing with you, don't post.

As far as features I'd like to see in a role-playing game:

• A classless advancement system
• A web of emergent skills learned by doing
• Success dependent as much on player ability as character skill
• Mechanics engineered to encourage player collaboration
• A complex crafting system that engenders player-driven economy
• Open PvP with mechanically supported IC checks/balances
• A rich but limited narrative
• Story and mechanic-supported goals beyond advancement and sitting at tables spitting out flowery small talk
• Some kind of application and screening to ensure a community of folks interested in role-play

Bottom line: Advancement is important to me, but so is RP, and I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I wholeheartedly disagree with the concept that longer, more detailed lines of action and dialogue and the absence of numbers on the screen necessarily makes for better role-play. To me, role-play is more about decision and consequence than cool adjective-use and the positions of subjects and verbs.  If a game presents a good story and challenges within the story that force players to make choices and deal with the consequences in a consistent, ongoing manner,  it will foster great role-play, regardless of its mechanical delivery. People are going to role-play or they're not. No amount of design will change that.

Even in a World of Darkness roleplaying mud, where the classes are things like Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Changeling, Wraith, etc? Or perhaps a mud which uses racial character classes (rather like the Rifts RPG)?

I guess it depends on how you define "class." I just don't want it determining the skills I can and can't learn. Give me a choice of races and a bunch of skills I can mix and match.

"Class" as in a classification of character which defines various capabilities.

Sometimes those restrictions make sense, however. A werewolf shouldn't be able to learn how to shapechange into a bat, just because a vampire can.

Unless the races are mostly cosmetic, the chances are the mud would still be class-based - it's just that the classes would also be races ;)

I've led a very sheltered life when it comes to MUDs. "Class" to me means "profession"--mage, warrior, thief, etc. Those categories determine your skill sets. A "skill" is something you conciously train, like sword-swinging, spellcasting, lockpicking, and so on. I put racial abilities in a separate category. Shapechanging into a bat isn't a skill. It's an innate ability of vampires that they gain as they age and mature. A werewolf would have different innate racial abilities than a vampire, but they could both be of the same class and therefore have the same skills available to them. My preference is a system where you choose a race, each with different strengths, weaknesses, and unique talents, and can then learn whatever skills you want.  It's just the way I look at things. I guess "class" means a lot of different things in a lot of different games. Sometimes it means "profession." Sometimes it means "race." Sometimes it means something else all together.

That's a common portrayal, but there are many exceptions - even in the original D&D, "elf" and "dwarf" were listed as classes.

Imagine you were to take a copy of Merc, which has the four standard Diku classes and no races, and then do some quick renaming - "warrior" becomes "dwarf", "mage" becomes "elf", "thief" becomes "halfling" and "cleric" becomes "human". While it's true that you'd no longer have professions, IMO it would be highly misleading to advertise such as mud as "classless".

In some thematic settings, spellcasting is a natural ability, and not something that can be trained. In other cases, even the so-called "racial abilities" need to be consciously trained. Going back to the World of Darkness again, Vampires have to actively find a teacher in order to learn many of their supernatural disciplines.

Well "vampire" and "werewolf" aren't really races, at least not in most thematic settings - in most cases they're supernatural afflictions. A halfling doesn't grow to twice his normal height if bitten by a vampire, nor does an orc's skin turn pink if infected by lyanthropy.

You can certainly give them both full access to same range of skills that a normal human could learn, but as long as they're able to learn abilities that the other can't, I would consider that to be a class-based system.

Once again, imagine you take a copy of Merc, and replace "warrior" with "werewolf", "mage" with "vampire", "cleric" with "angel", etc. Then go through the skills and spells and do the same - so the "polymorph" spell becomes "batform", "charm person" becomes "dominate", "enhanced damage" becomes "lupine might", and so on. No functional changes, only cosmetic ones. I'd still consider that to be a class-based mud.

I would argue that "vampirism" is an affliction that turns you into a vampire, a member of a race of undead beings.

I agree. I wouldn't call that "classless" either. You still have a name defining what skills you can and can't learn.

I don't think I'm being clear in my explanation. Yes, you can name a class "dwarf" and give it warrior skills. You can name a class "elf" and give it magical skills. I just like keeping race and skill separate in an environment where characters of various races have strengths and weaknesses, but they can learn any set of skills that they want.

Elves con see in the dark. Drakin develop natural armor. Pixies have wings and can fly. Dwarves are very hearty with natural resistence to poison and disease. Some races are naturally smarter than others, some stronger, some more empathic and some more agile, attributes that have some effect on skills. Each race hase natural abilities and traits, but they all get to choose what they want to learn, whether it's weapons, magic or a combination of both.

I agree that magic can be a natural or racial ability that doesn't need to be actively cultivated. Heck, magical or any other ability can be sold in different flavors of taffy or as something you inhale at different places in a gaming world. If you're building a game you can design ability acquisition any way you want. I'm just saying I don't want to choose a "class" that determines what abilities my character will have. I want to choose a race that gives my character certain traits , not a rigid set of abilities. I want the freedom for my dwarf to become a blademaster or a cleric or a mage or whatever. The difference is that thie skills I choose defines his "class" instead of the class I choose determining his skills.

A classless game with a wide variety of available skills allows for flexibility and precludes the cookie cutter syndrome that plagues so many games. The emergent nature of such a system allows players to mix and match different sets of skills for characters of different races, an aspect of games that lots of people really enjoy, including me.

Take a game with three types of weapon skill: one-handed (swords, axes and clubs), two-handed and ranged, a combat maneuvers skill that teaches a myriad of offensive and defensive moves, an ambush skill that gives a well-trained swordsman a devastating surprise attack, a two-weapon skill that teaches the wielding of a weapon in each hand, a shield-use skill, a dozen different magical schools that each include 30 spells of varying utility and power, a rune skill that teaches how to invoke spells from symbols embedded in pieces of paper and a skill that gives the learnee the knowledge required to coax balls of ice and fire from the tips of wands, rods and staves. You can't learn it all, but imagine the cool combinations.

But does that mean a giant shrinks when he becomes a vampire, while a halfling grows, an orc loses its piglike snout and green skin, an elf's pointed ears become rounded, etc?

If you want the vampire to retain characteristics of their former life, you're really going to need to handle the undead state separately from the race.

Well to be fair, I've seen class-based systems which also allowed you to learn any skills you like (Rolemaster springs instantly to mind).

Right, but what if their natural abilities are also things they can learn and train? Perhaps the Drakin can develop its natural armour through specialised meditative techniques, while pixies can learn a wide range of airborn skills and flying combat techniques, etc.

Going back to the original question, I'm very much in favour of races which are thoroughly fleshed-out - I really don't like this sort of thing:

Pixie: +2 Dex, -2 Str, permanent fly affect
Elf: +2 Dex, -2 Con, permanent infravision affect
Dwarf: +2 Con, -2 Wis, +10 save vs poison

Instead, I'd much rather see a lot of detail for each race - not just a decent quantity and quality of background information, but also the technical side. Ideally I'd like to see a wide range of special abilities for each race, so that you can mix and match racial powers with the common skills available to everyone.

The other approach I'd like to see is something along the lines of the I described on MudLab last year, where your 'race' and 'class' are just some of the many optional things you can choose to add to your character.

Look. Why not something flexible. You have races. Those races have "basic" characteristics that may tend to make them advance faster in certain skill sets. An elf, being attuned to the living world, might be *faster* at gaining ranger skills, or spell skills, where those spells are related to nature. They might be really bad at advancing in necromancy. Then you have the skill sets, as well as specific skills. You could become an expert lock picker, without being a thief, but its only one skill. To *be* a thief, you would need to practice a set number of skills in a *set* which are mainly dexterity based, but also could be cross attribute/set. The more in the set you practice, the less you must use them to maintain them. The cross sets may be things like alchemy, which would let a thief or a mage make posions, but you would need magic skill to make "potions". By the same token, your mage might poison himself trying to rig even a simple trap. Its not one of "his" set of skills. Learning it would be possible, with no bonuses, since its a cross class for thief and ranger (who hunt, so set some sorts of traps), but not normally for mages.

Now, some method might be useful for something that mixes a lot of mismatched skills, like formation of a guild or such, which would *create* a class. Such a person would have to make the effort of raise a set number of mixed skills to above 50%, or something, and keep them there before forming their training school. Once the school exists, then that could become a legitimate "set", but one that strictly demands that like 9 out of 10 skills practiced by its followers "must" come from that new set to gain the "class" bonus that lets them train them at the same rate as a pure thief, mage, etc., who also need to have 9 out of 10 of their own skills be from the same "set" to gain the same bonus.

But heh, just throwing out an idea. Its not like I have a bloody clue how to make it work. lol Though, I think I might use something similar, if I can work it out, in a normal "class" for an H&S. Specifically a monk, which would have five "attribute" sets, with some cross mixing, and bonuses for "following" a specific path all the way.

1. Permadeath
2. Enforced roleplaying, and this is sort of a broad category, I don't like various chat channels.
3. Useful help system, I mean, if I am always in character there's gotta be something to at least give me the basic commands, etc.
4. Low-fantasy, I really don't like more than one or two races or a whole lot of magic.


That's about it, I don't need a lot, but those four things are rarely combined so I numbered them based on priority.

Since we're sort of on the subject of races, I'll go ahead and say why I don't like a lot of races.  Sometimes I feel like an overabundance of races tends to make worlds less realistic.  

Don't get me wrong, I like to fight things of other races, I just don't like having more than one or two playable races.  The differences become like KaVir said: purely cosmetic.  I also feel like when text games try to populate the world with a lot of races you always get the same things: animal people, dwarves, hobbits, various types of humans (sometimes organized into seperate races by their region or skin color, which I hardly see as distinct groups), and of course elves.  Most races I've seen that don't fit into those categories are also common archetypes from stories or popular culture.

That reminds me of another pet peeve of mine - muds that pair up races with classes so that elves are the best mages, dwarves are the best warriors, halflings are the best thieves, etc. This reduces your character choices, because in order to play a specific class effectively you have to pick the matching race. Worse still (particularly for a roleplaying mud), this actually ends up rewarding min-maxers.

I like the idea of giving each class its own pros and cons, but IMO they should all be equally viable for each class. Maybe a dwarf warrior is stronger, but an elven warrior might be more accurate and a halfling warrior more skilled at dodging, so that overall each race is just as effective for each class.

In a classless system you could achieve the same results by giving each race modifiers for certain skills, while being careful to balance these skills against each other so that they are all equally important. A dwarf might get a bonus to the power-attack skillset, an elf might get a bonus to the focused-attack skillset and a halfling might get a bonus to the evasion skillset - but all three skillsets would be equally good for a warrior-type character, and he'd want to max out more than one skillset.

No. A vampire's physical size and most of his physical appearance doesn't change from the size and appearance of his former race. Vampires don't even age. Look at Claudia from Interview With The Vampire. She was a 200 year-old vampire but she looked like an eight-year old girl. A giant or an elf would be no different.

Oh, without a doubt. The RM system is absolutely my favorite tabletop combat mechanics. It's what made Gemstone III. RM classes still limit the skills you can choose, though, both through cost-setting and outright preclusion. It's cost prohibitive for a "ranger" to learn to use a two-handed sword and his magic choices are limited to the "ranger" list and open channeling.  As I say, I love the RM system. I played GS III for many years. I'd just rather see skills limited by my choice of activities than by the artificial barriers presented by classes.

What if they are? To me they're still racial abilities and I want them separated from "regular" skills like spellcraft, one-handed weapons and lockpicking. As long as all races have attractive innate abilities that balance out, it's all good.

I agree, to a point. But I think there's definitely a place for stats and other racial attributes that differentiate character abilities with different skills. I like it to differ character to character  too, as well as race to race. I'm right with you on race to skill optimization. I absolutely HATE that. The way I deal with that is, in the case of weapos, for example, each weapon uses a different combination of stats. A mace requires brute strength, a longsword needs the guidance of an agile hand and a battleaxe needs a little of both. Or whatever.

Yep. But I'd rather abilities and skills be emergent than just allocated according to race. Like, you can learn the "power attack" if you are strong enough and have the correct body density to make it happen. Instead of saying, "Ok, dwarves get this ability," say, "Characters with these attributes get this ability and dwarves have these attributes."

Shadow: You and I are on exactly the same page when it comes to skills and flexibility. The design I'm drawing up is all about aptitude and choice. You can learn anything you want to by practicing it. How fast you learn and how good at it you can become depends on your innate aptitude.

In that case "vampire" can't be a race, because the character still needs to retain aspects of its former race (unless you say that only humans can become vampires, or create a separate vampire version of each existing race, or add some sort of ).

I'm fairly sure that rangers can choose their best weapon category (six categories, you can specify which is your best, second best, third best, etc), and I recall reading various optional rules in the RM companion books for learning magic outside of your normal lists.

Rolemaster also has a generic class which could be used to represent a classless system.

Assuming that those barriers are artificial, of course, which isn't always the case - it depends what the classes represent.

They are only "regular" skills if you're a human (assuming humans are capable of learning spellcraft).  For a race of sentient wolves, one-handed weapons and lockpicking would certainly not be "regular" skills - but for a pixie, flying would be.

You could, but in most cases it's much easier to handle supernatural afflictions such as vampirism separately from the race itself.

Well we're talking about the design here - they're only "regular" skills if you choose to make them such within the scope of your design.  And my argument is that the design should take your race into consideration when determining what "regular" skills are available.

Sorry, but no - a wolf simply cannot learn to use one-handed weapons, any more than a human can learn how to fly, or how to use four-handed weapons.  As I said before, you're basing your assumptions on a human perspective.

A creature with (flight-capable) wings can fly, just as a creature with legs can walk, and a creature with hands can hold weapons.  These are natural abilities, but they can also be trained.

From a human perspective it's easy to think of running and wielding weapons as being "regular" skills that anyone can learn - but if you were a lindworm with wings but no arms or legs, you wouldn't be able to do either.  However you'd probably consider it fairly normal to learn skills related to flying, tail-usage, etc.  Equally, if you were a Thri-kreen you would probably consider four-weapon fighting styles to be pretty standard, but it doesn't make sense for a human to be able to learn such a skill (unless they are somehow able to grow an extra pair of arms).

The point I'm trying to make is that by designing your races flexibly enough to support their natural abilities (such as running skills, flying skills, tail skills, breath skills, 1-4 (or more) handed weapon skills, innate magical skills, etc) you're effectively turning your races into classes, at least from a game-design perspective.

I don't mind classes so much, as long as they include enough diversity that the player isn't stuck "being" that "profession."

For example...

A necromancer who can make jewelry on the side, could be secretly practicing magic spells, and passing herself off as a jeweler. Being hired as a "professional" jeweler, even though it isn't her primary "thing." Maybe even becoming known throughout the world as a highly skilled talented jeweler. And in the meantime she's secretly plotting the demise of Lord Captain So And So who picked on her when they were kids.

Or another example:

A ranger, who gets himself hired as a Temple Priest's personal aide, and uses his stealth skills from the ranger skillset to eavesdrop on conversations with the Temple's opposing factor, and visit enemy territory to bring back news of their dastardly plots against his employer. No "hunting" involved in that, no mob-killing - no "rangering" as far as the primary ranger skillsets go - no need to ever own a bow, let alone use one. And - no need to "advance" or "level up" or script-hunt for hours and hours on end. He could even have a hobby of whittling arrows, if fletchery is part of the ranger skillset (makes sense that it would be), and providing them to the Temple's archers.

Those are the kinds of classes I like to see. Classes in which it isn't necessary to feel "stuck" in a hard-coded role, just because you happened to pick a certain skillset. Where the classes support the roleplay, rather than the roleplay happening in spite of the class.

I don't mind classes at all if they don't restrict my skill set. The old GS III setup was pretty good. As KaVir has pointed out, races can be classes if you give them enough features.