[MUD-Dev] Playing catch-up with levels

[Matt Chatterley]

From: jfreeman at soe.sony.com
> Ben Hawes <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>> Craig Huber wrote:

>>> My question is, why does the vast majority keep circling back to
>>> the class/level/hp paradigm in spite of the aforementioned
>>> obstacles?

>> In general, I really think the old level-up, rigid-class RPG has
>> had it's day.

> I think it's not even close to being done, and possibly here to
> stay.  Players migrate to it, even when given a pure free-form
> skill system.  They make "fighters", "mages", "clerics" and
> "thieves" out of whatver system you give them.  Regardless of the
> genre.

> You try to give them more and different... and they work-around
> your "obnoxious designs" to get back to what they really want:
> classes.

Although.. isn't this different from a player point of view?

In the past, I've played games which were skill based, rather than
class based (I seem to remember two, although the names elude me -
one was skill/level based, with each level allowing more skill
points to spend, and the other WAS class based, but with 'skill'
selection within class - so a level 10 mage might possess different
spells to another level 10 mage, and a fighter different
techniques).

To me, as a player, this degree of customization is very nice - I
can produce a tailor made character as I go, and although he might
be a L10 mage - he'll be different to most of the other L10 mages
around, and will have unique strengths and weaknesses.

Is the 'bad' thing about classes and levels the uniformity which
they provide? That although players styles of play may be different
(this almost fits into the 'roles/personalities' thing - healer,
tank, etc)? If this is the case, then providing customization is
certainly one way forwards - given say, four choices per level (and
the assumption that no one choice is seen as being far more
advantageous than the others, i.e. 'the choice to make'), surely
four different players with a different approach to the game would
make different choices - and after N levels, they'd have branched
off into N different leaves of the same tree.

I also read some comments from a poster from Threshold RPG
(apologies - I didn't record your name, and even more if I mis-read
your intent!), and I have to concur that there isn't a built-in
problem with levels/classes. I like them. It's *great* as a player
to have pre-defined points at which you will receive a
reward. "OK. I'll kill 10 more rats, and that'll give me enough XP
to level up - I'll go into town, sell my booty and go power up at
the guild hall.". It's nice at certain points to receive a little
message which says "Your character is now better than before.".

Although, that's not to say that you can't make a game which has
gradual improvements in a character - there are all sorts of players
in the world, and there must be all sorts of games to suit them all!

For me, as a designer, my current prototype doesn't have levels, or
classes or even skills - it borrows more from the RTS/Sim school of
thought than Muds in some ways, and the 'character' exists only as a
figurehead name. The real object which the player manipulates is
their trading station, and their 'power' is measured by money, cargo
and other assets (e.g. fighter craft, freighters) - and meta-power
(so to speak) is measures in their political and commercial
alliances.

There are three clear paths for players which I can envisage at this
stage, although I'm sure many more variants will emerge - the
politician, the trader and the general, each favouring one aspect
more strongly than others (alliances, money and military might
respectively).

You're bang on the mark though - most players will sort out their
own way, around your systems, to create the character they want.

And they should be able to - that's part of what makes it all fun!

Cheers,

Matt
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev