[MUD-Dev] Playing catch-up with levels

[John Buehler]

Cruise writes:
> John Buehler wrote:

>> I believe that such a system still wants the archetype as a
>> starting point.  Players would take one look at the skill tree
>> and uninstall the program.  So templates for fighters,
>> blacksmiths, politicians, etc., would all want to be the first
>> line of exposure - and a way of talking about what sorts of
>> things go on in the game world.  Fooling with the whole skill
>> tree would come later.

> It can be argued (and indeed, I do) that having to pick your
> skills is a large part of the problem.

> Compare a simple list of all the skills availabe in (say) D&D,
> with the neat "packages" of skills that can be summed up in a few
> sentences.

> In the more "freeform" CRPG's I've often picked skills that
> "sounded" cool, and then later found they'd been implemented in a
> different way than I hoped, or whatever, and had to restart.

> Several games, with more on the horizon, are offering the much
> simpler "use it or lose it" skill system - what you use improves,
> what you don't degrades.

> So if you find the longsword isn't working for you, just pick up a
> shortsword and wave it around, and gradually your skills will
> change.

> This also fits better with useability ideas (ie. the best
> interface is never seen) - players don't even have to know what
> skills are coded in, and what the numbers are. They just wander
> around, doing what happens to take their fancy, and those things
> they particularly like, they improve at.

> No classes, no complicated skill-trees to scare off
> newbies. Provide a few templates or sets of starting equipment for
> those who need some guidance, perhaps.

I used to be in the "use it or lose it" camp.  I even have a
primitive skill system simulator lying around somewhere that
includes an atrophy mechanism.  There are a few problems with such
systems.

  1. The automatic rebalancing of skills is defined by the software,
  not the player.  If I do nothing but practice short sword, all
  other skills will fall by the wayside.  But the player might well
  have wanted to sacrifice the magical skills that they had
  accumulated. Just as likely is the possibility that the player
  wanted to switch from longsword to short sword.  And that leads
  into the second problem.

  2. A player is obligated to keep using skills that they want
  available, even if they're not interested in actively using them.
  A solution to this is "offline activities" where when the player
  is away, the character makes sure that it practices certain
  skills.  That's the same problem as setting up a set of skills
  that the player wants to retain, and the level at which they want
  to retain them.

  3. Not all skills are suited to "use it or lose it" approaches.
  Skills that do not involve a physical object are going to have to
  be dealt with in some way, and that will break the "non-existent
  interface" model.  Players will have to understand that the skill
  exists so that they can tell their character to do it.  Of course,
  the game could just ensure that every skill involves an object
  unique to that skill.  So ivory wands would only cast one type of
  spell.  Ebony another, etc.

"Use it or lose it" goes a certain distance and solves certain
problems.  It's a good approach.  But I believe that there are other
ways of solving the problems of a large skill system than "use it or
lose it".  It may well be that "use it or lose it" could be a
first-cut presentation of what I'm talking about, with other ways of
presenting the more extensive capabilities.

By the way, unless all skills have the same cost of learning, there
is an element of "classness" to all skill systems.  My own skill
systems tend to make magical skills more costly than mundane ones.
That's an element of "classness".

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