I have a few things that I'd like to say here.

First of all, in relation to the side topic between Azeroth and shadowfyr's "permadeath/lifespan" I'd like to link a very interesting article titled by Ernest Adams.

Although the above article is most generally related to 3d games, it points out some very interesting topics to think about. You may need a Gamasutra.com account to read it (I'm not sure) however the account is free, and the resource is worth it.

Now, the next thing I'd like to address is skills in relation to classes. Although I don't want to deviate from the topic onto skills, I think it best to explain the current system that I am personally researching into for my own game. It's something like this, and does support the more "non-class specific" MUD rather than the class specific, but I'll address that later in my post. It's something like this:

******

Basically anyone can learn any skill, aslong as they meet the requirements needed to learn said skill.

For example a chef wanting to make pizza needs:

* The ingredients to make a pizza.
* The utensils to make a pizza.
* To be healthy enough to physically make a pizza.

He can get the basic knowledge of how to make a pizza from watching tv, from eating it from another chef, from being told the recipe, from basically anywhere.

Of course, this doesn't mean he'll be good at it.

The quality of the pizza is affected by the quality of his ingredients, utensils, and his health.

For example, if he uses pizza dough, tomato sauce, cheese, ham, and pineapple.. he's gonna have a ham and pineapple looking pizza.

If he has dirty hands when he starts cooking, he's gonna have an unhygenic ham and pineapple looking pizza.

If he doesn't have a cooking tray to put the pizza on when it goes in the oven, he's gonna have a lop-sided, unhygenic ham and pineapple looking pizza since he didn't have a flat surface.

I'd also love to have the ability for improvisation. Which means that if he has dirty hands, he can put on surgeons gloves which makes the process a little more hygene. If he has some olives, he can add that to the ingredients, which means he now has ham, cheese, pineapple and olive pizza. If he finds something else to use as a cooking tray, then that serves the same job as the cooking tray.

Get me?

Now, skill development.

Lets break down our example a little more and say he needs to know the skill 'make pizza dough' before he can make a pizza. He still needs the knowledge of how to, and he still needs the ingredients, utensils, and health.

Unfortunately, making pizza dough is slightly more complex than just topping a pizza and baking it. He'd need to know that he needs eggs, flour, and whatever else goes into a dough bread. He needs to know that he has to knead it.

Simple skills are earned by knowledge/common sense. Aslong as a player has basic knowledge of how to top a pizza and bake it, they can do it.

However, because someone knows how to do something.. it doesn't mean they know how to do it good. This is another factor that will affect their ability to 'make the dough'. It's just practice. The more they know, the more they're capable of doing. The more they're capable of doing, the better they get.

I don't want 'perfecting' a skill to be something repetitive and tedious, but I don't want everyone to be expert chefs, combatants, architects, and what not straight away.

Learning things requires resources. Resources are gained over time. I don't like the idea to make players wait real hours to get resources, but rather they gain it through role play. This means that skills are learned through players, and not mobs. Anyone can go to a mob and learn everything. But people will have to role-play with each other to learn skills from other players.

***********

In an earlier post, I spoke about using a system similar to the one used in Diablo 2, where there are several classes to choose from, and each class has level and tree-branched structured skills.

My point is, that in real life people choose professions that let them work towards developing high leveled skills that they otherwise couldn't learn. But does this stop them from learning basic skills? No.

Last night whilst working on my own game, I was considering a 'beautician' type profession where a player could work to be a hairdresser. (I've seen this done in MUD's such as Archaea and it's worked pretty well.) However, I thought, in real life it doesn't take a scientist to put your hair into a pony tail.

So... getting back to my point again, why not have a set of 'general' skills that are available to generally everyone to learn. Things like basic cooking, basic sewing, basic combat even. (I mean who can't learn to throw a punch, simply by seeing someone do it).

This way, you leave options open for specialized skills that could be more class specific, ie a combat class could have some martial arts punching. This allows a player who chooses to learn how to punch -properly- to actually do so, and thus limit their chances of hurting themselves more than their opponent. And with the chef profession/class, sure anyone can cook toast, but it takes training to cook something more exotic.


Just food for thought.

Man this is great stuff.  I guess I have opened a can of worms with the whole permadeath thing, but I think it is at least partially relevant to the topic of class vs. classless systems.  I think many of these things tie into one another.  In fact I think of one element is left out it is almost a puzzle missing a piece.  Anyway...what I wanted to say.

Permadeath - I think Shadowfyr has some good points in relation to this whole "lich scenario"...but then again we have to consider something.  Powergaming in the past has had the attitude of "Oh, it's a 300 year old Elder Wyrm!?  No problem, I have a +29 DragonSlayer sword"...powergaming has conditioned players not to fear for their characters...heck let's try it.  If we die we only lose half our experience...no sweat.  But think about RL here.  Ok Shadowfyr...you have the opportunity to go seek out a group of 50 seasoned navy seals and try to kill them all.  Oh and if you wish you can take 5 of your closest friends...and we will give you a gun or two.  Do you really think you would want to do this!?  This is why I think permadeath really makes a difference in a class vs. classless system AND in relation to RP.  Permadeath makes a player *cherish* and really focus on how their character would react.  This also affects what skills they would need.  The classless system we are working on not only allows them to choose what skills they want to help define their character, but they can also choose *where* to gain these skills.  This fact alone allows for more RP and more affects on storyline down the road.  The chance your character could die has to always linger in your mind.  We have already planned to encourage party play on this mud.  And honestly there is much less focus on combat and more player controlled cities, interaction, and so forth.  If things go as planned there will be much more players interacting and RP'ing the world out than players interacting with NPC's.  I think that is the biggest problem with "RP Enforced" muds today (but again that is another thread lol).

As far as skills and how they should be done.  I guess you can go any number of ways with this.  Mierza makes some compelling points and I will have to chew on them a bit.  I believe that overall...a character needs to have the ability to learn any skill at any time.  *But* they also have to *work* to get their skills up there.  As the chef takes years to perfect his pizza technique (and to decide which flour makes the best dough, which are the best toppings, and what temperature to proof the dough...etc.), an arcane spellcaster must also spend years perfecting his/her technique (deciding which spell components to use, enunciation of the proper words, etc.).  I think these are good ideas and I hope that more than just my team can come up with some systems and truly inspires our players.  Thanks for all of the insight.

LOL... you obviously haven't seen the code I'm developing (well, you better not have.. 'cause I haven't released it yet).  Introducing completely quest based areas.  It's a bit ambitious.. but every monster (including liches and demi-liches) in the AD&D monster manual is going to be hard-coded in.  Each with their own personality traits and AI.  And with quest-based areas, the "boss" of the area (or the lich in this case) will react accordingly if his lair is being invaded.  If some idiot of an adventurer decides to storm the place by himself, the Lich (being very smart) can successfully deploy whatever methods he has in preventing this lone adventurer from reaching the first floor.  Of course.. this doesn't make very well for a hack 'n slash mud.. and that's the way I want it.. so experience is best gained from some other means than simply dispatching monsters.

Interesting remarks about your skill system ideas, Mierza - the crafting system I had in mind for my own game was designed to work in much the same way. For other skills, though, I'm requiring a basic prerequisite knowledge: if I have no clue how to fight with a sword, I won't be able to parry someone else's attacks with one, much less do something like counter his blows. Mages just learning basic spells would have no hope of successfully casting something more advanced.

Conversely, someone who's already skilled in a certain type of magic will have better luck learning magic in general than someone who's new to magic completely. Someone who's already mastered the use of three weapons will have an easier learning curve picking up a fourth.

About permadeath - though I don't see how its related to the classless/class based question, I still think it's a good thing to have on a MUD, for most of the reasons already mentioned. Systems which have no consequences for dying lose their sense of reality (and maybe that's the connection to the class vs classless debate, because I don't see class systems as realistic either) and lose the sense of danger and tension while playing.

It all comes down to what you want to do, once again. A class based system lends itself more easily to hack and slash "action" type muds geared towards the Bartle killers and achievers, and probably isn't the best place to have permadeath. A classless system will find more friends in the explorer/socializer crowd, which also seems to be more friendly to permadeath systems.

Permadeath is a good topic for another post, though - someone should create it if they like.

Let me first start out by saying that realism as a model for game design is highly limited in its capacity to show us what is fun. Not all of us are pansy RPers interested in simulations and realistic characters =). IMO, invading a Lich fortress is about a thousand times more fun than any sort of crafting, trading or political system.

It's important to note that classes are fundamentally geared towards games, not simulations. They provide an easy way to quantify your party and your own skills in the context of the game world. This quantification is well-established in gaming history: You do not see chess players spending skill points on their Rook to allow them to move diagonally. The only possible way one would want a class in a simulation is if you wanted to simulate the life of a prototype, and most designers that choose to merely simulate real life don't like that.

If you're thinking about a class based system, here is a format that I would consider using:


Each class has several professions available. For example, someone who chooses an Artisan class may have blacksmithing, woodworking, or seamstress/tailor professions available to them.

Professions are broken down into skill tree branches, for example blacksmithing has an armory skill branch, and a weaponry skill branch.

A character can earn skill points during RP, Quests, or even just time.. but they all have a maximum of 90 points that can ever be reached and spent.

So, lets say we make an Artisan character, and they decide to focus on their Blacksmithing. To become a Master Blacksmith, they'd need to master both armor and weapon smithing.

Say the character starts with their weapon smithing. Spending one skill points allows them to learn basic use of the tools involved. Spending three skill points on basic tool knowledge, allows them to get a higher tool knowledge. The higher the knowledge and practice, the higher the ability and chance of success when forging an item.

Okay, so say weapon smithing costs 15 skill points to Master, from learning the basic tools and procedures to get started, to crafting a dagger, then a small axe, then a sword.. each new skill costing a few more points to gain until they finally Master all the skills of weapon smithing, wich adds up to

Now, to completely Master a skill type like blacksmithing, for example, you'd need to spend 30 skill points in that area. Blacksmithing can also have several branches you can follow, like weaponry as one branch, armor as another branch. It takes 15 skill points to master each branch.

Master weaponsmith = 30 skill points
Master Armorsmith = 30 skill points

Therefor, to become a Master Blacksmith, you'd need to invest 60 points. And you'd have 30 skill points left over to spend in more trivial skills like swimming, basic cooking, etc.

Now, how atrophy got me into this?

Well, in real life you can only Master so much -or you can be a jack of all trades, but that's self explianatory.

Let's say our character here spent all his 90 points- 60 on being a Master Blacksmith, and the remaining 30 on some trival social skills -5 of those are spent on knowing how to cook seasoned and stuffed roast chicken with all the trimmings. -Hey, he's a big man, likes to eat well, and isn't married yet.

Now, our hero wants to invest some of his time learning to sing so that he can impress a pretty young maiden into marrying him. This means that he gives up several cooking points and now suffers on cans of baked beans.. after all it takes 5 minutes to heat, and making a roast takes hours.

Subtract 3 of his cooking points, add those 3 resources into his swimming area, and hey presto, he's sacrificed to learn his new skill -and still only got his 90 points, keeping him statistically equal to everyone else.

Ofcourse this is just a thought from the top of my head, and it'd need to be tried and tested before use.. as well as a skill system written up for it, but it's more food for thought none-the-less.. and something to think about if you want to choose a class based system. (Though I suppose you could modify it for a non-class based system too.)

Anyone had similar methods? Has it worked?

*****

On another point, I think that Yui just highlighted a very good perspective. Whilst trying to make a realistic game, there are times when this has to be sacrificed in order to leave some 'fun' in the game.

First of all, picture it like a movie. Realistically? Alot of the fun action parts we see in high speed chases, heavy shoot outs, and the like, are not really realistic -they're there for entertainment. But it's all on the lines of bordering some kind of realism as set by the boundaries of the film. -What I mean by that is, different movies have different boundaries of what is realistic and what isn't. For example, in a modern day movie like rush hour, you don't see people casting magic, slaying dragons, or flying unaided. However in films such as dungeons & dragons, and X-men, such things are not unrealistic.. but they still have their limitations (like generally one super power each).

The point I'm trying to make here, is that they don't go into every tiny detail to proove realism. Like, they don't (usually) show the heroic male's 20 minute toilet excursion or the supeer beautiful crime fighting womans leg shavingm nose hair trimming, moustache waxing.. And it's for a reason.
-It's just for fun.

Take Grand Theft Auto and all its sequels, for example, and you'll see how characters get to steal cars, murder people, blow up buildings, go beyond the boundaries of every day life. Why? Because it's fun. Sometimes going on a mad massmurder rampage can be wickedly satisfying.

-That's why I like to offer incentives for all the different types of players out there. Although balancing them.. can be a different story.

When it comes to choosing between a class vs non-class system, you really have to think "What kind of playerbase am I aiming for?" and "Do I want to attract RP players who are more interested in realistic skill approaches, or would I prefer some hack and slashes who want easy to use stat systems? and make your choice from there.

Hey Mierza, what makes you think class-based=hack n slash? and classless=roleplay? That's a huge statement to make, just because a mud uses classes doesn't mean it can't be a great roleplaying mud, and your whole "point" system for classes seems real silly if you are going to making a roleplaying mud, bringing any kind of number into the minds of the player will just annoy them if they truly just want to roleplay, they will only care about the emote command. What you want is a skill tree where they don't choose when they learn it but CAN learn new things. All this classless stuff makes me sick to my stomach, I've played classless muds and they had no roleplaying whatsoever, at least my definition of it, I like to see beautiful areas and a great code to go with it, no colors, definitely permadeath, have to have descriptions for your characters, I've seen roleplay enforced muds with Bob has arrived. Bob flies east. I wanted to vomit, the word roleplay has declined so much in today's mud world it's kind of pointless trying to argue for anything when it comes to it because everyone has their own little belief of what it might be, like playing Final Fantasy X on your playstation is roleplaying. I think I've gotten off a little rant now though, and the whole classless thing just gives me the shivers.

Well, I am sure they do exist. I am not searching for a mud at this time since I have work to do on my own, but I already will admit classless can be good if it is done right. Same goes for class-based, I am just stuck on the class-based system because of my experiences most likely.

-D

The important thing to keep in mind is that it's not as black and white as "class-based" and "classless" - there is plenty of middle ground. On one extreme you've got the full-on cookie-cutter class system, whereby everyone picks a class which completely defines their present and future abilities. At the other extreme, you've got the classless system whereby everyone is exactly the same, which ends up being more like a single-class mud. But I think most people would agree that the preferable solution lies somewhere in between.

There are plenty of pen&paper roleplaying games which take the extremes - with RPGs like D&D at one end, and ones like RuneQuest at the other - so I don't think you can realistically draw any direct connection between the quality of roleplaying and the type of class system used.

But what I find more interesting are the RPG systems which take a middle ground. The Rolemaster system, for example, provides an interesting take - hundreds of classes, each of which can learn any skill, but at varying costs. Thus (for example) a wizard could become deadly with a sword, but would pay several times what a warrior would. Equally a barbarian could learn spells, but at such an extreme cost it generally just wouldn't be worthwhile (except for perhaps a little dabbling on the side). This allows players to customise as much as they like, but tends to pushes each character in a certain direction.

Another system that I find quite interesting is that used by Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, in which players can change profession as often as they wish - as long as they have the appropriate requirements. Anyone can become a wizard, but they'll have to spend time as an apprentice first, and learn all the skills needed.

Then you've got systems like Talislanta, whereby anyone can learn anything they like, but which your chosen archtype defines your initial skillset - ie, what you've learned up until the point you begin play. As it's so time consuming to learn entirely new skillsets, it's really just not worthwhile for people to completely change their style of character.

Of course there are also some systems in which "class" doesn't mean "profession", and in which such classification becomes important. In World of Darkness muds you're going to want things like vampires and werewolves, and these creatures should have clearly separated powers. That doesn't mean that every werewolf has to be the same, but equally it doesn't make much sense if they can potentially learn how to transform into a bat.

I have to say the only times I have really enjoyed a classless system (note: there were still some predefined/limiting race based skills/abils) was when the number of skills were limited.

A characters skills determined suitability for a profession.

1 Skill point was enough to learn a skill, but if you wanted to learn it beyond an amature level you had to spend a lot of time and points), you could improve a skill by use, but only up to a point (not strictly true, it did continue to improve, but at a rate of about 1/1000th of a pct per succesful increase), if you wanted to go up to the next bracket for that skill it would cost 5 skp, and then 10 to go to expert, then 20 to master, and so on... A character got 15skp to start and 1 per level. it was possible to be skilled in alot of things, but like the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none", and it worked, there were soldiers (swordsmen, spearmen, cavalry, pathfinders), craftsmen (carpenters, weaponsmiths, armoursmiths, blacksmiths, jewelers, chefs),  joat's (Jack of all.... - who tended to be fairly useless except as bagage handlers), even a couple of sage type chars (extensive language skills), healers

Just an example I guess

I've never had anything to do with the Administration of a MU* of any kind, so this idea is completely based on my experience as a player, and a occassional builder/coder for my own enjoyment. However, in my mind the best system would be one that is basically classless at the code level, but effectively class based at the playing level.

By this I mean, that the administration of skills/classes should fall to player organizations and not just to code. The general skills would be accessible to everyone and anyone can gain any skill that they like. However, in order to do this they need to find someone IC to teach the skill to them. There would be no NPC teachers, at least not for specialized skills, and gaining a skill, and increasing it past certain levels would both require learning from a Human instructor (An action that would be ideally combined with Instruction RP.)

Instead of gaining skillpts, or XP, or something like that, players who were sufficiently skilled in a particular /skillset/ would receive a certain number of teaching points/time period (perhaps including a dependence on a teaching skill level as well). They could then teach another player for a certain number of Teaching points based on their evaluation of the effectiveness of the RP.

The specialized skills would then be placed in the hands of Player Organizations and the dissemination of those skills would be determined by the decisions of those organizations. This would lead to a great divergance of the availability of skills, that isn't available in other systems. For instance:

-A Metalworkers guild may exist, but mostly for trade purposes. The learning of Metalworking skills would likely involve paying the guild to set you up with a Master Smith, to be apprenticed to.

-A Religious Order may have access to healing abilities and magic. They may decide to freely teach the some initial healing abilities for free or a small donation of time or money to charity, but keep back the higher level skills out of fear that they will be misused.

-A group of reclusive magic users may refuse to teach anyone their secrets. Even forcing those who wish to join their circle to spend several years in apprenticeship before being taught even the most basic of magical abilities.

While not exactly class-based, this would help keep things a lot more IC than just having NPC teachers scattered about the realms, who you can spend some skillpoints at to suddenly gain a new skill completely unrelated to anything you've done before.

There are obviously lots of issues with this system, as there would be with any system. But I think it would allow for a lot of good RP opportunities. It would also help give the skill setup a feeling of authenticity and realism, and allow players to effect the evolution of the world on a larger level.

Some of the big problems that I foresee with a system like this are:

1)It would require a fairly large playerbase to sustain itself without a lot of Admin involvement in teaching and the like, Especially if a lot of skills are available

2)Like any automated system it is suseptible to those who refuse to play according to the rules (ie. teaching without IC reason and/or without RP'ing the actual lesson.

3)The system could rapidly devolve into a simple classless system over time, or quite rapidly if groups decide not to protect the value of their skills. Keeping the number of teaching points that individuals can get to a low value may help protect against this.

4) Not really a problem, but an issue. Permadeath would be necessary for the system to work. The guilds have to have the ability to dissuade those who leave the guild from teaching protected skills to people who shouldn't have them. If killing the person only temporarily sets them back, then control of the skills could very easily be lost.

I've always found that classed systems are better, not only do they foster a more communal feeling which is good for introducing newbies to the realms as a whole, but they also allow for specific goals without over-wealming people with too many choices.

A few classless systems I've experienced give such a multitude of options that it's extremely difficult to make a choice what to focus on, and you are likely to regret it later thinking 'I wish I'd done that instead'.

Ultimately classed systems offer more structure and a firmer foundation, and prevent newbies from being overwealmed with choices whilst still giving enough to be interesting.

Janus

I've often wondered how a classless, level-less skill-based system would go. My idea was this:

A player chooses to learn a skill - e.g. Magery. This gives them the basic ability to learn magic, and would probably be given to them by a mage master or school of some kind. You could put a requirement into the master/school itself rather than inherent in the magery skills themselves which would stop or limit people joining up with every type of school.

Just by joining a magery school doesn't stop you from trying out the topiary school or becoming a warrior - it just gives you an ability to learn how to wield the items in that class (spells in magery, weapon handling and fighting styles as a warrior, and shears and fertaliser use for topiary, presumably).

Then your skill is based on how much you use given items within that school. For example (in magery again), you might have health, flame, mana, transport and ice based spells. These would be broken down into various types of spells in each spell class. Using a particular heal spell would increase your proficiency in that spell, but also affect *any* heal spell by a lesser amount, and *any* magic type to an even lesser amount. E.g. Say using a heal increases your proficiency in that spell by 2% (for a successful heal). It might also increase your procifiency in Healing class (thereby increasing any spells in that class to a degree) by 0.05%, and increase your proficiency in Magery (hence all your mage spells) by 0.01%. This would be weighted against a players inherint abilities - so that a player with a higher "intelligence" ability would learn faster (by a balanced percentage based on their attribute distribution) than a player with a higher "strength".

Players would still therefore need start out choosing certain attributes for their character - a roll of the dice, or a fixed pool which can be assigned to various attributes - health, intelligence, strength, magic resisitance, dexterity, etc.

It would mean that if a player started out with all the attributes of a warrior (classically high strength, dexterity but less intelligence, magic) but decided late in play to become a scholar, he would probably have to work harder to increase his skill in that school, as his base attributes make it harder to progress in areas that rely on them.

I think this would lead to a game that leads to more concentration on the skills that one is good at, and less of a game (especially later at higher skills) where most players end up having fairly similar stengths and weaknesses, regardless of their class. In a class based system a high level mage has lots of mana and heal spells and some powerful fighting spells, which is kind of like the warrior classes armour and weapon handling. In a classless system, a good warrior could still increase his magic resistance by learning magery and use magic resist spells over and over - they wouldn't inherently get good at healing or fire spells, though those levels would very slowly increase too. It could even end up broadening the diversity of character types - people can get exceptionally good in one skill but still remain terrible in another skill, and related skills slightly affect each other. People would have to rely on their individual skills rather than the skills given to them by levelling or inherent in a class.

I think that classed systems are definitely the best in most muds just because of the structure that they add. The one exception that I see to this is in RP muds. Classes and levels are things that don't actually exist in real life. You get skills because you learn them, not because you're a level 50 fighter so you get such and such a skill and it should be the same in an RP mud. I'm not saying that RP muds can't be done with classes, its just that in general they are much better when done without them.

I find that overall, classless systems are much more realistic than those that have classes, because it's simply more logical. For example, I'm a fairly strong guy, and according to the majority of class-based muds I've played that wouldn't make me so good at things that require a lot of intelligence i.e. magic....But I'm also in full IB in my school, and believe you me, that's not for average people, heck maybe not even above average(I don't want to boast, but it's true).

Classless systems allow for a more customizable<?> character, and that makes more sense. After all, I can decide to be a magician/thug, or a battlemage..blahblahblah, without actually belonging to a class.





As for the rp thing, class based systems rely more on code, which may somehow limit the importance given to rp. Classless systems are much more adaptable, but I've noticed that in certain forms of combat a certain class has an advantage over another, and that shouldn't be.




Bottom line is, class systems rely more on code, more importance is given to the class rather than the individual, which limits a character's individuality. i mean why can't there be strong mages, or highly intelligent warriors. Classless systems are all about the individual, you can be decent at everything, good at something and bad at another, you can be one of the best swordmen in the land AND a powerful mage......Class systems are too restricting, and that just messes with rp.


I'll add more later.

That's an over-generalisation. There is nothing more or less realistic about class-based systems as a concept, only about specific implementations.

I would have to disagree with this, while I prefer classless systems, it is only when they are limited, and there is no rule that says a class based system has to limit stats (for example you could have a bright yet weak warrior, he'd suck in melee combat using a broadsword with a style that relies on brute strength. H*LL you could even use it as a background for better RP, he joind the guard because his father made him do it, he is more suited to being a clergyman/mage/clerk, but he he is - actually come to think of it, we had a guy like this in my platoon *ponder*).

Classless systems can be really lame if there is no limit to what can be learnt. It takes time and effort to be a master smith/swordsman/mage/dancer/... and I fell a game supposedly based around RP should reflect this. I agree there should be no impediment to trying to do all of these, but you've surely heard the phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none", it should be possible to be a mediocre ballet warrior smith mage, but to master them all (with all the study/practice that would/should be required...) is a bit of a stretch.

ASIDE: Isn't it funny how whenever discussions of this volatile topic come up, "classless" is always the more popular choice, yet the most popular and successful games on the market have classes.

I think it was one of the SWG developers who said: "It is pointless to try and create a completely classless game. The players will just end up creating their own."

Unless I misunderstood KaVir's points here, I agree with him that the real question is one of implementation.

Class based systems can be extremely flexible and allow enormous customization. This is particularly true if people are allowed to respec skills or change their class.

Similarly, classless systems can end up having so few "viable" builds that the game ends up having very few options. If everyone ends up having pretty much the same skills, trained up to pretty much the same degree, then you really haven't provided people with much customization.

It all comes down to the implementation. That is far more important than whether or not you have classes. Both types of systems can have extensive customization if designed well. Both can be extremely limiting and restrictive if designed poorly.

I don't think that alone is necessarily a viable argument - after all, there are plenty of highly popular roleplaying systems which don't use classes. I suspect it's more a case of classless systems being more difficult to balance; many players would prefer the ability to train whatever skills they like, but most implementations out there don't do a few good job.

Also worth noting is the point I made back on page 7 - that there are many implementations that fall somewhere in between traditional class-based and true classless, and IMO neither extreme is a particularly good solution.

Having said that, traditional class-based systems do have one strong advantage as far as muds are concerned - they force players into choosing specific strengths and weaknesses. This allows certain challenges to be designed in such a way that no single player can take them on alone. The only real advantage of pure classless is that of balance, although that would work well for a pure PK mud assuming other forms of customisation were available.

But surely that is the very purpose of a classless system? To allow players to create whatever "class" they wish to have, rather than being confined to one of the classes defined by the developers?

My comment was made more in regards to the "realistic/logical" argument. There is nothing inherently unrealistic or illogical about classes as such, only about specific implementations. For example I cannot see any logical excuse for why a warrior cannot learn thief skills. But I would not consider it illogical to prevent mages and clerics from learning each others spells, assuming a valid storyline reason was given such as "deities don't allow their clerics to study or use non-holy magic".

It seems to me that, while players on a whole (at least by this poll) prefer classless systems, class-based ones are easier to get to grips with, and thus end up the more popular games by retaining their newbie population.

Is it worth discussing the types of classing systems other games use to compromise between these two extremes?

Two games with interesting class systems that spring to mind for me are Star Wars Galaxies, and Heroes of Might and Magic IV.

In SWG, players choose a starting class, and a number of "skill points". Then, from their experiences, they may allocate these skill points towards either mastery of a class, or indeed use them to start a parallel progression in another class.

HoMM4 isn't a mud, but is a game that has the player control a number of classable characters. Each character starts off with a base class, and can advance in that each time they gain a level, or may advance in any of several other classes. Once a character specialises in two classes, his overall class changes, giving him a new set of bonuses. For example, a character specialising in both Chaos Magic and Tactics becomes a "Pyromancer", gaining a 50% reduction in personal damage from fire-based effects.

Any other interesting systems out there?

Don't you think it is far more likely that class based systems are more popular because that is what "players on a whole" prefer?

A poll on a site like this is not very valuable at all for analyzing any sort of trend. The group answering the poll is self-selected, which makes any results inherently worthless.

Personally, I like both class based and classless systems. It all depends upon the implementation.

Also, I think the distinction you make is simply taking one aspect of preference and treating it as something unrelated. If one type of system is "easier to get to grips with" that is a major reason why people would prefer it.

Post hoc. Many of the more popular muds have classes, but there's nothing to suggest that those classes are the reason for the mud's popularity.

Equally, many of the least popular muds have classes, but there's nothing to suggest that those classes are the reason for their lack of popularity.

A muds popularity is the combination of many different factors. Were you to remove classes from your mud and replace them with an alternative (yet equally well-balanced) approach to character creation, I suspect you wouldn't notice much overall difference in playerbase.

I did say "at least by this poll". Perhaps it would have read better if I'd written "experienced players on a whole..." since that is more indicative of the types of people that voted on the topic.

First of all, one thing I don't like about class-based systems is that many of them have, level 1: you get so-and-so skill, level 3: you get so-and-so skill. Everybody from each class is like a clone and there fellow members of their class isn't much variety. Now, there are many class-based muds that break away from this and allow plenty of variety and I believe that in most muds a classed-based system that allows for variety is the best way to go. The one exception is with RP oriented muds. I think these are best with classless systems. Why do I think this classless is good for RP muds and not for H&S? Well, one of the problems with classless systems is that people choose the "best" skills and everybody ends up still being a clone. In a good RP-based mud, people don't do this, they pick skills based on the way they want to RP for the most part and so this isn't really a problem. Also, RPIs tent to be more realistic and classes aren't really that realistic. Classed based systems confine characters to imaginary confines that don't exist in the real world. Why do I have to be either a thief or a warrior or..., why not something else?
Even worse is a RP mud that is class based with levels and xp. I don't even want to got there as it just makes no sense in an RP environment. I have to say Armageddon has one of the best done class-based systems I've seen in an RPI and this is because it allows for more specialization and variety and more realism. Even so, I think it would be better if classes were removed.

Personally, I find such arguments against class based systems to miss a pretty critical point in game design. 'Fun' is more important than 'Realistic'.  I'm not saying class based is more fun or less realistic, but I don't see it as a good justification for choosing one over the other.

One of the problems I often see fundamentally associated with purely skill based system is the inherent lack of difficulty communicating what one's role would be in a group.  Say for example someone wants put together a balanced group of 6 players to go and slay the ginormous dragon of treasure hoarding.  In a class based system, you are thinking.... Ok, I nead a healer, a couple of tanks, a damage dealer, and someone to handle crowd control.  When you head out and try to find random people to fill these roles, you have to determine which individuals would fit which roles and that they are of a sufficient power level to be in a group of your scale.

Which system would make it easier to put together such a group:  

- Class based: "Hi, I'm a level 18 cleric"
- Skill based: "Well, I've got 18% bandaging and 20% healing magic, but I've also go 19% swordplay and 15% offensive magic"

Of course, if your game isn't based around having balanced groups of people go out and kill things / quest utilizing their abilities to fill their roles to the best of their abilities, then this is less moot.  However, I personally play Muds/MMO's for exactly this reason - I can get single player style gameplay out of a single player game.  I would agree that on the surface, class based systems seem to compartamentalize content more than skill based systems.  However, I think this is a bit of a falsehood, if you consider access to content as a function of time and player effort.  (in other words, how many players are going to max out all their skills)

One could also argue that it is easier to balance class based systems. With skill based systems, you end up having to balance every skill vs. every other skill, or players will generally ignore the weak 'gimped' skill trees and everyone ends up looking the same. With class based systems, you balance roles against each other. For example, you know that a rogue should be less about magic and tanking andmore about stealth and damage dealing. He can have more weak skills than another class, for example, so long as the total package is perceived as balanced. Keep in mind that I'm talking about systems with 10 or so well thought out classes, not 130 crappy unbalanced ones.

Additionally, one system I've always liked is the TES/Daggerfall/Morrowind system which used both class and skill based systems.  Basic operations like running, swimming, etc were skills, but then to advance in your profession you had to do quests for your guild.  Levels in a class (or guild in this case) made a lot of sense in this system, because one could envision the guild structure only releasing various class skills as they deemed you earned them.  I imagine 'real world' guilds operated in much the same way.  In this system a 'class' represents more of a social structure with it's own graduated advancement system than a simple (and boring) advancement mechanic.

Saren

I think what kind of system you will want to use should be based on if your MUD will be about pk or not. I'd think it'd be very difficult to have classless pk be both balanced and diverse, and if you don't have classes in particular, then you'd need some limits on what can be combined with what.

On the other hand, no one joins the warrior's guild in real life, so if you aren't working with pk, a classless system could be more popular.

I don't agree that the decision is should be based solely on whether you use PK, but I will agree that class based systems are fundamentally easier to balance. In skill based system, it's very hard to introduce a critical flaw to a character in the name of balance, but this happens all the time in class based systems (ie, high damage classes often have low hit points to offset their immense capability to cause damage)

Classless systems always seem to be perceived as more customizable than class based systems. This doesn't have to be the case. Take something like D&D 3.5, for example. Definantly a class based system, but you can take many abilities from other classes at a construction penalty.

This is why I say class-based are better for H&S muds and classless is better for RP muds. Realism is very important in an RP mud, if people could do anything they wanted there wouldn't be any fun at all. RP muds try to put you into another world.

See, this would be a problem in a hack and slash mud but in an RP mud, you don't have people group together to go kill stuff based upon what classes are needed in the group.

Obviously, neither of these would happen in an RP mud. Yet in a hack and slash mud, your point is valid.


This paragraph just makes no sense, you are saying that if you don't mindlessly go around killing things it's like a single player game? Well, I've seen plenty of single-player games where you mindlessly kill monsters but I have yet to see a good single player game where you can RP with other people.


Again, something that applies to soley hack and slash muds. Of course somebody who does a lot of fighting is going to be able to beat a tailor's brains out, but people still play tailors.

Backing up a bit: (You'll have to excuse my fumblings with quoting quotes here, I haen't quite worked it out yet)

I disagree with this.  Many class based systems specifically refer to the classes as 'guilds'.  Guilds, organizations, and orders were very much a real world construct, and while you might be able to join more than one the skills taught in such a guild usually took a lifetime to advance from apprentice to master.  

Well to be techincally correct RP muds try to put you into another person.

Without getting into arguments against realism in a mud/fantasy world, I would personally think that a class or guild based system would more accurately model knowledge and training in ancient socieities as described above.

That depends entirely on your definition of an RP mud, specifically how much non-human automation it uses.  One might imagine that the purest RP mud would be little more than a chat room with character sheets. When you start adding things like automated group quests, however, ability to identify a players capabilites in the game world becomes important.  Even every paper and pen game I've played has required the construction of a group relevant to the perceived difficulty of the quest presented to them.  

Sorry if I was unclear, but thats not what I meant at all.  I'm talking about forming groups with other players, and going out and fighting and solving quests as a team.  

Despite my example, I was referring to overall balance, and not just combat balance.  Players feel cheated if they feel the time they have invested has netted them less than some other player with the same amount of time invested in different skills.

They didn't join the warriors guild, they joined the army, or a mercenary guild, or were born into knighthood, or some other type of social construction similar to a guild.  I'm sort of lumping these things in with 'guilds' and 'classes' in that they teach you specific skills, and you are readially identified as being affiliated with the given organization.

I have a perhaps controversial opinion about this statement.

First of all, players don't always know what they want.  All players, however, think they know what that want.

Secondly, one of the thing that makes the great muds great is their adherance to their undiluted vision of the game they would like to play, whether or not it is what the majority players think they want.  Ultimately players want high quality compelling content.  

Playing the popularity game will get you a few minor victories in the short run.  However, if you stick to your vision and don't give in to player pressure,you will be defining what players want, rather than trying to live up to it.

Nearly all of the top muds I've seen pk or not run class based systems.  (By top muds, I mean highest player numbers and/or financial success).  Have a look at the top 10 muds listed here,  they are all class based.    

Ultimately I believe this comes down to the issues of communication and ease of balance that class based systems offer over skill based systems.

Armageddon is often in the top ten here and it is only partially class-based (and it is skill-based with no levels). Shadows of Isildur is also often in the top ten and completely classless and skill-based. Both are RPIs. A coincidence? Probly not, the other RPI is Harshlands and although it isn't in the top ten, it is also completely classless and skill-based.

A skill-based, levelless system is pretty much required for a good RP mud. A classless system isn't really, but it definitely helps a lot. Also, judging from your comments, Saren, you have never played an RPI before, have you?

Right, but the comparison was class based vs. classless, no?

The best gaming systems I've seen have been combinations of class based and skill based, but then again, pure class based games are rare.

Anyways, at the time I'm writing this, it's in the #10 slot, and represents 3.7% of all the votes in the top 10 slot.  (and is nearly an order of magnitude less than the #1 and #2 slots)

Amazing that classic D&D has managed to do RP in a class based system for around 30 years...

Don't be silly, of course I have.

Although D&D is one of the first RP games, it actually focuses a lot more on how powerful your character is, what skills and feats he has, how many orcs he can kill, than on the RP aspects. Much more than any one of the three RPIs.

I mean, come on, D&D has LEVELS. You want to get better at stealing, kill monsters, you want to get better at magic, kill monsters, you want to sing better kill monsters. You can backtstab a monster to death and use the experience to gain a mage level. You get better at crafts in D&D, not by doing them, but you guessed it, by killing monsters.

It certainly can be played that way. It also certainly doesn't have to be.

You do know that the story basis for Armageddon came from a D&D game world, right?

You seem to have a mentality that if someone doesn't RP the way you think they should, it's not RPing. There's no reason to have such a close-minded worldview.

D&D has levels, I just find it hard to say that there is any realism in that. Whenever I have seen D&D being played, there is often much more of a focus on killing monsters and gaining levels(which mysteriously make you better at things completely unrelated to killing monsters) then there is to developing a character and a viable world.

Though, I will admit that D&D is much much much more RP oriented than many muds. It still isn't the "pinnacle of RP" or anything, just the game that everything else is based upon. That means that it isn't perfect for RP and so you shouldn't say "D&D has classes, so classes are best for RP" (although D&Ds multiclassing system is much better for RP than most class-based muds).

And at least I don't think that the most RP oriented mud would be a "glorified chat-room with character sheets". I mean, all you can do in a chatroom is talk, there is much much much more than that to RP.

And the fact that the story basis for Armageddon came from a D&D game world? So? You also know that Armageddon use to be a hack and slash game? So the idea for the Armageddon RP game came from a hack and slash game. Does this mean hack and slash games are great examples of RP just because an RPI got ideas from them?

D&D has levels, I just find it hard to say that there is any realism in that.

That's part of what I'm calling close-minded.

First, make the realization that any game system, any, is an approximation of reality.  It is, further, something of which the characters in it are typically unaware.  A 3rd-level fighter is not aware that he's a 3rd-level fighter.

What a level system is is a way of representing that certain individuals excel above others.  I am not saying it is the ideal way to approximate such a thing, although I think it's a pretty good one for the purposes of a game.

Let's take two guys.  One has taken a basics in boxing class at his local YMCA.  The second is the heavyweight champion of the world.  I don't think there's anything unrealistic in saying that we could choose to model them as both being members of, let's say, the fighter class, with the champ being a higher level.  It represents in simple, easy to grasp terms, that the second guy can fight better, take more punishment in the ring, etc.

Could you also model that in a good purely skill-based system?  Of course you could.  That doesn't invalidate the level-based model.  At the core of a level-based mechanic is the belief that people improve at what they do with experience.  There aren't a whole lot of people in the world, especially in the professional world, that don't share this belief.  Just look at the experience requirements for nearly any job opening.

Whenever I have seen D&D being played, there is often much more of a focus on killing monsters and gaining levels(which mysteriously make you better at things completely unrelated to killing monsters) then there is to developing a character and a viable world.


This is also certainly true about most MUDs or other similar multi-user games.  You'll notice I'm not trying to assert that they're all that way, which is pretty much what you're doing.

And, finally...

And the fact that the story basis for Armageddon came from a D&D game world? So? You also know that Armageddon use to be a hack and slash game? So the idea for the Armageddon RP game came from a hack and slash game. Does this mean hack and slash games are great examples of RP just because an RPI got ideas from them?

I guess it's easy to counterargue anything if you always just pretend your opponent said something stupid instead of what they actually said.  I'm sorry, that isn't exactly winning me over.

The point is this:  there are a lot of cool stories built up around D&D.  You could almost call it its own set of mythologies.  Now, I'm NOT saying that the fact that there are a lot of cool, rich stories built around the D&D game mean that the game is inherently all about awesome roleplaying.  That would be stupid as discussed above.  What I am saying is that the fact that there are such rich backstories for the D&D worlds indicates that the converse, that D&D is all about mindless monster butchery, is probably not true either.

To look at it another way:  if the unique Dark Sun backstory can be fertile ground for a MUD like Armageddon to become this standout RP MUD, even though many MUDs are hack and slash, it stands to reason that the fertile ground of that backstory also could (and certainly has, as it happens) spawn D&D campaigns of similar standout RP.

D&D, like a MUD, is what you make of it.

"Dragon Master" wrote:
A skill-based, levelless system is pretty much required for a good RP mud. A classless system isn't really, but it definitely helps a lot. Also, judging from your comments, Saren, you have never played an RPI before, have you?

This is a ridiculous generalization.

Using our own system, we're class-based, and we have levels. You have skills, which require a minimum level, and they go up through use (dependent on challenge... mashing weak monsters over and over is unproductive for skill improvement). You can advance levels by combat (the most common), exploration, successful commerce, roleplaying, skill improvement, automated or custom-run quests, etc.

All interaction between characters is IC. We have storylines, quests, areas well-suited for "explorer" players, religions, cabals, etc. We've been around for over 10 years, so the storylines often run deep, and our IC libraries have megabytes of stories, historical accounts, etc. All our areas were written for our game, and tie together accordingly. All of these only make sense in a roleplaying environment- why would a hack-n-slash game invest all of those resources?

Now, all the numerical variables aren't IC. If anyone went around saying "I have an 87 in the sword skill", it would be frowned upon, and a staff member would probably talk to them about roleplaying. A character doesn't know they are at 47% movement points... they know they're starting to tire.

All games with automated combat have these kinds of statistics behind them. Good roleplayers know how to interpret these statistics the way you can self-assess your own RL talents. They are a means to an end.

Now, I've seen games that are skill-based and levelless, and the roleplaying was horrible. It was technically enforced, but the game didn't support it well, and the players were boring, slipped OOC when it suited them, and nothing was really going on. Am I supposed to discard those conclusions and say "Oh. But they didn't have levels and called themselves an RPI. The roleplaying must have been good."

We have a strong roleplaying community on our game. The newer players tend to be a little rough while they work their way up to our level of roleplaying, but the veterans range from "good" (stays in character, has a basic role that they stick to, etc. Does enough to stay within our rules at all times, but doesn't go too far out of his or her way beyond that.) to "amazing" (carefully crafted virtual people, with a past, a present, and a future). I've been there a long time, and that's my impression of our playerbase. Am I supposed
to discard those conclusions because underneath the characters, we're tracking statistics in a way you don't like?

Sorry, Dragon Master, but you're taking a very immature stance on all of this. You're trying to boil down an issue with a great deal of nuance ("What is good roleplaying?") and pigeonhole it based on a few arbitrary, reductionist 'laws'. Skills or no skills, levels or no levels, classes or no classes... roleplaying can exist or not exist in any game.

Ok, games can have roleplay with levels. It's just that levels are unrealistic and will only cause probelms with roleplay. Why do some roleplaying games have them? Well, these are my reasons.
1. It is pretty much the standard and the mud doesn't feel like changing them.
2. There is a focus on something other than roleplaying(like pk) where levels would provide an advantage.
3. Levels are much simpler to do and the game is not run on a computer( like D&D)

Now, why do levels detract from RP? They are completely unrealistic. Now, maybe it would be possible to make a level-based mud have a realistic level system but I haven't seen it yet. With any level-based mud I've seen, you get levels to get more powerful, but how do you get levels, you kill monsters, maybe solve quests. I can kill a bunch of uber monsters, gain a few levels and be better at picking pockets. But, wait a second, how did I get better at picking pockets if all I did was kill monsters? How do I misteriously learn the "backstab" skill, or whatnot just because I killed enough monsters or solved enough quests.

Maybe a level system could be designed to be realistic but it would need something like a "killing stuff" level where you kill stuff and gain leves that just make you better at "killing stuff" and nothing else, a "thieving level" where you ONLY gain levels by stealing, not by killing monsters and the higher level you are the better you steal... But I have yet to see something set up like this. And gaining levels for good RP shouldn't be done period in my opinion. A player's RP ability is a skill the player has and is therefore completely OOC, this means it shouldn't affect the character's ability at all. Reward the player for the player's RP (i.e. access to cooler races on his next char, etc.), don't reward the character.

In my opinion, for a mud to truly be RP based, the code should be designed to be based on the world, not the other way around. As in, you design a world, then you adapt it as best as possible to the code. You don't code something and try to make a world out of it. When using levels, usually a game takes something that is allready coded and trys to make excuses to cram it into the world rather than looking at the world and coding something different that would fit it. I mean, if somebody wanted to, they can take a completely hack and slash based mud, enforce RP, and create a world based on the existing code of the mud. Would there be RP there? Yes, if the players try hard enough. Would that mean that this mud used a good set up for an RP mud? No.

Roleplaying can exist on any game but not all games are designed to create the best roleplaying setting.

It's just that levels are unrealistic

You can keep repeating that all you want. I'm still not buying it.

Maybe you should read my explanations then?

That's like me saying "the earth revolves around the sun and here's how I know..." and you saying "ah, you can keep saying that the earth runs around the sun all you want but I'm not buying it". Maybe you should look at some flaw in my explanation (and not some minor flaw that has nothing to do with the result) rather than assuming I am wrong and saying you won't buy it? Or you could just be stubborn and decide that levels are realistic because your mud has them so you want them to be but I think that deciding you won't change your view no matter the evidence seems to me to be more "close-minded" than I am being for stating a point and giving valid reasons for it.

I explained my viewpoint in my first post in this thread, which you chose to ignore. I can't see any point in arguing further given that.

No, actually I didn't ignore it. I then posted my viewpoint which you are obviously opposed to, you said it was wrong and that I was narrow-minded because, basicly, I didn't agree with you, and then you completely ignored all my explanation. I really don't see a point of arguing any further as it is pretty obvious that levels are more designed for hack and slash then RP (and read my reasons in the previous post before you even think about saying anything about that) and the thread is about class-based vs. non-class-based, I used levels as an example for something and apparently it didn't work for the people who stubbornly persist that levels are best for RP. Well, if you're one of those people and haven't been convinced by now, you probly won't ever be so go back to arguing about classes, I'm tired of arguing, especially since my points are being ignored.

Sorry, that's not an explanation.

Yes, that isn't. You only quoted part of it, not the reasons I gave as to why levels are unrealistic.