The MMO is a Skill Based Game that encourages RP

[Leanthar]

In the MMO you will be able to create any character that you can think of and this means that you are no longer limited by a class with arbitrary skills and/or attributes/stats that you must adhere to via coded systems. For instance if you wanted to create a red haired Dwarven Berserker then you would create your character and through the course of the characters life equip him or her with the items that are associated to the skill(s) you wish to improve upon (more about this coming in future posts) and have fun. Almost any combination is possible, which gives you (the player) a great deal of freedom in creating a very personalized character.

See the image below for one possible dwarf character.

SOME of the possible Main Skills (as equipped):
- Defense
- Offense
- Dodge
- Light Blunt
- Axes
- Light Armor
- Spellpraying


SOME of the possible Refined Skills (as equipped)
- Battle Focus
- Cunning
- Disarm
- Execution
- Fracture
- Frontline Fury
- Hamstring
- Improvisation
- Leg Sweep
- Misdirection
- Mutilate
- Off-Hand Attack
- Parry
- Quick Strike
- Ravage
- Sunder
- Surprise Attack
- Weaken Armor
- Weapon Master

Possible General Skills
- Any

[ycleption]

First, I am very glad the team has gone in this direction rather than a class-based system (I'm not going to launch into my class-based systems rant here), however, I have a few concerns. First, some classes in the current system not only are a set of abilities and training and such, but also represents a certain role within the world; paladin and cleric are the ones that spring most obviously to mind. Will the MMO have some way of representing this kind of role at character creation, or have certain skills that are exclusive to those fulfilling certain roles? I would hate to see the prestige of having a touch of divine favor go away to accommodate a more open character system. Many of the established organizations (monastic orders, paladin orders, etc) are only open to certain classes currently; will the MMO have some way of limiting membership of these organizations, or will the lore that is based around them change?
What I really would be sad to see happen is the flexibility of the system you seem to be describing abused to make super characters without regard to RP decisions. It's a little harder to do that in nwn, because of multiclass restrictions, the character submission process, etc.Will there be equivalent limitations to prevent rp-ignoring godly cookie cutter builds from springing up?
Thanks.

[vgn]

Seeing as how the goal of the game is to promote RP, I doubt we'll see Roles like Priest and Paladin going away. I can't speak for the team and this is by no means any official answer, but I would venture the following guesses:

Roles/Titles/Group-Membership will likely be defined by certain rule sets.
For example, a priest of Katia:
1. Has a neutral-ish alignment.
2. Has skills focused on divine nature magic (plants, animals, earth, etc)
3. Might have developed skills to speak with animals.
4. Has skills in using leather or cloth armors.
5. Has skills in using a staff as a weapon.
Anyone declaring devotion to Katia and having some (or all) of the above could be a "priest" and through RP and development of those skills to higher levels different titles could be granted, etc....

Second example, a paladin of Toran:
1. Is Lawful and Good.
2. Has focused in fighting skills like heavy armor and long sword.
3. Has focused on horse riding skills.
4. Has focused on protection and possibly healing (laying hands?) divine spells.
Anyone declaring devotion to Toran and having some (or all) of the above skills could be at least a holy warrior of Toran. I'm not sure if a title such as "paladin" will continue through but if so, I would imagine titles like Paladin, Champion, etc, would be earned through RP and development of skills.

If it's not like that....well then I'm sure there is some way to have those roles, but that is how I imagine it would work well with the system Leanthar hinted at.

[zenvidar]

So, it has certain similarities to World of Warcraft and Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Then I could easily create a character similar to a monk, or some sort of broader stealthy character.

[lonnarin]

Originally Posted by vgn

Seeing as how the goal of the game is to promote RP, I doubt we'll see Roles like Priest and Paladin going away. I can't speak for the team and this is by no means any official answer, but I would venture the following guesses:

Roles/Titles/Group-Membership will likely be defined by certain rule sets.
For example, a priest of Katia:
1. Has a neutral-ish alignment.
2. Has skills focused on divine nature magic (plants, animals, earth, etc)
3. Might have developed skills to speak with animals.
4. Has skills in using leather or cloth armors.
5. Has skills in using a staff as a weapon.
Anyone declaring devotion to Katia and having some (or all) of the above could be a "priest" and through RP and development of those skills to higher levels different titles could be granted, etc....

Second example, a paladin of Toran:
1. Is Lawful and Good.
2. Has focused in fighting skills like heavy armor and long sword.
3. Has focused on horse riding skills.
4. Has focused on protection and possibly healing (laying hands?) divine spells.
Anyone declaring devotion to Toran and having some (or all) of the above skills could be at least a holy warrior of Toran. I'm not sure if a title such as "paladin" will continue through but if so, I would imagine titles like Paladin, Champion, etc, would be earned through RP and development of skills.

If it's not like that....well then I'm sure there is some way to have those roles, but that is how I imagine it would work well with the system Leanthar hinted at.

Indeed, what I like most in a skill-based system is that it doesn't make you nerf your character advancement and power just to conform to the religions. Clerics in Layonara's NWN version need to often take extra feats just to use one specific weapon, or deal with horribly offset stats skewed so that a cleric in robes or light armor just isn't feasable. With light armor, unarmored and heavy variants all being skills you can work on in your own leisure, you can have a whole lot more flexibility in matching the archetypes of a religious order without sacrificing much needed eschew feats or spell power feats just to be accepted as one of the order. Now we can actually have those ilsarian clerics who excell at archery on par with a ranged specialist, or a high attack-rolled and beefy Voraxian warpriest who isn't limited by low HP or a limp wristed attack roll. And if we get unarmed and unarmored skills in the mix, Aeridenites can finally fulfill their vows not to bear weapons and LIVE to brag about it!

[Dorganath]

There will be some skills/items/etc. that have explicit deity restrictions. Most are without such restrictions, however. Also, there are unarmed skills, and other skills that require that one is unarmed to use them and are more effective for someone with a high unarmed skill.

[freemen2]

Ok now I'm drooling LoL

[Link092]

It may be weird, but I'm giving the team an imaginary hug.

[Gulnyr]

Will the skills be set on skill trees, where one skill may require another skill as a prerequisite, or is each skill meant to stand alone? Some of one and some of the other?

Will skills have skill levels, with more focus in a skill granting a greater benefit, or will skills be more or less like D&D and NWN feats, either on or off, you have it or you don't? Or, again, some of one and some of the other?

These questions came to mind while I was considering specialization, and how the cost for specialization should be a penalty in broader areas (unlike the simple method of D&D where a Fighter automatically knows how to use pretty much every weapon, melee or ranged, with a high degree of competence). Using D&D and NWN terms, I was thinking of how focused Weapon Masters are on one, single weapon, how they mentally become one with their weapon of choice. They are truly specialized, so much so that while such a combatant would surely be dangerous at any time, a Weapon Master using a different weapon that his weapon of choice should be kind of awkward. In mechanical terms, he should have traded or eschewed skill with many weapons in order to become the most skilled warrior possible with his chosen weapon, leaving little or no skill with short swords, longswords, maces, axes, lances, spears, halberds, bows, or anything other than his chosen great sword, for example.

And that got me thinking about whether skills would be on trees, requiring some skills to learn others (which is sometimes good, depending on the skill), and whether skills had levels or were more like D&D feats ("I can" or "I can't"), since both of those help determine just how specialized a character can be, whether with weapons or spells or smithing or cooking.

[Leanthar]

".....Will the skills be set on skill trees, where one skill may require another skill as a prerequisite, or is each skill meant to stand alone? Some of one and some of the other?....."

As it stands now every skill stands on its own. There are no skill trees. With that said, every skill gets better as you use it. There may be sub-skills that are opened under that given skill that can be further improved upon. So for instance there are refined combat skills (as it stands now) that fall under specific weapon skills, but it is not really a skill tree as they are thought of most of the time; it is just access to another skill for that given weapon. And that new skill can be improved upon with use, just like all other skills (as it stands now).

"....Will skills have skill levels, with more focus in a skill granting a greater benefit, or will skills be more or less like D&D and NWN feats, either on or off, you have it or you don't? Or, again, some of one and some of the other?...."

All skills can be improved upon and improving that skills means you will be better at it. They are not just "on" or "off". As you use a skill it improves. If you don't use a skill it does not improve. To add to this, your attributes modify all skills so it will be important to improve the proper attributes when "leveling up" in order to fit a "class" that one is trying to become better at over time.

".....These questions came to mind while I was considering specialization, and how the cost for specialization should be a penalty in broader areas (unlike the simple method of D&D where a Fighter automatically knows how to use pretty much every weapon, melee or ranged, with a high degree of competence). Using D&D and NWN terms, I was thinking of how focused Weapon Masters are on one, single weapon, how they mentally become one with their weapon of choice. They are truly specialized, so much so that while such a combatant would surely be dangerous at any time, a Weapon Master using a different weapon that his weapon of choice should be kind of awkward. In mechanical terms, he should have traded or eschewed skill with many weapons in order to become the most skilled warrior possible with his chosen weapon, leaving little or no skill with short swords, longswords, maces, axes, lances, spears, halberds, bows, or anything other than his chosen great sword, for example..."

We are on the same page. Every weapon requires a skill to use it and improving that skill will give you more refined combat skills to use with that weapon, but it is not really a skill tree as most think of it. It is more or less just opening another skill for use with that weapon that can be improved upon by using that new skill. To use a skill the proper object must be equipped (specific weapons or specific armor for instance).

One of the really cool things about a skill system, and something I am seeing more clearly as we get further along is just how cool it can become. You are no longer limited by a "class" and what that class should be "good at". Any character can use any skill at any time, but they need to use it a lot in order to become good at it. What is neat about the system is that it fits a world quite well because as new game systems are brought in you don't have to force the system in to a class (and balance all of those classes), you just create skills around that system that supports it (and balance the skill line and new system). Then players that want their characters to be involved in that system use those skills, those that don't want to be involved with that system don't use those skills at all (crafting for instance). But you could take it even further to other systems, vehicles, sieges, scholary, rulership etc. (and I am not saying we have those systems--they are examples only). Some players will want to be involved in some (or all) of those systems and some willl not, but because the systems would have skills to support them it is the players choice at what to do. This makes for a wide open game world and allows the players play as they desire, which increases the immersiveness and the feeling of it being a world, and the replayability (amoungst other things).

The added bonus is that it makes the job for a developer a little easier in that we can roll out systems over time and not force them in to something (a class for instance) and destroy the class balance, we create the skills for that system as it is being developed (keeping all other systems and skills in mind of course). Which in my opinion is also much better for the player base.

/* I just want to point out that things can change during development and testing, just understand that please.

[Hellblazer]

Originally Posted by Leanthar

As it stands now every skill stands on its own. There are no skill trees. With that said, every skill gets better as you use it. There may be sub-skills that are opened under that given skill that can be further improved upon. So for instance there are refined combat skills (as it stands now) that fall under specific weapon skills, but it is not really a skill tree as they are thought of most of the time; it is just access to another skill for that given weapon. And that new skill can be improved upon with use, just like all other skills (as it stands now).

All I can say is thank you. This is one thing I liked from games in the likes of some other games *wont name which ones here *, where the more you train or used a skill, the better you became at it. It makes total sense, and is something I know I will love.

[Gulnyr]

From the answers above, it's clear that to be better with a sword a character needs to practice with the sword, or to be better with the violin he needs to practice playing the violin. What about skills that aren't so obviously practiced, like listening or knowledge skills?

Listening is partly a natural ability that can't be learned, but also partly a skill that can be learned, which is why D&D Rangers get a bonus to Listen checks against their favored enemies; they've learned what to listen for through training and practice. How does a player have their character practice listening, though? If it's as simple as "listening happens," how is every character not going to be a great listener? The same could be said for running skills - how many adventuring characters aren't going to be amazing runners if the running skills only require use to develop?

The Lore skill in NWN is a shortcut of the P&P Knowledge skills all mashed into one. In P&P, the Knowledge skills represent what the character would (or might) know about a subject that the player wouldn't simply from not actually leading that character's life and living in his world. In Layonara, the Lore skill is used on quests sometimes as the same thing. It's a representation of what the character knows that we players have no way of knowing. Training in it is basically just points spent on the skill, with the occasional RP'd comment about studying or whatever. That won't work in the MMO, so how would knowledge skills be trained? Would characters need to spend time in a library reading? Do other skills have knowledge skills attached, or do they themselves act as the knowledge skills? For example, if a character practices alchemy, does she increase both her alchemy skill and her alchemy knowledge skill? Or does the alchemy skill count as the alchemy knowledge skill? How would knowledge of law or religion work? Or is knowledge simply left as a meta-skill, with the character knowing whatever the player knows?

[Gulnyr]

And another skill question! Is there any differentiation between skills based on their possible innate ease or difficulty of learning that would affect how long it would take a character to gain experience with those skills and become competent or become an expert? Or, more simply, will skills have difficulty ratings?

I ask because I was considering the historical difference between bows and crossbows. Bows take a lot of practice to become competent and likely years to become an expert. Meanwhile, just about anyone could be handed a crossbow and be competent within a pretty short time - less than a day, even - while real expertise may take quite a while (learning all the right angles for distance and judging the wind and whatnot would be a lot like becoming an expert with a bow). So, for this example, the Bow skill(s) might have a difficulty of "hard/hard," meaning it's hard to learn and hard to become an expert (measured in slow experience gain overall, maybe), and the Crossbow skill(s) would have a difficulty of "easy/hard," meaning it's quick to learn but takes a long time to become really good (with quick experience gain to a point followed by slow gain thereafter).

I think it would be nice to see that sort of detail in the skills, with various other benefits and penalties to help with balance. Sure, you can learn how to use that crossbow pretty fast - a lot faster than you could learn to use a bow - and make the fast-firing bow-using archers look silly with your superior accuracy for a while, but eventually the bow guys are not only going to have a faster fire rate but will also be hitting their targets, and then who's going to look silly cranking his string back? Even then, of course, your bolts probably have more penetrating power, so maybe it's no one's place to laugh, eh?

[Dorganath]

Each skill will have a parameter that does precisely this...to affect the rate at which a character can gain skill points in that particular skill.

There's also a sort of "curve" to the progression of all skills that takes current skill points and character levels into account, and various other factors to balance things a bit.

In your example, bows and crossbows use different skills. At this time, however, I cannot comment on the relative speed of progression, as that is a matter of extensive play-testing, balancing and such, and subject to change at a moment's notice.

EDIT: Oh, and to answer the post above that, yes, there are skills that are not combat-related nor directly related to crafting, but which might be better described as "knowledge" or "talents" and even being more skilled at gathering or mining.

[Gulnyr]

Are there any limits on what kind of skills or how many skills can be learned? Or maybe the question is, "How are things balanced?"

Consider the D&D/NWN setup with different skills and abilities for each class. It's clearly not a good system in the case of several sorts of Layonara priests. For example, a single-classed Folian Cleric is heavily lacking in all the rangery skills Folian's closest followers should know, a single-classed Lucindite Cleric doesn't know much about arcane magic despite being extremely devoted to the Lady of Spells, the roguery skills of a single-classed Branderbackian Cleric are pitifully sad, and even multiclassing with an appropriate class (Ranger, Wizard, or Rogue in these cases) still leaves these weaker in their deities' specialties than a pure-classed character of those classes, which seems wrong.

At the same time, there needs to be balance between characters. Even though the D&D classes aren't perfectly balanced, the concept of getting certain skills and abilities by taking Class X at the expense of the skills and abilities possible from Class Y is sound. And so, in the D&D/NWN system, some characters can't (or, at least, usually don't) learn certain things simply because of their class. As nonsensical as that can be, it helps maintain a kind of balance between characters.

In the new MMO system, characters can learn any skills they want, and there have yet to be any limits described. Maybe there are no limits. This makes me wonder what is to prevent every character from becoming a priest, for example. If a Dwarf worships Vorax and fights in His name alongside another Dwarf who also worships Vorax and fights with equal ability (since everyone can learn any skill and get better through training it) and also calls on the blessings of Vorax to aid in battle, what has the "single-classed" warrior gained by not branching out into other skill sets? Is there any sort of limiting factor anywhere? Maximum number of skills a character can know and learn? Mundane duties that priests must perform to maintain their abilities? Where is the balance?

"Roleplaying purposes" is a fine answer. I strongly considered having Jennara switch to Cleric starting at level 21, which would have been in character, but decided, for RP reasons, to have her stay Monk all the way, despite Monk being a rather boring class in the epic levels with no new goodies to enjoy. So, that's an answer I understand. I think it's a little naive to believe "roleplaying reasons" is a sufficient answer even among the current players, though. Wanting power and new abilities and such is part of the fun, and even the most dedicated roleplayer can be tempted to take a road she didn't intend that doesn't make a lot of IC sense when building up and playing her character. As unpleasant as they can be at times, mechanical limitations are sometimes important.

[Dorganath]

Without going into too much detail...

Since there's no classes, there are of course no class skills. As far as the "basics" go, there's little to no restrictions on what skills any given character can learn. Weapon skills, crafting skills, armor skills, survival skills...these are basically open to all. So yes, you can mix and match with a wide degree of freedom.

That's not to say there aren't some restrictions. For example, as we get up into the more advanced combat-oriented skills (think special moves or techniques), there are things that would not be allowed to an Aeridinte to learn, as it would be in full opposition to dogma. The Spellpraying skill (which would be used by a priest or cleric type of character) requires that a character be devout and follow a deity. More advanced skills and spells have level and skill point requirements before they become available to a character, which simulates growth and learning.

So what's to stop everyone from becoming a priest? Nothing really, but it comes at a cost as well. For the primary sets of skills, there's a limit to how many points a character can gain. Spending too many points in Spellpraying will take points away from the more warrior-oriented skills that might also be important. So sure, a Voraxian warrior priest is surely possible, but by getting good enough at Spellpraying to be a decent combat healer, that same character may find himself unable to learn the "Super Enemy Defeating Strike Skill" (no, not really a skill) because he would be unable to earn enough base skill points in the prerequisite for that skill, especially since

I guess the key limiter is that there aren't an infinite amount of skill points available. Characters can learn whatever skills they want for the most part, but they won't be able to max out all skills.

I'm not sure if that addresses your question or not, so let me know if I need to clarify.

[Gulnyr]

It does, even though one of your paragraphs stopped abruptly, heh. The message is still clear. Thanks.

There was never before a mention of any limit on skill points. The first time they were mentioned at all was a few posts up, which I read as "numeric rating of how experienced a character is at some skill based on previous use" rather than the D&D style "pips available for arbitrary assignment" because of a statement by Leanthar earlier:

Originally Posted by Leanthar

As you use a skill it improves. If you don't use a skill it does not improve.

Skill point allocation sounds automatic the way I read it, though I can see how it could be something more like points made available that can only be assigned to those skills that have been used recently by the character, which might help prevent complaints about skill points going to skills the player didn't intend and therefore being "wasted." That's just my brain trying to fill in the blanks and I'm typing aloud for some reason. Carry on.

[Dorganath]

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

It does, even though one of your paragraphs stopped abruptly, heh. The message is still clear. Thanks.

*blush* Remove the last two words and change the comma to a period. Was kinda sleepy when I wrote that.

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

Skill point allocation sounds automatic the way I read it, though I can see how it could be something more like points made available that can only be assigned to those skills that have been used recently by the character, which might help prevent complaints about skill points going to skills the player didn't intend and therefore being "wasted." That's just my brain trying to fill in the blanks and I'm typing aloud for some reason. Carry on.

The current plan is to give (if the player should desire it) the player control over how many points can go into a given skill as a maximum. So for example, if your character wanted to pick up some skill with Spellweaving, but didn't want to progress too far, you might set a limit in Spellweaving so that once you reach a certain degree of skill, you won't gain any more points in Spellweaving no matter how much you use that skill.

There's other more mechanical limits, such as a maximum number of points in any one skill, a maximum number of points that one can have in any one skill at a given character level, etc. The details of these will of course be subject to playtesting and balancing and all.

[Gulnyr]

Another one! Are there any skills that are only useful in a group?

Consider the current NWN skills and spells and such, or the list of skills in the very first post of this thread. There aren't any abilities that can't be used alone. If you're running around alone and want to go faster, you can cast Mass Haste even without others around and it works just fine. If you're alone in a dungeon and want to Lightning Bolt someone, you can do it despite not having a dozen others around scuffing their feet on the carpet and rubbing furs on balloons. If you want to Taunt a monster, you don't need anyone there to laugh about it to make the monster feel bad enough. If you want to Parry... Yeah.

So, are there any skills that require a partner to use? Shield Other? Pick and Roll? Toss Halfling (aka 'Here Comes Flying Death!' or 'I Wore Spiky Boots Today')?

[Dorganath]

Perhaps the proper way to answer this is to say that there are skills which are less useful when not used in a group, though they don't explicitly require the participation or presence of another character.

[Gulnyr]

Rejoice! I've got another one! Well, it's not really a question, just a comment. Or suggestion. Comgestion.

I was thinking about the way crafting skills are linked to two attributes, like Cooking linked to Wisdom and Constitution. I like that. Some how, it made me think of Tumble, which made me think of gymnasts. Gymnasts are strong. Have you seen their legs? There are fifteen year old girls in the Olympics who could probably kick my head off with one shot. They need to be strong to flip like they do, y'know? So Tumble (or Acrobatics or whatever) should be linked to Dexterity and Strength. Can a wimp Tumble? Absolutely, but a buff guy can put more into it.

And then that made me think of other skills. Persuade (or Negotiate or whatever) would be linked to Charisma and Intelligence (using D&D attribute names); it's good to be likable, but having the smarts to know what to say helps a lot, too. Swimming would be linked to Strength and Constitution; you need the stamina to stay afloat and the strength to fight currents (I'm assuming you only need to make a check when there's a 'situation,' heh). Survival would be linked to Intelligence and Wisdom; it's a little know-how and a little gut-feeling that helps you recognize resources and make good decisions.

It doesn't have to be even distribution for every skill. I think Stength and Constitution are equally important for Swimming, but I can see how Dexterity could be more important than Strength for Tumble. In that case, again using D&D terms, the maximum Strength modifier applied would be limited to the character's Dexterity modifier. So, a Fighter with a 20 Strength (+5 modifier) and a 13 Dexterity (+1 modifier) would get the +1 Dexterity modifier to his Tumble check, and then +1 from his Strength modifier to match his Dexterity modifier.

EDIT: I could also see how there could be a 'minimum requirement' of sorts, such that only so much Dexterity would matter for a given amount of Strength. So, say, Dexterity only counts three to one. On a Tumble check, a Rogue with a 20 Dexterity and a 13 Strength would get the +1 from his Strength modifier, but only +3 from his Dexterity rather than +5 because he doesn't have the strength to make the most of his agility.

[Dorganath]

Every skill (possibly with a few exceptions, but I don't think so) gets a bonus from two physical attributes, which in the D&D vernacular are things like STR, DEX, etc.

So yes, there is that linkage between skills and one's physiological qualities.

[Pseudonym]

Gulnyr has had lots of good suggments. Keep 'em coming!

[Dorganath]

Either that or he's taking a peek at our design docs...

[Gulnyr]

Will attributes matter?

In d20 rules, they don't matter, really. A character can have pretty much any low attribute score and dump skill points and +skill gear to overcome the penalty, even becoming renown for that skill. (It's also possible (and silly) to have no skill at all and pile on gear that complements an attribute so as to outperform people who are actually skilled, but that's another topic). Consider Acacea's comment from here:

Originally Posted by Acacea

As far as the relationship between ability-based skills and an ability score's effect on them...I hate how it works. It really bugs me that a character with 4 dex will end up with a whole -3 to a maxed tumble. Sorry, you can barely walk without hitting yourself in the head with your foot, but you can bend and tumble and whirl away from any blow that strikes you? Come on...just put some points in dex.

The skill completely overrides the attribute, which is nuts.

I know Leanthar said this above...

To add to this, your attributes modify all skills so it will be important to improve the proper attributes when "leveling up" in order to fit a "class" that one is trying to become better at over time.

...but it's not clear from that statement the degree of value for having a high stat rather than a low one; how modified is modified? If Ursula Uncoordinated trains hard enough at acrobatics, will her skill overcome her complete lack of grace (crazy) or will there instead be some upper limit to her skill because of her lack of grace (reasonable)?

[Pankoki]

Attributes are indeed fairly important to your character. Not only do they provide bonuses to skills (significant ones at that) but skills will have certain points where you will not be able to continue progressing in them if your attributes do not support such a skill. So yes, they are very important and touch on multiple aspects of a character progression and survivability.

[HooD!uM]

i would like to know, how will you be encouraging people to RP on the MMO.

[Leanthar]

It's not so much "direct" encouragement but more along the lines of we don't force you in to a class where you must do combat in order to progress your character...even though you don't want to be combat oriented. Instead we give you the player the ability to control how to play and level your character (combat or no combat for instance). That gives you control over how you desire to RP your character. We do have other ideas/skills that will encourage or help to encourage RP but the bottom line is that RP is defined by each individual player and is different for everyone....so we say 'encourage' RP as in we give you the ability to RP your character as you desire...not just hack and slash etc.

[Shiokara]

Originally Posted by Leanthar

".....Will the skills be set on skill trees, where one skill may require another skill as a prerequisite, or is each skill meant to stand alone? Some of one and some of the other?....."

As it stands now every skill stands on its own. There are no skill trees. With that said, every skill gets better as you use it. There may be sub-skills that are opened under that given skill that can be further improved upon. So for instance there are refined combat skills (as it stands now) that fall under specific weapon skills, but it is not really a skill tree as they are thought of most of the time; it is just access to another skill for that given weapon. And that new skill can be improved upon with use, just like all other skills (as it stands now)...

/* I just want to point out that things can change during development and testing, just understand that please.

I have been thinking about this for a while now, but I'm just now getting to asking these questions regarding the MMO's skill system. I've noticed that a lot of the questions for the MMO have been in relation to a D&D system, but the team's focus on individual skills and no set classes reminds me of a different skill progression system--Ultima Online's.

Some of you are probably familiar with the game. It featured a series of individual skills which could be mastered at anywhere from 0-100%. There was a system in place that capped those skills to keep players from mastering all of them. It was designed so that a player could have 700% max skill in any combination of the skills in-game. Skills improved by working them. Shield use, for example, was improved by equipping a buckler and having a couple people stab at you with daggers. Players could control which skills they wanted to go down, up, and lock, which allowed them to constantly shift into changing roles. Despite the ability to powergame it, it was a solid system.

If it happens that you are unfamiliar with it, I would suggest researching it a bit. If you do research it, try to get as close as you can to researching the original client up to T2A. The game kind of took a turn for the worst after that.

What I would like to know is how similar your system is to this? Is there a skill cap to encourage player individuality while also not limiting them to defined classes? If not, how will you account for this? The attraction (and drawback) of classes is that they force players to work together by limiting their individual capability in a static form.

As for the secondary skills, this may have already been asked, but is their advancement correlated to the advancement of your general skill, or do they raise individually with use? In the context of the Dwarven Barbarian down there I will pick the "Axes" skill and the "Sunder" secondary skill. Does the effectiveness with Sunder increase as my skill with axes increases? Or do I unlock Sunder as I gain skill in Axes, and then its effectiveness increases as I use that particular skill?

I have more questions regarding balance, and how you intend to discourage players from building and sticking to templates, but it's probably too early for these and likely the answers will involve requiring a certain amount of player trust.

[Dorganath]

There are definitely some similarities between our system and Ultima's. For instance, there is a skill cap (represented in a total number of points rather than % mastery) as well as an overall total number of points one can gain, though I say the second with a few qualifiers.

Characters level by gaining some number of skill points, but not all skills contribute to leveling. We'll call these the "main" skills, and to some degree, which skills are flagged as "main" will be under the control of the character, as will the cap of skill points one can earn in a given skill. So for example, if you wanted to level up with only minor skills in weapons and armor, saving the rest for crafting, you can!

So, while we do not enforce something like "classes" and, if desired, a player can micromanage his/her skills down to the point, that is not necessarily a requirement. We will have "packages" that will pre-set all these limits and set up a profile of physical attributes (think STR, DEX and so forth in D&D) so that the player does not need to make such choices. For example, if you wanted to play a "warrior" type but had no real idea how to set up your skills for that, selecting a "warrior" package would do that for you. Even so, you could change the profile at any time.

Overall, the system is designed to give a high degree of flexibility and control (if desired) to the player in how each character develops and levels, though of course it has stops and checks in place to keep someone from being a master (i.e. maximum number of points) in every skill.

On "secondary" classes, it's a little of both. To use your example, Skill in "Axes" would be a requirement of "Sunder", meaning one would need to have a minimum number of points in "Axes" before one could even begin to train in "Sunder" and utilize that secondary skill. As this character gets better at "Axes", the effectiveness of "Sunder" will generally improve as well, but also, the character will gain skill points in "Sunder" the more that skill is used. Being a "secondary" skill, "Sunder" does not and will not contribute to leveling, but neither is it subject to the overall total skill point cap.

As for your last question, can you explain a little more what you mean about "discourage players from building and sticking to templates", as I have mentioned the availability of "packages" as a sort of crutch or template for the player to use if they wish a particular type of character? While I have greatly simplified it, the system is built with great freedom but also realistic limits to prevent the "master of everything" sort of build that can arise in some skill-based systems.

[Shiokara]

I have to base my knowledge of templates in Ultima's system, just because I know it better. I hope that is alright. The template is pretty much a player-designed form or set of skills that make one the best. For this example we'll take UO's tank-mage/PK build.

Magery - 100%
Evaluating Intelligence - 100%
Magic Resistance - 100%
Fencing - 100%
Anatomy - 100%
Healing - 100%
Tactics - 100%

These seven skills make one the best. They can sling spells with the least chance of failure, and have a 10% damage bonus added with EI. They can use a poisoned Kryss with damage/to hit bonuses from Anat and Tactics, and they can heal with bandages. The problem with the system was that everyone pretty much rolled with this build, or a build very similar to it. There weren't many differences between players because this was the best. What I'm curious about will be what will you do to discourage players from doing this, and to encourage them to actually play individual characters.

[Dorganath]

OK, well for one, our skills don't line up along the same lines as those in Ultima. For example, "Magery" is not one single skill in the MMO. There's three skills (Darkweaving, Spellweaving and Spellcalling) that would encompass the "arcane" arts, plus additional casting skills for bardic characters, divine characters and nature-oriented characters. While I won't discuss specifics, spell casting in armor is going to see a fairly strong chance of failure regardless of skill level (subject to change, of course). Wearing armor is also a skill, with the effectiveness of that armor being dependent on how experienced the character is in wearing a certain type of armor (light, medium or heavy). There's nothing like "Fencing" but rather individual types of weapons (things like short blades, long blades, two-handed blades, hand axes, staves, etc.). Most "secondary" skills require specific weapon skills.

As for limiting, it's not going to be possible to max out is as many skills as in Ultima, and while I can't really get into specifics, there will be choices and drawbacks to everything. So while it's possible, even likely, that players will figure out an "optimal" build, there won't be any specific checks or discouragements for specific templates as you suggest. The whole system is designed around flexibility and possibilities.