Re: Critique of Summarized plans

[Brian Thomas <thomas@chaupher.gsfc.nasa.gov>]

> >	   in a new experience system. What about skills 
> >	   which don't seem to be associatable with any of the 
> >	   4 kinds of exp like "smithing" or "bargaining"? 
> 
>   I remark that if you create a 
> sage/tourist/mechanic, you also have
> to create something for each of these 
> to do.  Right now, there aren't
> any internal combustion engines.  It 
	
	Hmm. The 'mechanic' I had in mind was someone handy with 
	medieval technology--skills for that character include
	"smithing","find traps","set traps",etc. I would also 
	hope to see such a character actually be able to *make*
	objects too from raw materials found/purchased in the game.

> doesn't therefor make sense to
> have a mechanic.  Similarly, I don't 
> see places in the game for merchants,
> sages, or tourists, unless you mean 
> some blend of cleric/magic/fighter/thief.
> 
	In the case of merchants I would like to see a "fighter"
	who may bargain, trade and sell well, in the case of a "tourist" someone
	("fighter"?) who travels well (not really serious about this
	class BTW), and by a sage someone who "studies" well
	(learns spells, deciphers runes, can write scrolls of magic
	spells). 

	I guess at the base of my unease about a "4-experience" 
	system is :
	  1) Very D&D like. 
	  2) I want to do more than bash monsters all the time. Lets
	   have flexibilty--allow characters to steal things, sneak
	   in/out with monsters treasure, lead followers, etc. Right
	   now exp is *only* awarded for killing monsters and removing
	   traps. I wish CF had a "wider" scope.

	If you tie skills to certain experience catagories, then the 
	future creation of skills become fixed to fitting with in 
	those catagories. Also, I would hate to see every "fighter"
	(for example) have the exact same skills, to my mind this 
	is like having every wizard have the exact same spells. Silly.

	I think this brings up one last point too. I see skills as
	being *just like spells*. By this I mean:

	  1) There cannot be too many of them 
	  2) profieceny is linked to character level
	  3) effect is particular and unique.
	

> 
> Not really.  The 4-skills one is 
> pretty simple.  I've assessed the coding
> involved, and while not nothing, I know 
> what to do and know I can do it.
> The playing complexity is manageable in
> my opinion, players only have to adventure
> to gain levels, and generating a character
> will be exactly as it is now:  he'll choose
> a race, roll a char, and start with zero
> exp in all categories.
> 

	I am still willing to help particpate in this effort. But 
	I would like to see a better proposition as to how the
	skills (and spells) should be related to character class.

	For example, why cant we have "fire wizards". This would
	be a player with the "wizard" profession who has 
	path_attuned "fire" and path_denied "frost". This character
	would start with a few fire spell books. Similarly, "fighter"
	characters could be diverse, like "smith" and "archer"
	and "barbarian". Each type of fighter would start with 
	a different blend of skills and possessions. 


					b.t.

> Well, you also get 4 degrees of freedom.  Right now, mages
> advance really, really easily once they get fireball, compared
> to fighters.  You can tune the experience required for levels
> for each category appropriately, providing an easy mechanism
> for play balancing.
> 
> 
> PeterM
>