[MUD-Dev] more classes (Usability and interface and who the hell is suppo)

[Matt Chatterley]

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, [iso-8859-1] Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:

> "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Usually at a gaming convention the GM will have pre-generated=20
> >characters on hand and likely they are designed with the scenario=20
> >to be run in mind.  Muds need to be a bit more flexible in that any=20
> >profession or race available to players has to be playable in the=20
> >game.  I have noticed on certain mud-types when the implementors=20
> >implement a new or unusual race or class within a couple of days=20
> >there will be a huge quantity of such character types.  If the type=20
> >is unbalanced in any way you'll see either many playing the type or=20
> >very few.  Part of the problem is that character customization is=20
> >very minimal on many muds and is limited to class and race.
>=20
> I don't know if this has been used in muds, but how about providing a
> very limited wellknown set of classes (I'd go for just one class) when
> you first log on.  After some time playing you'll probably discover
> that this wasn't the right thing after all, then you get the option of
> rerolling class/skills but keeping the skillpoints/xp (within reason).

This was one of the original notions I had in mind with classes. To have a
basic 'journeyman' type class (the character assigned a background based
on a few factors, and skilled in a profession), letting the player join
another of his choosing as/when he discovered one.

This has now been replaced by the notion that classes are a dynamic, and
changeable thing - you have no 'class', but you do acquire skills from
teachers and so forth (who operate within the bounds of what one may
consider a class to be). Thus you could learn some of the fighting skills
from a Shaolin teacher, and then travel to learn from a great Magician,
making you essentially a Shaolin Mage. While in some ways equivalent to
'multi classing', this, without the actual physical barriers of classes
(anyone who meets the given requirements, as expansive as they may be, can
be taught), allows far more extensible and interesting characters to
develop over time. It also does away with some of the problems with other
mechanical constructs (eg: xp, level), which appear to become superflous
thereafter.

This is in no way an anti-class, anti-level, anti-xp binge, merely what
happend to me. I started out in favour of these concepts.
=20
> In my opinion, if everybody starts with weak characters (as seems to
> be the common case in muds), then everybody should start out alike, no
> differences whatsoever (except for looks), and your actions would be
> your destiny. If you do what vampires do, you'll eventually become a
> vampire, and gradually start looking like one as well. (your teeth
> grow etc)

This is a good way to go about things where possible!

[Snip]

Regards,
=09-Matt Chatterley
=09http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics." -?