Re: Roleplaying vs. H&S (was Consider)

From: Tony Maro (tmaro@TACSYS.COM)
Date: 04/10/98

Well done!  What additional skills did you incorporate?  I assume that
there are many more than the stock options?  Did you add things like
"long-sword" or "swordfighting" in general?  What are the average numbers of
skills that a given player may have some sort of proficiency in?

Please don't list them all - I'm just looking for a gut feeling of how far you took
this.  Do your skills degrade if not used?

This also opens up possibilities that certain skills can only be taught by
certain guild masters, like if you want to be FULLY proficient in longbow, you
have to study from the elven master who wanders in the wild forest...
However perhaps your normal guild could raise you to 80% proficiency.


-----Original Message-----
From:   claywar [SMTP:claywar@RJSONLINE.NET]
Sent:   Friday, April 10, 1998 12:29 PM
Subject:        Re:  Roleplaying vs. H&S (was Consider)


The guild system we use solves most of the problems.  In essence,
experience is the currency for advancement.  In guilds players can choose
to raise their hmv as same as normal skills.  Cost is determined by how
much they currently have/amount given.  We, for the longest time, had a
100 level system, so when the time came to remove levels, 100 levels could
very easily be transferred to 100% of a skill.  Going skills based also
gives mortals more "things" to advance in than just one value.

Technically all mortals are level 1, and above that (to 15) is the staff
levels.  The value was kept to store ToHit information and to keep basic
sanity of the matter =).  As for strength, there are still the basic
stats, but advancing them costs a large amount of experience (which as
well can be done in your local guild).

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST