System of progression that makes sense.

[bilbous]

Personally I have little interest in a character design system that is not completely open. From my experience with various other games, the choices I make from the obscure lists of questions they come up with never get me the kinds of stats I need to play the character I want. The questions themselves are infused with the framers preconceptions which are not always the same as mine. For example, if you use an owl as a symbol of wisdom I am likely to understand that, someone who has never seen or heard about owls probably won't.  Also there will be people who carefully go through the design process time after time changing one thing then another using a process of elimination to find out how to gank the system. Others will look at the code, if available, or reverse engineer the software for the same purposes. What you end up doing is creating an imbalance for no good reason.

[Xordan]

As a first point I just want to note that we need to keep in mind that this is a game, not a real-world simulator. Although this system would work great in a real-world simulator as it is, there are a few things which I don't think fit well in a game. One of the reasons that people like to play RPGs so much is because they're not limited like they are in real life. It's important that we don't lose that reason of enjoyment in PS.

Aptitude:

From my first read and from others reactions too, I thought that aptitude points were randomly assigned to skills I believe that you didn't mean this though right? So players can choose where to put them in character creation? Does this mean that players have to choose for every single skill what their aptitude is? Can you explain a bit better how you envision the assignment of aptitude?

If players really don't have much of a choice then sorry, for a game aptitude is not a good system. It's horrible even Players want to have fun, that is what the game is about.  When realism starts to remove some of the fun for the average player for no reason other than for realisms sake, it's not good to have.

So, assuming that players do have choice I'll continue. I dislike putting limits on players like is done by aptitude. Players should be able to max out everything given an infinite amount of time (which they don't have obviously). I think that aptitude should just determine a base for how much training a player needs for a skill, and how much they can learn by themselves. So a high aptitude would mean lots of self-learning and less need for a trainer, which means less failure and in itself would mean that it's easier to advance. By just making it harder and harder to advance at thing you're not good at, limits aren't needed. Also, it's important that players can alter their aptitude after creation up to some point, just so they can try things out and see what they like doing.

Competence:

I can't think of anything bad about this really. It's nice

As it is, using these two things would be enough (alongside some other less-core ideas I have) to work with for changes. Complexity is something else we need to remember. The more complex a system, the harder it is to code/test/debug. Complexity for complexities sake is bad too However some complexity can be a good thing so I'll continue.

Confidence:

As I mentioned about complexity, I'll just pick out the bits I like from here and put them together in a way that wouldn't be too hard to add.
Firstly, I'll 'throw away' making confidence affect whether or not a trainer will train you. We will have other systems for that (faction reputation) along with our current one. So we're left with it affecting how fast you learn. Getting rid of the 'bleed over' to other skills will also reduce the complexity a bit more. As you said, doing something well, being in a group, etc. would improve confidence. The opposite might degrade it. I think the degrade should be less of an effect than the improvement, or even none at all for some failure. Also, facing a new challenge certainly wouldn't degrade your confidence. I certainly don't lose confidence when attempting something new, or even if I fail at something  sometimes in RL. The degrade should be bigger if you die I agree. You tend to mention the easiest examples here, when fighting. A progression system must go across all skills, from the offensive to the completely passive. Confidence like I quickly described can be done for all skills without too much of a problem, although the improve/degrade will have to be custom set for each skill, or skill type rather.

I've probably missed something out here, so I'll add other comments in later posts, along with response to other people

[Kalika]

This system of progression is based on Aptitude, Competence, and Confidence. Each of these measures has a number or percent attached to it that gauges how fast one may learn in each skill, how much further they have to reach the next level of training, and how high they can train that skill. It is a complex system framework, but very intuitive to play. In the following, I will set out the three measures, and how they affect the others, plus an example of how it would work in practice. As you will see, it is a workable system that would be quite unique in its function.

Aptitude, or ability, sets the base rate that you can learn each skill. This is natural born talent, so would be set at Character Creation. That is what will add a little bit of much needed variety in characters.  A system would have to be set in place to support the selections of these aptitudes or attributes. The ‘scale’ of aptitude would be 1 to 100. Let’s take swordplay for example. 100 would mean a character  was basically born with a sword in his hands, and would progress with god-like speed. 1 would mean the skill is almost impossible to learn, and the character should not be trusted with a butter knife. Aptitude also sets a limit on how high you can train in said skill. A 50 would set the character’s natural talent at average (a pre set number in the game), so the closer to average he becomes, the harder it is to gain competence in the next level of skill.

hypothetically, what if you got a character that turns out because of aptidude to be the villages idiot?

wouldnt that take a little away of personal choice?

sorrys if i missed the whole point *hugs*

[Nikodemus]

I wanted to point out too that fighting isn't the only activity, and so the system should be exactly the same for all skills and fighting should not be an exception. What is also important is you progress equaly fast over time, no matter what profession you have choisen. In borders of one skill, like in fighting, you progress faster when you use fast short swords, rather than extremaly slow claymores. But also how you progress using magic and how fighting.
Funny, i don't mention crafting or mining, but it is rather that i don't know it good enough and the reason of this is, that progressing in these is not currently really attractive, maybe? This is another point, progression for each profession, should be as much as possible equally fun.
It is also very important, that progressing in one skill, we don't progress in unrelated skill, like it is wit PPs currently.
It should be kept in mind, for what we progress, as it is not always that obvious and maybe different activities, make us progress in inequal way?

It should be often that, doing some activity, we progress in few skills. Like while mining, maybe in its future forum, we mine not only train the ability of digging the resource in efficient way, but also accuracy, while hitting the rock in more precise way and probably strenght (about it later). This way, training accuracy in small way while mining, me might fight better, because we used to inflict blows in more precise points. It is complexity, but it serves fun and i was experiencing it in different game.

Stats, like strenght and any other in overal, why is it currently 100% matter of theoretical knowledge? It is rarely the case. It's like you can learn your high IQ, while you can do it a bit, it is matter of you working on yourself, rather than someone else working on you.
I really love not linear functions use in computer games, and i believe progression in these should be the harder, the higher it is, going to some border, but never reaching it, there are some functions of this kind, like tan or ctg.
You obviously can train everything at once, but you will be for sure less successfull in one choisen profession, than someone who spent 80% of time on it and 20% on the rest.
And as said, predefining the direction of progression isn't for comp game. I believe it is only because it isn't as complex as 'real', where to be successfull, you have to take your main profession, as you have no way to survive if you try to be good in history, phisics, chemology, geology, biology, 20 languages and god knows what else. In the game you can only enforce this, what is already unrealistic, as there is no exactly such enforcement in real.
I think in such situations, we choose this option, which satisfies player more.

[Seytra]

Hmm, I've never, as of yet, reached the max char count. Since I did now, I'm going to split the post in two parts.

@ Kalika: aptitude isn't being assigned by the server, but by the player, so you could only turn out village idiot by mistake. Still, the system would lock you in with that, which is a bad thing.

@ Under the moon: I commend you for proposing a system, and thus allowig critique and thus inspiring thought and ideas. However, I don't think your system is the way PS should become.

No one would have low Aptitude in a skill unless they chose to have it low, nor is it randomized. I do not know where you read that in my post. Aptitude is not a all encompassing stat, but set for each individual skill by what type of player you are.

As to the second part of that, the skills you can chose would be linked to those related to it, somewhat like the skill polygons used in other games. Raising one skill will bring those up on both sides of it. This may limit other skills not related… but that is another system for another thread.

No, it's not another system for another thread. I think it belongs here very much, see below.

Your second point I agree with, and there is a great deal of room built into my system for that. You are thinking in simple terms again, and just seeing things how they are now. Any fool who puts all his eggs in one basket in Creation, so to say, deserves what he gets. And in my system, that would not be a good thing, as all stats and skills are linked in a way that supports each other. The system of Confidence allows a character to switch paths and start over. Look at how it works now, and tell me it is better. A player levels up in one skill, gathering money and strength, then suddenly switches to a completely different skill and uses those stats and money to launch themselves into godhood. That right there is a system tailor fit to create power levelers, and does.

Third point. Actually, it does, but again was left out to keep the reading down somewhat. It would be possible for a character to max without ever training, if they wished. But even with your phenom, it would not be as fast as with training, and might be considered a ‘rough’ skill, rather than refined.

Eve online (a commercial MMO"RP"G) has an interesting progression system: it progresses completely automatically. That is, you select which skill to progress, and it will do so, whether you are online or not, whether you use it or not. This way completely eliminates all PL, obviously. It doesn't help the fact that those who came first get a headstart. However, this is mitigated by the fact that the skill system is highly detailed, akin to needing to train a different skill not only for each type of sword, but also for each make. Thus, a seasoned player will have maxed a vast majority of skills, but a new player will also have maxed a set of skills by some months. And since it's the skill for the weapon you are using that counts in combat, the seasoned player will be at the same effective level when going against the newer player. I think that this system is quite nice, and it would free the RPer from ever having to do the slightest bit of levelling. In a way, I think it is superior to PS's system because of that, and better suited to anything MMO. After all, almost noone enjoys levelling. This system frees one from ever having to kill "just 100 more MOBs". It thus reduced the effects of PL to gaining items and money, which isn't all that essential.

Sure, eventually, people will be maxed out. However, that'll happen with every system. Even with your system, people will eventually be maxed out, because by aptitude, they can't advance any further in any skill. Of course, they may still be useless overall, though I don't see many players wishing to play that sort of failed character, be it RP or otherwise.

Sorry to say, but from my talks with Talad, there is going to be somewhat of a system that does not allow you to max out in all skills. That is a class system.

No, it's not. It doesn't have to be, anyway. See below.

In my system, those ‘classes’ are very flexible, and not set. You are thinking of a system that you start out and have to chose to be a fighter, mage, or whatever. That is not the case. The diversity comes from the dynamics of an improved Creation process that I have outlined before, which would allow your characters to have a diverse base of  natural skills, while preventing the good-at-everything characters. The link is here http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=26058.msg291733#msg291733, though I called Aptitude Talent in it, but it is basically the same. *ponders how that post fit in that thread, then shrugs*  And no, I do not except current game mechanics into my RP, as I find them all to be horrid in the extreme.

Well, you sure did in the Janeous RP. Janeous travelling into the DR, even the presence of the Death Guardian, and the fact that bodies go into the DR by way of inhibiting that travel by magical means, destroying one's soul.
Even if it was just for the RP at hand, it was the game mechanics.

Strip away the personalities of the characters in the game, and you will understand what the current system is producing. Look just at the stats and training. I see a game full of either high powered clones, or Roleplayers who do not bother to level at all.

I'm perfectly aware of that. The fact that there are only about 3 different groups of skills that can actually be used, this isn't much of a surprise, though.

If you start out with the ability to be good at everything, well don’t you think that a great many people are going to be good at everything? This is bad. It becomes more about getting the golden apple of the highest level than playing the role of the character you created.

If you aren't allowed to be perfect at everything, then you are going, in almost all cases, to be perfect at as many skills as possible, which all support each other. Whether or not you can max out on all or just a few skills doesn't mean people won't max every single bit they can. It is also in no way going to improve RP. It's going to increase dependency on others, but all the other MMO"RP"Gs show that this is completely decoupled from RP. You'll not get 100% uber mage-fighter-cooks, but you'll get 50% uber mages and 50% uber fighters. This is diversity alright, but not really much of an improvement. Especially if you consider that there will always be a very narrow set of "prestige" skills. And this set won't incorporate cooking.

You seem to be implying things I never said. If someone wants to be a cook, then they can learn to cook. After a time spent cooking, their skill and confidence in that area will go up, and they will learn faster, as at the same time, the skill they stop practicing will lose some confidence, and become harder to learn if started again. Can everyone in the game become the best cook in the world? In a lame world, yes. I do not understand this concept of having to be the best at something, or it is not RP. Roleplaying is fighting to overcome your weaknesses, not being the best at whatever you want to do.

I do not understand your desire to be mediocre. If you want to, noone is stopping you. Not even with the current game mechanics. Not even with freely assignable skills or no defined skills at all.

I also don't see where I am implying things you never said. With your system, someone who set cooking to low aptitude in favor of swords will be unable to become a cook. Period. If 50 is average for a cook, then a max of 20 surely isn't a cook. And this is unrealistic all by itself, as with sufficient effort, even the worst cook can become at least average. Not to mention that these are the things why people play games: so they don't have to put up with god-given limits, as Xordan said.

On training (I will keep this short, though I have a great deal to say on it), yes, there should be -many- ways to learn. From self-taught, to book-learned, to NPC -OR- player trained, to god given ‘stat’ raises through quests. I read this “Every character must be treated exactly equally by the system.” and it makes me cringe. You know what is really missing from this game? Heroes. Those who are greater than others. To hell with balance. It is what is killing RP. This freakish ideal that everyone is the same, and should be able to do the exact same skills, learned at the exact same rate. No one can achieve greatness. There is not a single person to look up to, based on this equality. If everyone can be a hero based on game mechanics, then there are no heroes. You are all just average, without the possibility to stand out. You want a world of clones. That is a horrible vision of a world, and one I want no part in.

This is what makes me cringe. You seem to want to put restrictions on players in what they can develop their chars to become, and thus force them to RP something that they did not choose to RP, or that they find out doesn't work for them or at all. This isn't going to happen, and I doubt you would be willing to RP whatever the server decides to throw at you, or what you may have concocted for yourself because of not knowing what you were doing. Let alone being able to RP it.

Also, the entire idea of heroes is ridiculous, really. Heroes don't exist. What exists, is people who were in the right place at the right time, and did the right thing, nothing else. Average people who either worked really hard or had dumb luck. Now, luck is something that exists through the random factors in just about every action you take ingame. However, unlike IRL, it must not come from the CC, and the chances must be absolutely equal for everyone (that is, given the exact same stats, skills and equipment, each char must have the exact same chance to get the exact same result as any other. This isn't cloning.). I seriously wonder if you are indeed longing for "people to look up to", because I have severe doubts about that. I even more doubt if you would be pleased to know that your char had been capped to never ever be able to excel in anything, while others aren't. There is a world of a difference between choosing to RP this and being forced to do so. And it is why balance is key. Ignoring balance is a grave mistake, and a very stupid one on top of that. Once people find out that balance is skewed, they are going to go for the most favourable part, leaving 90% of the effort spent to develop the other parts unused. Hardly a good thing.

However, I don't even see how your system would prevent the "hero on average" syndrome: you could easily select maximum aptitude in the classical "hero" skills, and go to become a "hero". There is nothing in this system that would somehow remove the ability of players to become heroes, unless you, contrary to what I understood, do propose random factors. And if this is the case, then no, and again, no.
Heroes cannot ever exist in a MMORPG. In a PnP RPG, the entire party are the heroes by default. In fact, the system is designed that way. In an MMORPG, every player is the hearo. Just look at the amazing speed they progress compared to the NPCs, and at the amazing capabilities they start out with, compared to the average NPC. There's just so many heroes that it's half of the population. Heroes therefore cannot exist through excesive skill, they can only exist through outstanding deeds. This is basically an automatism in PnP, and I think it also is where the misconception about "hero" and "skills" arises from: in PnP RPGs, chars become known (=heroes) at about the same pace at which they increase in skill. However, even IRL there certainly are people with great skill who never become known. So skill is not equal to heroism (though it makes it more easy to attain).

I am also not talking about becoming and remaining maxed in each and every skill (although Xordan's view about the infinite amount of time also appeals to me). However, I am talking about not restricting characters from the sart, or anywhere, to a fixed set of skills, which is essentially what you are proposing. A system that doesn't allow you to be maxed at everything doesn't have to be a class system. A class system is static, just like your system, even with your pool of leftover APs. Once they're spent, they're gone, and your char is basically frozen. Once you then maxed everything to the caps set by aptitude, it's done, no change can occur anymore at all.
A dynamical system would be adaptable if the player chooses so. For instance, one could progress normally, and also train some extra skills, or train every skill. Once you reach a certain limit, a relative one, you'll be notified that in increasing your top skills further, you'll sacrifice other skills. You could then decide to not increase, or to go with it. This way, you would not be forced to level, as you would in the "skills require maintenance" systems that have been proposed. It would also not lock you in one profession, even if you selected it yourself. It would encourage you to stick with what you chose, but you could still change your mind at any time later on. This change would be a gradual one, having a set max speed even, and thus be a lot more realistic than your system, and even RPable.
Your system is based on a preselected maximum for each and every skill, called "aptitude". My proposal is based on learning only. In order to train a new skill, you need to sacrifice training your other skills. As this training is, and in fact has to be, implicit in order to free players from levelling just to maintain their skills (otherwise, RP will suffer significantly), this sacrifice needs to be implicit as well.

The maximum for each skill would be relative to your overall skills, and to your peak skills, whatever they may be. That is, if you don't have much of a peak skill (jack of all trades = can do everything, but nothing really well), then you can raise all "secondary" skills to a higher degree than you would if you had a set of pristine skills. If you were then to hone a few skills, you would need to select, at each increase, which secondary skill to "let slip" (=sacrifice a bit).

Yes, this system would, in theory, allow a fighter to go mage, and then to cook and then to miner, and back, which would be unrealistic and bad RP in almost all instances. However, the system would have a tendency to stabilise choices, since reducing skills that have already been trained will obviously be a penality. Therefore, I feel that most people will stick with more or less what they set out to become, while still allowing to experiment and correct even the most grave of mistakes, and to adapt the character if it developed differently than envisioned originally.

This system would be treating everyone perfectly equally, and it could even be a way to facilitate Xordan's idea of "given infinite time, being able to max out everything": if you sacrifice less skill than you gain, you'll be doing 3 steps forward but only 2 back. Also, learning speed (PP / whatever cost) could vary based on what your focus of training has been lately. It also could tie in very well with your proposal of competence, as by letting skills slip, you'll definitely lose competence. Once lost, you need to regain that competence in order to advance that skill again. Thus, by fine-tuning the system, you can make it any way from fast maxing of a few skills with no chance to max more than that (degrading faster than increasing), never maxing of all (degradation equal), to slowly maxing all skills (degrading slower than increase).

[Seytra]

Remainder... did you know there is a 60 second wait between posts?

Your edit 2 is based on the inconsequential reality of how things work now, in a ‘pre’ alpha.

Absolutely, as was the intent: even with the current machanics, one is already free to RP whatever one wants WRT training. Therefore, it doesn't actually matter how the training is made to look like. Given that the training system is there solely to facilitate a balanced, replicable way of skill increase, it is not really necessary to provide very detailed workings and explanations.
I do agree that it is possible to have selectable options on how your char trains best in the CC, and I'm not opposed to it. However, I think that it is more or less just coloring the same can differently, so to speak, and needs additional balancing in order to work fair overall (otherwise you'll see almost exclusively bookworms or potioners or trainees or whatnot, whichever is the most efficient).

Fairness. Fairness in what?

Fairness in giving everyone the same chance to do / become something. It does not mean that everyone should always have the same chance to perform the same thing at any time. The latter would mean that everyone had the exact same stats, equipment, etc. without ever changing. The first merely doesn't lock anyone out from acquiring the desired skill / equipment / whatever.
Your system certainly allows for the same change, but it's too rigid IMO. When in PnP RPGs you discover at level 7 that you chose the wrong class for your RP style, then you'll usually be allowed to not only create a new char, but to also "insta-level" it to at least level 6, just to be able to actually keep up with the rest of the party. Obviously, in PS this isn't going to work, therefore you should never have to start over completely unless you choose to. This is something that your pool of AP cannot do, unless it is so large that it's not actually limited anymore.

Laragorn: You say individuals, yet support a system that treats everyone the same, no, -makes- everyone the same in the way that you are all the same. I don’t understand were this idea of being limited to one single path and trade is being inferred from my words. You can try to do anything you want, but being good at EVERYTHING you try is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.

I think it's much more plausible than wanting to be a hero in a MMOG. Also, if you look at your system, in the way it is going to work out, you'll see that while it doesn't force players into categories, it still forces them to stick with whatever they selected or got assigned no matter what, unless they delete the char and start over (except the pool is irrationally high and thus useless).

Just because you turn away from the family bakery to pursue your dream of being an astronaut, it does not mean NASA is going to fling its doors wide and start prepping the shuttle. The same goes if you suddenly want to be a pro fisherman, or any other ‘pro’ you can name. You -might- be able to become the best, but the guaranty robs something from everyone else.

You may have been baker for years, yet you can train mathematics or whatever, and become good at it. With your system, you cannot become good at anything that you didn't intend to become good at at the CC, because low aptitude equals low cap value, and no amount of realistic training effort could change that. Yes, this sort of thing happens IRL. No, I don't think anyone enjoys it.

That is how I feel about the game. Choice is not limited by my system, it is challenged. Right now, you know exactly where you will end up. With my system, that becomes fuzzy and uncertain. The unknown is the spice of life, not the guaranties. That is what makes one an individual.

Can you please explain where exactly your system makes anything "fuzzy"? The way I see it, your system makes it even more predictable. You basically select what your character can become right in the CC. You assign the maximum skill levels that your char can ever reach. Not only that, but you also assign higher levelling speeds to these skills. Now where is the fuzziness? I think I can be fairly sure that if I set swords to max, I'll be going to become great in sword fighting, no? Especially if I know that I will be unable to get close to useful in anything else. Even with your addition of the pool of unspent AP, this isn't going to change a thing. And I'm certain that I won't experiment, because that means that I'll permanently lose cap value for my preselected skills. Thus, your system even discourages experimentation, thereby hurting variety.

However, I still would prefer the eve system, because it simply removes all the tediousness of levelling and lets one focus on whatever one actually likes to do. I am certain that there'll be much less fighting going on, and much more RPing. In a way, it's a scandal that a commercial MMO"RP"G came up with a system that not only works even in a commercial environment, but also can improve RP out of the box. In fact, it combines the advantages of freeform RP with the advantages of a progression system.

[Under the moon]

Also there will be people who carefully go through the design process time after time changing one thing then another using a process of elimination to find out how to gank the system. Others will look at the code, if available, or reverse engineer the software for the same purposes. What you end up doing is creating an imbalance for no good reason.

That will happen no matter what for whatever system you use, unless it is a completely random one. People do it now. Let them. It is not a sin to create characters that are good in most areas, and my system allows that. It does not, however, let everyone be the -best- in everything.

Xordan:

From my first read and from others reactions too, I thought that aptitude points were randomly assigned to skills I believe that you didn't mean this though right? So players can choose where to put them in character creation? Does this mean that players have to choose for every single skill what their aptitude is? Can you explain a bit better how you envision the assignment of aptitude?

No, no random points unless you choose to have a random character (which you can do now). That would just give players characters they do not want. I would like it better if you could pick general categories in what you want your character to be good at, much like the Paths menu, but with more specific options. ‘Good with hands‘, would be a good example of a selectable option that would encompass a great many skills, from swordplay to baking. There are many other character traits that could be chosen from to create the base for your character. It could go either way, I guess, such as picking your exact skills, then the system dividing out your points to make those possible. The base Atributes would start your characters out much as they are now, but you could expand in some, but not all areas to make those areas easier to learn in. In effect, it would not be a limit to characters, but a player selectable bonus. I know there are some plans for things such as this already, the Aptitude system just collects them all together and gives them a name. Aptitude sets the potential of your character to be Average, good, or excel at things. Giving everyone equal potential in all things is horrid to my mind.

I think that aptitude should just determine a base for how much training a player needs for a skill, and how much they can learn by themselves. So a high aptitude would mean lots of self-learning and less need for a trainer, which means less failure and in itself would mean that it's easier to advance.

Agreed, and my system allows for that. In fact, it is designed to do that exact thing by making leveling much faster in areas you are interested in, while leaving other's at normal speed.

By just making it harder and harder to advance at thing you're not good at, limits aren't needed. Also, it's important that players can alter their aptitude after creation up to some point, just so they can try things out and see what they like doing.

Again I agree. There would never be a "You are maxed in this skill" telling players they can go no further. It would just become exponentialy harder to learn in that skill once your 'limit' came near. In time (a -lot- of time) you could become very good at something you have only average apititude for, but it would take hard work. Also, I have added in the option of reserving Aptitude points to add at any time after you enter the game, so they could change what they would be better at.

Firstly, I'll 'throw away' making confidence affect whether or not a trainer will train you.

As said, that would be a part of a more advanced system that could be worker on 'someday'. The NPCs can bearly talk now, and I would not expect then to be able to judge folks for some time.

Getting rid of the 'bleed over' to other skills will also reduce the complexity a bit more

Yes. Or you could substitute a general confidence level that would affect all learning in all skills to start with, then refine it later to individual skills. The general confidence could then be used as a 'bleed over' bonus in a more advanced system. But that is all smoke and wishes, so can be left out.

I think the degrade should be less of an effect than the improvement, or even none at all for some failure.

I think that should be a feature of Will, where as a high Will negates some of the penalties of failure. This would make each character unique to play.

I certainly don't lose confidence when attempting something new, or even if I fail at something  sometimes in RL

Then you have a high Will. I dissagree, though. When facing a new challenge, you will always have a little doubt in the back of your mind that -may- slow you down a bit. Added complexity to a known skill will lower your confidence that you can do it. I suggest Will also being a guide here for individual characters.

You tend to mention the easiest examples here, when fighting.

Indeed I did, as that is what people are more familar with. I could have based everything on baking, and the drop in confidence at trying to learn how to make a soufflé after baking nothing but sourdough bread up until that point. But I don't think people would have found it as interesting a read.

Confidence like I quickly described can be done for all skills without too much of a problem, although the improve/degrade will have to be custom set for each skill, or skill type rather.

Yes, with certain factors for each that would react with Will to guide the level of confidence. This system is designed to try to keep some ballance in training, while treating each character as an individual. There are a great many things that could eventually effect confidence, such as praise from a NPC for doing a task quickly, to enjoying a mug of ale in the tavern. I had hoped it could be used as a way of breathing a little life into the characters.

hypothetically, what if you got a character that turns out because of aptidude to be the villages idiot?

wouldnt that take a little away of personal choice?

sorrys if i missed the whole point *hugs*

You did miss the point a bit. I should have made it more clear the players select their own aptitude, and the only way you could be a vilage idiot is if you did it yourself on purpose.

I wanted to point out too that fighting isn't the only activity, and so the system should be exactly the same for all skills and fighting should not be an exception.

Answered above.

*starts reading Seytra's posts*
*edit* finishes reading every word*

 Hmmm. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what I have intended. Much of what you have stated stems from the belief that you would have to be bad at certain things to be good at others. I stated the 1 to 100 scale of aptitude as a measure of skill, not a trade off system for buying higher stats at the loss of others. The default would set all characters at average, with the potential to be ‘average’. In an RPG, this means being  able to achieve the stuff of legends right out of the box. Lowering your Aptitude in one area of skills would not suddenly give you more points to spend in other areas. The system gives out extra points to spend where you think you would want to achieve greatness. Perhaps it would be better to give all of those extra points in the game, only spread out over time, so people can get a better feel of what they wish to do, and so use them to learn faster in that area. Everyone has the same exact ‘max stats’ level right now. Aptitude would allow you to go beyond that. Most people would use them to be better fighters. So what? They can still be just as good as everyone else at most other things. The exception to this is for dedicated Roleplayers who choose to handy cap their character by giving themselves less than average skills. And yes, I am one among many of those. I enjoy playing the ‘mediocre’ character because in a world where everyone is good at everything, that makes me different. People roleplay better around my character because the race to be better vanishes.

I set Hyuken up for example. He will never be good at anything but serving drinks and making a fool of himself. There simply is no way to create him, as even selecting nothing in CC gives him rather good starting stats and skills. I could suddenly pick up a sword with him tomorrow and max him out in all skills in two weeks *shudders*.  That is not playing a role. I don’t even know what that is.

Nothing I said is set in stone, and I am always open to better suggestions.

[The Shadow Nose]

I personally like this system (at least the way I understand it) and I think it provides a decent bit of uniqueness to characters.


From what I see, this system is designed so that not all people will develop at the same rate in the same ways. Primarily, so that we won't see people becomeing 'Masters of Everything'

Basically, there would be several types of people:

The Average Man: This character has exactly average aptitude in all stats (essentially, the default character when you start character creation). Theoretically, they can take on any endevor, be it fighting, crafting, baking or whatever and should not fail at the basic tasks. They lack that extra push to truly excel at any task but should have no problem doing a decent job at anything if they put their mind to it. They are neither the village idiot or Einstien.

Good at Some, Bad at Some: The average character, but has great potential in some areas and less potential in others. He may be great at casting magic spells, but can't stand the thought of working hours under the hot sun to farm or mine ore. He could mine ore, but either wouldn't be very good at it or would suffer some loss of confidence or whatever if forced to. This results if a player decides to specialize a little.

Master of One, Awful at others: This character put all their aptitude into one or two skills, they can learn and cast spells at an amazing speed but is basically useless in practically all other areas. Expect him to slice bread and he'll fail miserably... he might have tried examining the bread on the atomic level with his incredible intellect... or perhaps tried conjouring up a pile of pre-sliced bread out of thin air with disasterous consequences. Basically, if he needs bread sliced, he'll find a professional bread-slicer. Again, this is made by a player with a good idea on what they want to become.

Village Idiot: This is what happens when a player decided to deduct all the aptitude stats from their character and not reassign them elsewhere. From what I gather, than in this case the unassigned affinity would still exist but would require that the player do something to unlock that hidden talent. This would be like a village idiot who fails miserably at everything could go to a hospital or school to help unlock that talent thereby 'curing' them and letting them live a normal and sucessful life as their aptitude is unlocked over time. Unless the player wants to RP as a handicapped person in which case they only have to unlock that potential as they see fit.



So, from what I understand. Each character will have the exact same number of total 'affinity points' which would be exactly half of the amount of points needed to max out all the skills. If exactly evenly distributed, they can be average in all areas, but most players will want to specialize in some areas while full knowing that doing so will require a trade-off in some other area. They can also choose to keep some in reserve and save them till a later date when they know what they want to 'spend' them on. But doing so leaves them 'a few cards shy of a full deck' until they finally do decide to spend them.

/**********************/

As for the basic stats you mentioned:

Aptitude- a modifier between 1 and 100 that determines the max 'level' that a player can attain in a skill and how fast they gain competence in same skill. With any given aptitude score then the max level they can attain is ( Max_Possible/100 * Apptitude ) so a player with 50 can only become average at maximum, 100 they can be the best swordsman possible, and at 1 they can barely use it at all.

Competence- It sounds to me that there will be 'levels' of skill and that competence will something like the growing XP needed to grow from one level to the next. Competence is the act of learning the skill through both sucess and failure.

Confidence- Sounds like a sort of temporary modifier/multiplier for aptitude. One that changes from sucess and failure and along with aptitude determines the competence gained for an action.

Level- basically the same as levels are now. once competence fill up to 100% then the player needs to go to a trainer, read a book, or something else in order to take their knowlege 'to the next level' and advance.

/*****************************************/

All in all, it sounds like a good system. If I misunderstood any important points please let me know.

One possible 'problem' could exist if people are able to draw aptitude points from skills that are not implemented yet... essentially, a player decides to excell in sword fighting with aptitude of 100, and take a severe hit to his 'cooking' skill and only have 1... however cooking hasn't been implemented yet so its no loss to him.

The result would be that right now people could choose to become Masters of Everything with current skills, which could unbalance the game a little.... but when new content comes along they find that thay completly lack the aptitude to use those skills.


Master Swordsman(trying to make a sandwhich): Spread peanut butter onto a slice of bread with a knife...

*thinks for a bit and then starts slashing away at the food with a sword, cutting it up into a ruined mess*

Master Swordsman: ... okay, I am officially over my head with this newfangled 'cooking' thing. Where do I find somebody who knows how to make food?


A solution might be to make non-implemented skills inaccesible to grab aptitude points from. Then when they are implemented people either get an 'average' score for that ot the points are put into their 'hidden' pool and older characters have to unlock those points before they can properly make use of new skills.

/*****************************/

Anyway, this sounds to me like a pretty good idea for a system and it would allow for a great deal of diversity in characters.

[bilbous]

Havimg read the preceding monographs I have a few ideas. I'll use this quote to frame them.

/**********************/
As for the basic stats you mentioned:

Aptitude- a modifier between 1 and 100 that determines the max 'level' that a player can attain in a skill and how fast they gain competence in same skill. With any given aptitude score then the max level they can attain is ( Max_Possible/100 * Apptitude ) so a player with 50 can only become average at maximum, 100 they can be the best swordsman possible, and at 1 they can barely use it at all.

It has occured to me that this factor should not create a hard cap to a skill level and be purely a training time/cost factor so that 100% aptitude take x amount of time (however it wants to be measured) and cost X tria. A 0% aptitude would take 2,4 or some higher multiplier on the base cost and time. Aptitudes in between would have a relative factor or you can have variable  ranges providing the same factor (72%-76% aptitude gives 0.75n where n is the max factor rate at 0% aptitude. If you want to add some randomness you could a set aptitude point cost for the particular variable range and your value in that range would be randomly generated. This would be the only real value for having variable ranges but I thought I'd throw it out anyway.

Hmm I have lost whatever else I wanted to say so I will let it go at that until I see something else that reminds me what idea I had.

[Under the moon]

Shadow Nose: No, very much the opposite, except for the village idiot part. There is no trade off for lowering skills below normal. Everyone starts out as average (think of how they are now) with bonus points added to allow them to become 'elites' in some skills. Most will go with fighting, but there are always those that will not.

I see there are many misconceptions on the basic function of this system, so I will be recrafting the info in a new thread, making the points you all had questions on more clear, and adding in some changes. It seems as if most of the question was on the aptitude system, while the other two parts were well received, so I will put my efforts there.

It will be ready in a few days.

[bilbous]

I remembered one more thing I wanted to mention. I think it might be better to start above average say 60-66% and then adjust from there. No bonus points. I guess it would work out pretty much the same but it might be easier to code and maintain.

[Relnar]

I'm new to this gme (been playing a grand total of 5 days) so bare with me if any comments regarding the current game sound a bit... ignorant.

One thing I think that needs to be decided upon before anything regarding a new character system can be decided on is, what you want it to accomplish. The current system seems geared to solo adventuring; I've seen little in the way of grouping, and the way the system is setup right now, there is almost no reason to do it (short of RP/social reasons).

The current system is great if your goal is to make combat a completely separate thing from RP/social activities, as the only time a group is needed is when combating a particularly nasty creature, and for the most part, there is no reason to do that; if you can't solo it, just fight something weaker.

A system that allows characters to favor one skill at the cost of others encourages grouping, at least to an extent, because it hinders a single characters ability to handle all aspects of combat/exploration on his own. However, since I believe I've gotten my point across, I'll add my two cents on what this thread is actually about, so as not to be a complete derailer

I think perhaps the best and simplest way to accomplish what this thread proposed, with the minimum of work as far as re-coding the system, would be this: instead of tying an aptitude to each skill, tie to each skill a "key stat" that most associates with that skill (the different magic schools already do this to a certain extent, their power being based off an associated mental stst) and use that to determine aptitude.

Have a high strength? Odds are you'll be pretty quick to pickup some of the more "finesse-light" weapons, such as axe. Agility would be good for daggers and certain types of swords (which may mean a splitting of sword types is required, but not a necessity). Obviously magics would go off one/all of the mental stats, and so on... you get the idea. This would likely require there to be a different system for advancing stats; perhaps some races have caps on certain stats, or simply have a harder/more expensive time raising them.

From there, skills would have their advancement speed (and possibly score cap) determined by their associated stat.

[Protomaster]

Protein: I dont see the new topic anywhere so I'll just post this here. this should pertain.

The new system proposed here seems like an absolutly wonderful idea, especially after reading the link in this thread to an example of what it might be like at character creation. I only have two issues one of which I think has been mentioned.

I think it'd be better for Aplitude to only determine the speed at which you learn/gain exp in a particular skill as opposed to that and also putting a level cap on a particular skills. I would not be against a very difficult level gain for a particular skill once you get to a certain level in that skill due to it not being your "strong subject" (which is what aplitude feels like to me.) for example a person with high cooking aplitude but low crafting aplitude should still be able to gain high levels in crafting though it would take them substiantially more work where as learning to cook Clacker Chowder (for example, they do seem a lot like lobster or crab.) would only take them thirty mintues of study.

secondly I think that the questions at character creation to determine aplitude in certain things should be very detailed or very broad. A system to assign points to a characters ability to learn without a Confidence modifier needs to exist either on the microlevel or macrolevel each of which has certain advantages. If the questionare is very detailed then you can use it to find very specific things that they are good at and what is related to it (for example splitting cooking into skill at cutting, making stock, broil, boil, fry, season, prep, etc. list could go on and on) or a second more realistic option is to assign aplitude more generally such as "working with hands" might encompass crafting, cooking, various martial arts, and most weapons. (minus kicking and spiked shoes) all of which would receive an aplitude boost. The other thread seems to indicate the latter.

One thing in addition. This isnt an issue but something I'd like to see done with this system. There needs to be a way to keep people from all rolling for epic presteige stats and ease of level in those only, because the last thing a great RP game like this needs is a population filled completely with knights and mages who cannot even learn to feed themselves, much less tend to gardens. It was mentioned that certain stats would be tied into others (for example if you train in say...handling heavy swords then skill in things like battle axes and heavy blunts would be effected positivly as well because no matter what you're holding, an overhead smash works mostly the same for all three. In addition strength would go up too as I dont see how lifting heavy things would avoid contributing to your strength.) I'd like to see stats from non combat skills tied into it as well. For example a warrior cleaves tefus and rats all day getting better at use of swords, axes, maces and strength. It would makes sense to raise their skill in mining (you're going to need some strength and technique to break things out of solid rock), blacksmithing (hammers are like maces. battle hammers definatly are like hammers. and besides molten or not you're still hitting metal until it becomes more shaply), farming (mideval times probably used some kind of blade to harvest things like corn) and, uh, butchery (killing tefus and rats is butchery. just more "still alive".) and I propose that it work backwards as well. for example if you found that you're good at cooking and learning how (high aplitude in cooking) and you start practicing how to cook, raising that stat, then other stats should be effected positivly as well. (though that does bring the question of which aplitude modifier to use when determining increase) for example: when cooking, uh, pizza, it would raise you're cooking skill indeed, however it should also raise things like "small knives and daggers' (cuttings tools are small knives), soft martial arts (moving pizza dough around can be compared to some of the counters, grabs, and pressure attacks in various styles of soft martial arts [soft martial arts are martial arts that do not rely on your strength, but rather the strength of your opponent]) blacksmithing (to a degree, pounding  horshoes out of metal isnt too far off from tenderizing meat or cutting up salami for your peperoni) metallurgy (knowing when to take a pizza out of the oven is like knowing when to take the steel ingots out of the forge), pottery (same applies for kiln and clay) etc.

the more detailed that stats will be the more possibilities for specific stats to be tied together.

one thing in addition; taking my above pizza cook example; with the ranks acheived in various skills he may be an epic cook by day and by night be a pretty decent-legendary-epic ninja due to the analogous skills thus giving all characters the potential to also have simple lives and professions and be able to feed themselves. Afterall a population full of the strongest knights, wisest wizards, and other such things makes for a dead population when they realise they cant cook. It also makes for a poor population when they realise that "Questing to Bring Down That Which Chooses to do Harm upon the People via Violence" isnt a high paying job. whereas blacksmith is a nice job and still leaves time for questing on the side.

this last bit may be a bit off topic or it may pertain. I cant really tell. Ranks of magic aside from raising associated core stat, should also be put to good use. for example; let's take that epic cook/ninja from earlier, let's say he has average aplitude as a mage in a few ways (let's stick with brown, red, and crystal for now) and he's out hunting clackers for that Clacker Chowder (now I want some seafood) and he gets hungry and is a bit low on hp/stanima, but as a ninja who is adventuring to slay a Queen Clacker (on a quest I guess) who has been terrorising anyone who wants a bit of delicious clacker claw dipped in butter, our ninja/cook didnt bring his spatula. and certainly not a stove. could he with adequate ranks in the respective ways (and appropriate glyphs) use brown magic to shape the earth into a nice oven, and grow a tree. Then use red magic to shear the tree into nice sized logs, put them in the oven and fireball at it till it ignites to make a tempoaray stove. Then use Crystal magic to summon up a spatula (instead of an arrow) and conjure up some other ingredients (might be in his icebox, at his house, which is also a front for his resturant) and use this to make come clacker chowder and eat it for the stanima/health/other stat bonus/heal that you get.

and there you have it a nice in character use for an epic cook/ninja with a few ranks in some magic (I imagine it's way easier to light stoves with fireballs) that can make use of the stat system you've made for various useful thigns, inside and outside city walls.

[dying_inside]

This is a brilliantly thought out system.
Its only draw back is that it would possibly be quitye hard to actually create and put in game.
Nevertheless i think this idea should be considered carefully.

[Zan]

*can't be bothered to read all the comments and remarks people made but still wants to make his own, hoping he won't repeat anyone*

The aptitude problem could easily be solved if you take a milder approach with it. It shouldn't be restrictive in the absolute sense, it should promote variation between characters. I think that is what UtM wanted it to do. A low aptitude doesn't mean that skill can't be learned, just that it requires more time and effort to learn it.

Look at it this way .. if we keep the current system (which I don't want to promote because it needs serious redesigning in my personal opinion) and add in aptitude, not much should change. The players have 'no' aptitude in the majority of their skills. These skills would not change but remain the same, as would advancing in them. However there are exceptions, skills in wich a player has a natural aptitude. A skill which a player has a natural aptitude in will be learned quicker than others. This should be limited to a few aptitude points per player, divided over a few skills. Personally I wouldn't want these aptitude points to be chosen by the player directly but be a rather closed system. It could be worked into the existing character creation somehow. The player shouldn't be able to see them afterwards either. The only vague conception of aptitude points a player will get is by noticing some skills are easier to learn and master.

I think if we see aptitude in that way, as an addition more than a restriction, it won't get in the way of the game's fun but still adds to the diversity among characters.

Don't have anything to comment on the rest of UtM's suggestions, I love them personally.