[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
22539: RE: [MUD-Dev] No bots allowed
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Paul Schwanz <paul.schwanz@east.sun.com>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:21:38 -0500
Organization: Kanga.Nu
From: Marc Bowden <ryumo@merit.edu>
> Colin Coghill wrote:
>> Obviously you want some formula for combining these into one
>> roll.
> Or - and this forces codependent skill development (forces your
> users to spend points on two specializations instead of one for
> the enhanced result) - you could have a fighting.tactics. skill
> be a complimentary skill to the basic fighting.melee.
> skill. Seperating it on our particular skill web also allows for
> tutors and scholars to have a knowledge of military tactics
> without necessarily posessing the technical fighting skills needed
> to carry them out on the battlefield.
To take this idea a bit further, for *all* skills, you could have
skill.knowledge and skill.proficiency. Knowledge can be passed on
through books, scholars, tutors, etc. Proficiency only comes with
actual training/using what you have learned. Knowledge would act
naturally as an upper limit on proficiency. If you are particularly
set up for a point-spending sort of paradigm, I suppose you could
give knowledge points and proficiency points to spend. Personally,
I think I'd give knowledge and proficiency directly from appropriate
activity instead of abstraction to points and then back.
Incidentally, this can also be a compromise for whether or not to
have skill atrophy. Atrophy for proficiency, but not for knowledge
(or at least not nearly so much) seems intuitive to me.
--Phinehas
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev