|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:44 pm
|
|
|
|
Okay guys, so here's some things I've been thinking about.
I'm constantly conscious of attempting to keep things as realistic as possible, and for most people this means de-powering their characters. I always headdesk when, after all my attempts, characters still seem overpowered or unrealistic...
So here's some things I've been discussing with people, particularly Nii as she always has sensible suggestions and we're both of the same mindset:
1. Path limitations.
Now, this has been discussed in a recent poll and the opinions over it were mixed. I suggested initially a 6-path mastery limit, but on reflection I feel that even this may be too much. And of course there's the potential exploit of everyone learning every skill except those of the highest level, or that they never "master" a path and therefore the restriction can't apply to them >3>; hehe, sneaky sneaky
Anyway, it raises the issue for me that perhaps the whole measure of power by mastery, and perhaps even the whole path system, is flawed. We need to give this serious consideration. Options we have include limiting by number of skills. I'm sure you guys can come up with other things...
2. Inter-path limitations.
This idea was suggested by Nii and I seized upon it, though... it feels kind of iffy. Basically the idea is that someone who chooses to specialise in spellcasting should never be as powerful in any other field as spellcasting. I feel averse to it because I would like characters to be able to fulfill their potential in a number of different fields, but at the same time if it's a way of stopping characetrs from being overpowered in every single area it seems like a very good idea.
I think the first thing we need to address is, obviously, the path system itself. (1 above)
Perhaps... upon character creation we could implement a DIFFERENT kind of Path, which is more title than anything, or perhaps stacks on top of the current skill system... more like classes in a traditional rpg. Let's take from Cressa - Sorceress. Her class could be capable of a certain number of skills per level from any spellcasting field and any combat field. Now let's say... I don't know, Summoner. These are capable of the skills from both Aeromancy and Hydromancy along with SPECIAL skills restricted to their class which expand on the summoning and spiritual nature of the class itself. Similarly people who would wish to specialise in a class called Hydromancer would have access to a variety of water-based spells limited to that class.
The fields - Combat, Spiritualism and Spellcasting - would still be the base for this new system, but their nature would change to reflect more of their nature as "skill pools" - pools where skills are found, and of course we're going to be expanding the number of skills available - as opposed to, perhaps, things that you work through in the current linear way... maybe.
Obviously these suggestions imply huge revisions and a lot of work...
3. Minor tweaks.
I think things such as the exact effect of parry were left rather vague by moi >3>; hurr hurr. And... was it ever specified just WHO could use Counter after an effective Parry? Okay, let's look at this... let's say that Parry, as nii said, takes a single point off the roll, and if that single point takes it down a level of success let's say that the Parrier may also Counter on that turn?
I think we need to go through every single skill and assess it, whilst also crafting more. But FIRST we need to consider 1 and 2!
I'm a little bit worried about the roll bonuses and detriments. Theoretically a character could obtain enough bonuses or detriments to virtually wipe out rolling as a system. What can we do about this? Perhaps change the rolling system to accomodate for more points? e.g double it from 1-6 to 1-12 or something? Also need to consider the changes proposed by Akazariua, as they were an intriguing idea.
Oh, also maybe a different categorisation for roleplays needs to be defined, as official and unofficial rps are blurred. Official rps need to be stressed as roleplays that take the System's rules - different to roleplays that follow the canon of the official rp. Some, such as War Stories, follow the canon but not the system, and some such as the roleplay suggested by Storm follow the system but not the canon. These need their own categorisations. The marker is a roleplay that follows neither canon nor system.
4. Racial bonuses!
This sprang into my mind building on top of classes. Basically a person would gain passive bonuses/detriments and skills based on their character's race. I haven't thought too much about humans yet, except perhaps bonuses to training times, but for the non-human races teh bonuses are obvious - [Darkvision] for the drow, [Low-light vision] for them and the felids, [Inhuman Grace] for all kinds of elf and the felids...
These both resulted in my mind the idea of customisation. People could suggest their own classes and races, offering a short description, by which we would take their idea and assign them the pools their character can access and special skills. Everyone currently in the RP would have the opportunity to access their own custom class, and as the class system draws on the currently existing pools everyone woudl still remain on the same page (cept for special skills, obv). Exciting! No?
5. Change to the rolling system
Did I mention this before? The rolling system REALLY needs to be advanced. It's far too simple as it is, doesnt take into account a character's power and any number of othe rfactors such as the problem we have with unlimited bonuses...
Also need to address the spamming of skills with detriments such as stun - perhaps we need to introduce a cooldown time of sorts for such skills.
6. The way the system is explained!
I and other gamers find it easy to understand, but it's easy to forget that most people aren't used to learning such things. I've heard of people having a LOT of trouble with it, so I think we need to revise and clarify the way it's explained once we've done all the work above. It will be hard, as the proposed changes complicate things further, but if we explain it properly it should work out...
7. New magic pools
Fire, earth and othe rkinds of magic are in demand. I had planned to reserve these for SIN characters, but... what do you guys think?
...Aaaand that's all I've got for now.
For now we just need to discuss everything together and try and flesh out some sort of plan for what exactly we're going to do. THEN I'll go about assigning people to the areas I want them to develop.
Oh, and as I didnt state it very clearly up ther e(justr ealsied upon rereading), the idea of a CLASS SYSTEM is a big one.
Everyone give your thoughts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:51 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:13 am
|
|
|
|
Okay, so, some mroe things to think about - might as well do this now...
Some of the skills in the roleplay actually seem too powerful for where they are. Perhaps skills like Fatal Blow and Bladed Weapon mastery need to be made class-specific, or only given out as rewards or something.
I touched on this in my post above, but perhaps the new class system would be based on a number of skills limit. Maybe one of the benefits of being a human would be access to a greater number of skills due to versatility.
Perhaps experience in combat could earn you extra skills, or give you benefits. Say, veterans of 5 or more battles would gain a passive benefit? But first we need to address teh rolling system, as it is NOT WORKING.
Perhaps Basic skills should be common to all classes depending on which "type" they are (Combat, Spellcasting or Spiritualist), combination classes could have half of each.
Oh, I'll work on the roleplay tags myself.
I think all of this is going to require a complete remake of the system threads as they are. Fun.
GIVE ME YOUR INPUT, DEVS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:58 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|