Re: Suggestions for crossfire change.

["'Most Excellent' Eric Mehlhaff" <mehlhaff@crl.com>]

jimdipalma@ptc.com (Jim Dipalma) recently wrote:

>You mention this a number of times, each time in response to some
>game characteristic that guilds would provide.  I encourage guilds
>for two reasons:
>	- forcing players to return to a specified location before
>	  advancing their skills prevents players from obtaining
>	  skills _during_ combat.

How is players improving  skills during combat necessarily a bad thing?


Ideally, I'd like to see skill improvement work something like the way
the RuneQuest RPG does it.

I.e. When time you succeed a skill check, you make a another skill check, 
and only when you fail that one do you actually improve any.   There's a 
bit more behind the RQ system than this, but basically, the skill growth
curve is reasonably nice -- the better you get, the harder it is to get better.

Note that by this system it is also hard to gain any skill in a skill that 
you don't have any skill in.  Runequest's solution for this was that you could
get training to get the initial skill levels.  This is something that might 
be nice to add into the game.

>	- guilds provide a training location for learning non-combat
>	  skills.  Ex: increased hp total, pricing gems/swords/wands,
>	  curing poisons.

Guilds as a site to acquire 'book learning' is a good thing in that respect.
You still don't necessarily need classes in order to have institutions of non-
combat skills.

I it might not be to hard to implement skills and such as a set of objects 
hidden in a characters'  inventory, or perhaps, ininstead in a special 
'inventory'.

Training could similarly be implemented as special 'objects' that when applied
increase or add a skill to the applying character.  Obtaining them would 
involve buying them, or any of a host of standard crossfire object creation 
methods.


 Eric Mehlhaff, mehlhaff@crl.com