Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
Absolutely adore the idea of abolishing the current generic take on guilds and organizations (which I've admittedly very much disliked since I started) along with swapping in skill and ability trees and such. So cool! The more focused setting is also far more appealing to me.
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
I will admit to having mixed feelings. On the one hand, finding purpose with my generic scholars has been difficult and I have primarily opted to side with the Library over the two faction specific towns, so having the Library be more of an active and opinionated organization seems like an opportunity. On the other hand, I was looking forward to societies having a good mixture of people in their ranks and if I'm reading this correctly, Wyrvardn won't have any PC physickers or arcanists in their ranks, and neither will the shifty sneaky society. And side-question: Should I read anything into the Library only keeping arcanists and physickers and Iarel's teachings to humanity being arcana and medicine?
Edit to add: I also realized that the ascetics won't have physickers in their ranks and that seems a great loss.
Edit to add: I also realized that the ascetics won't have physickers in their ranks and that seems a great loss.
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
It's hard for me to get excited for this and sometimes even happy for this (which makes me feel a bit guilty). I recall being very excited and open to the idea of Ability Generalization on Clok, when talk about that started. I was a strong believer in the concept, and then it happened and I felt more limited in my character's abilities, and that moment is probably what started the burnout for my character that led to me actually leaving the game rather than taking a break like before.
I was very excited for the Somnium project. I have less time to dedicate to The Grind, and the prospect of not only not having to grind to feel like I can take part in the game, but that The Grind would be replaced by building up a community and that non-combat roles would be just as viable and necessary as combat character spoke to me.
I was very disappointed when the Somnium project was discontinued, but my hopes were quickly tempered by the prospects of Cogg. Something between the two, with a less terrible grind than Clok, and where non-combatant roles that aren't crafting for fighters or healing fighters would have value. As time has gone on, I've waned between being a bit sad that that hasn't really come true, and having some minor things that do make that true being released, but without any real signs of a "non-combat experience loop" for people that don't want to heal and don't want to make swords/armor coming to fruition beyond Locksmithing and Delivery Tasks. So I worry that unless this new change comes with more options for non-combatants, that the focus of the game will feel like it's all about fighting things, and that maybe we'll never get those cool Non Combat Sytems because it's just easier to make more people happy and make new ways to fight things.
I don't tend to agree with people that "classless systems are better for RP" (because it really isn't true, that's an entirely subjective POV). I think classless systems tend to promote meta-builds forming, and tend to promote more cookie-cutter builds. I especially fear that when the Faction divide happens and there's CvC. If the best, most efficient way to get people so you can have control over the Cool Combat Resource that lets you get people better ends up being stealth (for example), then that'll mean people will "feel forced" into playing to stealth, or they'll likely get frustrated with the system and stop interacting with it (or even stop playing the game).
I have lots of thoughts about how you can just give the Guilds identities, and tell anyone that gets upset that they don't have a "generic ability dispensary" that there's plenty of other games out there that do a good job of that (and I think you could probably still generalize abilities, while tying Skill Caps to guilds and having each guild and class have a couple of unique abilities, so that we still have class identity, without having to worry as much about making sure each ability is tailored to a specific class specialization).
I was very quiet the first VC where Rias introduced this, and when he asked me about that my answer was what it is right now: It's hard to be excited about this change, because I specifically made the choice for Mack to be a ranger because they had more flexibility than a Primalist (and she wasn't a Fighter, so Berserker was out even if they were comparably flexible), and because I wanted to explore the world without Mack having to engage heavily in combat. If everyone has that same level of freedom and flexibility, what about this change is going to make things better for Mack? If things aren't going to be better for Mack, or even worse, then while I'm glad to hear that it's improving Staff Morale I have no other reason to be particularly fond of this change. If anyone can climb anything and also they can fight anything, then what makes Mack cool and special and deserving of a rumor doesn't exist anymore. It feels like the last 100 skill ranks of climbing I took are being "wasted", when I could have just picked the Strength Attribute and probably still been able to climb anything that's ever released in the future.
The other part I mentioned when I was asked why I was being quiet, was that I can't really make a judgement call as to if any of my concerns even have merit, because I don't know enough about the "under the hood" aspects of the changes, so I wasn't going to voice them at the time. Because it feels like the concern I feel comes from a place of panic at the prospect of the fear of the unknown, despite having very real, historically based reasons to be concerned.
I think either way, if this is what's better for the health of the game, then I support it. I don't worry about this making me quit the game, or that it'll mean I'll stop playing the game. I still like combat, and I use my secondary slot to play around with the combat system. I just worry that it'll mean that I lose interest in a character that's already hard to maintain interest in, because it feels like the game doesn't have a place for them.
[edited to address some typos, and make things a bit more coherent/consistent]
I was very excited for the Somnium project. I have less time to dedicate to The Grind, and the prospect of not only not having to grind to feel like I can take part in the game, but that The Grind would be replaced by building up a community and that non-combat roles would be just as viable and necessary as combat character spoke to me.
I was very disappointed when the Somnium project was discontinued, but my hopes were quickly tempered by the prospects of Cogg. Something between the two, with a less terrible grind than Clok, and where non-combatant roles that aren't crafting for fighters or healing fighters would have value. As time has gone on, I've waned between being a bit sad that that hasn't really come true, and having some minor things that do make that true being released, but without any real signs of a "non-combat experience loop" for people that don't want to heal and don't want to make swords/armor coming to fruition beyond Locksmithing and Delivery Tasks. So I worry that unless this new change comes with more options for non-combatants, that the focus of the game will feel like it's all about fighting things, and that maybe we'll never get those cool Non Combat Sytems because it's just easier to make more people happy and make new ways to fight things.
I don't tend to agree with people that "classless systems are better for RP" (because it really isn't true, that's an entirely subjective POV). I think classless systems tend to promote meta-builds forming, and tend to promote more cookie-cutter builds. I especially fear that when the Faction divide happens and there's CvC. If the best, most efficient way to get people so you can have control over the Cool Combat Resource that lets you get people better ends up being stealth (for example), then that'll mean people will "feel forced" into playing to stealth, or they'll likely get frustrated with the system and stop interacting with it (or even stop playing the game).
I have lots of thoughts about how you can just give the Guilds identities, and tell anyone that gets upset that they don't have a "generic ability dispensary" that there's plenty of other games out there that do a good job of that (and I think you could probably still generalize abilities, while tying Skill Caps to guilds and having each guild and class have a couple of unique abilities, so that we still have class identity, without having to worry as much about making sure each ability is tailored to a specific class specialization).
I was very quiet the first VC where Rias introduced this, and when he asked me about that my answer was what it is right now: It's hard to be excited about this change, because I specifically made the choice for Mack to be a ranger because they had more flexibility than a Primalist (and she wasn't a Fighter, so Berserker was out even if they were comparably flexible), and because I wanted to explore the world without Mack having to engage heavily in combat. If everyone has that same level of freedom and flexibility, what about this change is going to make things better for Mack? If things aren't going to be better for Mack, or even worse, then while I'm glad to hear that it's improving Staff Morale I have no other reason to be particularly fond of this change. If anyone can climb anything and also they can fight anything, then what makes Mack cool and special and deserving of a rumor doesn't exist anymore. It feels like the last 100 skill ranks of climbing I took are being "wasted", when I could have just picked the Strength Attribute and probably still been able to climb anything that's ever released in the future.
The other part I mentioned when I was asked why I was being quiet, was that I can't really make a judgement call as to if any of my concerns even have merit, because I don't know enough about the "under the hood" aspects of the changes, so I wasn't going to voice them at the time. Because it feels like the concern I feel comes from a place of panic at the prospect of the fear of the unknown, despite having very real, historically based reasons to be concerned.
I think either way, if this is what's better for the health of the game, then I support it. I don't worry about this making me quit the game, or that it'll mean I'll stop playing the game. I still like combat, and I use my secondary slot to play around with the combat system. I just worry that it'll mean that I lose interest in a character that's already hard to maintain interest in, because it feels like the game doesn't have a place for them.
[edited to address some typos, and make things a bit more coherent/consistent]
"You hear the Woses, the Wild Men of the Woods... Remnants of an older time they be, living few and secretly, wild and wary as beasts."
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
I'm both glad and a little wary about the coming changes. I love Clok to death, and I also love Cogg to death. My first concern is, are the lore of guilds going to be retconned? Actually, I guess the adventurers are rather decentralized hence they're easy to be waved away. Howver, stormhold and the library are a big part of the world at the moment. How will you advance from now on in your siciety's standing, will they b limited, the abilities gated behind them via mechanical means?
I kinda liked how the skill points limited what you can do, unlike in clok where you can be a jack of all trades and be good at all of them.
Still, I love that this is gave new life to the devs which is always great to hear.
P.S.
We need an ability to make dyes and have a specialized tree for it.
I kinda liked how the skill points limited what you can do, unlike in clok where you can be a jack of all trades and be good at all of them.
Still, I love that this is gave new life to the devs which is always great to hear.
P.S.
We need an ability to make dyes and have a specialized tree for it.
(Insert appropriate smiley)
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
I am pretty excited for this!
I admit, I've fallen off COGG (though I keep an eye on it, ready to jump back in). A large part of that is it feeling like a... generic hack-and-slash theme park. When it comes to gameplay, that is - I do and always have adored Rias's lore and setting. But I do not enjoy grinding or combat, as a general rule, and the excellent lore and setting only ever kept my attention so far when nothing actually happens. And I think the reason for that is, as stated in the OP, all the factions and organizations have been forced to stay midle-of-the-road and noncommittal.
This lack of movement has led to my character(s) feel stagnant and unable to pursue any goals ICly, instead waiting on OOC changes to the game.
I think the changes listed are a solid step towards resolving the exact things that made it difficult for me to find motivation to play. Not the mechanical changes (though I look forward to seeing how I might make my character's build feel more cohesive) but the in-character ones of factions and societies actually having goals to pursue and the ability to let players help them do so.
My main motivation in RP games is to have some kind of meaningful impact on the game, and it feels like that might be a little more possible with these changes.
I admit, I've fallen off COGG (though I keep an eye on it, ready to jump back in). A large part of that is it feeling like a... generic hack-and-slash theme park. When it comes to gameplay, that is - I do and always have adored Rias's lore and setting. But I do not enjoy grinding or combat, as a general rule, and the excellent lore and setting only ever kept my attention so far when nothing actually happens. And I think the reason for that is, as stated in the OP, all the factions and organizations have been forced to stay midle-of-the-road and noncommittal.
This lack of movement has led to my character(s) feel stagnant and unable to pursue any goals ICly, instead waiting on OOC changes to the game.
I think the changes listed are a solid step towards resolving the exact things that made it difficult for me to find motivation to play. Not the mechanical changes (though I look forward to seeing how I might make my character's build feel more cohesive) but the in-character ones of factions and societies actually having goals to pursue and the ability to let players help them do so.
My main motivation in RP games is to have some kind of meaningful impact on the game, and it feels like that might be a little more possible with these changes.
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
Throw me in as mixed.
I liked general abilities in Clok because they meant I could play a character who could stand their own without being in the specialised Guilds which none catered to the playstyle I wanted to explore or were so boringly generic (looking at you mercenaries). I also hated general abilities in Clok because everyone did everything.
That initial chat where changes were announced, it seemed like the big draw is to the players who want to fight, repair their own gear, and do everything instead of those who want to specialise. While I understand it makes you feel like you've more control of making some of the factions currently around a bit more ardent about opinions, it still sounds like you're trying to make everyone happy and backtrack away from people actually specialising by opening things up.
I think I'll just end up rolling my eyes more must-have stuff along with the 1-point dippers
I liked general abilities in Clok because they meant I could play a character who could stand their own without being in the specialised Guilds which none catered to the playstyle I wanted to explore or were so boringly generic (looking at you mercenaries). I also hated general abilities in Clok because everyone did everything.
That initial chat where changes were announced, it seemed like the big draw is to the players who want to fight, repair their own gear, and do everything instead of those who want to specialise. While I understand it makes you feel like you've more control of making some of the factions currently around a bit more ardent about opinions, it still sounds like you're trying to make everyone happy and backtrack away from people actually specialising by opening things up.
I think I'll just end up rolling my eyes more must-have stuff along with the 1-point dippers
- Karjus
Speaking to you, XYZ says, "Never bother to wash it. It gets dirty again anyway."
Speaking to XYZ, you say, "I hope you don't treat your ass the same way."
Speaking to you, XYZ says, "Never bother to wash it. It gets dirty again anyway."
Speaking to XYZ, you say, "I hope you don't treat your ass the same way."
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
A nice thing about opening up a lot of the combat abilities is that there's already a lot of them, and this will let people who want to do combat do that without further development effort. A lot of people like to say they're not into combat, but I've found that while some really mean that and their characters live by it, most seem to be closer to "I don't want combat to be ALL I'm about, but I still want to be able to hold my own." Conveniently, there are already plenty of combat abilities people of all types will be able to choose from, so instead of trying to answer things like "what abilities can we give Scholars or Adventurers who want to be good at combat, that don't just feel like abilities that should be given to Warriors in the first place", people could now just take some abilities from the combat skill trees and not feel so tied down by their non-Warrior-ness. Devwise, no more trying to finagle abilities in that need to feel like they fit non-warrior classes but still serve as roundabout ways of giving combat capability. Development can focus on more non-combat-related stuff as a result. (Not that having some of those roundabout combat-applicable abilities isn't also fun. Giving non-combat abilities some modest situational combat applicability is a good way to make them feel more valuable to many players who would otherwise consider them a waste.)
Between the ability trees being trees that need to be invested into and the potential solution we're working on to establish how skill caps are determined (since guilds and classes would no longer be a given), I'm hoping there isn't going to be an issue with do-everythings and why-nots. More people are going to be facing the Adventurer Problem, which is: "There's so much I CAN do, but I can't do it all, and I have to pick and choose where to spend my points." When it comes to things like swimming and climbing and more niche stuff like that - I don't think people who are currently specialized in those are going to see a lot of others suddenly muscling in on their territory, because they're still niche things and still require investment that could be spent elsewhere. The people who wanted to be climb-masters were already choosing Ranger, and those who weren't Rangers didn't pick the class because they were more interested in other things anyway, right? With all the choices to be made and trees to invest into, I don't see many people dropping a heavy investment into Climbing even though they're not really into that as part of my character, because if that's not a big part of their character, why would they invest in that and prevent themselves from picking up stuff more meaningful to them? I feel like I'm running in circles a bit with the explanation but hopefully it makes sense. And on top of all that, the Ranger class specialization will still exist and have access to some exclusive exploration-related bonuses for those who want exploration as their defining thing. I don't want it to be a case of (overgeneralizing here to make a point) "Fighterguy climbs just as good as Explorerguy because strength bonuses and claws and a token point into a climb ability" any more than I want there to be a case of "Occultguy in skivvies and no combat skills fights just as well as Fighterguy with specialized combat gear and training because magic and a token melee ability." I still want there to be a sense of specialization, and to reward heavy investment with meaningful and exclusive benefits for those who want it. I want to avoid the ability for someone to take on a specialized niche role at negligible investment cost.
And on the subject of Adventurers and versatility, we're playing with ideas to keep those who spec into the current adventurer classes feeling a bit more versatile than others in adventurey-type skills, as that's a part of their current guild/class identity.
We've been poking at the numbers a lot to try and make this feel balanced against the current setup. Again with the trees and the ideas for a new way to determine skill caps, there shouldn't be the problem of cherry-picking and do-everythings any more than there already is. If anything, we've been thinking that there are going to be a few people who have spread themselves extremely thin with their width of skills/capabilities under the current system that are going to have to accept that they won't be able to do quite as much quite as well. (This mostly applies to crafting.) Single-skill-point wonders will be less attractive and less viable than current. Every time a see a skill sheet with a bunch of 1s spread all over the place, I get sad. If someone really wants to take a bunch of combat, crafting, performing, and exploration abilities, they could (though more limited than the current ability to put 1 in a zillion skills) ... and hopefully be content with being surface-level capable at them all. My specialized Marauder build character isn't going to feel very threatened identity-wise by that other person spread thin with a bunch of combat and artifice abilities but terrible odds at actually pulling any of them off because their rolls are so bad, never mind my Marauder-exclusive stuff that they'll never get. They can do basic repairs and make basic crafting components of various kinds all day if that's what suits them, but I imagine it's going to be pretty unsatisfying not being able to do the meaty stuff that they could have with depth of investment rather than width. Those who did invest in depth over width shouldn't feel threatened because they can actually do that meaty stuff while the attempted jack-of-all is just doing the most surface-level stuff.
Note: Class bonuses would still be a thing. A non-Duelist might pick up Tumble and Flip from the Acrobatics skill tree, but they wouldn't be able to utilize them as effectively in combat as someone who did spec into the Duelist (or Bard) class. Class bonuses can affect anything from rolls to cooldown timers to bonus effects.
I do want to give people more freedom in crafting their character concepts with the more open pool of abilities. In that way, sure, I am trying to please a wider audience, which I earlier said I was tired of doing. But in this case it allows me to work on more interesting specialization options, because when someone says "but that doesn't fit my character," I can tell them that's fine, they've got plenty to work with given all the openly-available stuff.
Once enough is ready, I'll push all this to a test server with instant ability unlearning and limited areas just so people can try out the system, look over the ability lists, and play around with what kind of builds and setups they can come up with. See if you can replicate your current build in the new system. Does it feel better? Worse? If you're not satisfed with your character in the current system, does the new system feel like you can better realize what you were going for? We can get solid testing and feedback for how this all would feel compared to the current guild/class system. If it ends up being one of those "sounded great on paper, didn't feel so great in practice" situations, we don't have to go through with it. At the very least, we'll have a bunch more ability ideas from the effort that could still be made public, or slotted into guilds/classes as appropriate.
Re: Guilds vs Societies. Yeah, I'm still figuring out how I feel about all that. On the one hand I really like the idea of situations like the Physicker who joins the Shady Society. On the other hand - what does the Shady Society do for the Physicker? If it's purely RP on the player's part that's great, but I get the feeling that the Physicker might start to feel a little dissatisfied or potentially resentful, knowing they're not getting any unique tasks or particularly useful abilities because they don't specialize in the shady activity skillset that the organization is built around. Then we're getting back into the territory of trying to make everyone feel comfortable in any situation, and the thought of adding unique Society tasks/abilities/perks for every archetype/society combination is so daunting that I'm not even dreaming of such a thing ever happening. It could be a situation where we do: "Confirm this three times and know that this is considered a non-optimal choice considering your current class/skillset and the aims of the society you're about to join." I'd still worry about the emails asking for a solution because it didn't turn out to be as fun in practice as it did while conceptualizing the idea. So I'd say I'm still open to the idea, but with some hesitation.
Between the ability trees being trees that need to be invested into and the potential solution we're working on to establish how skill caps are determined (since guilds and classes would no longer be a given), I'm hoping there isn't going to be an issue with do-everythings and why-nots. More people are going to be facing the Adventurer Problem, which is: "There's so much I CAN do, but I can't do it all, and I have to pick and choose where to spend my points." When it comes to things like swimming and climbing and more niche stuff like that - I don't think people who are currently specialized in those are going to see a lot of others suddenly muscling in on their territory, because they're still niche things and still require investment that could be spent elsewhere. The people who wanted to be climb-masters were already choosing Ranger, and those who weren't Rangers didn't pick the class because they were more interested in other things anyway, right? With all the choices to be made and trees to invest into, I don't see many people dropping a heavy investment into Climbing even though they're not really into that as part of my character, because if that's not a big part of their character, why would they invest in that and prevent themselves from picking up stuff more meaningful to them? I feel like I'm running in circles a bit with the explanation but hopefully it makes sense. And on top of all that, the Ranger class specialization will still exist and have access to some exclusive exploration-related bonuses for those who want exploration as their defining thing. I don't want it to be a case of (overgeneralizing here to make a point) "Fighterguy climbs just as good as Explorerguy because strength bonuses and claws and a token point into a climb ability" any more than I want there to be a case of "Occultguy in skivvies and no combat skills fights just as well as Fighterguy with specialized combat gear and training because magic and a token melee ability." I still want there to be a sense of specialization, and to reward heavy investment with meaningful and exclusive benefits for those who want it. I want to avoid the ability for someone to take on a specialized niche role at negligible investment cost.
And on the subject of Adventurers and versatility, we're playing with ideas to keep those who spec into the current adventurer classes feeling a bit more versatile than others in adventurey-type skills, as that's a part of their current guild/class identity.
We've been poking at the numbers a lot to try and make this feel balanced against the current setup. Again with the trees and the ideas for a new way to determine skill caps, there shouldn't be the problem of cherry-picking and do-everythings any more than there already is. If anything, we've been thinking that there are going to be a few people who have spread themselves extremely thin with their width of skills/capabilities under the current system that are going to have to accept that they won't be able to do quite as much quite as well. (This mostly applies to crafting.) Single-skill-point wonders will be less attractive and less viable than current. Every time a see a skill sheet with a bunch of 1s spread all over the place, I get sad. If someone really wants to take a bunch of combat, crafting, performing, and exploration abilities, they could (though more limited than the current ability to put 1 in a zillion skills) ... and hopefully be content with being surface-level capable at them all. My specialized Marauder build character isn't going to feel very threatened identity-wise by that other person spread thin with a bunch of combat and artifice abilities but terrible odds at actually pulling any of them off because their rolls are so bad, never mind my Marauder-exclusive stuff that they'll never get. They can do basic repairs and make basic crafting components of various kinds all day if that's what suits them, but I imagine it's going to be pretty unsatisfying not being able to do the meaty stuff that they could have with depth of investment rather than width. Those who did invest in depth over width shouldn't feel threatened because they can actually do that meaty stuff while the attempted jack-of-all is just doing the most surface-level stuff.
Note: Class bonuses would still be a thing. A non-Duelist might pick up Tumble and Flip from the Acrobatics skill tree, but they wouldn't be able to utilize them as effectively in combat as someone who did spec into the Duelist (or Bard) class. Class bonuses can affect anything from rolls to cooldown timers to bonus effects.
I do want to give people more freedom in crafting their character concepts with the more open pool of abilities. In that way, sure, I am trying to please a wider audience, which I earlier said I was tired of doing. But in this case it allows me to work on more interesting specialization options, because when someone says "but that doesn't fit my character," I can tell them that's fine, they've got plenty to work with given all the openly-available stuff.
Once enough is ready, I'll push all this to a test server with instant ability unlearning and limited areas just so people can try out the system, look over the ability lists, and play around with what kind of builds and setups they can come up with. See if you can replicate your current build in the new system. Does it feel better? Worse? If you're not satisfed with your character in the current system, does the new system feel like you can better realize what you were going for? We can get solid testing and feedback for how this all would feel compared to the current guild/class system. If it ends up being one of those "sounded great on paper, didn't feel so great in practice" situations, we don't have to go through with it. At the very least, we'll have a bunch more ability ideas from the effort that could still be made public, or slotted into guilds/classes as appropriate.
Re: Guilds vs Societies. Yeah, I'm still figuring out how I feel about all that. On the one hand I really like the idea of situations like the Physicker who joins the Shady Society. On the other hand - what does the Shady Society do for the Physicker? If it's purely RP on the player's part that's great, but I get the feeling that the Physicker might start to feel a little dissatisfied or potentially resentful, knowing they're not getting any unique tasks or particularly useful abilities because they don't specialize in the shady activity skillset that the organization is built around. Then we're getting back into the territory of trying to make everyone feel comfortable in any situation, and the thought of adding unique Society tasks/abilities/perks for every archetype/society combination is so daunting that I'm not even dreaming of such a thing ever happening. It could be a situation where we do: "Confirm this three times and know that this is considered a non-optimal choice considering your current class/skillset and the aims of the society you're about to join." I'd still worry about the emails asking for a solution because it didn't turn out to be as fun in practice as it did while conceptualizing the idea. So I'd say I'm still open to the idea, but with some hesitation.
<Rias> PUT ON PANTS
<Fellborn> NO
<Fellborn> NO
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
I have three words for you Rias. I LOVE THIS!!!!!!!! I think it will solve all of your problems and it allows my character to play more to what I want him to be while also still being specialized. Thank you so much to commiting to your vision and not everyone elses.
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
question for rpers though, why do people even consider fitting someone somewhere they know has nothing to do with them? What does a healer in say, a smuggling ring do anyway? Fix someone's ass when they get caught trying to sneak out a secret vial? They may as well have wider clients healing anyone in and outside of that instead, right?
This might be somewhat of an unpopular opinion, but I really wonder how this kinda stuff is doable in the first place without whoever coming up with it feeling like they're misplaced in the first place when the choice is there and they can be elsewhere.
This might be somewhat of an unpopular opinion, but I really wonder how this kinda stuff is doable in the first place without whoever coming up with it feeling like they're misplaced in the first place when the choice is there and they can be elsewhere.
Re: Guilds, Societies, Factions, Characters, Skills, Abilities, the Lost Lands, Scope, COGG
COGG is your project, so I believe you should do whatever it takes to stay interested and productive. While I wouldn't go so far as to call all the guilds bland -- the Library of Qamar and Stormholdt both have distinct personalities that fit well with the Lost Lands -- I understand why people have come to feel the way they do about them.
Having three guilds made it easy to see who was and wasn't getting attention in terms of roleplay or development. Thus, my main worry is that once there are a dozen little groups running around, the GMs will be spread so thin that they won't be able to give opportunities to let player characters shine. It will be easier for certain groups to receive more attention, while others are neglected. I experienced this in CLOK, but I won't ramble about that here.
Skill-based ability trees sound interesting, but I think Lexx raises a good point about the meta. My characters will probably benefit overall from the change, but, as a player, I'm with those who have mixed feelings.
Having three guilds made it easy to see who was and wasn't getting attention in terms of roleplay or development. Thus, my main worry is that once there are a dozen little groups running around, the GMs will be spread so thin that they won't be able to give opportunities to let player characters shine. It will be easier for certain groups to receive more attention, while others are neglected. I experienced this in CLOK, but I won't ramble about that here.
Skill-based ability trees sound interesting, but I think Lexx raises a good point about the meta. My characters will probably benefit overall from the change, but, as a player, I'm with those who have mixed feelings.