RE: [Adonthell-general] Items

[Benjamin Walther-Franks]

> > > What I do not understand is why we need
> > > the availability (that long table). I propose that we can 
> just have
> > > the faction alignment handle all that (I think faction 
> alignment can
> > > be quite a powerful tool!). And in some cases the characters can
> > > just tell the character that she can not learn something
> 
> I imagine that it will be quite like that. As Ben says, 
> players wouldn't
> see the table, but for developers it is important to know who will be
> able to learn what and to what degree.
> 
> I guess there are at least two tests a character has to pass to learn
> something. He must be able to learn it (no dwarf will be able to learn
> songs of the birds). Second, his faction alignment must match that of
> his teacher. For common abilities, latter wouldn't be a real 
> problem, as
> there'll be all kinds of teachers available. For less common stuff,
> alignment would play a bigger role.
> 
> Btw, as I read the table, the numbers show both the availablity of
> teachers and the maximum rank a certain race can gain in an ability,
> right?

I hadn't considered that when creating the table, but it doesn't sound bad.
On the other hand, if we see the availability as per rank it wouldn't be
necessary to have a rank limit, as getting a second rank in a rare ability
would be just as hard as getting the first. So having three or four ranks in
an ability thats rare or very rare for you is near to impossible anyway.


> > We could even go as far as to say that once a
> > player has one rank in an ability, he can freely buy ranks with
> > advancement points.
> 
> I like the idea that special events make the player advance in an
> attribute. I'm not so sure about freely buying ranks. First 
> of all, it's
> an exception from the rules, and exceptions just introduce more
> complexity. Second, we have this "availabilty of abilities" table now.
> It would be sorta pointless, when people could gain ranks just so. By
> using the teachers we could also prevent players from 
> advancing too fast
> in an ability. They can't probably just buy two or three 
> ranks. At least
> they would need to do the teacher a favour in between, gather 
> more money
> first, or even seek a more capable teacher.

Don't forget that they'd be totally free as the player always needs to
expend Experience (advancement points) for a new rank, no matter how he
gains it. But hey I suggested not having that in the first place, so it's up
to Nils to defend his point :)
 
  
> > As to the availability table: Even though the table seems quite
> > complex, the player will never see anything of this, in 
> fact, he will
> > see even less than before, since he doesn't see which abilities are
> > available to him, but discovers them as he goes along. It's more for
> > implementational uses like.
> 
> That's really good. Although people could still look at the rules and
> see it. But the majority wouldn't, I guess.


Exactly.
 
 
> > The more I think about it the better it sounds. Yeah, faction
> > alignment is definately the way to go!
> 
> If you can find a way to handle this with faction alignment, 
> I'm all for
> it. But I think then you would have to take all the different factions
> we'll have into account, see for what race/gender they are, 
> what they'll
> teach and so on. Might be easier to start with the table and design
> factions accordingly. In that case, faction alignment based learning
> will be a result of the rules. Oh well, I'll leave that totally to you
> guys ...

Yeh, well, as I said, I'll give it some thought. Thanks though ;)
I believe that we'll bring factions and abilities into some relation, it's
just not clear just how, yet. 
 
 
> > See above. I just think it's important that these ideas fit into a
> > general rule system, and are not just standalone rules for v0.4
> 
> True, although the rules will be specific to the Adonthell world in
> general. And factions that make it into v0.4 will most likely 
> appear in
> v1.0 as well.

That's what I meant: Not just make up rules vor 0.4, but make lasting rules
that apply to the whole game and game world.



> > <items>
> > 
> > All sounds very sensible, and doesn't really stand in conflict with
> > anything I wrote. So if you and the others are okay with it I'll
> > incorporate all of that (including your writing on skills) into the
> > existing rules. 
> 
> There is only one thing I would like to change somewhat: making stuff.
> Be it runes, enhancements, inventions. I think all of that should work
> in more or less the same fashion. Whenever the player comes across
> something new to make, it'll be added to the according 'book'.
> 
> To actually make something, the player would simply pop up 
> the book and
> select whatever entry he wants to make. This is exactly the same thing
> as casting a spell, except that a spell does not require ingredients,
> only power. As a consequence, a player could even assign a recipe to a
> 'quick-button', just like a spell, move or feat.
> 
> Anyway, when selecting to make something, the engine would 
> check whether
> the player has the proper ingredients and tools. In the case 
> he has, the
> invention or potion would be created, a rune inscribed, a weapon
> enhanced. Otherwise a message could appear, along the line "I 
> need more
> sulphur for this."
> 
> 
> I think that would be a more generic solution than having to 
> talk to an
> anvil, which would only cover a few special cases. Above would handle
> everything from spells and songs to inventions and alchemy.
> 
> The actual entries would be similar to items. I.e. a list of 
> icons that
> display some descriptive text, requirements and the like when examined
> closer.
> 
> What do you think?

I agree. We should have as many generic solutions as we can, and this is
certainly a very good one. I'll write that into the rules aswell.

BEN