Skill-based vs Level-based

I presume you, the reader, are somewhat familiar with this discussion.

To me, the basic problem with skill-based systems is that they require you to do boring stuff to get a skill that you consider useful. Want to learn lockpicking? Hunt around for hours finding locks. Ugh! Also, while hunting for locks, don't accidentally find yourself in combat, because then you might swing your sword or block with your shield, thereby gaining levels in them, nerfing your ability to learn lockpicking.

Levelling up, instead, says "thou hast gained a level! Dost they wish to get better at what you've been doing, or is there a skill you didn't use but would dearly love to be better at?"

I think my bias is clear.

Skill-based systems seem to be driven by a desire to be realistic, which is totally not in keeping with fantasy games. "Realistic" means slippery slope. An injury to your arm hurts your sword-swinging skills, leading to more wounds, and then (like the black knight) you're just a stump on the ground taunting your attacker. Slippery slopes are not fun. You can stick your realism where the sun don't shine.

Hit points are an approximation. A gloss. As are levels. As is combat. As is the fact that your character never needs a latrine, nor needs to sleep, and the fact that days go by in an hour or less, and that magic works... Immersion > Realism. Immersion makes players happy.

Anyone who's ever worked any time of service or retail knows that customers are idiots. And yet, we are all customers often. The problem is generally one of communication, expectation, and repetition. Although any given customer might only rarely have expectations mismatched with reality, the fact that the service employee encounters hundreds of customers means that he frequently sees that mismatch.

My point is that players are like customers. If you ask them what they like about a game, they might mention the realism -- which made them feel like the game world was real. Which is actually immersion. It's sad when a designer can't figure this out. What are we paying you for again?

You can't get emotion from a player without suspension of disbelief. If your game is too complex, the player doesn't figure it out, says wtf, and spends time thinking about game mechanics rather than enjoying the fantasy of being his character. And it's not strictly complexity that does this, but how much complexity you throw at the player at once.

Which is one reason why platformers like to gradually introduce the player to mechanics. Having the player do something complex is easy if you train him up to it. It's like learning to speak a foreign language, drive a car, play WoW, or use a programming API. Learn a little bit, internalize it until it becomes second nature, then add another layer on top. These topics can seem daunting at first, but everyone still learns to do them.

Take Dwarf Fortress. It's scary. You get thrown into the deep end of that particular pool. Once you learn your way around, the complexity turns into richness and becomes very engrossing. I think a lot of players will be turned off by its steep learning curve, which kills any player's sense of immersion.

--

ok, sidetrack over. Topic: skill-based. My basic point is that a good skill-based system isn't one based upon practice, but open. No, it's not realistic. The player might say "that's unrealistic" and hate you, but I think that happens more when the game isn't fun. WoW is grossly unrealistic in a lot of ways, but players rarely complain about those aspects. (In part because they're bitching about how Locks are OP, instead.) Give the player a chance to do what he wants to do, and I expect he'll forgive heaps of minor sins.

The whole point of classes, to me, is to give players a clear role. "You are a mage. Act like one! Go shoot fireballs at orcs!" Some players thrive in this sort of restriction; the direction gives them purpose. It sets their expectations in a way that allows them to mentally frame the coming game experience. I think this is much more mass-market because it doesn't require that your player have played your sort of game many times before.

A skill-based system is more open, allowing a player to change his mind, or to mix-and-match skills a bit more loosely, creating a particular playing style that he particularly likes. One downside common to many skill-based systems is gimping: the player is "free" to choose crappy combinations of skills, or to put hard-earned skill points into those gimicky "flavor" skills your drunk designer threw in one weekend. And now that player can't kill any creatures or complete any quests because his character is underpowerd. Yay for you, you taught that player a lesson! The players that like that kind of stuff -- and there's some out there that really enjoy that kind of challenge -- won't keep bread on your table, much less meat, much less food for your wife and kids.

Whatever system you (or I) choose, the most important thing to do is to let the player know ahead of time what's coming up.