Teaching - GM necessity and Level teachable to

[Oghma]

I'd rather the teacher not be able to train the student past the apprentice skill so that said apprentice will not be a journeyman or adept right off the mark. That kind of self training should work in conjunction eventually with a new skill training system. Also Imms have a function to reward players for good rp already in place, based on the situation or rp witnessed.

[Leohand]

I have never said I thought the trademarks were a good idea.

I actually think they are not a good idea,

They were my idea...

Hehe,

They were too.

I think they are a good idea too, but I also agree with Dalvyn. Having a trademark shouldn't be just because you grandmastered a trade. There should be other conditions.

[Leohand]

You can always say that without the teacher feat, people can only teach up to amateur, and then the two feats will enable people to train to novice and apprentice, with faith managers able to teach up to Journeyman only if they take both teacher feats. I just think that faith managers would have a bonus to their teaching skill for being the mouth of their god often. My opinion. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Nysan]

I have never said I thought the trademarks were a good idea.

I actually think they are not a good idea,

They were my idea...

Hehe,

They were too.

I think they are a good idea too, but I also agree with Dalvyn. Having a trademark shouldn't be just because you grandmastered a trade. There should be other conditions.

Reminding me of my ancient game ideas reminds me how long I have been here...

Trademarks were thought up in a different time, when there was I think 2 GMed armorsmiths in the game and almost no GMed anything else trade related. Back when most trades were not accessable and dwarves were the sole source of metals. Trademarks meant something different then, on the line of houses in character development in the eyes of many tradefolks.

All for changes to the outdated trade system and granting trademarks for more than GMing trades (RPing your trade being a BIG one). The idea is and was a great one. But, great ideas do not shine so well in a poor system. The system is flawed...not my poor trademarks. They didn't have a chance!!!

[Aegir]

I'd rather the teacher not be able to train the student past the apprentice skill so that said apprentice will not be a journeyman or adept right off the mark. That kind of self training should work in conjunction eventually with a new skill training system.

That does raise the question of what the teacher feat(s) should be under a system like this. Perhaps a more skilled teacher incurs a smaller XP cost from the trainee?

I personally dislike any training system that makes it more viable to hunt endlessly through the MUD for some NPC trainer, when there are hordes of PCs that know the spell, and are willing to teach it, but can't. Its one thing if we're talking about things that should be hard to come by (transport spells, shapeshift skill, things of that nature, that require a quest), but should one really have to travel across the continent just to train something as common as, say, Trollish Vigor?

A side effect of this would potentially be that there wouldn't be such a drastic divide between the good and evil sides of the MUD, as far as whats available. It'd only take a couple PCs knowing something before its available to anyone they know, and by extension anyone they know, and so on.

[Oghma]

A side effect of this would potentially be that there wouldn't be such a drastic divide between the good and evil sides of the MUD, as far as whats available. It'd only take a couple PCs knowing something before its available to anyone they know, and by extension anyone they know, and so on.

I agree, but what I worry about is:

PC#1 serves Cyric, he has the spell Undeath to Death
PC#2 serves Mystra and she needs the spell

Both meet and PC#1 trains PC#2 in the spell ooc

A way around this though, would be for all teacher training to log faith or align of players so that it can be read and if the offending parties are participating in ooc training they can be visited with proper consequence.

[Leohand]

Problem with that, Oghma, is what if person A follows Mystra, and person b serves Shar or Mask, and conceals their holy symbol at all times, so person a teaches person b, not knowing in character that person b is bad?

[Aegir]

I agree, but what I worry about is:

PC#1 serves Cyric, he has the spell Undeath to Death
PC#2 serves Mystra and she needs the spell

Both meet and PC#1 trains PC#2 in the spell ooc

A way around this though, would be for all teacher training to log faith or align of players so that it can be read and if the offending parties are participating in ooc training they can be visited with proper consequence.

Two comments regarding this:

a) I dislike using how something can be abused as an argument against it. Everything can be abused in one way or another; the question is, would it add enough to make the potential for abuse acceptable? IMO, in this case its an emphatic yes.

b) As you mention, many things are already logged to curtail abuse, but as Leohand says, I'd be careful with basing punishment simply on a good training an evil; in many cases, its a big part of an evils RP to not be known to be evil. Sure, you can use Know Alignment... tho' I greatly prefer simply having the favor system alert the trainer. Have him lose a small amount of favor if he trains the wrong person (and slightly more if its a directly opposed faith), which would alert the trainer, but would still leave open the possibility of the trainee tricking the trainer.

From there, its a matter of tracking patterns. If someone shows alot of training of opposed alignments... then you might want to have a chat.

[Oghma]

I still honestly see that as an excuse, mostly from the perspective that an evil faith would not teach faith enemies unless it was part of an elaborate plot, the point of teach is to be able to share spells with others, it would be hard to establish an rp where one faith enemy would train another even in false secret unless it was for a truly devious purpose. That kind of rp I could support and understand, though it would need to a reasonable rp and not a bandage to train another pc in 'uber spells'

It is really about watching both parties.

I don't want you to think I am against your argument, I am just voicing my concerns and worries.

[Leohand]

Aegir has put it very well. I like the favor idea, because it gives an alert that this is not a person they should be training, and it would be an alert unavailable to those unfaithed. Meaning those without a god would be easier to trick. And unfaithed individuals have access to much fewer spells. At least the priests. And some spells with wizards too.

[Aegir]

I still honestly see that as an excuse, mostly from the perspective that an evil faith would not teach faith enemies unless it was part of an elaborate plot, the point of teach is to be able to share spells with others, it would be hard to establish an rp where one faith enemy would train another even in false secret unless it was for a truly devious purpose. That kind of rp I could support and understand, though it would need to a reasonable rp and not a bandage to train another pc in 'uber spells'

I do agree, I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be an absolute thing. If its done once, even twice, it could be an aberration, but if it starts being made a regular thing... yea, might want to look into it.

I just don't think its a big enough concern to not move forward with implementing it. Its already a problem for people to train with NPC trainers that they shouldn't, this would change nothing, and would add alot.

[Oghma]

I just raised it as a possible problem that could be countered with logging, I have no desire to hold up the process. I try to look from both extremes, my concerns will not likely slow anything down, rather they might just add to the good ideas and solutions already set here. Please don't worry I find everything helps even if only focuses on one element.

No one here is out to damper things, just evaluate how they can run within the bounds of rules by suggesting steps and scenarios.

[Aegir]

I just raised it as a possible problem that could be countered with logging, I have no desire to hold up the process. I try to look from both extremes, my concerns will not likely slow anything down, rather they might just add to the good ideas and solutions already set here. Please don't worry I find everything helps even if only focuses on one element.

Ah... well alrighty then! Well, what're you still here for? Snap to it, get it done! Time is mo- er... time!

One question: Should this training extend to feats as well? I don't see any reason for it not to, assuming the trainee has a feat point, and meets all the prereqs.

[Oghma]

Feats are one time training events though, sort of a knack you pick up or are born with. I don't know how it would translate into pc training, maybe it could work with quests?

[Aegir]

Maybe thats what the teaching feat could allow. You have the Lv 2 Teaching feat, you can teach feats?

[Glim]

Maybe thats what the teaching feat could allow. You have the Lv 2 Teaching feat, you can teach feats?

Don't really have anything to add, as it is pretty self explanatory, but I like this idea!

[Leohand]

I don't know if I should put this here, or start a new thread, but since it involves teaching, I decided to add it here. Anyway, the teacher feats could be used to, as was suggested, enable to teach at a cost of less experience under the new system.

And here is my new idea. I mentioned Faith Managers havinbg a natural teaching ability. How about we add a feat called 'Faith Teacher' which is learned automatically by inner circle and faith managers. This feat would give a bonus to teach for persons of the same faith. I think by the time one is inner circle or faith manager that is pretty reasonable. Just a thought.

[Kregor]

I agree with Aegir on this one, in the sense that, while the code for teaching could be abused, the fact of the matter is EVERY piece of code can be abused. I'm certain I frustrate some coders.... I'm not just talking about mudding, but in my consulting IRL, when I say you CAN'T code flawlessly, and you can never make a code flawless. All one has to do is to look at the history of virii and Windows to see this. Even worse in this day and age we have hackers who have written agents to infiltrate your computer, send IM and email spam to people you know... for NO other reason than to give a way to send it past spam filters. This does not mean we should not have email or IM, it means we have to code it, find the weaknesses that others find and exploit, and fix it to tighten it up. And even in the end, from the MUD perspective... you CAN'T CODE OBEDIENCE, SOMEone will always find a way to abuse any feature or bit of code you give them, the solution is in tracking the exploits, fixing them, and human, manual punishment of those who take the liberty.

The way I see it, you couldn't possibly be opening the skill learning system for any more abuse with an improved teaching system than you can with the current system. In the end, the easy way to exploit the system as it is current is to get a copy of the "leet list" of trainer, get a fly spell, and rush around the map grabbing as many skills/spells/etc as you can from as many sources that won't stop you as possible. An upgraded teaching system couldn't possibly be exploited more. If anything the human compass in a teacher would be more discretionary and subjective than the compass in a mobile.

We can tighten it up by doing things like the favor docking for teaching someone of the wrong faith (YOU may not ICly know, but if you are a Mystran hitting teach with a Cyrist, SHE is going to know!), and log whenever the favor is docked, to alert the admins if it happens more than once. (If you hit teach again after getting your favor docked once, then you're most likely doing it OOCly). Admins punish with IC consequence for what is supposed to be IC actions. In the end, it's human, manual punishment that will be a deterrent to abuse, no matter how tight the code.

[Oghma]

I like the idea of favour docking. That would work very well.

[Hviti]

The only problem is that once that Mystran teaches the Cyricist once, the Cyricist knows the spell and can train it up to GM if so desired. Even if they're warned by a favor dock, it's too late - the spell/skill has already been given up.

I'd prefer there to be a way for teachers to ensure that their students don't teach others; no matter how trustworthy other PCs might be, there's always the possibility (especially for the more powerful/rare spells/skills) that someone will be tempted to pass the spell/skill onto another PC whom it wouldn't be IC for them to be teaching.

For wizards specifically, I'd support spells of a certain level being teachable only by a specialist in their school. This could work by setting the skill level required to teach of a spell of a school above a certain level at a level above that which PCs not in that school can achieve. For example:

You have two master wizards, one an Abjurer and one an Invoker.
The "level cap" for specialist spells will be set (arbitrarily) at 5 (I think between 5 and 7 would be good). This means that no abjurer should be able to teach an invocation spell of fifth level or above and no invoker should be able to teach an abjuration of fifth level or above.

Thus, the abjurer might have a hard cap on his level of lightning bolt, a 3rd level invocation spell, of, let's say, master. The required level to teach might be expert, so he would be able to teach this invocation spell. Since he's not a specialist in the school, he might be able to train it up to novice or apprentice.

The abjurer would be able to learn cone of cold or other invocation spells, but his hard cap on those spells would be at adept or some other level below the required level to teach, expert. Thus, the abjurer would be able to learn, but not teach spells like cone of cold.

Conversely, the invoker could learn and teach spells like armor, which he could train past the required skill level of teaching (e.g. armor needs to be expert and the invoker can train it to adept). He can learn high level abjuration spells like energy immunity, but not teach them since his cap for those is at journeyman and the required level to teach is expert. However, he can teach high level invocation spells because he can level them above the skill level cap which restricts the abjurer's non-guild spells.
He can also teach non evocation spells to higher levels than the abjurer, since he can have them at higher levels (e.g. the abjurer's lightning bolt at master can be taught to novice or apprentice, the invoker's lightning bolt can be GMed and taught to apprentice or journeyman).

This way, no one wizard could become a one stop shop for every spell. However, wizards would still be able to teach much much more especially with spells below the specialist cap, since the general cap for teach would be below GM (probably around expert or so). That way no PC could become a source for every spell and the need for different master/apprentice relationships could be reinforced. Also, being a specialist would have more value than it does currently, since it would mean being able to teach your lower level spells to a higher level than other guilds and being able to teach your higher level spells (something which no other guild would be able to do). Mages could teach every spell below a certain level, but would be unable to teach high level specialist spells, which imo makes sense since they gain benefits from being able to access so many.

I'd also support lower level spells being teachable at lower skill levels (adept or thereabouts) and high level spells being teachable at. That way, it would be easy enough to find a teacher of magic missile, but something like timestop wouldn't become immediately available to everyone.

This wouldn't work for priests, since they can GM any spell.