Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Historical note as a staff member:
Originally these feats were designed to be given only to people who demonstrated a willingness to really RP teaching, and were application only. The fear was that crappy teaching would become the unrealistically easy path to mastering everything. That didn't prove to be a runaway problem, as most people were responsible with teaching, and there was a high bar and a good deal of frustration with the application process (you had to get others to vouch for your teaching efforts), so it became possible to learn the feats from NPCs...which is how we ended up with where we are today. However, the amount of shameful teaching has definitely increased in the time since, raising the spectre of the dark portents of the doubters of the teaching system idea coming true. This suggestion moves one more step in that direction, and I am confident that if it is implemented but leads to educational grinding, we'll see teaching go away entirely. It is only grudgingly tolerated by some of the decision makers. What I'm saying is, if you like the status quo better than the old way, be careful in which direction you ask to shift it. Make sure that what we do doesn't lead to people passing around skills like so much cheap candy in a bag!

This is my opinion as an individual, (and a RL teacher) not a staff member:
First, charisma is absolutely essential to teaching success. Charisma is not (just) beauty, and of all the stats it certainly captures best the factors that make for a good teacher. High INT actually works AGAINST you, if anything, because you fail to grasp what your less-bright students are having trouble with. INT should help you learn quickly yourself, but CHA and WIS should dictate how effectively you can teach others.
When the teaching system was being developed, I thought very hard and suggested what I thought were some more realistic spins on it - such as an interplay between teaching, practice, and observing another, that is, with teaching and observation of it in use one would learn more quickly from experience with a skill, and vice-versa, a sort of multiplier. But in the end these all seemed overly complex, as much as I liked them. The goal, however, was to move teaching into the adventure RP rather than have it be something you did on the street corner. There too, I've come to realize, time to actually complete a group adventure is precious that adding teaching to it might not be so great. But then what happens on the street corners needs to be somehow better (for the game) than finding a training mob and spamming TEACH <blah>.

I understand the risk of crappy teaching and fast teaching...
I find it sad, but then (speaking about spells), giving a scroll to teach the spell is completly IC, do not require a big rp (can be a simple sale), and is available whatever limit you give to teacher...

So I tend to think that limiting teaching limits both crappy and good teaching... inciting for scroll trade and NPC teaching.

Is then mass learning from NPC better than mass learning from PC ?

Other idea... what about making teaching a skill or trade (with charisma stat as skill stat)?
At start, you teach to inept (you are worse than an NPC, no more useful than a scroll seller) and if you teach on a regular basis, you raise your trade and teach better.
The trade would have a chance to improve once per student per rl hour or whatever, limiting the mass improve of the skill making some fast, mass teaching to another player, and encourage players to take time for teaching sessions.
The trade should not take several years rl to raise though or it will once more discourage good teachers.

I know opening teaching won't reduce crapy teaching, but I hope it would give more chance to good teaching also.

Cec

I'd just like to clarify if it did not come across as such that to teach higher levels above apprentice you should have high charisma. Being a subject matter expert (INT, WIS, High Skill Level) would also be required to be able to have something higher level TO teach, but the ability to teach beyond lower levels of a skill should be dependent on force of personality.

That would mean low to average charisma could still provide traditional apprenticeship and teaching routes, I.E. your dwarf master smiths and the errant Archmage.

Raona wrote:The fear was that crappy teaching would become the unrealistically easy path to mastering everything.

If that was a valid concern, perhaps they should have thought about increasing skill levels that could be taught up to with the teach command far higher than mobs can teach skills and spells. There are quite a few things you can learn up to journeyman from mobs. Never seen a teacher ever teach that high.

Raona wrote:However, the amount of shameful teaching has definitely increased in the time since, raising the spectre of the dark portents of the doubters of the teaching system idea coming true.

Never seen it. The only elevation of my doubts I've encountered is with the lack of available (and willing) teachers and the lack of abilities for said teachers to actually be able to teach. That doubt is one that has come to realization thus far. Not to say that there are not some who will not teach, but rather that they are few and far between. There are some, however, I have been told explicitly that they will not teach certain things (by said teacher).

Raona wrote:What I'm saying is, if you like the status quo better than the old way, be careful in which direction you ask to shift it. Make sure that what we do doesn't lead to people passing around skills like so much cheap candy in a bag!

The lessons I have been taught have all been pretty damned expensive. Far more expensive than learning from any mobile. I'm not sure what's been seen, but most of the skills/spells sought desperately by characters from teachers are not taught. For example, I only know of two characters who are teachers and have the capability to teach Storm of Vengeance. One, I haven't been able to catch on since they expressed willingness to teach and the other ICly is unable to teach it.

If we're talking about old way (mobs) vs new way (PCs), I prefer mobs. Mobs are far less discriminate (provided they're fairly placed) and sometimes, oddly enough, easier to deal with ICly.

However, that may not be the fault of said PC teachers! I feel as though the players who play teachers fear they'll be held accountable if they teach someone a skill or spell and then it is 'used for evil' later by the PC they've taught it to. Maybe that's just what they imply IC to avoid teaching people they don't want to IC (or OOC, I don't know). It may make sense IC, but at the same time as there are so few PC teachers in the game, it doesn't make sense OOC.

Raona wrote:But then what happens on the street corners needs to be somehow better (for the game) than finding a training mob and spamming TEACH <blah>.

Learning from mobs costs less, ultimately. On a serious note, I have thoroughly enjoyed learning from other PCs. Even the crazy ones (here's lookin' at you, Gwain) have been fun and an enjoyable RP experience. I don't think the teaching system is a failure, but rather that the reins are still held a bit too taut. I think PCs who teach should not fear they should be held accountable for who they teach nor should they seek to greedily withhold their ability from helping others (even if they don't like the players OOC, they should strive to at least make the attempt).

I think opening teaching to a wider user-base is a smart move and makes sense both in-game and from an out-of-game perspective. After all, Divine Casters and Bards are automatically supposed to have access to their spells as they level and wizards should be able to share spells with other wizards. So, why not?

Isaldur wrote:I'd just like to clarify if it did not come across as such that to teach higher levels above apprentice you should have high charisma.

Isaldur wrote:That would mean low to average charisma could still provide traditional apprenticeship and teaching routes, I.E. your dwarf master smiths and the errant Archmage.

I agree; thanks for the clarification.

Let me attempt a summary of key points here:

Scribing a scroll and giving it to another is the easy way to teach a spell, TEACH has a much higher barrier. [Exception: many spells can not be scribed, especially powerful ones.]

Learning from a mob is an easier way to learn most skills/spells to a high level, TEACH can not teach to as high a level.

It is too "expensive" to a PC to become a good teacher (putting stat points into CHA, spending feat points on teacher/scholar).

Am I getting the main take-away points here?

The intent, after much debate, was to make TEACH an RP avenue toward skill/spell gain, for those who preferred it to other options already in the game (TRAIN and WRITE). Problem is, for some spells it is the ONLY way (those that can not be scribed, or for non cleric/wizard), and the "cost" may be too high.

I do like the idea of making a skill of it; there might be a "natural teacher" feat you could take that would make you better at it. But I'm pretty sure feats were settled upon as a gatekeeping mechanism, and a change would require the deciders be convinced that people wouldn't twink/grind it if it were a skill. I can't "see" what's going on with TEACH (not an Imm), but if the comments above are accurate, about most teaching being good teaching nowadays, this might be a viable suggestion.

Raona wrote:Let me attempt a summary of key points here:

Scribing a scroll and giving it to another is the easy way to teach a spell, TEACH has a much higher barrier. [Exception: many spells can not be scribed, especially powerful ones.]

You should check that, because they are all in the random loot table (tested this very extensivly when buiding), so I think they can all be scribed now (but those with 2 argument for cause of code limitation)

Raona wrote:Learning from a mob is an easier way to learn most skills/spells to a high level, TEACH can not teach to as high a level.

my point of view... the main problem is the unavailability of those spells, you can't learn them at all.
With the scroll random loot, more and more of those will become learnt in time, but a lot of the players who would be able to teach them can't because they are unable (not that they didn't want too, but could not technically) to learn those feats.

Raona wrote:It is too "expensive" to a PC to become a good teacher (putting stat points into CHA, spending feat points on teacher/scholar).

Points in CHA is not a problem for high level teaching, it should stay a prerequisite.
4 feats is a lot yes... almost half your lifelong feat (consideringn you haven't take your feats before teaching cames in the game)

The intent, after much debate, was to make TEACH an RP avenue toward skill/spell gain, for those who preferred it to other options already in the game (TRAIN and WRITE). Problem is, for some spells it is the ONLY way (those that can not be scribed, or for non cleric/wizard), and the "cost" may be too high.

Shouldn't those who prefer roleplay to automatism should be rewarded instead of having to pay for it?

I do like the idea of making a skill of it; there might be a "natural teacher" feat you could take that would make you better at it. But I'm pretty sure feats were settled upon as a gatekeeping mechanism, and a change would require the deciders be convinced that people wouldn't twink/grind it if it were a skill. I can't "see" what's going on with TEACH (not an Imm), but if the comments above are accurate, about most teaching being good teaching nowadays, this might be a viable suggestion.

What I fail to see is how you could grind / twink it ?
First, it would be limited as you can't do it all the time as there is a level limit you can teach things and a limited number of PC you can teach to (which makes it very limited anyway).

Second, what bad would it bring if someone actually grind it, how worse can it be in an RP environment to learn from a PC instead of a mob?
Nobody answered that yet, and I would be curious to see what answer someone could give.
How can it be more bad and stupid than learning from a NPC ?
Even simply typing the teach command without any RP is not worse, it is just similar in essence.

My point of view only of course

Brar
Edited: corerct misplaced words and typos ..

Brar wrote:

Raona wrote:Learning from a mob is an easier way to learn most skills/spells to a high level, TEACH can not teach to as high a level.

my point of view... the main problem is the unavailability of those spells, you can't learn them at all.
With the scroll random loot, more and more of those will become learnt in time, but a lot of the players who would be able to teach them can't because they are unable (not that they didn't want too, but could not technically) to learn those feats.

I'm not convinced of this, brotha. I've seen quite a lot of scrolls and I think the highest I've seen is only level 3 (if that, I don't recall, at any rate they were all very low level spells). That's, including, from high level quests such as Hartsvale.

Brar wrote:

Raona wrote:It is too "expensive" to a PC to become a good teacher (putting stat points into CHA, spending feat points on teacher/scholar).

Points in CHA is not a problem for high level teaching, it should stay a prerequisite.
4 feats is a lot yes... almost half your lifelong feat (consideringn you haven't take your feats before teaching cames in the game)

I disagree. The amount of stats required to meet the requirements of being a great teacher are horrible if you're a Dwarf (as my intended teacher of armorsmithing is).

The intent, after much debate, was to make TEACH an RP avenue toward skill/spell gain, for those who preferred it to other options already in the game (TRAIN and WRITE). Problem is, for some spells it is the ONLY way (those that can not be scribed, or for non cleric/wizard), and the "cost" may be too high. Shouldn't those who prefer roleplay to automatism should be rewarded instead of having to pay for it?

See my previous post as to my experience with teachers. While there are still a few out there, they can't/won't teach some things such as scribe, armorsmithing, and high level spells. And, of course, there are some teachers who refuse to teach certain would-be students. I'm not so certain the "lucky ones" should deserve further special treatment.

Rather than remove them altogether... the best route in my opinion would be to remove the need to have two ranks in both feats. I.E. One rank in teacher and one rank in scholar would grant you the ability to teach on the same level as if you had two ranks in both per the current system, but the stat requirements would remain as per the prerequisites for the first ranks in the current system.

It would be a trade-off where everyone wins. The spellcasters (low feat points) would be able to teach without using over half of their base feat points and the fighters (low stat points) would be able to teach without severely gimping their fighting ability.

So, in summary, any given character would still have to invest two feat points (instead of four) and have the proper attribute scores, but the cost would be less of a strain on all involved.

Really, I think it's silly to have them to begin with. "RP feats?" Give me a break.

Are we going to have feats, next, that will allow us to use 'premium socials?' Or maybe a feat that lets us reward someone more than once a day?

I just really, really don't see the need (much less want) to have such feats in game. They're expensive. Especially for classes like Priests who only get a total of 7 feats (unless they're Human) or less (if they're a level-adjusted race). Four of their 7 feats so they can teach people crap and give back to other players?

I see it like adding code to prevent builders from allowing their own PCs in areas they built; just makes no sense.

I wrote a huge chunk that got eaten up.

Basically, (int wis cha) are considered somewhat dump stats for non spellcasting classes. The only ones who are really able to do anything with this current system are spellcasters. Wizards in particular.

So, why not make the requirements (str dex cha) instead, since with all the changes to the code, those would be considered somewhat dump stats for spellcasters. My point being, every class has their 'dump stats'. Instead of enforcing the use of stats (say charisma, our greatest bugbear), I would prefer to see more stuff done to enhance their desirability rather than to take stuff away from people that don't have, and go "if you want this, guess what, you need those beauty!". I would agree with doing so for quests, and special merchants, not for something which main purpose is to generate player-player interactions.

Some maths:
Fighters/thieves spend 18 stats on str, dex, con. They have about 10-11 stat points left. With the current system, they need: 14 wis, 15 int, 15 cha. Unless they are ready to take points off their main attributes, that is not going to happen.

In summary, spending stat points to spend feat points that doesn't really enhance your character doesn't really make sense.

I would counter with the option to change teacher scholar into either one or two skills that can be trained or taught in order to effectively teach or into guild/class specific skills that allow teaching based on the skillset at hand. Either way they should have something to do with the word apprentice or conclave.

How do we do it? How do we train a skill that only goes up if we teach? Well two ideas come to mind, we either make our skill in teaching reflect how well versed we are in the skill being taught, or we make the potential skill increase at a faster rate based on use, for example, mount and meditation go up very quickly because of constant use, teaching should increase with each use, but reflect how well we know the medium being taught. Or in another direction, we allow trainer mobiles to teach it to an effective level, like journeyman, but charge ten to fifty platinum per mobile training sessions.

The better you are at the skill, the more effective you are at teaching, the better you are at what is being taught, the more you have a chance of teaching it more to a pupil.

Make the stats that affect the teach skill reflect the school the skill being taught belongs to. Fighter skills and combat should reflect dexterity and strength. Cleric and wizard spells should reflect intelligence and wisdom. Thieving and barding should be a mix of charisma and dexterity. Trades, constitution and dexterity or luck, I'd like to let class experts flesh this out though, I'm not demanding or telling you how it needs to be, just what it could be.

This will satisfy those that would rather give up their souls then shed feat points, those that are great rp'rs but never much gave into what they consider to be 'junk stats'. I'm a bit naive though, I know this idea is novel, but for any idea presented there are negatives. I've submitted it to the masses, as someone that has given and recieved through the current system, I can take or leave it as is, I am content, but here's my gist of an idea.


In bold text:

I suggest making teacher and scholar feats into skills that you train in order to teach other skills.

Could we make it a trade, with a quest to gain the skill?

Not a bad idea making it a trade, either trade or skill.

I like the idea of it being made a trade.. But the charisma requirement still turns me off to the whole thing. Back when I started training up Garumsh, I wanted him to be a teacher to the future Fighter orcs. I trained up almost all of his skills to GM (since that's what it used to require to teach) just in time for the new system to come into place. While I won't say it was a waste, it did frustrate me that I had sunk hundreds of hours into his skills, and the intended purpose could no longer come to fruition.

Instead of just having it go off of charisma/wisdom/whatever, perhaps your ability to teach a skill could be dependent on what that skill requires? For example:

dodge (Dex,Lck) grandmaster

For that skill, when you attempted to teach it to another, it would base the success of your teaching off of your dexterity, your luck, and your skill level. This way those of us who have a negative modifier to the standard "teaching" stats could still do our part.

I like the idea of trade as well as skill (I don't see a big difference between both in fact :p)

Be it a trade or a skill, I would like the skill level of teaching to only impact on our much you can train your skills / spells (i.e. up to inept, amateur, apprentice, ...)
But whatever your teaching skill level, you can teach everything to inept.

If your teacher level lock the level of the skills you can teach (i.e. when you have a low level in teacher, you can only teach level 1-3 spells) we are all back to the base problem... i.e. you are such a stupid teacher you can't do what a scroll can do.

Plus we have to take into account that considering the limited number of characters you can teach and the limited number of skills, teacher will clearly be a skill/trade that will advance really slowly.

So improving in your teacher skill or trade should improve how far you can teach a skill, not impact on if you can teach it at all.

Just my thought

Cec

Excellent expansion to the overall idea. This kind of fleshing out only adds to the perspective and possibilities.

Selveem wrote: Whoah, whoah, whoah! Back off the tea-drinkers, dawg. Tea and coffee spawn heroes. It's a proven genetic enhancement. That's why asians had Ninjas and Samurai and the US got stuck with Cowboys.

What about the most time-honored tea-drinkers, the Brits? They practically spawned the hero mythos with King Arthur and Robin Hood and so on. Props to the tea leaf mates.

On topic, I think making teaching a trade is an excellent idea. I also agree with Gwain's assessment of the basic structure of teaching, those members of the class should make the best teachers for that class's skills, and the most important skills for that particular class are used as the modifiers when determining the effectiveness of your ability to teach. It could even go as far as Xryon suggested, where the individual skill's stats play a key part. Either way both your teaching skill itself, and the skill in question should be the main determinants for your ability to teach someone said skill.

I intensely dislike the idea of having teaching 'feats'. My understanding of the difference between feats and skills is that skills are something you improve with time which have a pass/fail based on the level you've trained it to. On the other hand, Feats are static modifiers or abilities which simply come into play given the right condition: You use more powerful attacks, you cast spells without speaking, you can use heavier armor with lesser penalties, etc. Teaching is not something which will ever fall into a 'feat' category, it is a hard won -skill- that takes years of practice, and never has a guarantee of success.

Some people are inherently better teachers than others, that is based on a number of things, but all of those things are represented by stats (The intelligence to articulate, the wisdom to relate practicality, the charisma to hold their student's attention, or the strength and dexterity necessary to demonstrate a technique effectively), skill (The fundamental knowledge you are actually passing on), or non-quantifiable connections with their students.

On the subject of gate-keeping the teaching process... I can understand the notion of spreading mob teachers to the farthest flung corners of the world in order to encourage exploration, and so I can also understand the hesitation to allow players to consolidate all of the skills a class offers and proceed to hand them out like candy. I simply disagree that it would be an issue, we're all roleplayers or we wouldn't last long enough to build up the necessary skills and connections. Sure, theoretically a player could jump into the game and ignore everybody, grind their way to max level, grandmaster all of their skills and just wait around in the market offering free lessons, but is this at all likely? I think not.

Give players the ability to teach other players the things they're good at, newbies will have the option to seek out mobs to train from in solitude, or seek out the experienced members of their class, drawing from real motivations both IC and OOC to engage in social behaviour with other characters, which serves to instigate, propagate, and facilitate roleplay for everyone involved.

I think it'd be much better as a skill, perhaps, as well..

But, the concern would still be that things would then be taught with little or no RP (which, I have to admit, I've enjoyed the RP portion quite a bit) just so that people can 'be better teachers.' If you think about it, all skills on FK rise slowly (count-wise). They're also influenced in speed of increase by intelligence which isn't a bad thing in this circumstance...but the count for increases, I believe, needs to be dramatically lowered (in my opinion), for the skill to increase as it should without 'twinking' teach.

Aside from that one issue, it's a good idea that I can support.

I'm not positive, but I believe speed of increase can be quite easily put into the skill, once the code is transitioned from it's current instance into a skill/trade. That part shouldn't be a problem at all, I wouldn't think.