Could I suggest adding a maledictus as a special race? It would be very interesting to roleplay.

As of right now, adding a special race isn't in consideration.

We already have the animagus system and the werewolves- dhampirs as well. We already have races where you are turned into a beast/creature.

This is not an intended race to add to the site or the systems because it kills the character and does nothing to enhance the player experience. Unless death is enhancement, in which case just do something dumb with your friends, you'll get better memories that way and I do not get to play the grim reaper with player characters ruining days.

Hi all, I had an idea for a new mechanic on the site that largely works with existing systems (no new coding required), adds to RP immersion and character development, incentivizes IC interactions across upper and lower years and has (IMO) incredible potential for character-driven plots between students.

The basic idea in one sentence:
Allow students to teach spells that they have in their trunk to other students.

...but!
I know, I know. I too can think of about a dozen problems with this idea BUT I suggest to you that all of these problems can be solved. Possible issues could be:

- Risk of increased work load regarding trunk updates
- Risk of OPness or unfair advantage
- Risk of reducing the value of Prodigal type abilities
- Risk of reducing incentive for homework system
- etc

At face value these are legitimate concerns that peer-to-peer teaching would bring, but I think that all of them can be mitigated with proper rules and restrictions in place. It's a new mechanic after all and would be subject to rules and regulations like any other mechanic on the site.

Possible restrictions:
The first restriction could be that the student teaching the spell to another student has to be at least one year higher. So, first-years can't teach first-years, but a second-year could teach a first year.

The second restriction could be that the spell being taught has to be at the recipient's current year level or at max one (given certain requirements are met) year above. For example: a fourth-year teaching a spell or potion to a first-year would only be able to teach that first-year a first or second-year spell or potion, but not third or fourth-year spells or potions.

The third restriction could be that there is a cap on how often students (either teaching or being taught) can use this system every year. Maybe twice a year?

A possible fourth restriction could be that peer-to-peer teaching may only be used once or twice per year in order to limit the advantage any given student could get out of the system.

A possible fifth restriction - which could be quite fun - is that peer-to-peer teaching is considered illegal in-character. This adds a nice dynamic of risk/reward when characters engage in this system. The implications of this go beyond simply receiving detention (both the teaching student and the student being taught). While that would be the punishment, in the case of teaching a potion the students would have to steal ingredients, find a place to craft the potion, etc. There is a lot of fun RP and plotting potential in this.

A possible sixth restriction is a hard skill (wisdom) check or roll being involved in determining whether the spell or potion was successfully taught. Whether this is a check that both students or just the teaching party need to do is TBD.

With the above restrictions I believe the current Prodigal class of abilities retains its value. And if people consider that this system would undercut the value of the Prodigal ability, then that could be addressed by making it a requirement. Meaning: only someone with the Prodigal ability could teach a spell or potion to a lower year. (I don't think that's how it should work by default, just mentioning this to illustrate that even if there objections from people who have the Prodigal ability, there are ways to address that too).

Alternatively, the ability to teach spell or potions above the recipient's current year could be discarded entirely, in which case peer-to-peer teaching is simply an IC way of unlocking a new spell. (Personally I think this would water down the peer-to-peer teaching mechanic significantly but at the very least the system would then still provide an IC way for students to learn spells or potions, outside of the OOC homework system).

The upside
Alright, enough about the possible downsides (which seem entirely manageable to me), let's talk some of the potential upside.

First and foremost, there is huge IC RP-ing potential with this system. Just think about what reasons a younger year student could have to want to learn from another student? Perhaps they're just eager to learn, perhaps they have mischievous intent, perhaps they're trying to garner someone's favor. Vice-versa, think about all the reasons an upper-year might have to teach what they know. It could be a genuine desire to help, it could also be part of a larger deal (a favor for a favor), or it could be the desire to create a small army of lower year minions, who knows. The point is, aside from the thread in which the actual teaching is done, this system inspires plotting and spin-off threads.

The simplest example is one I already gave: if an upper year tries to teach a lower year some potion, they would have to prep and either buy or steal ingredients for that potion. All of this could be done in-character and adds further opportunities for plot and drama (IC).

This system also provides a reason for lower years to interact with upper years or vice-versa (for those inclined to teach). It adds to the immersion and reinforces the "hierarchy" - for lack of a better word - of upper-years knowing more than younger years. Moreover, if the act of peer-to-peer teaching is considered illegal IC (Professor might not like students teaching students, it could be considered quite dangerous), there is a real risk/reward to it.

But why?
A big reason I came up with this idea is because I feel that the plotting opportunities are limited for students. Or rather, the kinds of plots players can run feel limited to me.

Yes, there is this whole world to explore, but with there not being any kind of official main plot, the stakes are limited. From what I have seen, most players intentionally create drama/plot that involves their parents or siblings because that is pretty much the only tool they have to create impactful (for their characters) plot.

One other means for players to create impactful plot for their character(s) is to interact with Professors. In reality however this option isn't feasible for everyone. From my own attempts to create student / Professor interactions I've had to conclude that Professors are very busy people and it's been hard to get anything off the ground, not in the least of course because there's been a fair bit of turnover in Professors lately. This isn't a complaint, just an observation. The point is that peer-to-peer teaching can help fill the void that's left by the difficulty of establishing meaningful plot through interactions with Professors. In my view, peer-to-peer teaching empowers players to create and run their own meaningful plot without needing staff support.

I hope this last point doesn't come across as ungrateful. I know staff/Professors do a lot of work to keep this site running smoothly! But I think acknowledging that also, in a way, proves my point: there's little time left for serious, impactful plots between student and Professor characters. That's why I think p2p teaching will be so empowering to players. It gives players the means to create a meaningful plot for their characters without needing to involve staff.

What now?
First of all, feedback is of course very welcome. The absolute core of the idea is described in the one sentence description. The rules and regulations I've written down are just some suggestions on how the mechanic could be restricted to prevent any issues arising from it. The reason for suggesting this mechanic is to empower student players to have more meaningful plot.

I am of course happy to help figure out if - and how - this system could be implemented if it is indeed considered a good idea. I don't expect this idea to be accepted as-is so I'm happy to discuss and see if something like this is considered feasible.

I like this idea much. And I agree that this mechanic could stimulate interaction between older and younger students.

It seems to me that implementation should be very easy. Simply put, there are / have been three ways to earn a spell: do the homework, graduate, or participate in a spell learning thread. I know of one professor who used to offer this.

I think the mechanics of this idea would be very similar: the learner has to comply with any site rules that would apply, plus any requirements the student teacher requires within the RP .

As with Errands, a link to the RP along with spell name and word count would serve as evidence of completion.

I suspect these would have to be submitted to Index for adding to the trunk!

This would add a very complex layer on top of spell acquisition and making sure people have what they are supposed to do. Players presently have three options - to do class, to take a prodigal ability and complete a RP and to graduate to the next year. There was a fourth option that I spent years attempting to remove and I am uncertain if it is completely gone and that is certain 'classes' that were not classes where players can join the thread, make a post and walk away with another spell learned. You might wonder 'why' I spent years removing that (or trying, I frankly gave up on checking because I am so busy in other areas) but the reason is because it was another thing new players did not know about and the site is already a lot to take in, it was another place that the staff needed to check to make sure someone actually had the spells that they said that they had, it was an additional thing that the professor of that class had to check in on and there was no back-up to make sure that it was being accomplished, there would need to be a means of a check and balance for learning a new spell this way for other professors that want to do this - was it taught in another class (stepping on toes), is it the right level for those participating (we had someone try to teach a y6 I think spell to y1 players and by the time the rest of the team noticed it was already out there and a mess).

I do understand that from the player perspective this is 'great', it is an additional means of getting something but there is a lot of weight that would be put onto the staff team as a consequence of this. While I am against this idea (as vocalized here) I do not know how the rest of the team will feel about this, but I can say that they are aware of the suggestion and talking about it.

Admittedly, it was very fun participating in such classes! Understood if the rest of staff say no, though.

I'm going to make it public, and I don't want you to take it as a "oh he hates my idea so he hates me." when it's not that.

My main concern was that as a professor, I have put in so much work and dedication into my own classes, even included parts where I teach the lessons where knowledge is limited elsewhere. Yes, I get that the original person teaching it has to have the spell in their trunk, but I personally just don't like the idea of it. The main reason was because I tried to make my lessons (we as professors have tried) to make the lessons un, entertaining, and pleasant or everyone who does it. I speak just or me. Not or others (yes my sixth key is still broken, I only get the sixth key in words i it pops up with a tab option so deal with me here)

I stand or the points Lear have made, and I'm also against it.

I get the player perspective of it, but I also look at it more of a staff standpoint. It's more work on us. We have a lot to cover daily, a lot to do. We are all kept busy. I don't want to add on more to it personally.

Just a quick aside, because a lot has been said that I'd like to get into, but I am getting the impression that staff has too much or almost too much on its plate to implement any kind of significant change. Would that be a fair assessment? The reason I am guessing this is because the argument that idea X would cost too much time has been raised several times in the past. That indicates to me that staff time is a scarce commodity and that more would be possible if the staff workload was lower.

I have no real idea of what the staff workload is like, but I feel quite confident that with additional programming/automation, certain menial tasks would become a lot easier.

As luck would have it, I know phpBB and have programmed plugins and themes for it before. Specifically I made a skill point system and integrated character sheet system once.

Name me the top three time sinks and I'm sure at least one of them could be made easier if the site had some additional coding to make that job easier. So if lack of staff time is the main objection here, I may well be able to help alleviate that issue by helping the site out with some coding to cut down on needless manual labour.

That said, since I have never been on staff I don't know where the opportunities for automation lie necessarily, though I would hazard to guess that deeper integration of trunks into the site's codebase could be beneficial.

Edit: I should perhaps clarify that the offer to help code-wise is not conditioned on the (dis)approval of p2p teaching.

It seems that there is a much deeper issue here. It's been bugging me for a while. And that is that our staff are overworked. Just in the last few pages of this thread, almost every response to player ideas is that these ideas would require too much effort. Please note: I am not complaining; but this clearly speaks to a staffing shortage problem!

It's more work on us. We have a lot to cover daily, a lot to do. We are all kept busy. I don't want to add on more to it personally.

there is a lot of weight that would be put onto the staff team as a consequence of this

I have not done much MS due to the heavy site workloads and user management these past few months.

This is heavily modded and really would be difficult to keep up with. We have a lot on our plates

It would also be a pain to moderate

It would require about a week of work for Lear to go into the back end and amend portal permissions and what not

Well, there is more to it than that. The adult (now) positions we offer come with actual work, responsibilities, obligations. There is no plan to just give out additional adult roles to users who happen to have writing styles I like. That would not be fair to the playerbase. If we end up needing additional staff positions to keep up with the playerbase that continues to grow (as it is still getting bigger) then this might change. I have several similar positions in my back pocket to deal with the needs of the community when we get too large for our present staff base of 16 prefects, 12 professors, 4 assistants, 4 HOH and myself plus a mentor group and 3 sport teams.

In light of all this, I'm wondering: would it not be advisable to bring on new staff? Not necessarily teachers or academic staff, or even necessarily playable characters. Essentially a minister without portfolio --- people who have been around a while and can be taught how to help manage some of the "stuff" that needs doing without having a specific visible role. Things like helping the Index or Lore teams, taking care of spelling and grammar edits on official pages, helping with the creation of new forums, helping grade assignments, etc. Basically anything to help make Hio run more smoothly.

It seems to me that being a part of Hio ought to be enjoyable for staff members too; and in reading between the lines of how staff respond to player suggestions, it may not actually be as enjoyable as it could be. Maybe this is something that really needs to change at Hio?

So I reckon my suggestion is: can we hire some new staff members?

Further to this suggestion: let's make the mentor role a proper staff position! Going forward, new applicants would be subject to the same processes that anyone applying for Prefect would undergo. Current mentors could opt to apply for staff, or remain in a non-staff capacity.