Grimrock

As you fight in LoG with various weapons you gain "universal level points" that you then can spend for upgrading *any* skill.

Compare this to Dungeon Master: when you use a weapon like sword you get fighter levels, when fireballing you get wizard levels, when making drugs you gain priest levels etc. So you develop from "novice", "apprentice", "journeyman" eventually to master wizard, fighter or priest (or all of them), without need for any micromanagement.

Which way is more realistic/logical?

Stamm wrote:Which way is more realistic/logical?

The Elder Scrolls (up to Oblivion) way: using a skill strictly improves only THAT skill.

Unfortunately, it also made for an absolutely awful progression system. Good lesson in why you shouldn't let realism get in the way of good design. Universal skill points probably work best.

The Elder Scrolls (up to Oblivion) way: using a skill strictly improves only THAT skill.

Maybe that's why Morrowind was the last part of said saga worth playing IMO

Anyway, back to topic. I like both systems of skill progression. I much enjoyed system introduced in DM, and although universal skill points work better in most games I know and probably are more suitable for casual gamers, LoG is one of those game that could have been made with action-dependant skill progression system. Not for it being realistic or not, because it's not a factor in game designs, but LoG skills are rather focused on weapons/spells usage and that's the case when un-universal skill points can fit nicely to increase gaming experience.

BTW, you fogot about ninja skill for throwing/missile weapons