[MUD-Dev] Re: Administrative notes
Jon A. Lambert
jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Tue May 13 21:35:22 New Zealand Standard Time 1997
> From: Miroslav Silovic <silovic at srce.hr>
> > Exactly. A Roleplayer, according to my twisted view, might create a
> > warrior that had a very weak strength and may also select background
> > options that would have a severe impact on their combat
> Umm, uhh, errr, you're wrong. :) Roleplayers won't do this without
> a good /reason/.
Yes roleplayers WILL do this. I didn't even touch on the reasons.
The point was made in contrast to "rollplayers". A roleplayer also
needs to have a damn good reason to create a super character, but since
"rollplayers" understand this to be "winning the game", its not a good
example to compare and contrast against.
> > effectiveness (cowardice, epilepsy, etc.). A Rollplayer *boggles* at this
> > concept. Many of todays muds preclude such a character from "developing"
> > in any significant way. Character power or perfection seems to be the
> > only goals. An entire rethink of game systems is definately in order.
> My point here: There is no need for roleplayers to be 'weak'. It simply
> has no relevance to them - most can actually become *extremely* strong
> characters. The important issue is being *completely clear* about why
> the character does something.
You confuse the issue. I did not say they had to be weak.
Rewarding experience to the those who attract the most notice
through "over-acting" is also bad system IMHO. I prefer a
blend of objective and subjective rewards. If "acting" and
"emoting" was the only interest of my RP group, I'd just boot up
a chat server.
Note that there are different camps of roleplayers too. I believe a thread
a long while back on rgma (started by O. Henry?) brought out a lot of
these differences. Now if I can only find it on DejaNews
More information about the MUD-Dev