[MUD-Dev] Supporting RP+PG

Jeff Kesselman jeffk at tenetwork.com
Sun Jun 22 12:22:28 New Zealand Standard Time 1997


At 11:05 AM 6/22/97 PST8PDT, John G wrote:
>I want to hear from some more strictly RP-oriented people to
>know if that would be feasible.  If I'm running around just killing
>goblins to work on my sword-swinging skill, would it bother you
>if I didn't follow a storyline for myself? If I act like a person who
>belongs in Goodhaven town while I'm there to heal, would that
>be sufficiently respecting the roleplayers' goals in the game?

No it wouldn't. In fact, ther is a precedent for a character in any grou
pwe call "The General", someone whose roleplay skills are minimal but whose
tactical skills are execellnt.

IMUHO  (In my UnHumble Opinion) The stress and tension between these camps
come from 2 elements.
(1) Roileplayers are cooperative gamers. As long as The general also plays
ina  cooperative fashion, rather then a competitive one, with the others it
works fine. if he doesn't, it falls apart almost instantly.

(2) When yo usay "Powergamer" do you mean min/maxer ? If you are the kind
who is min/maxing the system to make your character much mroe pwoerful then
the Roleplayers, they wil lfidn you frustrating because they want THEIR
characters to be heros too, but do NOT want to have to "abuse" (pardon,
from our POV) the system just to be around the same raw level of pwoer as you.

So in short, a tactician is welcome. A power gamer who makes all decisions
PURELY on teh basis of how much power they bring him might well not be.

>but I still am missing what I need to [not] be doing so that I don't
>favor one style of play over the other.  I plan on thorough introduction

Well, couple of things.  If all your game has in it is monster bashing and
bashign eacdh other, you might well get reduced doiwn to a PK environment
because thats the only "game" to play.  The mroe work you put into
non-combat oriented challenges the mreo likely you are to see things other
then combat-tanks being played.

We have had an extensive discussion on "Pkilling" here already. I
personally believe uncontrolled Pkillign with no seriosu repercussiosn to
teh Pkillers tends to encourage Pkilling and too much Pkillign is very
detrimental to RP.

Basicly, yo uhacve to make sure tyhe game reasonably rewards both types of
play, and punishes either type doign things that diserupt the other.

Very difficult nut to crack.  Usually thsi is done by routing the differnt
kinds of players to different areas of the world, soudns liek you are more
ambitious. Good luck (I personally have my doubts it can be done.)

>
>: So, in a sense you would have a system, complex enough to support
>: role playing and such, like a mush, but structured enough, to allow for
>: hack and slash, power gaming or a hybrid of both.... 

A side note. It doesnt have to do with 'support', it has to do with human
social dynamics.  The problem typicly is not the system per se, its the
actiosn the system does or doesnt lead the players into doing.

>
>I can probably satisfy the latter, but I have only played one RP-based
>mud (which happened to be a MUSH of course:).  What are a couple
>things that role players are going to look for to support them in their
>goals?  I've already been struck by lots of good ideas from this list,

Number One:
An environemnt where an asshoel can't come along and scew up all I've been
building with my character for weeks just because he's an asshole.

This is the Pkilling dilemma in a nutshell.

Beyond this-- RPers tend to like customizability.  Personal physical
descriptions, personal items that cna be seen when worn, etc. Inidivudality
is key to the RPer.  Individual abilities are even better, so skill based
system are good for those advanced enough in their Rp gaming to understand
them. (Alot of your RPers have never seen anything but AD&D, something to
consider...)

Jeff Kesselman





More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list