Jeff Kesselman jeffk at tenetwork.com
Sun Jun 22 21:52:50 New Zealand Standard Time 1997

At 09:36 PM 6/22/97 PST8PDT, Adam wrote wrote:
>[Jeff K:]
>> At 11:10 AM 6/22/97 PST8PDT, Adam Wiggins wrote:
>> >Still not my point.  The point is that players can *know*, from the start,
>> >all the (set) rules which govern the world.  Players can't look at the
>> >source code for the mud (usually).  This is the difference to which I
>> >refer.
>> >If you mean rules that the DM just pulls out of their ass, then this isn't
>> >a rule at all.  More below.
>> I think we just defined the difference between a Roleplayer and a
>Ah, okay.  This is what my ex refered to as the 'bullshit session' syndrome.
>If you are just making things up as you go along with no particular rhyme
>or reason, why pretend to be playing a 'game' with any fixed rules at all?

This is Plato's method of argument and was just as fallacious when he used it.
Take you opponents comment and restate in extremes that make it look silly
or far out.

There are a WIDE range of play styles between strict ruleplayer "if it
ain't int the book it don't happen" and diceless ruleless play (whichI have
played, but not often.)


>You're writing a story to which many people contribute, which is perfectly
>fine.  I've role-played like this before; but we didn't even bother with
>pretenses like rulebooks, dice, or tables full of saving throws.  
>The advantage, IMO, to a computer being 'in charge' of a role-playing game,
>is that it can know and handle a set of 'rules' for a world so complex
>as to be completely unmanagable by any human (certainly not in realtime).
>More importantly, players never have to know exactly what those rules
>are, although they will likely become quite familiar with the manifestations
>of those rules.

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list