[MUD-Dev] Re: Administrative notes

[Jon A. Lambert]

> 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   

 
JL