[MUD-Dev] Resisting Charm or you're cute and nice, but not to die for.

[s001gmu at nova.wright.edu]

Minor reformatting done to clean up after adding '>'s.

On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, s001gmu at nova.wright.edu wrote:

[Gate spell...]

> > A favorite use of this was in combination with a charm spell...
> >
> 
> And about that Charm spell....  
> 
> In a GM adjudicated RPG, ala D&D, Ars Magica and many others, there are 
> spells that have less than absolute mental effects.  D&D's version of Charm 
> is one of these spells where the affected creature will supposedly become 
> trusting and friendly to the caster.  However, the afflicted will have the
> charm  dispelled if the caster requests them to perform an action which
> is either life-threatening or totally against their strongest 
> proclivities.  Also many of these spells are broken by direct or
> indirect attack by the caster.  Much of this is necessarily vague,
> situational, and subject to your GM's personal whims.  

If I recall, D&D had a couple different levels of such spells.
Suggestion, Charm, etc.  They are spells that work pretty well in a
human-run game, but not so well in a computer run game.  You get into a
lot of trouble by letting the controller have absolute control... at
least, if people are unaware that such things can and will happen.
 
> Admittedly, Diku-like Charm is usually equivalent to robotic control for the 
> spell duration.  This also has serious consequences on game play and perhaps
> as dramatic as the aforementioned gate/teleport spells.  Most often I've seen
> it implemented as a "digital" charm so-to-speak, rather than an "analog"
> charm.  It's either on or off.  

If I recall, the Charm on EoD was set up so that the caster couldn't
attack the charmie.  Kind of goofy, but not my decision.  :/
You could usualy get the charmie to preform all sorts of normally quite
deadly actions, though.

> Wouldn't this spell and those like it be more interesting and unpredictable
> it resistance to charm was attempted after each requested action?  Especially
> in a strong RP environment where such spells often cross the boundaries 
> of player consent/non-consent.  Player characters could be offered the option
> to attempt to resist or go along with the requested action.  A given action
> might even be successfully resisted, yet the afflicted still remains
> entranced.
>
> Thoughts and ideas anyone?

I am thinking charm might work in some interesting ways with our
self-preservation code (once it all gets written of course... :).
Presumably, the self preservation code would kick in to prevent anything
overtly deadly to the character.  A resistance check for each action would
be pretty cool too.  Maybe weight the roll based on some 'preceived harm'
table... though that quickly leads to deducing player intentions.  Not a
road I wanna go down.  I'd be very tempted to let it go for a while and
see what interesting ways the players could find to get around both the
preservation and resistance checks and have the charmie harm themselves.

*pulls out his JC-Lawrence-School-of-Expirementation hat*

;)

> >    >order bubba enter gate
> >    Bubba walks into an unstable looking gate.
> >    Bubba screams in agony as his body disintigrates.
> >    Bubba no longer follows you.
> > 
> >    >chuckle
> >    You chuckle.
> > 
> >    Bubba tells you, "Grumble... yer goin down!"
> 
> Amusing, yet strangely disturbing.  Bubba speaking directly into in your head
> after you witnessed the destruction of his corporeal existence.  I gives me
> the shivers.  Yeah, yeah I know...(re-start permadeath and telepathy
> threads)   

Heheh... yeah.  I was thinking about that as I wrote it.  That kind of
thing happend a fair amount on EoD, but wouldn't fly on what I'm working
on now.  You might get a page from the player behind Bubba, but Bubba's
dead, baby, Bubba's dead.  ;)  I'm hoping building such a seperation in
will help keep the game in it's place, and people's attachment to their
characters at least a little less firm.

That's about all I have to say on that thread, so if it goes off from
there, I've said my $0.02.

:)

-Greg

PS: sorry about the lack-o-signature on the last note...  I thought I put
it in, but didn't see that it wasn't there until I got my copy of it back
from the list... Doh.  ;)