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

[Katrina McClelan]

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

> And about that Charm spell....  

[snip]

> 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?
>  

It's quite workable.  As is I give a chance to break free for any order.
The problem with chance to resist and not break spell is a repeated query
that would be thwarted in a paper game but would be somewhat of a pain to
keep track of on a mud.  The other problem is determining mechanically
best intrests.  An example, is dispel magic a good or bad thing to have
cast on you?  Well, it depends on if you have a bunch of beneficial spells
on you or if you have something like irresistable dance on you.  But what
if you have both types on you?  Is it worth the loss of all the good
spells to get rid of silence.  (even that depends... is the mob a caster
or warrior type)  What if instead of silence it's something like hold
person or charm person?  It's very subjective and hard to code
algoritmically.  The same can be said for some commands.  Above, enter
portal when the portal is to a safe haven is something "good", while
entering a portal to the middle of the abyss is a bad thing.  But how can
you tell the difference from the 0's and 1's?  It can be done but it is a
major pain in the butt.

-Kat