[MUD-Dev] Re: let's call it a spellcraft

[Andy Cink]

At 10:55 AM 9/25/98 -0700, "S. Patrick Gallaty" wrote:
>
>Stop!
>The 'leveling' concept amonst adventuring muds is a 
>tried and true concept.  You are doing what UO did, imo
>which is to confuse playability.  There's a very good reason
>why levels and level concepts work, and that simply is 
>because it's an unambiguous marker of accomplishment.

If everyone stuck to the tried and true concepts:
A) Very few of us would still be on mud-dev
B) There would be little in the way of innovation in muds

Level is really just a stereotype. Stereotypes make our
lives easier, it helps us "understand" other people with
a minimum of expended effort. If you type who and see
"Bob is level 15" and you know it's a 50 level mud, you
have a good idea who Bob is already. You know where Bob
stands in relation to you. You know if Bob could likely
kill you or not in battle. This is a powerful advantage.

Further which, you have a clearly defined "end" to the
game. I always hated the end of a "career" on a mud that
I liked to play. It does give a sense of accomplishment,
but then again.. what have you REALLY accomplished? The
next time they do a file wipe it counts for jack anyways.

So what it boils down to, is that level is really just a
way to measure progress along a continuum. Wouldn't it be
more fun to have a large continuum, with slow continual
progression and lots to do in the meantime? Relative
power levels are all that really matter anyways, right?
If a level 15 can kill a lizardman, and my levelless char
on a levelless mud can kill a lizardman.. then what is the
difference?

It seems to me reliance on level is just sort of a
carryover from old muds and AD&D. I know on my mud,
I've fought major wars with the immortal staff over
doing away with experience points and levels. I still
don't quite understand their totally irrational FEAR of
not having levels anymore. It's like a psychological
dependence, or something.

Then again, having a simple tried and true design might
indeed get you more players. *shrug* But in my mind, those
aren't the players I want anyways.

>Whenever you are thinking of designing a satisfying game
>system you have to remember the three elements.  
>    1) Suspension of disbelief
>    2) Progress related to effort
>    3) Goal and reward
>
>We suffer through the design decisions of UO already - no 
>need to emulate that.

Who suffers? When I played UO, I saw DROVES of people who
played all day long. The terrible lag was a testament to
just how addictive the game was. All I saw was a lot of
people having a good time. You can still have progress
related to effort and goal and reward, even in a levelless
system. Look at UO.. to me anyways, when I could cast an
important spell reliably that I couldn't cast before, that
was a symbol of a goal reached, of progress. When I could
kill liches repeatedly and get nice magical loot without
dying, that was a sign of progress. While every system has
its flaws, I don't consider UO's system to be unplayable or
unrewarding.

Andy


------------------------------------------------------
EARTH FIRST! We'll stripmine the other planets later.
Head Coder for Renegade Knights MUD
Ranthor at earthlink.net