[MUD-Dev] An idea for breaking away from the HP/Mana mindset

[Eli Stevens]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan P." <ixiterra at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 12:17 PM


> >Body:
> >  Strength
> >  Dexterity
> >  Constitution
> >
> >Mind:
> >  Intellegence
> >  Wisdom
> >  Willpower (Charisma being accounted for by some of the reputations
stats)
>
> Just a small point, but I think willpower and wisdom are very closely
> related and
> there really isn't a need for both unless you have a very specific
difference
> (although it doesn't appear so in the rest of your message) that would
require
> the two to be split.

I had regarded Wis as intuition and the ability to understand something
intuitivly.  Willpower is motivation and drive.  Characters with low Wil
would end up in the doldrums moping around a lot (and fair morale checks,
etc.).  A low Wis would manifest as slower mental recuperation rates, less
animal empathy, etc.  I see strong similarities between Str-Wil, Wis-Con and
Int-Dex.  Of course, YMMV.

> As for Charisma, I think this still could be implemented as a regular
> stat--perhaps
> if they are badly wounded (bloody, nasty, puss coming out, etc.) the
player's
> charisma stat would suffer because of it. Charisma can be interpreted in
many
> ways and thus if it went below the consciousness level, you could simply
> attribute
> it to too many open wounds and that kinda thing.

I had gotten rid of explicit Charisma.  I didn't like the idea of characters
with high Charisma being played by annoying people, so instead...

Reputation:
  Presence:  how dramatically/forcefully the character fills a room.
     A high presence means that the character gets noticed more in crowded
situations, is more likely to be heard, etc.  It also makes it harder to
hide.  Clothing can alter it, as clothes with keywords/description
containing words like "gold", "silver", "royal", "silk" etc. would raise the
stat, and clothing with words like "drab", "brown", "grey", "servant" etc.
lowing it.  NPCs are more likely to obey high presence characters.

  Fame:  how recognizable a character is in a community (probably global).
    Famous characters have a chance of being recognized by those they have
not met before (I plan on using an introduction system).  It also acts as a
vote-count multiplier for any office the character may run for (all the talk
on the list of political systems has gotten me interested...).  High fame
characters can get into office more easily, because they can win with fewer
votes than someone with low fame.  Also, NPCs might give famous characters
VIP treatment, etc.  However, it is far easier to be a street criminal with
lower fame; fewer witnesses would recognize you.

  Honor:  how closely the character's personal code of conduct matches
society's.
    Those with low honor scores would be better at dirty combat tricks,
while suffering the mistrust and scorn of "common folk".  A high honor would
help city guards choose to assist the character instead of the opponent,
etc.

One of the key points that makes the three reputation stats different is
that I was going to start players all at 1.0, and allow them to adjust their
scores as they wish gradually.  If a politician wanted a high presence, fame
and honor, then that should not unbalance play for them, just as a thief
might want those same scores very low.  Also, they would not cause a
characer to be knocked out if they got too low.  :)

> >Advancement would come in as better weapon proficiencies, skills, and
such
> >(I am envisionins a levelless MUD, but this could be adapted to levels, I
> >think).  If Boffo has the Dagger weapon proficiency at .9 and we
considered
> >Str and Dex to be equally important to wielding a dagger, then his attack
> >roll might look like:
> >
> >((Str: 1.5) ^ (.5)) * ((Dex: 1.0) ^ (.5)) * (Dagger: .9) = 1.1
> >
> >Where if he was using a Club with the same skill (but the club being a
Str
> >weapon):
> >
> >((Str: 1.5) ^ (.8)) * ((Dex: 1.0) ^ (.2)) * (Club: .9) = 1.24
> >
> >It would seem that the club would be the superior choice, but keep in
mind
> >that the club would also impose a larger penalty against Str the more
Boffo
> >swung it (it would tire him more).  I think I need to juggle some more
> >numbers, and see how this might work out in the long run.  The defender's
> >roll would be based on the armor worn, Dex, etc. etc.
>
> This is a very excellent system, however it would seem to take massive
amounts
> of trial-and-error and testing to find a suitable weapon. Unless, of
> course, you
> gave some major hints as to how a weapon is going to affect your stats.
> Or as well, you could make every weapon that is remotely similar to one
another
> (example, any two-handed cleaving weapon) have similar stat decays (?).

Which I had planned on doing (the hints, I mean).  I like numbers and
min/maxing, but I also like roleplaying environments...  I am not quite sure
how I plan on mixing the two, but I intend to try.  I had envisioned weapons
stats looking something like:

    > lore longsword
    You hold a shiny long sword.
    Damage range:  .950 to .775
    Wielding Exhaustion:  .980

Of course, the numbers might be fiddled with, to make them more atractive:

    > lore longsword
    You hold a shiny long sword.
    Damage range:  5% to 22.5%
    Wielding Exhaustion:  2%

> From a purely conservative standpoint, I think getting rid of HPs
completely
> would be very shocking and many players who are complacent with a set
system
> won't like it (I'd say the type of people that like to try radically new
> things such
> as this are maybe 1%). It's almost a paradox to me; I like the idea very
much
> but to rely simply on stats for life support seems awkward, but to add HPs
into
> this system probably would not make sense either. (Ok, I'm unconscious but
> I still have x HPs left.)

I was wondering if you could elaborate on the awkwardness you mentioned.  :)

> Keep working at it, I'm sure you can come up with a happy medium that will
be
> more welcoming to the complacent mudders, yet intriguing to the radical
ones.

Ahh, I see and understand your point.  My viewpoint on the matter is
slightly different, though.  I am not particularly interested in attracting
complacent mudders /per se/, rather, I am interested in creating a system
that works and is understandable in its own right, not because it hangs onto
notions "because that is how they were always done".  I am afraid that if I
rely too heavily on convention then two things will happen:

1.  I will not justify design/game world decisions because "everyone knows
that's how it works," when there are better solutions.

2.  By relying on conventions, I may not explain them well enough so that
those new to the field will understand.  When was the last time you saw a
good explanation of, say, "dirt" or "trip" that really explained what those
commands did (or any one of a host of other like ideas)?

The players that want a DIKU can play a DIKU, I, however, do not want to
run/play a DIKU, I want to run/play a MUD.  There is nothing wrong with
wanting to run or play a DIKU, I just personally do not.  I Hope I am being
clear.  :)


<//> Silence is golden           RUIN, v.  To destroy.            <\\>
 ||  Eli                         Specifically, to destroy a maid's ||
 ||  wickedgrey at wickedgrey.com   belief in the virtue of maids.    ||
<\\> www.wickedgrey.com            -- Ambrose Bierce              <//>






_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev