[MUD-Dev] Consistent Characters (Was Remote client connection)

[Travis Casey]

Wednesday, June 21, 2000, 12:37:20 PM, Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services <Paul.Schwanz at east.sun.com> wrote:

> Phillip Lenhardt said:
>>> I don't see how giving a limited menu of choices in a situation prevents
>>> players from giving meaning to their characters. Who says that "say" and
>>> "emote" aren't choices on that menu? If you're character is a paladin
>>> and that paladin is talking to a good priest, why should that paladin
>>> have the option of attacking the priest? After all, it is not good
>>> roleplaying to do so since it is totally out of character. 

> Travis Casey replied:

>> How do you know it's out of character?  Are all paladins the same?
>> Can paladins not be mistaken?  What if I want to play a fallen
>> paladin, and am in the process of having him fall?  What if I want to
>> play a flawed paladin -- a good man with a bad temper?  Simply by
>> leaving off the "attack" option, you're both giving me information
>> that I might not have had (that this is someone I'm not supposed to
>> attack) *and* restricting the kinds of characters I can play.

> Aye.  There's the rub.  But must we have one extreme or the other?  Do we only 
> have the option to either rule out-of-hand any action that the designer decides 
> may go against character or allow without consequence any action, no matter how 
> out of place?

Umm... I never said that actions shouldn't have consequences, and I
certainly didn't mean to imply it.  IMHO, allowing any action with no
consequences is very bad for roleplaying.

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_    Travis S. Casey  <efindel at earthlink.net>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)   





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