[MUD-Dev] Moving away from the level based system

[John Buehler]

Jeff Freeman writes:

> > EverQuest's 'consider' system is not something that I'd cite in
> > talking about skill systems.  It does not take into account an NPC's
> > speed, strength, armor class, weapons, magical resistance, etc.
>
> The amount of XP you gain from killing an NPC shouldn't be based on
> whether it cons "green" or "blue" or whatever to you, since that
> doesn't have a whole lot to do with how difficult the encounter is.
>
> Or to put it another way: How much XP you gain (or whether you gain
> any) should be based on how difficult the encounter is.  In EQ, it
> isn't, but other MUDs could do a better job of that (and provide a
> more accurate con system to boot).

Yup.  My only departure from that would be to dump the notion of experience
points.  To employ such a system effectively requires a living, breathing
gamemaster who has been watching (and probably facilitating) everything that
you did while playing.  That's the environment that experience points were
born of.

> Any valid reason to put /consider in a mud and then have the
> consider-system lie to the players?  Why not just make it random, or
> leave it out altogether, if the players can't trust the con-system and
> have to figure out whether they can beat any given type of mob from
> experience?

Am I being challenged to agree with you?  I said as much a little later in
my post.  I'm confused.

> > All of those things are usually very high on NPCs in order to make
> > them more of a challenge to players because NPCs have no brains.
>
> Nevertheless, if the NPC is going to mop the floor with you, but the
> consider-system says it looks like an even fight, then the
> consider-system is broke.

Yeah, we agree here again.

> > A Ghoul Lord is a highly-skilled, strong and fast opponent.  It's
> > not an example of a 'novice' by any stretch.  The green 'con' is a
> > lie.
>
> Why have a consider system like that?  For newbies?  Why not just
> disable it after level 3 or 4, then?

I'm SO confused.  I've never been argued with before by someone in agreement
with me.

> In reference to your skill system - will you have a /con system?  And
> how will you make it accurate with a skill system vs. a class/level
> system like EQ's (which isn't even close to being accurate)?

A summary 'consider' system that attempts to tell you whether you'd 'win' or
not would not be available.  A primary mechanism for my world is character
perceptions.  Your character knows skills X, Y and Z to differing degrees.
Your character sees my character employing skill X to some degree.  Your
character will tell you the degree of my character's skill.  If your
character doesn't know my character's skill, it will report that it noticed
a new skill.

Some skills advertise themselves all the time, such as strength, agility and
dexterity.  So if your character has just been challenged by another
character, your character can tell you the approximate strength, agility and
dexterity of your opponent.  That's assuming that you are strong, agile and
dexterous.  What you aren't familiar with, you don't perceive well.  This is
not strictly true, but it will do for my purposes.

This system permits bluffing.  If you want to fight and I swagger up and am
obviously strong and agile, you may back down - despite the fact that your
actual fighting skills might be superior to my own.

There are other effects that have to go into such a world, such as the
implications of the size of a being.  Larger beings are slower, stronger,
able to take more damage and to deal out more damage.  Smaller beings are
the reverse.  This is the general rule, and all creatures fit a bell curve
according to their race.  Some giants will be massively powerful, some will
be terribly weak (by giantish standards), but the vast majority will be
average (by giantish standards).

Further, any given being of a certain size will be no more effective than N
of his average skilled peers.  A master swordsman cannot oppose more than N
avergae opponents.  The ballpark is probably three to five for the typical
player.  A master swordsman doesn't parry six simultaneous attacks.  Two is
probably the maximum.  The master must maneuver in order to quickly disable
opponents in series.  But because the master can do it so quickly, it is
possible to move and disable, move and disable.  The master who just stands
there and lets the opponents get on all sides is going to be in a world of
hurt.

This scenario implies that there needs to be a means to quickly disable an
opponent.  Because I don't want death to be the only way to stop a character
from free action, it means that wounding must have an effect.  At this
point, I go back to the perception system.  If I succeed in getting a slash
on your leg, your perceptions are going to involuntarily be routed to paying
attention to the pain coming from your leg.  And that means that you are
unable to move as effectively (biological practicality) and that you are
unable to devote your attention to employing your skills as effectively.  If
you value your life, you withdraw.  And players in my world will value their
character's life because death means ejection from the game for some number
of days.  Minimum death penalty is one day.  People don't want their
characters to die.

The bottom line is that I want conventional checks and balances to be in
effect in the game world so that player expectations can be used to let them
'consider' things very naturally to begin with.  Then, I want players to get
additional information through the character's senses.  Given that
information, the player has to determine the threat level.  With player
judgement involved, we keep the player involved and entertained, and retain
a number of interesting possible scenarios, including bluffing.  Player
twitch skills will not be a factor.  I want to educate the players on the
situations that their characters are facing so that the players can make
intelligent decisions.  I won't try to distill an entire tactical situation
down to a stop light indicator.

JB

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