[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[Richard A. Bartle]

On 27th February, 2001, Brian Hook wrote:

> Not to sound too flippant, but that's just picking a nit.
> Rephrased, that could be "One of the problems with this is that
> _players that embark on life threatening activities_ are going to be
> really harmed".

That seems perfectly logical to me. Players that emark on
life-threatening activities SHOULD risk being harmed - but they should
get better rewards if they come out of it alive.

With a class system, there's no escape. You get harmed because your
course was set when you chose the class and you can't escape. You
can't stagger to the back row and use your healing abilities, because
you don't have any. You can't lob a few spells because you don't have
any. You can't try and hide because ... well just because!

> Of course, you could counter that players that embark on life
> threatening activities should be put at a disadvantage, but in the
> types of games that I envision, putting yourself in danger is
> somewhat ordinary -- heroic fantasy, space opera, etc.

Your original objection was that some characters risk death more than
others, but now you say that risking death is ordinary.

Either everyone has the same risk of death, in which case your
original complaint is specious, or they have different risks of death
depending on what they do, in which case your second point doesn't
support your first.

You seem to be suggesting that if the whole point of the game is to be
a hero, and everyone takes risks, then you should let everyone be a
hero and remove the risks.

That would work except that it's the risks that MAKE people heroes.
There's nothing heroic about a tank standing in front of a monster and
being pounded on if the worst that can happen is "not a great
deal". You tell people they're heroes, but they're not. Sooner or
later, they're going to figure it out.

> if the point of the game is to allow players to adopt the personae
> of heroic characters that regularly engage in adventurous, dangerous
> activities, then either you kill them a lot or you don't.

Obviously, but the "you don't" can include threatening them with death
a lot (if they get themselves into such situations) but having them
only die infrequently?

> If you kill them a lot, then things, paradoxically enough, feel more
> realistic because the player is suffering from putting himself in
> dangerous situations.  If you don't kill them a lot, then they're
> demigods with little fear of their surroundings.

You don't see that a middle way is possible?

> Either way, permadeath or excessively large death penalties really
> make things less fun and interesting for me, primarily because they
> discourage exploration and bravery.

They don't discourage bravery, they discourage what passes for bravery
in these games. If you don't like the thought of PD but you still go
up against some critter who can deliver it, then that's bravery; if
you attack something that could give you a nasty nip, that's hardly in
the same league...

> Sure, you have to punish/dissuade the reckless crowd, but you really
> don't want to go overboard punishing someone that just has an
> explorer's heart.

I agree, there is a balance issue.

> Heroic characters != careful all the time.

Well not if it makes no difference whether they are or they aren't.

		Richard

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