[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Brian Hook wrote:

> At 06:03 PM 3/8/01 +0000, matt wrote:

>> Yes, it's quite lame. I remember a thread here a year or so back
>> that just made me sick. It wasn't just a thread about the thief
>> class in your game. It was a thread about how to make one specific
>> thief ability work better. The implicit assumption being that we
>> all have thieves and that we've all ripped off our thieves from
>> D&D.

> For an adventure oriented RPG, the archetypes make sense for at
> least two reasons: familiarity, and the more scientific "permutation
> of ability axes".

Familiarty is a reason. The other one is just group think.


> If you were to define your basic types of characters, irrespective
> of the names or the specific abilities, you would often end up with
> a list like:

>   - melee combatant: monks, warriors, brawlers - non-melee
>   combatant: archers, snipers, magic users - healer/non-combatant:
>   shaman (optional) - stealth (optional)

Heh. Why do you think this is? It's because of a general unwillingness
to think outside the box.


> Then you have variants on the above based on hybrids and more
> detailed restrictions that are irrespective of the archetypes.
> Effectively an archer and a mage are the same thing, with just a
> minor detail in what their specific weapon is.  A druid and a wizard
> in EQ are the same basic archetype with the contrived difference of
> "nature" vs. "magic" and damage-over-time vs. direct damage.  In
> PSO, they whittle it down to three archetypes: caster, melee and
> ranged weapon.  Buffers/healers aren't represented, and neither are
> sneakers.  Choose your way of killing and be happy =)

A mage and an archer are the same because you've made them the
same. Achaea's mages are nothing like archers, for instance.


> There's nothing wrong with these archetypes, because for most combat
> oriented games that's what it's going to break down to regardless of
> genre.  Some RPGs will separate out physical combatants into melee
> and ranged; and the non-combatant classes will have a variety of
> different flavors, from priests to tinkerers to engineers, etc.  But
> in the end, they kind of do the same things because combat mechanics
> dictate it.  And whether you want to use classes or skills, it still
> ends up being the same.

Of course it's going to be that way for most combat oriented
games. That's exactly what I'm complaining about. And YOUR combat
mechanics define it (your meaning whoever is designing whatever world
one would refer to). "Combat" does not define it. For instance, aside
from our massively complicated (and completely different to the way
AD&D combat works) we have a sub-combat system available to telepaths
called psychic combat. It's a reasonably simple (7 things you can do)
expansion on the principle of rock-paper-scissors. It's got nothing to
do with the categories you listed above. Most of our combat
doesn't. If your world's combat does, it's because you choose to
follow the leader. I'm sorry if that's offensive, but it's true.

Listen, my major objection is the same objection I have to most
mainstream movies. They are too formulaic. Everything borrows, and
it's a spectrum from original to formula to straight-out copy, but I
prefer things tilted more towards the original than towards formulaic
or copy. The creators of Everquest are obviously enormously talented
in terms of meeting the desires of large groups of people.


> For non-combat-oriented games, things like diplomats, bards,
> etc. can make a lot of sense.

Or for games that have combat AND political systems!


> I guess my point isn't that these archetypes aren't tired -- because
> they are -- but sometimes the archetypes are reached through a
> thought process that isn't directly derivative.  In my own
> experience I don't say "What'll we call our ranger class?", instead
> I'll say "What about a ranged combatant?" which often ends up
> becoming the traditional ranger/sniper/archer.  It's an axis of
> differentiation, and there are finite axes of finite length if
> you're constrained to being combat oriented.

Well, I'd have to disagree. I think the only limits are the limits of
one's imagination.


--matt

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