FW: [MUD-Dev] Interesting EQ rant (very long quote)

[Kevin Littlejohn]

"John Buehler" wrote

> Good grief.  This whole thing started with a statement that modeling
> character knowledge was a Good Thing.  From there, it has
> degenerated into an assault on the idea that all knowledge
> transferred between characters using a 'say' mechanism cannot be
> implemented.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be pissing people off.  I have been watching
the discussion, and the only suggested items for modelling so far have
been things that are _already_ modelled - by a slight tweak to the
quests/world (instead of a password, use a non-transferrable key
(maybe with a "cut key" skill? :), instead of spell "information" to
be collected from far-away NPC's, use scrolls on which the spells are
scribed...  and so on).  I was presuming there was more to this
"knowledge transferral" system than simply reproducing the mechanics
of items and calling it "knowledge", and I was presuming (from your
first posts) that you were trying to solve the "player knowledge of
the world translates to character behaviour" issues, rather than just
creating another class of object.

If someone can explain to me how "/pass_secret password_for_statue
darius" and "/give key_for_statue darius" differ, then I'll shut up.
Actually, no, if someone can explain how /pass_secret is meant to have
greater powers of stopping player->character leakage of info than,
say, EQ's no-drop lore items have, _then_ I'll shut up ;) I just don't
see where the wins are.

KevinL

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