Re: [MUD-Dev] more classes (Usability and interface and who the

[Matt Chatterley <root#mpc,dyn.ml.org>]

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Brian Price wrote:

> > From:          clawrenc#cup,hp.com
> >    at 09:44 AM, "Brandon J. Rickman" <ashes#pc4,zennet.com> said:
> > 
> > >And why does everyone start with a weak character?  In heroic science
> > >fiction or fantasy characters start out with some expert skills.  
> > 
> > A couple basic reasons:
> > 
> >   It allows MUDs to more easily play off __two__ of the basic plots:
> > _Man_Learns_A_Lesson_, and _The_Little_Tailor_ (man goes out, has an
> > adventure, comes home and tells about it).
> > 
> >   It allows the same game to be played repetitively: Each time the
> > character can advance differently.
> > 
> >   The sense of advancement provides attractive goals for players.
> 
> Do you believe a mud can be successful if it puts much less emphasis 
> on advancement, and much more on adventuring?  Especially if 
> mechanisms are in place which mutate the game as it is played?  

I certainly believe so - a game tilted to such an extent would be far more
likely to keep my attention, at least. I rapidly become bored with
simplistic games where variations upon the 'do X lots, be better at X..'
loop make up the entire game play.
 
> Also, what exactly is character advancement?  Does not the gaining of 
> equipment which makes one more powerful qualify?  As well as 
> advanced training in exotic skills?  The aquisition of wealth?  The 
> aquisition of power?

This is the notional view that I take - character advancement has many,
many dimensions, of which physical improvement (whether physically
physical, or physical in the knowledge sense) are but one facet of this.

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics." -?