> From: kim@...
>
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, John Tatsukawa wrote:
> > Potentially, if we wanted realism, 1 good stick in the gut
> should disable
> > any mob or player then, which kind of ruins any suspense.
>
> Just so you know, the RPG I played most (and type of system I
> like the most) was Traveller. Yes, one good stick in the gut
> could disable just about anyone. Yes Muhammad Ali could be
> knocked out by one weakling swinging a pipe at his head from
> behind. Yes it changes combat tactics - rather than what you
> do in a fight being important (which I always thought should
> be based on the character's skill, not the player's ability to
> play), how you plan a fight and how well you carry out that
> plan, and how you adapt to changing circumstances becomes
> important.
This does happen to a certain extent in EQ. The opposite extreme of what you
state would be a game like Street Fighter, which is totally dependent on the
player's skill to orchestrate tactical moves/combos.
The flip side to that is a lot like what I've read in Rainbow Six by Tom
Clancy which deals with commando's vs terrorists. There's a situation. You
set up a plan and each person has a task/job. You adapt to the circumstances
in an environment full with lethal combat results.
If there was a MUD with this latter profile, I can't imagine getting pickup
groups together as it really would take excellent team coordination, and
it'd probably be best to have voice communications.
> If you haven't picked it up yet from my other comments:
>
> - I don't like level based systems
> - I don't like class based systems
> - I don't like increasing hp systems
>
> IMHO, all of these are quick-and-easy approaches to "solving"
> the playbalance problem by artificially imposing limitations
> to enforce orthogonality (balancing a game is much easier if
> the factors you can tweak are all orthogonal). The tradeoff
> of course is that you lose flexibility and diversity, and you
> get some really strange things happening in the game world
> physics (e.g. high level people without safe fall surviving
> impossible drops).
Thanks for the reminder. I've played in some fun Traveller games but it was
a very long time ago.
I enjoy the reward of enhancing or tweaking a character's abilitites as they
progress and acquire wealth and equipment. At least we don't earn exp for
gold.
In truth, the RPG I enjoyed most was the James Bond game by Victory Games
which featured "hero points" which allowed you to perform the standard
impossible James Bond stuff, and allowed you to progress from rookie agent
to double-O (but of course). It wasn't the most realistic of combat systems,
but was definitely quicker and easier than, say AD&D, without being as
ludicrous as Top Secret.
IMHO, I think that Everquest does have a nice balance of fun vs realism.
But to show where Brad stands on realism in this game:
He was on the general Chat line in EQ during a server crash and I asked him
about having equipment break so that things would need to be replace. I
figured this would make the game a bit more realistic and would give my
blacksmithing skills something to do. His reply was, "Entropy Sucks!" :-)
---Windleaf (Can you tell I really don't want to be doing work?)