|
This is a discussion board. Commenting on the posted subject matter is kind of the point. I disagree with the ideas that: The absence of permadeath in a game neuters "assassins," that there are no possible effective consequences to death in a MUD beyond "point" loss or permadeath, and especially that games without permadeath are ill-designed. If you don't want people disagreeing with you, don't post.
As far as features I'd like to see in a role-playing game:
• A classless advancement system
• A web of emergent skills learned by doing
• Success dependent as much on player ability as character skill
• Mechanics engineered to encourage player collaboration
• A complex crafting system that engenders player-driven economy
• Open PvP with mechanically supported IC checks/balances
• A rich but limited narrative
• Story and mechanic-supported goals beyond advancement and sitting at tables spitting out flowery small talk
• Some kind of application and screening to ensure a community of folks interested in role-play
Bottom line: Advancement is important to me, but so is RP, and I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I wholeheartedly disagree with the concept that longer, more detailed lines of action and dialogue and the absence of numbers on the screen necessarily makes for better role-play. To me, role-play is more about decision and consequence than cool adjective-use and the positions of subjects and verbs. If a game presents a good story and challenges within the story that force players to make choices and deal with the consequences in a consistent, ongoing manner, it will foster great role-play, regardless of its mechanical delivery. People are going to role-play or they're not. No amount of design will change that.
|