Give me a moment to scratch my head.
Ok. Back.
Now, then, how is a refereed or consent-based combat system any more controlled than a number crunching automated system that lets the fastest macro win?
I'd recommend trying a broad variety of systems before judging their value - and before picking one to call your own.
Modifiers assigned in our taskrolls, for example, provide a randomizing factor. You may have a Superb Melee Weapon skill, for example, but if a referee says you have to assign a -3 modifier because you're trying to swing the weapon while swinging and then jumping from a chandelier, there's a good chance you'll fail your attack - but SOME chance that you'll succeed.
Now, the other things you talk about:
1) Requiring an application for a character to get anywhere - that's something we do, and something quite a few RP-focused MUDs employ. It's quite handy at weeding out the twinks. It's not perfect, but it definitely whittles down the problem players. It's also a very controlling thing to do, although it allows for variety within the parameters you've set.
2) Legal systems are great in theory, difficult in practice. If you have coded NPCs doling out justice, you're going to upset your pure RPers who think it's unfair. If you rely on PCs doing the job, you will be listening to a lot of criminals whining about a lack of legal representation and being stuck in jail. Something I'll be enacting soon on some worlds of OtherSpace will be a "sleeper prison." Someone gets convicted of a crime, gets stuck in a box, and lives out a virtual prison sentence. They'll emerge 24 hours later - but they'll be 25 years older - maybe even more than that. They'll suffer permanent reductions in skills, stats, and they'll get new faults assigned to represent their debilitated state.
|