View Single Post
Old 03-22-2003, 03:33 PM   #10
Falconer
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Paris
Posts: 35
Falconer is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Falconer
What needs to be established is that there is a difference between the quality and quantity of coded systems. There are many foyers for interactive roleplaying on the Internet that range from freeform IRC channels to MUSHes to RPI MUDs. In the instance of freeform RP channels, the 'players' are given the bare-bones neccessities for roleplaying - sockets and connection, a method of entering text as either verbal communication or actions and a group of players that go about creating a world and story on the fly.

MUSH and MUX codebases - nearly always focused on roleplaying - usually have very little in the way of in-depth coded systems when compared to even stock DIKU derivatives. Granted, some MUSHes (such as Wes Platt's OtherSpace and Join The Saga campaigns) do have a variety of programmed systems, but the usual method of approaching code is as a roleplaying prop rather than an essential feature needed to establish atmosphere.

I can see where you're coming from - Arm is, if I'm not mistaken, heavily modified from DIKU and thus a great deal of code needed to be altered to create a greater roleplaying environment than the stock code allowed.

It may be best to view these comments with the analogy of the theatre, where the script is created through improvisational acting by players and staff. The code would be the set pieces, the props, the lighting. You're going to have players who want to take part in a Broadway caliber production and others who would prefer the intimacy of a black box performance.

In the end, as far as the specific ability to roleplay is concerned, it is not the amount of code in a game that establishes the quality of the environment. Rather, it is how fully developed and beneficial the code is that is added.

This isn't neccessarily true. In fact, a majority of agrarian or horitcultural societies arose from other factors that range from natural disasters and changes in weather patterns to protection from other states or civilizations. Furthermore, evidence of agricultural civilizations is in direct correlation to individuals within hunter/gatherer or pastoral societies claiming power, prestige or other elements of stratification over others.

Well said.

As you noted earlier in your post, we need to be really careful when using the word 'realistic' when referring to fantasy environments. The more common (and appropriate, I'd argue) term would be 'internal consistency'.

I think that the staff solution you provided is a good one - though there are certainly other methods that you could look at to deal with this problem - ones that might prove much more interesting to the players. Wes and I had a conversation several months ago about utilizing any action a player (or group of players) does and creating IC consequences as a result of them.

Instead of simply creating a staff-run clan (though kudos, as it seems to have worked) you could instead have created an entire storyline regarding the animal treatment. Elven NPCs could begin holding summits to discuss the problem - any benefits given to the elven race (such as animal affinity?) could begin to dissapear. A fire could rage through the elvish homelands, causing religious or secular leaders to claim that it stemmed from the animal treatment.

I couldn't agree more. Good post, John.
Falconer is offline   Reply With Quote