|
That's a pretty pathetic straw man argument.
But to humour you: If defecation plays a central role in your game, yet you prevent people from defecating in certain specific situations (eg no defecating between 4pm and 4:30pm on Tuesdays) for no in-game reason, then yes I imagine it would reduce the immersion for many players.
If cooking up a souffle plays a central role in your mud, yet people are prevented from doing so while wearing red underwear, for no apparent in-game reason, then yes I can imagine that would reduce the immersion for many players.
If those actions are simply not supported then it's not an issue. If those actions are a central part of the game (such as combat is on most muds), yet are prevented in very specific and unexplained ways, then they will reduce the immersion for many players.
Most roleplaying games are set in worlds where combat is a part of life - not just roleplaying muds, but tabletop roleplaying games as well.
I can't imagine playing a tabletop roleplaying game where attempting to kill someone resulted in the GM saying "No, I won't let you". I can understand them warning me out-of-character. I can understand them fudging the results. I can understand them asking me to leave the group if I disrupted the story by continually attacking people for no reason. But for a GM to turn around and refuse to let me perform an action which I felt my character had a good reason to carry out, without any in-game explanation?
Perhaps that's your idea of a good roleplaying game, but it's certainly not mine.
|