|
Reread my post and point out where I say strategy appeals to dumb people. I mentioned combat. Combat and strategy are not the same thing. And there's more to intelligence than "careful planning, clever tactics, quick thinking and the ability to constantly adapt".
Setting up a good combat system does take a lot of planning and good design to implement, but ultimately, use of it falls to a limited number of variables which even a monkey could learn if given enough time. Elements of role-play are something which can't be coded in, which is why graphical games emphasize combat and are shunned by serious role-players.
There's a difference between learning mechanics or being devious and having the reasoning ability to justify the actions. Case in point on one of the MUDs I play. Every day some player comes along with a great way to abuse the game's setting and concept and kill something or steal something. They however do so at the expense of reason. Just because a person can do something in a game doesn't mean that they should, and very few can offer a rational reason for their actions. This is where setting is important.
The setting and concept only provides flavour if the MUD is seriously lacking in depth. If done properly, the setting is vitally important because it dictates what is and is not possible, as well as why things are as they are. Anyone in a MUD can kill something. The depth of the game's setting and concept however determine whether or not they should. That takes far more intelligence and creativity to implement than combat alone and more than what most players possess to put into practice and succeed. Hence, in games where there is more to combat than just strategy, players that plot and strategize as to how they'll succeed in combat often meet with frustration because while they're plotting and strategizing, they're doing so from a perspective in which they're ignoring the setting and numerous other factors.
Now, create a MUD where the goal is limited to something as simple as killing another player and setting becomes nothing more than window dressing. So yes, in that case, setting isn't important. Of course, neither are many other elements of a MUD (theme, room descriptions, object descriptions, mobile descriptions or even names). Strategy helps one succeed in this formula, but this isn't the normal type that most MUDs fall into.
Now, when it comes to science fiction as opposed to fantasy, it's easy to see why the latter is more popular when designing MUDs and role-playing games. Science fiction is rooted in principles of science. For example, why does a planet have gravity twice that of earth? Because it's mass is twice that of earth. But a lot of people are ignorant when it comes to understanding a concept like gravity, much less the difference between mass and volume (####, to many, volume is only a setting on their stereo). In order to create a good science fiction setting, one must carefully balance the fantastic with the scientific (this is why many consider Star Wars to be fantasy rather than science fiction). With fantasy, you can toss all that out the window and attempt to rationalize the inconsistencies. Of course, most who do this still manage to fail in creating a viable setting because rationalizing inconsistencies usually creates more. But, it's easier to simply say something will be so without explaining, or falling back on the crutch of "it's fantasy".
Very few are willing to invest the time and effort to create a fantasy world that isn't filled with such flaws (though some have succeeded), much less create a science fiction setting where the standards are often viewed as much higher. And most players aren't interested in being required to think so much as they are to type "kill this" and "kill that", earn experience points, and level.
You are partially right about the ranged weapons, but I don't think that's the only thing that stops them from creating a science fiction MUD. It's like Hollywood films. The summer blockbusters are almost always more successful and easier to bankroll because people will go see them. But thoughtful, intelligent films cater to a smaller audience. Same goes for MUDs.
Take care,
Jason
|