[Yui Unifex]

Just look at how you backpedal and change your argument. Now it's not just combat that attracts dumb people, it's combat with some element of chance. Sorry but that's not what you said.

Strategy is strategy whether it has elements of chance or not, and even then it can most certainly be applied to combat situations in an intelligent manner. There's bad roleplay and there's good roleplay. There's bad combat and there's good combat. The only difference is the systems and the people using and designing them, not the medium.

Obviously not anything from Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote:
At least I have evidence to back up my claims.

[prof1515]

Actually, I have read Asimov's Foundation trilogy and I recommend you read his essay, "The Name of our Field" (think that's the title, it's been years since I read it, though I believe it was eventually published in his last book, Gold). In it, he talks about the difference between what the popular media calls science fiction and what science fiction means to those who essentially wrote the textbook examples of good science fiction consider it. Science fiction need not concern itself with ray-guns and spaceships, even if that's what people think of when they hear the term.

There's plenty of debate over what constitutes science fiction (heh, looking over these forums there's even debate over far easier to define terms like "free", but that's a matter for a different discussion), but that doesn't really concern itself with the original question. If we can go back through the scribblings a bit, we'll see that Kavir said that science fiction MUDs are associated with ranged weapons. But science fiction need not have ranged weapons. Again, I put it to you that a good science fiction MUD (or a poor one for that matter) does not have to have ranged weapons. If that's what prevents people from building one or playing one, it's their own narrow view of what science fiction is that is the problem.

Besides, most fantasy that I've ever seen featured bows and arrows. Hasn't stopped hundreds of fantasy MUDs from being created or thousands of people from playing them.

Take care,

Jason

[prof1515]

P.S.--Check out again what Clarke stated. He said technology might appear as magic, not that technology was magic. It's still rooted in science (ie, it uses some form of device or tool or biological process explainable by scientific theory to accomplish a goal), hence it's science fiction. By Clarke's statement, magic, in the form of mysticism and not technology misunderstood, is fantasy.

[Yui Unifex]

Which is exactly the point. So what's the difference to the player whether or not the "super-indestructible force field" was created with magic or with technology they can't understand? What matters is the setting supports it. That is all.

[prof1515]

The point is that if it was created through magic, it's not science fiction. That's the difference. If it was created through technology, it's not indestructible. You could cut the power source. You could disrupt the field perhaps. If it's magic, it doesn't have to adhere (and probably doesn't) to teh laws of science. There might be ways to defeat it other than casting some magic spell or something, but that's not explaining its origins through science. Matter and energy may not be destroyed, but that doesn't mean that an energy field is indestructible.

Now, from the players' perspective, they don't have to know the difference, provided that the game culture (something else most often ill-conceived) doesn't provide them a knowledge base regarding that technology (or they're some sort of fundamentalist that simply refuses to accept reason). But if the game's designers haven't created an explanation behind the "force field" and simply say it's magic, that's not very good science fiction.

[Yui Unifex]

Now you're just trying to find holes in an intentionally vague description of a force field. The field doesn't have to be completely indestructible, but for the intent of containing ranged weaponry it is completely plausible to have it act as such. No amount of your "what-ifs" can trump the setting designers, as they are essentially gods. For example, if you say you'll cut the power source, the designer will put another force field around the core generator! Huzah. If you say you'll disrupt the field, you are imposing your idea of what a "disruptable" field may be on the setting designer, who is perfectly free to reject your idea.

You are also stepping further and further from your original dubious claim. With each "what-if" you're undermining your argument that ranged weapons on space stations and space ships are bad ideas. "Well they're a bad idea if the players can disrupt the force fields surrounding the station", "Well they're a bad idea if the players can turn off the power to the fields". These don't sound like problems that are impossible to solve. I bet any Star Trek Geek could do it without batting an eyelash.

My point exactly.

And not a one of us has used that explanation.

[KaVir]

Yet a well-designed combat system would reward clever strategy. So what exactly are you arguing? That badly designed combat systems appeal to stupid people?

World chess champions - people who have trained from childhood - compete with powerful supercomputers for five or six digit prizes. And that's in a simple game played on a board with 64 squares and 32 pieces. A game which doesn't even have to cater to the element of chance. Maybe you should get into monkey-training business? If your theory is right, you could make a fortune!

Ah! So if Vladimir Kramnik had been more intelligent, he would have become an actor? But obviously not being smart enough for that, he was only able to become the world chess champion?

Which forces the player to prepare for the unexpected, and learn to adapt to new situations as they arise - no longer can you consistently rely on the same strategy, expecting it to work the same way every time.

"Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards... Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain." - Sun Tzu

[the_logos]

I agree, it need not. The question still stands: What do you consider "serious" science fiction. Obviously it's not Asimov, as he concerns himself with spaceships, telepathy, and rayguns.

--matt

[prof1515]

Yes, I'm sure the chess champions of the world would flock to play hack-and-slash MUDs for the strategy. After all, that's why they all do, don't they?

Chess takes a helluva lot more intelligence to play than any hack-and-slash or role-playing MUD. But the difference between a H&S and an RP MUD is that anybody can type <kill mob> while not everyone has the ability to interact in-character without looking like something out of a bad high-school play rehearsal.

But seeing as the original poster's topic has been f---ed over enough, I'm going to bow out. You're welcome to believe your'e right. You're welcome to believe that some H&S MUD is equal to chess in terms of pure strategy. You're welcome to believe that the majority, #### nearly all, MUDs out there don't suck. But, it's not fair to the person who posted originally since this discussion was not about the good and bad of role-play versus hack-and-slash or whether or not typing "kill" makes you a strategist.

And I happen to share the original poster's desire for there to some day be a good science fiction MUD though I'd prefer one that was well-designed and emphasized role-play over pure combat. Do I think it will happen? Perhaps, but not likely. Still, I'm holding on to the hope that one will emerge.

It'd be refreshing in light of all the crap that's out there now.

Take care,

Jason, who forgot about how many insecurities many in this forum have regarding their MUDs.

[the_logos]

No, science fiction technology is not rooted in science. Warp drive is not rooted in science. The holodeck is not rooted in science. Lightsabers are not rooted in science. The reason it's called 'fiction' is because it's -not- rooted in scientific theories. It's pure speculation, regardless of how you gussy it up with scientific-sounding explanations. Can do exactly the same thing with magic, as Asimov did with telepathy for instance.

--matt

[Yui Unifex]

Perhaps you should examine your own insecurities, as many of us don't get into the habit of stereotyping every combat-oriented mud as being populated by "dumb kids without an ounce of intelligence or creativity".

Good. Your arguments were embarrassingly poor for somoene supposedly representing the intelligentsia.

[KaVir]

If you think that combat consists of nothing more than typing 'kill' then you've obviously been playing muds with extremely poorly designed combat systems. It would be comparible with someone saying that roleplaying muds consist of nothing more than emoting mudsex - some muds are indeed like that, but any serious roleplayer would laugh at the idea that such a mud represented all roleplaying muds.

[Jazuela]

Hey now you just hold on thar, Baba-Blooey! Everyone knows that mudsex is essential to every quality RP mud. How else do you think we all get the power-up? Hrrmph!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(the above was intended as humor. No mudsexers were hurt in the creation of this post.)