CF: Re: "Monster" races

[David Andrew Michael Noelle <>]

> From: dragonm <>
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:25:58 -0700

> On the contrary, player races do not have to be equivalent.  Allowing
> players to be animals and largly mindless goo is a method to retain interest
> and replayability.  It isn't reasonable to attempt to make the experience of
> playing an animal identical to the experience of playing one of the humanoid
> monsters, nor should we try.  But that's no reason to throw out the idea.
> The fact that it's not an identical experience is precisely the point.  I
> think the idea deserves some exploration and experimentation before we
> dismiss it.

Well, I suppose if people really want to play a severely limited race
that has no significant benefits to balance it, we should probably let
them.  We'd just have to make it clear that those races aren't
expected to be played seriously, and can't really compete with the
balanced player races.  I'd hate to see what would happen to this game
if dog, cat, and green slime players decided they wanted to be
balanced with humans, elves, ogres, and beholders.  As long as we have
a clear seperation between serious, balanced races and "just for fun"
races, I don't have a problem with it.  Play a goldfish if you want.
Just don't expect your goldfish to become a powerful wizard.

-- 
            -Dave Noelle,                 
            -the Villa Straylight,  http://www.straylight.org
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email  ==  http://www.cauce.com

Disclaimer:If there does exist a "Heaven," only the damned deserve it.

Quote of the Day:
Give a skeptic an inch and he'll measure it.
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]