Re: CF: Re: "Monster" races

[Hwei Sheng TEOH <>]

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, David Andrew Michael Noelle wrote:

> > 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.

Hahaha... :-D Nicely brought out.
But one consideration is, if these "just for fun" classes won't go very far,
should we even bother to spend the coding effort to implement them? I mean, I
don't mind doing that for fun, if all it involves is sitting down and tweaking
a few parameters, change a few names, etc., but if you go any further than
that, with features that require special coding for each class, etc., I think
that is just silly.


T

-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]