RE: Re[2]: Balance/Perception (was BackStab)

From: Gary Barnett (
Date: 02/06/97

>From:	Walter Goodwin []
>> Well. 1) No magic.. so no magical sword makers. 
>> Rarity of items is handled via quests.. If the item is rare, it's sitting
>> _somewhere_ waiting to be picked up, quested for, or what have you.. and
>> those quests are designed to be difficult, and not doable by all players.
>Actually, it might be best to give players a "forge" skill, and have them
>assemble materials to make the best items.  Ie. instead of just Giving
>a player a nifty item through a quest, give them something that could
>be made into an item.  Of course, this would take a bit of time to code :)
>(Actually, I think when I get some time (I have about 50 projects going
>on now :/  I think I'm gonna work on the basics for something like this)

Agreed. I have three different 'compenent' derived skill trees. One for
medicinal purposes, one as a scientist/creator of devices and one to cover
the creation of cloth/wood/metal clothing, weapons and so on.

<snip > 

>> True. I figure in that case that only a couple people would be able to
>> figure out how to get such a cloak.. and by the time someone else did,
>> someone would have met their death in a nice DT :-)
>The bad thing about DT's is that players find them, then don't
>fall into them again soon,  eventually a player would find almost
>every single DT in the game.  Of course, I think the stock circle
>implementation is insufficient myself.  For instance, If I make a spell
>like, oooh, scry, that lets me see a room from afar, then looking into
>it and seeing "The ceiling comes down and smashes you flat as a pancake"
>is comical at the very least.  Instead I was going to create a text
>string which is sent to the player instead of the "Oopsies, Your Dead"
>message (Or whatever it is in stock circle) which of course makes me
>feel better about handing out far-see spells (or whatever :)

I've already added a message saying, "INFO BLah met his death at, 'DT Room Name'"
that all the players see. I'm not so much concerned at them knowing where they are.
My personal experience has been that even when I know there's a DT there, there's
still a chance I'll hit it.. Better that way.. The player blames him/herself for supidity rather
than the game for killing them w/o warning. I especially enjoy seeing people with automatic
tracking triggers (track is persistent from room to room) hitting DT's because the trail to
their prey led through a DT.. Gotta love that one.. Death by your own trigger *cackle*
Fleeing is another fun way to DT (my second favorite.)

<snip : comments about needing a rule to prohibit divulging quest info>

>Ack, personally I abhor rules that can't be enforced.  So, itd be
>best to alter the quest system to make it undesirable for a character
>to give out such info.  For example, if you have a lot of automated quests,
>you can only allow one or two of them to operate at a time, then, have
>another random quest activate.  Players would have to do a little

I dislike this, as it seems a hack.. The game doens't let you do quest X because
it feels like it shouldn't.. better to create real IC reasons for each quest and then
make the reasons available only during certain periods.. i.e. Only on the 30th day
of the month of whatever can you place the rock on the stone and have it point
out the keyhole ... 

>digging to find out which quests could be completed.  You could also
>have some level related quests, ie.  There is a 1-10 level quest,
>10-20, 20-30, with only one or two per level group being "on"  If
>you combine this with the "ingredient" idea above, with each ingredient
>that you can use to make many different objects, then players are
>definitely not going to hand out the solution to quests, not when
>their Armor of Etherealness is riding on them getting the red rock
>of vastruss before someone else does.  (of course, this is a problem
>on its own, ie. players repeating quests, but quests that are automated
>can have several random events/locations/actors which could make it
>quite a bit different.  (just look at the Castle Ravenloft adventure
>from TSR, the same module could be played 5 times, with totally different

Objects (even common ones) should be components of quests..even better
to require ones the character him/herself created. Another way to create
quests that only certain people can do. (at least easily)

Ravenloft.. I liked that game.. Seemed very well thought out.. well except for the
bugs.. Though I guess you could argue that they were well thought out too :-)

<snip: getting best eq for killing a mob>

>I personally like puzzle quests, but I find it hard to do puzzles
>in dikumuds, (er, do puzzles properly)

I'm trying to simulate the complexity of the old Infocom games.. Like Planetfall. (my favorite)
The parser and the level of puzzle detail are the main goals.. Adding in the MUD component
to such a game will (hopefully) result in a fascinating game. 

The difficulty of such an undertaking is not trivial.. But it's a blast.. Mud coding is very rewarding :-)


| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
|   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST