Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "Re: The majority (was Re: looting)"

On 25 Nov 1997 18:16:10 GMT, Mark Asher <marka@impacttech.com> wrote:
>
>What you don't understand is that fun gameplay is much more important than
>balanced gameplay

So you think that me being able to steal all your kills away from
you, and you not being able to do a *thing* about it is a fun game?
In UO, at least, there is a chance of it. There are consequences
(noteriety hits), but at least you can do *something* rather than just
sit back and watch in frustration. (or are you going to advocate
that such activity be placed against the rules and subject to banning
by the GMs?)

As far as I can tell, the "PK Switch" people belong to one of two
camps, at least in general

1) The shortsighted. These are the ones who, upon noting that the
current state of PKing certainly is out of hand, instantly come
to the conclusion that there is no way to have fun while being
vulnerable to other players, thus demand that it be banned in some
way.

2) The ones who confuse the concept of "adventure" games with
"role playing" games. Rick certainly seems to fall into this
category, not sure about you, Mark.

Adventure games are games in which you can expect most of
everyone to have a common goal. Usually defeating some
overriding evil, though there are other goal types that are
possible. People playing "evil" type characters there *are*
a hinderance, because the game itself has a specific goal that
it's asking you to reach.

Almost all, if not all, computer stand-alone "role playing games"
that exist are, in fact, adventure games.

Role-playing games are games in which you play a role. Yes,
that sounds redundant, and it is, but it's a point that has
been consistantly missed in this thread.

In adventure games, one does *not* play a role, at least not
in any meaningful sense of the term. Your thief plays the same
role as the warrior, just with a different skill set.

When you play a role, that means that you are playing a character
with a distinct set of motivations and goals. This set will
be different for each character. More importantly, these sets
will *conflict* with one another.

Many of these conflicts will be very minor and subject to compromise.
Others may be resolvable without the characters coming to blows,
but not easily. Some may simply not be resolvable short of
defeating the opponent (civil wars often do not have a "bad guy,"
once you seperate the actual morivations from the propaganda of
the winning side).

I was in a D&D campagin that may make a good illustration of this.
I played a mage specializing in abjuration (sp?) magic--defensive
magic. Character concept included being protective of all
innocent life. Another character was a priestess of some god(ess?)
that required frequent animal sacrifices. Nasty conflict potential
there.

Unfortunately, due to time constraints, the campagin dissolved
before any good inter-character conflict developed, but it would
have happened, possibly to the point where she would whip my
2nd-level-mage butt.

Furthermore, role-playing games do not have to have any overriding
goal. A series of short-term goals, perhaps. Any such overriding
goal is generally going to be very, very distant and very loose.
For role-playing, "the play's the thing."

"Lord of the Rings" is an adventure scenario. "Gor" would be
more of a role-playing scenario (if I wished to write stories in
the Gor universe without mentioning the Kur or Priest-Kings, I
could. It's much more difficult to write Middle-Earth tales
without mentioning Morgoth/Sauron and their creations, unless
you start writing in the 4th age, after the adventure ends).

Ultima Online is a role-playing game. Ultime I-VIII are adventure
games. Look at the difference between 7.5 and UO to illustrate this.

The main "plotline" in each deals with the Order/Chaos/Balance
conflict. But they go about it in totally different ways. In
7.5, the player really doesn't have to put in the slightest amount
of caring into the conflict. Stopping Batlin is not about preventing
imbalance, it's about stopping the Guardian. The player does not
have the Avatar become the Champion of Balance because Balance is
a better path than the extremes, it's done because it's the only
way to save the planet. The player would have him become the
Champion of Chicken Entrails if that was the only way to get to
the ending sequence.

The focus in UO is very different. There is no "this path
leads to the happy ending, the others only lead back to the "restore
from save?" screen." We do have Sherry's Tale, but heck, I see
teleporting mages every day--British may very well be the victim
of a neat prank. So the character can choose his path in
relation to his personality. There is no right path as
determined by the *game* but there will be "right" paths as
determined my characters. Which is why conflict between characters
is a necessity in any role-playing game--the concept of "right" will
vary by character.
--
David Zeiger dzeiger@the-institute.net