Re: radical departure

Subject: Re: radical departure
From: Taneli Niko Tikka (
Date: Tue Nov 16 1999 - 16:04:44 EET

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, joshua 'hook' corning wrote:

> Sure we can make the world the way we want it but how long would it stay
> that way? If the game is coded well enough the players should have
> absolute freedom to choose their destiny. What makes you think they will
> follow your designs? The only way to curtail players that don't fallow
> what we say is to code the game without freedom of choice or to
> constantly police them. Which is not the intention of the game.

You are SO lost with this argument. The best choice here is the create a
dynamic starting setting for the world. A complete world with history,
people, kindoms, cultures, religions etc.. The reason why they will stay
in power atleast for a while is because there is NPCs. There is powerful
kings, powerful npc wizards, they cant be thrown away or killed by the
players not in any time soon atleast. But at some point there will come a
time that a player or a group of players get so powerful they can slay
kings, and that is totally OK with us. It doesnt destroy our kindoms,
simply changes them a little. A players can kill a king and announce
himself as one --> right after he does that he gets into a terrible
trouble with the assosiates and contacts of the old kings. Not to mention
churchs, and reliigous things. You can do what ever you want but
just as in real life, nothing comes that easy or free.
> Part of the idea behind the majik game is to make a world with
> consiquenses. A world in in which the players write the history. I am
> not making this up it is in the FAQ. If you have not read it i sugest
> you do.

The goal of making a world where players make history is perfectly
executed in a world that begins on a dynamic setting, then evolves to
where ever it may drift, but with reason. If you dont understand what i
mean with reason in this subject, ask  - and eat a shitload of smartdrugs.
> advantage over these games i feel becouse it gives the player complete
> freedom to do what they want to do. Have you ever played d and d and you
> want your thief to run off and rob a house but can't becouse the other
> players want to get on with the adventure that the DM has prepared and
> the DM dosn't have the time for your theif's side adventure. In majik
> this should not be a problem.

this isnt a problem in real RPGs either. if it is you have a really really
bad GM, one that shouldnt even be leading games cause apparently he has no
clue what so ever how to do it.
> This also makes majik unstable. No DM means the players can do waht they
> want to and if that is the case what prevents them from ignoring our
> desc and doing what the hell they want. Sure we could try to design
> viable sociaties for the players but that is near imposible becouse
> there is no way we can forsee all the factors that effect those
> sociaties until the game is running. My proposal would make it so that
> the players make the societies within the game that way they would be
> viable becouse they did take in all the factors that exist.

The point is that players cant do what they want. They cant kill all gods
in the first hour of their game. They cant run to an emperors castle and
kill everyone in sight and get away with it. The existing settings and
pure reason make it quite impossible. But you dont seem to get this.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:03:24 EET