Re: Olympia combat

Scott (
15 May 92 22:49:31 GMT

(Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In most PBM games I've played in, being a successful ruffian takes a
>lot of planning and economic savvy. This is a good thing -- after
>all, a ruffian should be as proud of his work as some fat-cat banker
>who wastes money buying the Olympian equivalent of modern art.

As Rich would say, modern art is on the to-do list :-).

I don't think Russell is asking for it to be made simple to be a
ruffian. I think he's simply asking that unnatural mechanisms to
prevent ruffians not be added to the game.

That's my objection to the monthly obit reports, for instance.
They're an unnatural (in the sense that they don't have any
explanation in terms of the game universe) mechanism for alerting
everyone to who's being anti-social. I think it's much more
interesting to let the mechanisms for controlling anti-social behavior
develop inside the game, rather than enforcing them from outside the
game. Why? Because no one should define "anti-social" from outside
the game. From Dr. Pain's viewpoint, the anti-social players are the
ones who are refusing to acknowledge his eminence. And who's to say
he's wrong? :-)

That aside, I have to say that I don't see much in most of Russell's
objections. You *can* put together a force of rag-tag ruffians in
Olympia at little cost, and support them with WORK. They'll be tough
enough to beat up unarmed citizens, and small bands of armed men. But
they'll have poor morale, be useless against trained and well-paid
fighting men, and will tend to melt away into the bushes when faced
with real danger. But that all seems very realistic to me. One of
the impressive things about Olympia is how a variety of different,
realistic situations arise out of the interaction of many,
individually straightforward components (like loyalty, pay, combat,

-- Scott T.