From: jvp@doc.ic.ac.uk (Jeremy Pitt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.moria
Subject: Re: My brain's erasable
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:47:16 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.

In article <1992Apr6.153454.24105@acsu.buffalo.edu> mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>
>	Well, first I will try to address this post on its merits, which are
>damn few.

Well, go on then...

>	If you need to maintain a cumulative monster memory, 

I don't recall this ever being part of `that post'...

>obviously you're
>the party who has been lobotomized.

That's it Matthew! Playground politics: say what's just been said to you
and add `obviously'! Very clever. Very original. You make it sound as though
you think I really meant that you lobotomise yourself.

>	Furthermore, having a fresh monster memory for each character is
>useful for determining if a given character has encountered a given monster.
>It is also useful for keeping track of exactly how many Giant Fruit Flies one
>has killed, for those of us who are up on trivia like this.

Well, a pretty feeble justification for a fresh monster memory, and _no_
justification whatsoever for resetting the haggle counter, which is what
I believe the discussion was all about.

The real problem, though, is fairly standard in this sort of mechanised RPG:
how do you distinguish player knowledge from character knowledge? Each new
character uses the strategy and tactics that comes from the player's knowledge.
That's why we trawl around 1250 for gain stat potions, look for speed items,
don't get involved in melee fights with L,G,W and those pesky beetles.

One way for everything to genuinely `start from scratch' is if player
knowledge is erased as well as character knowledge. (Hence...) Alternatively,
some games I've played try to keep track of what the character(s) know, and
won't let you (the player) do certain things unless some conditions have
been met. Others let things be `common knowledge' (ie assumed player knowledge).

To give an example from the `other' game: engraving `The E-word' acts like a
rune of protection: any character can engrave this word at any time. On the
other hand, the game could disallow it unless the character had been
specifically told (eg by talking to an elf, eating a fortune cookie which
tells you what to do...).

Haggling should be common knowledge: instead it's treated like character
knowledge. Like I said in my original post, and someone else said
very eloquently, haggling is a mathematical formula and once you get it
sussed it's a mathematical routine that's fairly wearisome (and we use 
computers to avoid doing, usually...) and always leads to the desired outcome.

>	And as for your flame, 

Actually no flame had been intended Matthew: I'd tried to make that clear.
Your .sig conjures up images of Dr. Strangelove with a minuteman tied to
his wheelchair. Add that to the idea that each new game must start from
scratch in all respects, and you get my post.  I've seen you getting a 
bit of stick recently so if you were feeling a little over-sensitive
and took it as such, that's unfortunate.

>I will not engage you in a war of wits, as you
>are obviously unarmed.

Well, yes, I can just imagine Oscar Wilde saying this. Wasn't it
St Francis of Assisi who said "Never give a sucker an even break?"
Anyway, this sort of posturing is a pathetic substitute for real
humour.

>*******************************************************************************
>* Matt Bernhardt        *                                                     *
>* Mad Scientist         *  Speak softly, and carry a Staff of *Destruction*.  *

Don't you think a Staff of Lighten Up would be more appropriate?

Jeremy

Oh, forget it, let's just get on with the game...