Re: Olympia: opinions on magical research

From: skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta)

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 19:23:55 +0000

hauck@cs.washington.edu (Scott Hauck) writes:
> My suggestion and others sort of fall into the category of skills that
> eanr you spells, but the spells need to be learned in a specific order.
> Well, this is exactly how normal skills currently work.  So, axe the
> idea of learning skills and then spells, and just make the spells be
> the USE command for a skill.

This was choice #1 in my original post.

It makes things sane and regular, but I like the flavor that the
random research imparts, and the extra difficulty because you must
go through two levels of learning.

> One thing I'd add though is a "practice" order.  The idea is that the first
> time a spell is cast, there's a 25% it fails (often spectacularly).

This is a fun idea, but it means that each spell implementation is
three times as much work.

It's not clear here how your "practice" order differs from the two-tiered
system where you must study the spell in order to use it.  You're just
calling study by a different name, and changing the result of failure.

--
Rich Skrenta

References

Re: Olympia: opinions on magical research
hauck@cs.washington.edu (Scott Hauck)
Thu, 30 Apr 1992 18:50:57 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia: opinions on magical research
hauck@cs.washington.edu (Scott Hauck)
Thu, 30 Apr 1992 18:50:57 +0000