Re: Duelmasters: What would you like to see?

From: kanga.caltech.edu!johnjohn (John White)

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 18:27:31 +0000

In article <900667c.76@ace.acadiau.ca> 900667c@ace.acadiau.ca (GERALD RICHARD
CAMERON) writes:
>Duelmasters, as fun as it is, is a game that remains fairly stagnant as far
>as changes go.  The changes that do get made tend to be mostly cosmetic,
>like the addition of warrior gender.  What I was wondering is what some of
>the net public would like to see added to or changed in the DM system.
>Before I start things off with a few examples on my wish list, I'd like to
>say that this forum is open to any and all ideas, no matter how radical, or
>whther RSI has previously rejected them or not.

First of all, I don't think that we're going to see many changes in the game
this year.  "Nothing new in '92!"  That was what the DM staffers tolk me at the
Orcon.  However, when I talked to Chuck, he seemed to have a ton of things that
he wanted to do.  "New styles, new weapons, there's just so many
possibilities!"  But not this year.  Hmph.

>And now some of my likes:
>
>1)  New weapons.
>
>I've only been playing for about 2 years, so I guess I'm not really in a
>position to complain like, say, Dennis, but I think that occaisionally
>adding a new weapon or two would add some spice to the game.  For one thing
>it would help maintain the learning curve for even experienced managers,
>since experimentation is required to find out what's effective against what,
>not to mention stats required, etc.  I would like to state that I only want
>to see genuine historical weapons, and not some fictional creations (like
>what appear in the Rolemaster rpg).  Some possible additions:
>
>		Pike - the lunger's ultimate weapon
>		Club - faster than a mace, easier to use than a WH, gets
>		       bonus for 2-handed use
>		Knife - a dagger that's well suited to slashing, maybe does
>			a little more damage (or a little less :)
>		Main Gauche - a shield that can be used to make an effective
>			      attack.  A small shield that attacks as well
>			      as a dagger.

The problem that I see with your suggestions is that these aren't _really_ new
weapons.  Just imporove versions of the existing ones, right?  Each weapon
should have its individual strengths and weaknesses.  Your's don't seem to.

However....

Whip - Doesn't do much damage, but if it is effectively weilded, gives
an accuracy bonus.  Aiming for the head could temporarily blind warriors.
Hitting arms could have an increased ability to disarm.  Hitting extremities
could have an increased chance to knock down.  Of course, its hard to quickly
riposte an attack with a whip, but it is pretty decisive...

Net-?????

Rope-?????

Actually, what about a whole new fighting style:  The Entanglement
Attack Style?

>
>2)  More Criticals
>
>This was mentioned in an earlier post by someone else, but I was thinking
>the same thing, even before seeing it.  In particular, I think that more
>than one critical parry statement for each weapon would be nice, although it
>might be kind of hard to come up with them.  Still, they could just
>represent different parry motions (not having to move the parrying weapon
>due to a seeming sixth-sense, parrying with extreme authority, parrying with
>a flashy action)

"Mr.X cries out in suprise as Mr.Y's repeatedly lashes out with his whip!"

>A few new critical dodges might also be fun.

What about some cool ripostes?
"Mr.X dives away from the strike, and attacks Mr.Y from the ground!"

>Finally, I think that maybe the Dark Arena warriors should have their own
>criticals for the weapons, maybe even personalized to the warrior.  this
>would make the slaighters more interesting.  Also, one of the funnest parts
>of the game is seeing new comments, but when it haoppens in a DA fight,
>coming from the DA warrior, it kind of spoils it, IMHO.

Or, combine some of your suggestions.

STONE GOLEM throws is BOULDER at Mr.X in a mightly, overhand toss!

>3)  Have Popularity Mean Something Other Than Free Fights.
>
>This is another common complaint.  One interesting idea that I've seen is to
>give character's challenges a priority based on their popularity.  I can't
>really offer a rational explanation for this, although it would give more
>experienced (ie. better known, with greater pull) warriors a higher
>priority, which is reasonable.  The biggest counter argument is that it's
>unfair to new warriors (rationalized above), and that it's unfair to TPs.  I'
>d counter that last one by saying that if TPs are run the way they should
>be (re: offensive TPs) then that wouldn't be as much of a concern.

Excuse me?  TP's _should_ be run offensively?  But that means that they would
sacrifice their spectacular starting records.  You really can't start fighting
a TP offensively until they have enough skills to back up their attack.  To me,
that means around expert attack, but init would really help.  Face it, you
can't say that TP's "should" or "should not" be run with a specific style in
mind.  However, I would still tend to agree with your suggestion.  However, I
still say "tend" as in "popular warriors tend to get higher priority
challenges," instead of having a rigidly defined thing.

>4)  Open Up Three-week Turnaround Arenas
>
>Being Canadian, this would be great, because I could get my guys to AD
>faster without having to worry about blind challenges (ie. you don't know
>your postion or the position of the warrior you're challenging at the time
>the challenge will get through), at least once RSI ditches this stupid
>TNT Mailfast system.  It might also be a happy medium for a lot of American
>players, too.

Actually, I say, open up a 1 week turnaround game.  Of course, it would really
help if all the data entry was done by email.  This would really speed things
up, and cut down RSI's costs.  I mean, they wouldn't need to spend money on
postage, the wouldn't need to spend money on typists for the arena... Just
think, the posibilities are endless!

--
John White
johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu
|===============================================================|
|                    Reasons to go to Caltech:                  |
|0000)  No more of that terrific food that mom used to serve.   |
|0001)  No more of those really neat relationship things.       |
|0010)  I saw a woman.  Once.  I think.                         |
|0011)  Any Math class.  I love math theory!!!                  |
|0100)  Where else can you get Physted?!(My rectum still hurts!)|
|0101)  Getting to meet people with really big egos.            |
|0110)  Classes which are inifinite time sucks!  I love 'em!    |
|0111)  People who really ARE better than you.  I love em!      |
|1000)  Take home finals!  That is, FOUR HOUR take home finals  |
|1001)  "Now apply equation (15) to a 15 dimensional object..." |
|===============================================================|
|                    Reasons to leave Caltech:                  |
|  Funny, can't think of any off the top of my head...          |
|===============================================================|
--
John White
johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu
|===============================================================|
|                    Reasons to go to Caltech:                  |

References

Duelmasters: What would you like to see?
900667c@ace.acadiau.ca (GERALD RICHARD CAMERON)
Wed, 18 Mar 1992 00:31:59 +0000