To: Zaltan

I had a simlar test too on memorizing healing list and such, not as complicated as yours but still 1000 afflict messages aren't going to be memorized by everyone, and even if they did in the heat of combat these things are easily forgotten or overlooked. Anyhow to your response on Role Playing games not being combat games look again. Role playng games ARE about combat. Or maybe I should reword that. Role playing games are all about conflict. The ONLY standard I use in Role playing to which I measure anything is D&D and D&D was heavily conflict based. The part 'role' was due to the fact you incarnated someone else in so and so world. As time went on this 'roles' became mre intricate and developed. All the while combat became more complex. Now characters where driven by desires, dreams, events in their 'lives' etc and role playing games took a new bold step from the dungeon crawl-hack and slash they used to be. Since then role playing games have become the mature version of our kiddy cops and robbers and whatnot

Simply put having a system or not having one doesn't detract from role playing at all. Role playing is all in you and the rest of the player. Having a system, or not, is irrelevant to that. I can have a good system and be an excellent role player as I constantly do in Achaea. Or have none and be a terrible role player as a lot of people tend to be. Its not whether you have a system or not. Its whether your character has any motives, desires, reasons to be.

On another note I give role playin classess to those who need them

I'm not saying that people who use systems are bad roleplayers, what I'm saying is that systems reduce roleplay in general.

Just think, hypothetically, that everyone who played Lusternia was a 1337 scripter, and they could all script systems which were fully-automated, the only manual thing to do was to walk into the same room as your opponent. Two people fight one another for some reason, so they walk into a room with one another. They fight, and in the end the one with the slightly-faulty/slower/whatever system dies and prays; while the other just walks off back to their commune/city. The end.

That's what most "fights" are like now, except the player does have to do some skilled manual work, and the most skilled player returns as the victor. There's no roleplay whatsoever. Whereas, if there was no systems at all, except some macros and aliases -- people wouldn't be so involved with getting their system to function properly, or keeping an eye on their status bars and buttons and gauges -- but the would at least devote some of the combat side of things to roleplay.

Combat is the focus of IRE MUDs, but combat without roleplay is just a bunch of meaningless numbers and words... And maybe a loss in experience.

That is just purely your perspective, in most cases (admittedly there are exceptions) the combat is there for a roleplay purpose. But we arent doing Minds Eye here, we dont do scissor,paper,stone to see who wins, we make it realistic combat.

Estarra forbid, that there are people in the world that actually can't be beaten in combat, because that is so unrealistic

Yes, my perspective. And you have yours, and others have theirs. This poll was to roughly see the ratio of these perspectives .

Which clearly shows divine nor players want systems banned.

You want RP in combat? How is that supposed to work? Whoever is better is going to win, whether they're better manually or with a system. Either way allows the same amount of RP. Actually, with systems, you have more time to think, because you don't have to scramble wildly to hit all your curing macros. People aren't going to suddenly RP a fight; the combat system is there to fight with. If you want truly hardcore RP, where you can just act out a dramatic fight with emotes, find a different MUD. In IRE, combat is fast and complicated, and doesn't leave much room for people to do anything but kill, die, or run away.

I don't necessarily mean roleplay in conflict, just around and related to it.

It's all pointless, systems -cannot- be banned. There's no point in arguing whether that would be a good idea or not.

I mean, I think it would be cool if we moved the moon a few thousand miles closer and sped the tides up a bit. The moon would be bigger and brighter, too, and would look better in telescopes. Isn't that a good idea?

Nobody cares, it can't be done.

If there's no point in arguing whether it would be good or not, why are you?

I haven't argued for or against the merits of systems in this post.

I posted a question, and if you're not going to discuss the advantages and/or disadvantages, you must be hijacking.

Not that you can complain.
Besides, he was talking about the point, just not in the totally strict fashion you're demanding.

Pfft.