are you talking about an Achilles syndrom sort of thing ? The characteres would be immortal, EXCEPT if you cut their heads, attack them with silver weapons, expose them to kryptonite, etc ?
I am not sure whether it''s good or not, but I like the idea.

But as I said somewhere else (and as most people seem to just ignore it I''ll say it again ) what you are trying to do is fix something broken... maybe you should start and use your brainpower to figure out a new way to play that would avoid all those problems.

first off, WHY is there Player Killing ? (I have one answer, but what do you think ?)

but anyway, I didn''t mean to be offensive, I actually would love to play a Highlander game

There can be only one !

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham
I don''t understand? Was that along the lines of "if it ain''t broke don''t fix it"

No no no, certainly not, if I ever say something so stupid, slap me ! What I meant was, if it''s broken, don''t try fixing it again and again, but rather try something new ? (which is why I posted the Simulacres system in the Thoughness thread, BTW)

As for the question of PKilling, I see two options, either the guy is playing the wrong game, and he should be playing a Quake like, but since he''s mouse challenged (he has no skillZ), he decided that playing a *cough*RPG*cough* was a good way to brag without sweating too much...
The other option is more ''rolistic'' IMO, and is the kind of behaviour that veteran P&P roleplayers sometimes adopt : change the game to something different. When you have been playing a P&P RPG campaign and your character is now able to defeat most eisting creatures ... what do you do to get a bit of challenge. For a CRPG, the answer is "try to defeat the best AI existing : the human brain". It''s what I would call necessary evil, in fact. We talk and talk about PKillers just like we talk about Campers in Quake like, jsut like we talk about the Monsters under the bed ...
We fear them, but what we wouldn''t give to be at their place

To come back on topic, your idea is very interesting as it would turn the PK experience into an even more challenging one.
The way I see it done, players would start all equals. But for the price of a weakness, they could gain an advantage. I mentioned this before, but I think it makes even more sense here. Say you would be extremely strong (more than the average), but you would have one thing that would make you damn weak. I gave the examples of Superman, a vampire, a werewolf, an immortal, as general examples and to show that the idea is indeed very much used. Now you would just have to make every character/player choose its own weakness/Strength at the beginning.

For the weapon thingie, what about runic weapons where you have to go on a quest and look for different reagents before you can do it (the principle of the quest for the Grail).

youpla :-P

Oh I definetely agree with you on that one
I am still trying to code the damn thing... I have some ideas on that one, but using the classic interfaces we have now wouldn''t make sense. I mean, for a world where melee fighting is more important than range shooting, we need a new way to fight. Because the Quakelike wouldn''t work.

Now to come back on topic, what I was trying to say is that I don''t want to see RPG turned even more into FPS shooter. I think giving more control to the player over the action would be a nice thing. Though I disagree with the "weaker monsters for the beginners". I don''t want that crap anymore. Beginners should learn to be careful, they should not be thaught that monsters are a source of revenue, and that you need to kill them to get stronger. Rather, I''d like to see a system where experienced players would fight newbies in training exercises, and help them improve their skills. If a newbie decide to go and fight ithout any training, they should get beaten the crap out of them, as a lesson that fighting is a serious thing, and a lethal one at that.
I am actually thinking more and more about how much control should the player have over combat and how much stats should matter.

Paul, when I think about weaknesses/advantages, I am thinking more in a balanced way. I don''t wank a real Achilles heel thingie, because it''s way too much. "OK, I know that type, yo just have to hit him there, and you get triple damage". No way !
What I am thinking is more along the lines : heavier thus more resistant, but slower. Or things like "he has much more Breath Points, but he need to drink fresh blood to recover them" (vampires anyone ? )

For the Grail thing, what I mean is that, sometimes it''s the hole idea of running around to find the damn thing that gives you plenty of experience. Reaching the goal is only symbolic, a sort of celebration of the path yo have travelled to arrive there. With Highlander, it''s a bit the same idea, everytime they kill, what they really do is survive, which means they get stronger. "What doesn''t kill you makes you stronger" I think it''s from Conan the Barbarian But personally I love that saying.
Maybe we could give the player a sort of ''geas'', something that they just can''t do, a taboo, otherwise something terrible might happen (see irish legends to know what I am talking about).
They would have this geas, but would have some advantages of course. And to get rid of the geas, they would have to go on a terrible personal quest, and ultimately not become stronger, but rather be freed of their geas.

Any more thoughts on that ?

"geis (pl. geasa), is an ancient injunction, prohibition or taboo against performing an act, or an obligation to do an act. The breaking of the geasa often resulted in death."

And some examples ...

"The kings of Leister must not drink by the light of wax candles in the palace of Dinn Rig."
"There was a geis on Cuchulainn not to eat the flesh of a hound because it was its namesake, cu being the irish for ''hound''"

(A guide to irish mythology, Daragh Smyth)