Level becomes a function of guilds, rather than something that automatically happens whenever enough experience has been collected. Players have no great reason to go out and kill things, unless it advances the agendas of the guildmasters.

List02A By: Anthony (acc4636@tam2000.tamu.edu)

There seems to be a problem on muds with respect to levels. Most of the times a high level is unbeatable by a lower level. Like a level 50 is going to wipe the floor with 3 level 20 players (or monsters).

List02B By: Chris lawrence (coder@null.net)

It would be realistic when a player, even a low level one, could on occasion be lucky and slip a weapon through a creak in heavy armor, doing some bad damage against an opponent. That way no player could ever be totally certain of his or her safety.

OHenry01 By: Orion henry (ohenry@sdcc10.ucsd.eud)

Players don't want to run the risk that they're going to be killed by sheer accident by what in effect is a weak monster (like a sewer rat). It's probably fine though that you can be hit, even seriously hit, on accident.

List02C By: David Forthoffer (dforthof@adobe.com)

I think it's reasonable for a high-level PC to never lose to a lower-level PC. But several lower-level PCs should be able to surround and kill a high-level PC, as if AC is worse from behind.

List02D By: Marian

All of the above remarks, however true, focus on combat. The original statement was about making level, or rather rank something that was controlled by other players. This would mean that politics would automatically enter the game. Combat could still occur but it would not be the reason of the game. Simply fighting things wouldn't help a player, unless this somehow helps out the player who controls their means to advance in rank.


List02E By: Scatter (scatter@thevortex.com)

It depends really on what you mean by "level" or "rank". By "level" I tend to think of an overall representation of the player's skills - the higher the level, the more skilled the player. Rank is a seperate entity and I see no reason why rank should have any "enforced" connection to the player's skills.
On the one hand, in an army, combat, strategy and tactical skills might greatly affect the player's rank. In a coven of witches, their mastery of the occult might be the primary factor in their position within the pecking order.
Considering a "house" or "clan" on the other hand, rank might depend solely on their relationship with the clan leader, what they have done for him, how well they did it, or plain how friendly they are with the leader.
To encourage good role play, players must be able to choose what their goals are in terms of rank (be General of the Army, be the most highly paid mercenary, the most sought after sage, or leader of the House of Dunforth) and adjust their game play accordingly. Whatever they choose to do should be rewarded in some form by some type of rank however measurable. There is no reason why a player might not have many totally seperate ranks - some totally unrelated to their skills.