[crossfire] races, classes, and play style

[Kevin Bulgrien]

>   I personally favor #3, #2, and #1 in that order (I like #3 the best).  My 
> thought is that as a player, it gives more reason to try a few different classes 
> - if the first class I choose can do everything equally well, I'm not going to 
> learn/see much new with a different class (I'd note that one of the things that 
> drove some of the special races is just this).

What you said... :-)

>   But perhaps this also goes back to my playing AD&D, and fact that most games 
> have some for of class restriction.  I also think that such a system may 
> generate more player interaction - if I can do every class really well on one 
> character, not as much reason to play with others.  Likewise, if I can use every 
> item I ever find, no reason to trade/sell things off.  But if (as a mage) I 
> couldn't use that 2-handed sword, well now I might want to try to trade it for 
> something I could use.

Not what you said.  I do not think Crossfire tends to get played cooperatively
that much.  This is based on opinion and personal play, bus also on the number of
players on a public server at one time..  Once long ago in smallworld I used to
have friends that would get together for Crossfire parties, but not anymore.
Note:  It seemed that cooperative play multiplied the chances of death
enormously.  Though I would like to do this again, it is with mixed
feelings.  I don't like dying, but I almost always do with others.

>   I think #2 is a bit too restrictive - while comment about player interaction 
> above stands, at same time, a lot of play is probably solo, so not being able to 
> do some other stuff probably gets too restrictive, but I'm not sure how that 
> would really play out (presuming we still allow anyone to use wands, scrolls, 
> potions, and a suitable supply is about, one could probably get around).  It 
> would certainly be a different game.

Yeah, I'd be careful about being too restricting...

Kevin