> #include <stdio.h>
> main(t,_,a)
> char *a;
> {
> return!0<t?t<3?main(-79,-13,a+main(-87,1-_,main(-86,0,a+1)+a)):
> 1,t<_?main(t+1,_,a):3,main(-94,-27+t,a)&&t==2?_<13?
> main(2,_+1,"%s %d %d\n"):9:16:t<0?t<-72?main(_,t,
> "@n'+,#'/*{}w+/w#cdnr/+,{}r/*de}+,/*{*+,/w{%+,/w#q#n+,/#{l+,/n{n+,/+#n+,/#\
> ;#q#n+,/+k#;*+,/'r :'d*'3,}{w+K w'K:'+}e#';dq#'l \
> q#'+d'K#!/+k#;q#'r}eKK#}w'r}eKK{nl]'/#;#q#n'){)#}w'){){nl]'/+#n';d}rw' i;# \
> ){nl]!/n{n#'; r{#w'r nc{nl]'/#{l,+'K {rw' iK{;[{nl]'/w#q#n'wk nw' \
> iwk{KK{nl]!/w{%'l##w#' i; :{nl]'/*{q#'ld;r'}{nlwb!/*de}'c \
> ;;{nl'-{}rw]'/+,}##'*}#nc,',#nw]'/+kd'+e}+;#'rdq#w! nr'/ ') }+}{rl#'{n' ')#\
> }'+}##(!!/")
> :t<-50?_==*a?putchar(31[a]):main(-65,_,a+1):main((*a=='/')+t,_,a+1)
> :0<t?main(2,2,"%s"):*a=='/'||main(0,main(-61,*a,
> "!ek;dc i@bK'(q)-[w]*%n+r3#l,{}:\nuwloca-O;m .vpbks,fxntdCeghiry"),a+1);
> }
UGH!
And I thought my code was bad...
> Ok, put the swords away...I'm only kidding.
*Reluctantly sheathes LifeStealer*
> Anyway, I was talking to a MUD-hating/MUSH-loving friend of mine and had an
> odd thought. Diku was based on D&D, there's a 3rd edition of D&D now, so
> why not update the rules in CircleMUD? Then the legal questions popped up,
> naturally. I guess I'll have to see what www.opengamingfoundation.org
> decides are the final "public" rules. Thoughts?
I'm in the process of changing the rulesets in my mud at the moment. I'm
going with something similar to, but different from, D&D3. In particular
I'm changing the stats to more meaningful representations, and removing
the whole level-based skill/spell thing, replacing it with a skill tree.
I don't think the rules should change simply because there's a new version
of D&D out. That said, I don't think D&D rules are particularly well
suited to a mud. They have a lot of weird special cases (str_add is one
that jumps to mind immediately) that make life a bit more confusing.
IMHO there have been so many alterations to the standard D&D rules
(particularly in the magic system) that there is no longer any need to
follow them. If I was updating the rules I'd leave them mostly the same
(don't fix what isn't broken) but I'd make AC go upwards (3rd Ed style)
and I'd get rid of the strength hack.
<end of rambling, hope this makes sense>
-J
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
| Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/06/01 PST