[MUD-Dev] Re: Introductions and descriptions

[Adam Wiggins]

[coder at ibm.net:]
> On 20/11/97 at 08:19 PM, Adam Wiggins <nightfall at user1.inficad.com> said:
> Please indent quoted MUD text -- it makes it so much easier to read when
> quoted again:
> 
> >  > read book
> >  The book tells you about the mighty Sword of Devestation, lost to the
> >  world with the sinking of Atlantis 10,000 years ago.  There is a picture
> >  of the sword.
> >  > 
> >  Bob arrives from the south.
> >  Bob draws a rusty old sword from his sheathe.
> >  You recognize the sword as the Sword of Devestation!

Ugh...yes <slap self>, I should already know this.  It's such habbit
by now - Orion and I began using this format when trading emails years
ago, and I frequently type up little jots of what I'd like the output
from a given piece of code to look like before I start programming.
When I actually remember I use a different character.

> Given this it also makes sense to me to not instantly recognise an object,
> but tio then recognise it only after deliberate study:
> 
>   > l
>   Bubba is here.
>   Bubba draws a rusty old sword from his sheath.  It looks somehow
> familiar.
>   > examine sword.
>   ...rusty sword desc...
>   > study sword
>   You recognize the Sword of Devastation!

Yup.  Every moment of study (up to a point) gives the viewer more of
a chance to recognize it.  One thing I never touched upon for object
recognition is a 'features' storage.  I did this for characters (if
someone grows a beard they are harder to recognize, if they have an
obvious scar they are easier), but the feature set is a bit better
defined there.

> This could even be used to give more curious results:
> 
>   > l
>   Bubba is here.
>   Bubba draws a rusty old sword from his sheath.  
>   > study sword
>   Its looks like the Sword of Devastation!
> 
> Now whether or not it really is to SoD can be questionable (in both above
> examples).  Perhaps the first sword is a forgery, or both merely
> look-alikes.   Players would of course hate this, as they'd now have to
> track how certain they are of the real identity of each object.  This
> becomes especially interesting if you have many similar-appearing objects
> and achieving a guaranteed identification is either excessively expensive
> or difficult.
> 
> Consider one extreme of the implication:
> 
>   > l
>   Bubba is here.
>   > examine bubba
>   Bubba is wearing a set of golden glowing plate armour.  It looks like 
>   the famed armour of Damp Fizzle!  The belt about his middle seems to be 
>   the belt of UltraWimpReborn!
>   Bubba draws his sword.
>   > study sword
>   It looks like the Great Sword of the Great God Goo Goo!
>   
> Now is Bubba really dressed in tinfoil with a yellow spotlight directed on
> him from the side, with a cheak knock-off copy oy the belt and a 10 cent
> knick-knack sword from the souvenier stand down the road?  Or is he kitted
> out in the local equivalent of a sherman tank?  Which is sham, which it
> truth?

Yes, yes - excellent.  This is the stuff I love.  Deception and uncertainty
are so much *fun* in any sort of multiplayer situation.  Ditto
the example, except with characters:

 ] l
 A familiar-looking man with blue eyes and a blonde mustache is here.
 The man says, 'Don't you recognize me?  I'm Bubba the Mayor!'
 ] ' hmmm I thought you looked familiar
 Bubba's fake mustache comes undone at the corners.
 ] ' wait a minute...