[MUD-Dev] You, the game of philosophy.

[Matt Chatterley]

On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> On 19 Dec 97 at 12:56, Ola Fosheim Gr=B0stad wrote:
> > "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >On 10 Dec 97 at 13:26, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
> >

[Snip]

> > (I guess other members of the list would start to mention "tinyplots"
> > and sofort, and yeah, I guess that is what I have in mind.  But there
> > would be heaps of concurrent "tinyplots" acted out by groups of actors
> > who don't know what other groups are trying to achieve)
>=20
> I recall from the threads in July, many attempts were made to define
> role-play. The funny thing is, that it caused the most heated discussion
> between the members of the list that saw themselves as role-players rathe=
r
> than the self-proclaimed game-only players.  I consider role-acting to be
> as fine a term as any, merely because of the misuse of the term
> role-playing to define single-user games. (Would you believe that "Magic
> the Gathering", the card game, is sometime referred to as a role-playing
> game by it's fans? I couldn't)

Heh. I *personally* define a Role-playing game as one where I, in any
capacity, assume the role of another being (a character) in some way, and
attempt to reason the decisions that they would make, and to act as they
would. By this definition, my 'adventure' style mud, and my adjusted D&D
PBEM campaign are both RPGs.
=20
> The biggest areas of controversy seemed to be the following:

This is an interesting summary in its own right.
=20
> 1) Control of character - "always" consentual vs. "mostly" consentual

This is a *gigantic* one; its a power thing, I believe.

> 2) Cooperative RP vs. Competitive RP - related to #1

A subset of #1 even (situation dependant), and verging back on the
discussion on 'jerk' behaviour.

> 3) Computer adjudication vs. GM/storyteller adjudication

Not such a hotpot, but yes. I think this is a *three way* thing though -
Computer/GM/Player adjudication methods.

> 4) Level of interaction with system (environment) vs. system as props

Level of automation.

> 5) Immersion levels - OOC vs. IC

And where you draw the line.
=20
> My personal preferences are:
>=20
> "mostly" consentual - control of your character may be usurped or your
> storyline might be altered to events beyond your control.  Charm,
> Possession, PK, PSteal are non-consensual events.  Non-consensual
> events are watched closely by the "powers on high" for OOC "abuse".

I like games which are non-consentual (call this realism in some
fashion?), and that is what I am building - you have no say over whether
another player attacks or steals from you (beyond that it will not be a
standard player-player environment, and law should make far more sense,
but your only defences are those you create in-game).
=20
> Competitive RP - Back in the days of FTF table-top play this was
> usually considered bad.  An adventuring group was often forced to
> stick together and cooperate to achieve a "group" goal by the GM.
> A part of this was due to practicality of running an adventure
> within a reasonable time frame.  Running adventures where groups
> split-up, pursued contrary goals, or had personal agendas were
> difficult to run, although quite fun when done well.  I think a mud
> environment is more conducive to IC competition than forced
> cooperation.  Forms of "natural" cooperation should be strongly
> encourage by game systems. (cf. political & adventuring group
> threads).

I must admit to also preferring this type of gaming, as opposed to fully
cooperative styles - but this is somewhat dependant upon the
circumstances.
=20
> Adjudication - I believe that automated adjudication of combat,
> skill-use, magic, etc. is desireable.  OTOH, I prefer GM/storyteller
> adjudication of advancement and GM setup of major plotlines
> Big-plots as opposed to tiny-plots.  It is important to note that
> automated advancement is _impossible_ in my game.  This is a very
> important check on "non-consensual" activity and the "jerk".

I automate game-systems, and use administrators for maintenance of OOC
situations and systems.
=20
> I prefer strong interaction with environmental systems.  Be they
> NPCs, economies, ecologies, etc.  That is players do not merely utilize
> objects as props as is common in some MUSH environments.  They must
> live within the parameters of the game environs.  This might also be
> considered to impact one's storyline adversely.

Ditto.
=20
> I prefer heavy IC immersion levels.  I don't like global channels,
> chat lines, and across the mud tells.  However I have set aside some
> areas on the mud to be used for OOC communication.

I don't mind OOC communication methods used while IC, or little bits of
OOC chatter, but then I am what I would call a 'communicationist'.

Regards,
=09-Matt Chatterley
=09ICQ: 5580107
"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." -Einstein