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

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 21 Dec 97 at 20:54, Ola Fosheim Gr=B0stad wrote:
> "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >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 would go for a combined system.  I think of the group-level as an
> author level.  That is, on the group level members try to find a
> possible, believable, and possibly dramatic/artistic/funny storyline
> they will try to realize.  But they would also interact socially (OOC)
> on this level.  The acting itself is typically done on the userlevel.
>

Nod. I'm familar with some of the muds which conduct events, stories, 
sessions.  Usually some general outlines are posted and scheduled in 
advance.  This is something that should be possible in my system, but 
requires a developed playerbase.  OTOH there should be interesting game 
systems available for players to amuse themselves with in ther own right.

> >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.
> 
> In my ideal system the GM would distribute resources to the groups of
> authors based on whether or not they are creating interesting plots
> that is enjoyable for other users (that is, not powerplaying).  I
> guess one could call the GM "The Producer".  The environment would
> execute the "laws of nature".  The GM isn't involved in the execution,
> only in the distribution of resources.

Resources?  Do you mean rewards for players or ability to create objects
and NPCs for the plot (ala TinyMUDs).
 
> >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.    
> 
> I agree.  But I would let users become mages or Gods or trolls or
> insects instantly. (at least if they are known to be good actors).  If
> a group decides to explore the impossible love relationship between an
> old evil mage and a young fairy then they should be able to do so,
> without a lot of (stupid) characterbuilding.

Definately!  I've found in FTF play, players prefer building and 
developing their "own" pet characters.  Yet many like to play something 
or someone else from time to time.  In fact, they usually do a better job 
at role-acting with a "unowned" character.  When I GMed, I would often
assign someone, who wasn't currently present in a given game situation, th=
e 
role of a minor NPC to play.  This worked quite confortably when there 
were a number of NPCs to play and I didn't feel like talking to myself
for an extended period of time.  

> I realize that such a system would require the majority of the users
> to be actors.  It should probably be 1st person POV and support voice
> communication.
> 

I don't think voice communication is in my plans. 
Everyone's an actor, more or less. :)

--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato