[MUD-Dev] A flamewar startingpoint.

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 29 Dec 97 at 11:55, Marian Griffith wrote:
> On Wed 24 Dec, JC Lawrence wrote:
> > Jon A Lambert<jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > The difficult as always would be to retain the players for the
> > gradually expiring party.  Many/some may (I have no experience in the
> > RP values used here) bow out early rather than continue with an
> > apparently doomed campaign.
> 
> In a game where the example could take place it should be clear that
> there is  no easy way to escape an adventure.  When you join a party
> you are in it until you die or you achieve your goal and escape. The
> game would not make sense otherwise.
>

Exactly.  This is handled in a FTF game by stopping the session and
beginning at a future time.  One could start and stop time in a mud
session but it poses all sorts of consistency problems, I just do not want 
to tackle or code around _time_ problems.  
 
> > > Some problems in implementation
> > > appear in the area of travel time and character logout.  What range
> > > of real time in travel is playable in such a situation?  1 hour?
> > > more? less?
> 
> This entirely depends on the game and on the players. My guess that it is
> not so much a matter of time as a matter of interesting adventures.
> Travelling across featureless plains for 5 minutes  is exceedingly bo-
> ring. However if finding your way, evading traps and ambushes become a
> challenge  then it may well remain interesting  for many hours of play
> time. Perhaps the time spend reading an adventure story  can be a
> reasonable estimate for the time that something remains interesting?
>

Have you seen the movie "Lawrence of Arabia", especially the version
where director Lean's cuts were editted back in?  In the re-realeased 
version, Lawrence crossing the desert alone takes about 20 minutes of
film time.  One can easily understand why it was cut down to less than 
10 minutes.  Yet it is not "uninteresting", it was visually stunning enough
to hold my attention.  This is something I don't believe could be 
accomplish effectively in any mud.  I think events _must_ occur within
such a travelling situation.  Group travel makes these events more likely
and playable.  At a minimum you have someone to chat with.

> > >  What happens to characters that are part of this party
> > > that must logout either due to personal reasons (RL calls) or
> > > through network problems?  Do they continue the journey?  Attempt a
> > > automated solo return if before mid-point?  How are they fed if
> > > auto-debit is turned off?  How does a logged out character continue
> > > to engage in maintenance of pack or transport animals that they own?
> 
> Probably they should behave like normal members of the party, except
> that they do not reply when talked to ;)
>

Actually, I'm leaning towards providing this mechanism for a player to 
surrender control temporarily of their personal character.  For NPCs in my 
environment, this is a given.  There are some dangers in doing this.  I do 
understand the attachment that many players form with their character.  It 
does have the potential for abuse and conflict, but then so does just about 
anything. 

> > > If something like the "Donner" situation arises, do they find
> > > themselves at a severe disadvantage?  Is it possible and/or
> > > desireable for characters to have the ability to choose or "will"
> > > character control over to another player should such a logout event
> > > occur?
> 
> Donner situation??
>

Famous/infamous event which occurred in American History during the 
era when the West was settled via migrations along the so-called Oregon
Trail.  The Donner party decided to take an ill-advised shortcut through
a relatively untried mountain pass.  Through sheer bad luck a record 
snowfall prevented their crossing and they were forced to encamp for 
the winter during which time supplies ran out and they eventually resorted 
to cannibalism.  The events were made even more interesting because of the 
detailed diaries party members kept, their very strong religious 
convictions and the bold and brave efforts relatives and strangers made in 
order to rescue them.  

Several interesting computer game versions of The Oregon Trail have been 
created over the years.  I think they are notable for the attention paid to 
resource managment, transport breakdowns, random events, etc.  A lot of
interesting aspects of game play you don't often see in a mud.

Sadly none of the games included cannibalism as an option.  Methinks I
should remedy this oversight. :P

> Depends on the game and the pre warning players get.  If players know that
> joining a party in a dangerous adventure may result in the death of their
> character it may be acceptable for them. They can choose not to join that
> party if they think the danger is too great. Roleplayers are not opposed
> to the death of their character, or even if it is en- forced by the game,
> but it must serve some purpose. Nothing is so de- pressing as a senseless
> death to a character in a story.
> 

This does becomes a problem in RP.  Many players will gladly accept death
while fighting a creature, NPC or PC and not accept death due to disease, 
environment, getting run over by a bus, etc.  Many RP games are based on 
the heroic style of play.  It's not a style of play that appeals to me much
anymore.  I imagine my game will reflect that and will only appeal to a 
subset of dedicated RPers.  Making this clear within the rules and 
communicating relative danger effectively is a challenge.

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