[MUD-Dev] Life

[Adam Wiggins]

[Jamie L:]
> Adam Wiggins writes:
> > Well, I guess this goes back to the kind of game you want. What I
> > like about muds is that they are complete worlds, worlds that carry
> > on whether I'm there or not - worlds which I may or may not be able
> > to exert control over. Things happen in them which are not ideal for
> > my character, including death.
> 
> Actually, I don't think we're disagreeing here. I also believe that
> it's the interaction between the characters and the world that make
> the game, and that of course surprises will and must happen. I was
> reacting specifically to the example, hence the "more of their
> choosing" above - not complete control, necessarily, but enough to
> feel that one is being swept away in a tide, as you nicely put it.

Yeah you're right.  I posted an example with a dragon a couple days
ago - there's nothing worse than feeling totally helpless about what
is happening to you.  But then, I expect players to develop certain
survival skills in order to exist in the world; it may be something
simple like being able to sneak, hide, and run fast.  It may also
be being able to whip out your axe and make whoever's giving you
trouble think twice.  For this reason, a child wouldn't fit well into
my game.  At best I suppose they could rely on cuteness value (protection
gained from friendly mobiles and players), the ability to go where others
can't (since they are smaller), their unthreatening demeanor (ravaging
dragons hardly worry about picking off little girls any more than someone
seeking a good swordfight) and possibly just the fact that they don't
stray into any dangerous area.  But still, there is probably going
to come a point where something happens - the example given, or a goblin
sneaking into town, or a plague being passed along, or falling into an
abandoned well nearby.  This is an inherent problem with playing 
a character with weak survival skills.  Potentially you could call it
a problem with the town's legal system that they were not able to contain
the specific character before he harmed someone.

> So, it's not a question of immortality, but about more appropriate
> play - a few limits to what goes on. The problem isn't a character
> dying, per se, but dying in a way that *destroys* much of what the
> player has invested in the character. I do mean destroys here; it is
> quite possible for a character to die in a way that makes sense to the
> player, and that isn't a destruction.

The dragon breathes fire, and your body is burned to a husk.
Does this make sense to you? (y/n)
> n
Okay, you stay alive.

*grin*  Seriously, life doesn't always make sense from a single person's
standpoint.  If you don't have senseless death, then 'meaningful' death
is no longer meaningful.  (Everyone dies saving the town or dueling their
mortal enemy - no one dies by that suprise orc raid or by falling off a
cliff in the dark, breaking their leg, and then starving to death.)

> > My original point was that people get very upset over something good
> > being finished, instead of being glad for the experience while it
> > lasted and then moving on to something new. I guess the live-forever
> > characters found on a lot of muds are the equivilent of those series
> > of books which go on seemingly forever, with the character basically
> > just doing more of the same in each one
> 
> Hmm, this is getting rather off-topic, but I agree with what you're
> saying. I don't think there's any difference between me crying and you
> lamenting, and seeing the good in the past and letting it go and
> moving on is, in my view, the only really healthy approach to life,
> not just MUDs. But on a MUD there is the chance to avoid having to
> confront so much of the feeling of senseless waste that one comes
> across so often in life. *That* is my point, about which I think we
> possibly both agree.

Yes.  *But* - the computer cannot decide what is senseless and what is
not.  This is a disadvantage between it and a human DM; one of which I
am well aware, and try to balance, but in the end, the computer is an
unfeeling and uncaring set of numbers which may or may not go your way.
If you don't accept this from the outset, you're going to be in for
some troubling gaming.  In addition, I don't see this as being 100% bad -
it makes the game world seem more comprehensive, like the player is
immersed in a world bigger than themselves (and in fact, they are).