[MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <199705190115.DAA06158 at regoc.srce.hr>, on 05/18/97 
   at 06:19 PM, silovic at srce.hr (Miroslav Silovic) said:

>> Aside: I'm actually considering making user-programming a dangerous
>> activity unless done under very guarded circumstances...  Probably this
>> would take the form of user-programming realising "aethir" (for want of a
>> bettter world).  Said aethir flows like a liquid in much the same ways as
>> mana, but also has the interesting property of attracting rather vicious
>> predatory teleportory beasties who are intensely irritated by it.

>Errrrrrrrr, *UGH*! This invites another topic: you see, this is great
>example of mixing out-of-character activity (user-programming) with
>in-character results (beasties). I haven't seen anything good coming
>out of it yet.

Why is it OOC?  All it needs is a world-view model that makes user
programming consistant.  In my case I fully intend to have a world
view which pre-defines users as capable of moulding and reforming the
very stuff of space-time.  

Tho I haven't cleaned up the details, the presentation I have in mind
is very much that the shared reality experienced in the MUD is a
physical construct resulting purely from the mutual mental actions of
the players.  Probably this will be presented in much the manner of
(all) the players being once near-omnipitent (demi-)gods who were
mutually responsible for the initial creation of the universe, but are
now much descended from their former stature and power and
concomittantly bereft of much of their memory.

See!  User-programming is perfectly in character.

>The similar example: causing commands that failed because of typos to
>have IC consequences (for instance, typing 'west', when there is no
>exit to west, should produce an error, because while player didn't
>know that there is no exit, character certainly did know that. 

Again this comes back to the question of distinction I posed a couple
days ago (which got very little feedback).  Are you the human merely a
background mentor for the character in the MUD, or is the character in
the MUD merely a proxy for you the human (along with whatever personae
etc you wish to assume)?

If you take the former view, then yes, walking into the wall is both
surprising and probably unacceptable.  If you take the later view
(which I prefer) then walking into the wall is not only preferable,
but not walking into the wall breaks the logical consistancy of the
world.

>If it
>causes the character to bump into the wall, loose 2 HP, get a crit
>and die, well, I'd be ticked if it happened to me. *very* ticked. :)
>)

To a certain extent this difference can be modelled by asking the
question, "Does the character in the MUD have any cognitive and/or
computational abilities outside of its human player?".  For me the
unquestionable answer is, "Hell no!".  The character itself is a dumb
as a post if not dumber.  It is effectively a virtual blob of
nerve-twitching meat awaiting instruction and guidance from its
"spirit" the human player.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...