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

[Miroslav Silovic]

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

I don't see it: If I were god, I'd change the world by something
that starts with 'let there be *', not by something that starts
with @create blah. :)

Changing the reality is not the same operation as programming, since
the former happens inside the game universe, while the latter happens
in Real World. In other words, ordering the reality to change is a
game system operation. But implementing the change is event outside
the game.

> >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)?

Using words 'proxy' and 'personae' together in the context above
is not self-consistant. :)

> 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.

Errr, uhhhh, you just said that for you, there is no difference between
IC and OOC. The fact that you use the two terms in the same article
as the above is the logical contradiction (since mentioning
'in-character' means that character has its own existance, which human
merely empowers).

Of course, choosing 'not to break the logical consistancy'
in this case also means irritating the players to no end (example:
you type north 6-7 times, lag, loose count, and then try to go east.
*WHAM!*) To my worldview, characters don't bang their heads into the
wall when they try walking, period. The alternative does not contribute
to anything, but detracts from playability.

Since your dillema was posed as a question, here's my take at the answer:
If player is assumed to be on the MUD as himself, then the MUD is
a strategy game. The only way to consider MUD a roleplaying game, IMHO,
is to assume that player merely gives guidance to the independantly
existing character. Since you stated that you never do playing but
do mostly coding (correct if I misremembered), I can tell you that the
experince is very hard to describe to somebody who never played a
high-impact scene. With practice, you learn to build a 'sub-persona'
in your mind, and shift gears to it while playing him or her (this is
what I do and what most RPers I know do). Splitting one's mind and
then watching over your character's shoulder is the most important
source of fun for both RPers and actors. But in your view of MUDding,
this never happens.

Opening separate topic: Many times, *very* clever ideas that while on the
drawing board lead to great immersive RPing experience, also
lead to a MU* that won't survive its first year.

For example, GOHS MUSH had *great* world design, livid economy, detailed
character creation, and a starting base od dedicated players. It had no
means of out-of-character communication, thereby forcing the players to
meet only on IC grounds.

It died because of it.

The reason is that players /needed/ un-immersive communication to talk
to each other, planning things, and basically creating something that
could be call 'accelerated coincidence'.

	Miro