[MUD-Dev] To catch a mage (was fear of magic)

[Derrick Jones]

On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 coder at ibm.net wrote:
> On 29/10/97 at 11:02 PM, Derrick Jones <gunther at online1.magnus1.com> said:
> >On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 coder at ibm.net wrote:
> 
> >> To visualise:
> >[snip good description of a worm-hole]
> >> 
> >> Given this sort of model (to which you can add all sorts of Nathan-esque
> >> resource and physical mechanics to (which I have done)), I define that the
> >> two locations which were once one, now have a base level of "affinity" for
> >> each other, and that that affinity can be detected, and that it and the
> >> two spaces which have that affinity can be manipulated as a form of
> >> mechanical harmony.  
> 
> >My definition is that the two places aren't one, but infinitely close;
> >separated by the portal (worm-hole if you will) which the mage steps
> >through.  The difference being that temperature, luminosity, and (most
> >interestingly) pressure gradients go off the scale (opening a portal into
> >a much lower pressure (air into vacuum or underwater into air) creates
> >all sorts of fun).  
> 
> Yup, there are all sorts of logical conundrums under there.  I attempt to
> side step most of them by defining that while the two locations now share
> the same space, their coordinate systems are still logically continuous
> with their original systems.  The result is that by default, event tho
> there are objects from two different locations sharing the same space,
> objects from different locations won't affect other objects from other
> locations in the same space.
> 
Okay..now I see it.  For some reason I pictured the exit area being
superimposed upon the reality of the entrance.  The two places would then
separate, taking with it the mage and some of the local 'flavor' of the
entrance, (that's what I thought you meant by 'affinity') and leaving some
of the exit's 'flavor' at the entrance location.  Thus my argument for
Universal Affinity...Oh well.

> Hurm.  Another side piece I hadn't really thought of adding an explanation
> for, is that the new affinity the two locations have for each other is
> unique in character.  Its not a question of a generic affinity stat which
> every location or location relation possesses to some extent, but that
> there are uniquely coded affinity values between points which can be
> detected on the basis of that affinity signature.  Helpfully, that
> signature is partially a product of (flavoured by?) the creator of the
> affinity (ie the one who teleported).

Yes, in your system the affinity can be described as an arrow pointing to
(or from) the other location.  Just out of curiosity, how do you parse
stepping across such a connection?  Mine is easy since there is a physical
portal in the area, 'enter portal' works, or just 'enter' if the portal is
the most/only obvious entrance.  With yours, it seems that you give
travelling in a certain direction two possible outcomes(going north down
road #1, or going north down road #2.).  Is there a special verb such as
'cross' to differentiate between the two?

> >accomplices can stick around the exit-portals and give faulty information
> >to the guards, or even make it seem that the mage did in fact use the
> >wrong portal (dropping a hat simular to the one worn by the mage, etc).
> 
> Precisely.  Bingo.
Still, its going to be a tricky implimentation...probably take me a month
to program the guards from scratch (although I'll get some cool reusable
subroutines worked out in the process).  I have no idea how I'm going to
have the guards figure out if PC's are lying to them.  Maybe I'll cheat a
bit and just give the guards a percentage chance to correctly identify an
exit portal, adjusted by a bunch of situation factors.  I could really
stir up some trouble and give the guards a chance to mis-identify a PC as
the culprit, especially if the arresting guard wasn't the original
witness.
Maybe if I make the guards particularly annoying, players will turn in
fugitive characters just to make the guards go away...