[MUD-Dev] A flamewar startingpoint.

[Derrick Jones]

On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Adam Wiggins wrote:

> [Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad:]
> > Adam Wiggins <nightfall at user2.inficad.com> wrote:
> > [Glassner:]
> > >> We are in constant conversation with the game creator, more
> > >> than we are with almost any author or screenwriter. Bad
> > >> things done to the hero in fact happen to us, personally.
> > >
> > >Total disagreement here.  The bad thing is happening to *my character*=
, which
> > >I do have a closer attachment to than a character in a film, but not t=
he
> > >the extent that Glassner seems to think.
> >=20
> > Are you talking MUD or what?
>=20
> Of course, since that's the topic of this list.
I also disagree with the original statement.  We are _not_ in constant
conversation with the game creator, and if the game is perceived as such,
then the writer has, in my opinion, failed.
This is especially true with MUD design.  I've always approached the task
(making a mud) not as writing a game, but as designing a world within
which a game (or many) can be played.  Now this world has to contain
personalities which are basically selfish (how dare that mob actually
defend itself, or worse hunt me down outright because I have something it
wants...).  I've always felt that mobiles should treat players with as
much respect as players treat them.  Yes there are nasty situations that
seem completely unfair (at least that's what the players spam the IMPs
with), and the world seems to be out to get them.  A world that treated
players as it is treated would most likely band together to wipe the
marauding hordes of players off the face of the mud.
But from experience as a player, I've found that the mud-world on most
muds is much more kind and forgiving than the other players.  It seems
that the original writer was targeting single-player 'me-vs-the-code'
style games.

> > I think this depends on how much time
> > you've spent with your character or maybe how much time you have spent
> > with the game.  I think he is right in saying that if the game is
> > unfriendly designed, then the game (creator) will be perceived as
> > unfriendly to us as players as well.  You can extend this to badly
>=20
> It depends - I see a 'wicked' design to be a good thing - unfriendly
> to your character but more interesting to you as a player.  A just
> plain mean design which is meant to make you feel stupid or slow
> or otherwise incapable is no fun, yes.

Yes, very true.  Let the game do mean things to the players.  But there
should be a reason the game is doing these things.  Example of 'mean'
design used well would be killing characters who decide to go for an
unprotected lava bath.  'Mean' design used poorly would be to pick a
random character and have them suffer a fatal heart-attack.  The
difference is accountability. in good designs bad things happen to
characters for a reason, in poor designs either bad things don't happen
when they should or they happen when they shouldn't.

> > designed controls as well, if the game makes us look clumsy, then it
> > is making fun of us.
>=20
> Absolutely.  Because your ability to control the game is *you*, not
> your character, and if you feel clumsy, then it's *you* feeling clumy.
> If I have a character with a low dexterity I don't feel personally
> offended.  (Cavet to that being that in a game where you have no
> choice in your character's abilities at the start of the game (like
> most adventure games), a really clumsy and/or stupid character can
> quickly get tedious.)

I don't feel the game is making fun of us if the design makes us looks
clumsy.  It is a matter of game focus.  If you want to test a players
ability to master the controls, then make the controls hard to manage.  If
you want the game to be the focus, make the controls be easily mastered,
but the game elements difficult to master.  If you want the world to be
the focus, then hide the 'gamey' elements (i.e. points of any nature),
make the controls feel natural, and make the world and its interactions be
the most difficult and rewarding element of game-play.  Players tend to
give most of their attention to those elements that are most difficult to
master and which give the greatest reward.

On an aside, if being 'forced' to play a character that is less dextrous/
less intelligent than the player becomes boring and tedious (and therefore
not a feasible option), and the character shouldn't by default be equally
intelligent/equally dextrous (then player =3D=3D character, which is also
unacceptable), then I must ask how one is to role-play a character more
intelligent than themselves?  That seems to be a paradox.  You don't want
the game controlling your character, but (assuming you're of normal
intelligence) you're not qualified to play a character of god-like
intlligence...I personally prefer to play _really_ stupid characters
because it's great turning off my brain for a few hours.  Unfortunately my
characters usually have very short life expectancies.  ("Dragon? I'm not
'fraid of no stinkin' dragon!")

> > In a MUD you can easily reach a situation where something happening to
> > your character is perceived as happening to us, or even worse if a
> > roleplayed character really dies.  I would perceive that as loosing
> > some of my personality freedom and investment of time (which is
> > convertible to money)...

Yes, but who is _really_ to blame for the fate befallen our character?
Another character with its own wants and needs?  Then the problem isn't
with design.  As a matter of fact there's no problem at all.  The player
controlling the character?  Then there should be punishment for doing
something stupid/out-of-character.  Players usually assign blame to the
code.  "That mobile attacked me back!" or "How come I died when I decided
to step off that cliff?" and "I was hunted down and attacked by a savage
gang of orcs!" are complaints every adminstrator should hear from the bad
players as they leave.  I'm targeting my game towards the type that
realizes that mobiles defend themselves any way then can, doing something
stupid gets you killed, and that orcs are to be avoided when theres an
army of them storming the plains...

 >=20
> Well, we beat this one nearly to death a while back.  Caliban and
> some of the other hardcore role-playing types felt that any time you
> loose control over your character's fate the game has failed.  Others
> (myself included) feel that if you can control your character's fate
> 100% all the time (ie, there is no external factors affecting them)
> that the game itself looses much of its meaning.

It comes down to what you concider to be in control.  Are you in control
in a MUSH-style combat, using emotes to solve disputes?  How about with
IMP-monitored combat?  Using a set probability chart (pre-known) to
determine the outcome?  Using a hidden probability chart?  Personally, I
feel players stay in control as long as they are aware that they are
losing direct access to their character and why.  (for example the player
doesn't determine how much damage a broad-sword strike will do, but they
are still 'in control' of the combat)

> > >I don't think it's so much deception as it is instant death.  Deceptio=
n is
> > >okay as long as you don't go overboard (ie, Paul Reiser's character in
> > >Aliens added immensley to that movie, but if everyone on the space mar=
ines
> > >squad had been deceiving each other, it would have gotten a bit old).
> >=20
> > Uh, but deception by a character (whom you might have reasons to not
> > trust) and the gameworld (which you would expect to be reasonable) is
> > two different things.

But what happens when that character is part of the gameworld?

> Okay, maybe I should have said that he was overgeneralizing.
> He said 'Avoid deception', when he should have said 'Avoid having
> seemingly straightforward elements in the gameworld which deceive in
> such a way so as to annoy the player and add nothing to the game
> experience.'

Again, I restate. Bad things should happen for a reason.  If something in
the gameworld would benifit from seeing bad things happen to a PC, then
there's a good erason for the gameworld to deceive the players.  However,
challenges faced should relate to the task at hand.  With the scuba gear
analogy, ask how the scuba gear got there in the first place.  If it was
set there by a character within the gameworld as a deliberate trap for the
PC, then I don't see a problem with the scenario, as long as players have
a reason to suspect that the gear is faulty (i.e. you don't leave stuff
for them to use sitting out on a regular basis, so they would natually be
suspicious of such a 'freebe').
Also, deliberate deception can be quite amusing.  One of my barbarians had
a rather long combat sequence with a (completely inanimate) stone statue.
"It's just waiting for us to let our guard down to attack!!!". It didn't
end until one the mages present dissolved the stone statue (which of
course proved my barbarians point: it dissolved once he 'killed' it.) with
a spell.

> > >> In one game I played recently you assemble some pieces in
> > >> what you think is the right order, and then push a big button
> > >> to submit your answer. Pushing the button initiates a
> > >> sequence of visual and audio effects, simulating some big
> > >> machine "examining" your answer. Eventually it might tell
> > >> you that some of the clips are in the wrong order, and then
> > >> you hear some audio encouraging you to keep trying. All of
> > >> this takes about 15 seconds, but it feels like a half-hour. By
> > >> the third or fourth time I submitted an answer I was resentful
> > >> that I was forced to waste my time waiting for this now-boring
> > >> effect to repeat. There was no way to hurry it up or skip over
> > >> it. By the tenth time I went through the process I was ready to
> > >> climb the walls.
> > >
> > >Amen.
[snip Myst conversation]

The problem I have with most of these little puzzles is that they seem
completely unrelated to the rest of the game.  An example would be one
game I've played where you're walking thru a haunted mansion and suddenly
a cash register appears where you have to make certain change with a
certain number of coins.  It seems like the designer of the game sent away
for a 101 silly puzzles book and plopped random puzzles into random points
of the game.

Also the original logic seems to contradict the original interactivity
argument.  Players hate these little pauses because they are _not_ being
interactive.  If They want to sit there and watch something mind-numbingly
boring, the TV is there 24 hours a day.  Also, the pauses add nothing to
the story in most cases, usually because the puzzles themselves are
irrelavent and tedious.

> > >> But wait a second, that character is me!
> > >
> > >Again, I take exception to all of this because of the basic premise.
> > >The character is *not* you, Glassner.  It is a character which comes w=
ith
> > >its own abilities, desires, and faults.  It is up to you to direct the
> > >character most of the time, but it is not you.
> >=20
> > For a singleplayergame I would have to agree with Glassner, the
> > character is me.

The characters we play are puppets.  The idea that people do not possess
the ability do distinguish between the character and the player _really_
frightens me.  Now I concede that we grow attached to our favorite little
puppets, as they inevitably absorb quite a bit of our own personality, but
our characters exist (at most) as separate individuals with their own
motivations and abilities.  The personality of a mud character is an
illusion, just as the personality of a movie character is an illusion.
Good role players make convincing illusions, but should never convince
themselves.  As I said earlier, I play morons because I am forced to act
intelligently in RL, and its very cathardic to be able to do whatever
_doesn't_ come naturally to me.  (kick in doors without checking to see if
they're locked--or even closed--always raises an eybrow or two)

> > There is less motive for roleplaying,
> > roleplaying/acting for a computer makes me feel like I am wasting
> > time, more so now than when I was a kid.  When I play Myst, I am me
> > (it is me in a role, but I has MY personality).  To roleplay for
> > another humanbeing...  That's fun.

Thus the 'm' in mud.

> > >> Never take over control of the player's character.
> > >
> > >Again the logic is sound, but as a player I can't agree.  I *like*
> > >cut scenes, when done right (again, all the Lucasarts game do them wel=
l).
> >=20
> > But it wrecks immersion.
>=20
> I guess it's just subjective.  I find games without cut-scenes
> less immersive, because it usually means no story and no character
> motivation.
>=20
As far as cut-scenes are concerned, they are usually used to narrow the
scope of the game, to keep the plot more linear.  As such, they have
little place in muds, which should concentrate on widenening the plot of
the game.  This only applies where there is an important desicion to be
made durin the cut-scene.  The text equivalent to the cut scene would be
to slowly send text to the player, having them simply wait until the text
passes before proceding onto the next challenge.  This would be a great
response to the command 'walk to town_X'.  The game would describe the
scenery the character passes, and the waiting would simulate the character
actually travelling, as well as keeping the character in the same
time-line as the other players.  Now if the character decides that they
wanted to walk to town_Y half way there, then the town_X cut-scen would
stop, then a separate cut-scene for 'walk to town_Y' would be generated
and sent to the player.

> > I can't say I feel I am "in" the game, I am more having one hand in
> > there.
>=20
> Is that good or bad?

See my puppet analogy above.  If you think *you* are in the game, thats
scary.

[snip some stuff completely unrelated to muds]

> > >> character's personality, which fatally injures the development
> > >> of the character and leads to a psychotic personality and
> > >> uninteresting story.

> > I think he meant "not convincing", like a badly written novel. A novel
> > is usually trying to make the reader feel/understand/reason with the
> > main character in some sense, right?  I sure wouldn't enjoy a novel
> > where I say to myself "oh well, this character is just plain stupid
> > and boring, do me a favour, go jump off a cliff, will ya!". (Unless he
> > does, of course ;)

This here I find odd.  What makes stupid characters unconvincing?  I like
to think I play stupid characters quite convincingly. And yes I believe I
have had a character die from jumping off a cliff (he didn't know any
better).  Now as long as there are intelligent characters for which the
idiot can act as a foil, the world is actually enriched by well-played
morons.  Hrmm...anyone ever concider designing a MUD where all of the NPCs
are _really_ stupid?  Man, would that be a riot to play, not to meantion
darn near impossible if the world itself was consistant to idiots being in
power ("I think main street would be a _great_ place for a pit-trap"
declares the Mayor)

Gunther