[MUD-Dev] A flamewar startingpoint.

[Matt Chatterley]

On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Adam Wiggins wrote:

> [Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad:]
> > Adam Wiggins <nightfall at user2.inficad.com> wrote:
> > [Glassner:]

[Snip]

> > Are you talking MUD or what?
>=20
> Of course, since that's the topic of this list.  But I'm also speaking
> of other games.  Some examples with recent games:
>=20
>  When I play Command & Conquer, I am not a Nazi.
>  When I play Monkey Island, I am not a wanna-be pirate.
>  When I play King's Quest, I am not an estranged priness.
>  When I play Space Quest, I am not a futuristic janitor.
>  When I play Master of Orion, I am not a silicon-based creature bent
>   on the genocide of all the other races within fifty solar systems of me=
=2E
>=20
> My *character* is.

In otherwords, Character/Player separation (is that actually how you spell
separation?), which is something of a pet topic of mine. I believe I made
some reference to this in the RGMA player rights thread (or at least,
intended to).

IMHO it is *essential* that if you wish to do anything other than
Hack'n'Slash, you *must* impress upon players the importance of knowing:

You are not the character.
You are the player
The two are distinct entities linked (for control purposes alone) by a
network socket.

A good example is my old favourite, we have a thief and a fighter. These
are the characters. The players behind them are Fred (the thief) and Joe
(the fighter). Bear this in mind:

Thief steals from Fighter. This angers the Fighter character, but Joe does
not understand the player/character concept, and is also extremely
annoyed.

If Joe expresses his displeasure by being abusive towards Fred, he is
doing something badly wrong (many people would call it 'harrassment').

If the fighter exacts suitable revenge on the thief, all is well and
happy.
=20
> > 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. I'd suggest any sort of design where game constructs interfere with
the 'virtual world', is flawed in some way (however minor). This is
somewhat like my opinion that D&D (*purely* an example picked out of thin
air!) is flawed, because it presents players with detailed character
information, with insufficient separation between the two.
=20
> > 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.)

Yes. Another good example is that I am in the process of writing an
initiative based combat system which stacks commands for a period of time,
and then executes them suitably. If you make a typo, or similar player
error, the command will not be queued, and you will be warned. If you are
correct from the player point of view, the game will allow you to proceed,
and allow the character to screw up things happily.
=20
> > 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)...
>=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.

I definitely fall into the last category, but can appreciate the first
point of view. I do not like to exist in either extreme where:

I can do literally what I want, to the point of saying "No, I don't want
this character to die.", and have total control.

I can do absolutely nothing to even potentially avoid something (that is
to say, I am told I cannot even *attempt* an escape, or so forth).

[Snip]

> > 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.
>=20
> Hmmm.  Like I said, I haven't played Myst, but one of the artists I
> work with worked in the sequel and I watched him play it for a bit.
> There's no role - there's no character stuff at all.  You're a robot
> flying through a series of static pictures and fiddling with
> misc. devices.  I *like* characters, I like human motivations, I
> like stories.  Esoteric puzzles by themselves don't do a whole lot for
> me, even with really nice graphics.  Of course, that's just me - I
> realize that lots of folks do like this sort of thing, and for those
> kinds of games I agree with the above.  Not only are you your own
> character, but there is no character at all.  It's just you and the
> gameworld.

Also, there are two types of roleplaying (both are appropriate to the
meaning of the word), one of which is better called 'in-character
reaction' or ' characterised response'. For instance, I will not ask you
to roleplay a character in my game (but you are more than welcome to, and
many players may wish to - I'd even be glad to join in!), but I will
require you to use suitably characterised responses to situations.

Read the above example of the thief/fighter - the latter is a
characterised response. I get very upset when a thief steals, and the
victim player immediately kicks into "Its not fair!!" mode. My reply is
typically "No, it isn't. If you don't like it, do something about it, or
be quiet.", or a variation thereof.
=20
> > >> 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.

Strangely, Star Fox 64 on N64 is *very* immersive - probably because the
speech (simulates radio chatter quite well) and the animated sequences
really do draw you into the game (which has the feel of a big interactive
story, and a tinge of inevitability in your destiny). That, and the
graphics strike very solemn posterior with suitable limb-specific verbs.

[Snip rest]

Regards,
=09-Matt Chatterley
=09http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." -Einstein