[MUD-Dev] A flamewar startingpoint.

[Sauron]

Adam Wiggins wrote:

> Right.  Well, there's a certain amount of unpredictibility that I like
> to keep players on their toes, but on a broad scope the above is
> very applicable.  For instance, Arctic is well known for being a wickedly
> designed mud, which is what IMO makes it as good as it is.  For instance,
> the lock on the front gate to Silvanesti has a trap that paralyzes anyone
> that touches it and then teleports them someplace randomly in the area.
> The first time we did it my buddy (who boldly tried to pick the lock)
> got teleported in front of Cyan Bloodbane, a particularly nasty dragon
> who is regarded as possibly the most dangerous creature on the mud.  It's
> wicked because it's unexpected and harsh.  It's not specifically mean,
> however, because everyone there knew that Silvanesti was the most dangerous
> area on the mud, and everyone there was prepared to face incredible and
> unpredictable danger.  This example is particularly harsh, but still
> within reason.

As a general rule, with anything that can seriously affect a player, I
tend to hide little clues and such as to at least the traps existence.
However, you have to talk to NPC's, do a little exploring, and be
cautios when entering an area such as this.  Yes, unexpected traps to
hold some excitement, but if you don't allow players a way out of their
dire situation or at least some foreknowledge of it (in the
aforementioned case, the player knew they would be frozen so they had an
amulet which nullified the effect) the player tends to feel cheated.  In
my opinion, if a player feels "cheated" by a puzzle or trap, the trap
didn't serve it's purpose, to provide added entertainment.
 
> Heh.  Well, I think most folks take the RPG intelligence stat far
> too literally.  In a true RP game, it's a guideline for how you play your
> character, yes.  In a game where your stats affect how your character
> functions, I see it as a more basic kind of intelligence - your character's
> abillity to learn new information and skills quickly, their ability to
> focus mental energies of various types, and so forth.  I don't see it as
> their ability to solve crime or speak with all their thees and thous in
> the right place.

I believe that the intelligence stat is more towards the latter,
however, I think it mainly is a measure of a character's ability to
interpret information they are given and make a logical conclusion
relating to this information.  The basic logic of a low intelligence
person is significantly different than that of a high intelligence
person. Of course it is hard for a player to change their entire way of
thinking, though that type of challenge is always fun for a good RP'er.
 
> Better yet (as long as we're going for generalizations) - ALL things
> should happen for a reason.

Ok restatement number 4 I believe: All things should happen for a
reason, and they should NEVER contridict the internal consistency of the
MU*.

> Smirk.  This brings up a completely unrelated beef of mine with current
> muds (at least, ones with semi-sophisticated mechanics).  Generally the
> system doesn't let you do anything it considers silly, ie the designer
> said, "Why would you ever want to do that?"  On of the things I've always
> wanted to be able to do is engage in combat with inanimate objects, for a lot
> of reasons, the above being one of them.

Even more interesting would be if you attacked certain inanimate
objects, they fought back (ie a stone statue which turns out to really
be a gargoyle).   

> > 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.

I've actually met players with this difficulty.  In general (note: this
is a broad generalization relating to my personal experience) most of
these type of players tend to be people who have trouble expressing
themselves in real-life and find it easier to play their characters. 
I've actually seen some pretty severe cases where players have begun to
take on traits of their character.  It is NOT a pretty thing to see.

> Nod.  This same sort of thing can apply to just about any character type -
> picking pockets when you are an honest citizen all day long, being a pious
> priest when you're actually an athiest, being an evil power-hungry mage
> when you spend the day enforcing justice.
> Not only can you see it as a little 'vaction from yourself', but it's
> also a chance to see the world through a different perspective, something
> which I think most everyone can benefit from.

I personally find it very relaxing to just sit back and be able to play
a character completely opposite of my personality.  Some of the
archetypes (probably spelt wrong) I enjoy are the evil tyrant, or the
powerful yet reclusive all-knowing mage, and of course the beloved evil
sorcerer who tends to steal princesses from castles. :)

> I have memories of an episode of Star Trek, next generation where they
> encounter those 'We look for things which make us go' guys.

I am Pakled.  I mean you no harm.  We look for things which make us go.
There is an extremely hilarious scene with a Pakled captain in Star
Trek: Klingon, it goes something like: 

Gowron: Why will you not beam over to our ship Pakled?
Pakled: I am afraid.
Gowron: Why are you afraid Pakled?
Pakled: You are Klingon, I am Pakled.
Gowron: I do not understand Pakled.
Pakled: I know, it is difficult to understand.
Gowron: Why don't you beam over to our ship and explain why you are
afraid to beam over
        to our ship Pakled.
Pakled: Ok, I will do that.
Gowron: You are a very good negotiater Pakled.
Pakled: Huh, Huh. I am Pakled.
(Viewscreen off, Gowron with an evil grin.)

-Sauron