[MUD-Dev] A flamewar startingpoint.

[Derrick Jones]

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Adam Wiggins wrote:

> [Derrick Jones:]
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Adam Wiggins wrote:
> > > > unfriendly to us as players as well.  You can extend this to badly
> > > 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.
> 
> 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.
> This example is particularly harsh, but still within reason.

Why wouldn't your character expect some of the most powerful creatures in
the game to protect themselves with just such a trap?  Don't feel its all
that harsh either, assuming that if the players were careful (i.e. used a
Detect Traps spell on the gate) the trap could have been avoided.  Now if
you _had_ to trigger this trap to enter the area (only way in), or decided
to put this in a den of simple-minded ogres, that would be (to me) just as
bad as giving a character a heart attack.

> > 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
> 
> I can't think of any situation where this is really fun.  Unless you mean
> some sort of in-game controls (trying to figure out how to fly a complex
> alien spacecraft in a pinch), the actual interface to the game being
> difficult is hardly entertaining.

Its not, unless you are creating an arcade-style game (where the only 
thing that matters s your reaction-time).  It would be a Bad Thing (tm)
for muds to go down this path, unless its in a very limited arena, such as
the space-craft example to mimic the clumsiness brought on by the
adrenaline rush of such a situation.  This btw, is why I encourage players
to script their character's actions, and will provide in-game methods of
doing this.

> > > > 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?
> > 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...
> 
> I think the only valid complaints here are just things which are
> inconsistant within your world.  Ie, the famous old stepping off of a cliff
> with a fly spell on but somehow still plummeting to your death.

I've always _hated_ that one myself.  I think I see it on about 80% of the
muds I visit too.  I've also wondered why you can't go 'up' in the middle
of town if you can fly.  Its usually because the designers never bothered
to design these areas.

> > 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.
> 
> 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.

This usually results from game objects being separated into people,
places, and things, and only allowing interaction with objects based on
their classification.  The 'old' C muds are notorious for this because
generalizing objects usually means passing tons of void pointers around,
making coding awkward and hackish at best.

Reacting to in-animate objects is actually a bigger part of most people's
lives than they like to admit.  How many times have you told your computer
that if it crashes one more time, you're gonna toss it out the window?  Or
kicked a table after you stubbed your toe("take that you meanie!")?

> > [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.
> 
> Yup.  Tony said they worked very hard to try to avoid this in the sequel.
> Most of the puzzles revolved around these five types of animals, which were
> featured around the game world in various forms, and most of the puzzles
> related to this sort of imagery.  Of course, I found it all so esoteric
> and disconnected from anything even slightly relevant that it might have
> well been a cash-register.

Maybe someone should have sent them the design of the gate-trap on Artic.
Would have saved a bundle on development cost.

> > Also the original logic seems to contradict the original interactivity
> > argument.  Players hate these little pauses because they are _not_ being
> > interactive.
> 
> Well, some good filler is always nice.  Wing Commander was largely
> successful because they tied together the combat sequences with
> simple cut-scenes and character interaction.Of course, the key is that
> you could skip over all of them if you weren't interested and wanted to
> get straight to fighting, and you could always click through them quickly
> if you were a fast reader, or didn't feel like watching a particular
> animation again.
> 

Yes, the cut-scenes on Wing-Commander were really well done.  They usually
acted as the mud equivalent to reading different parts of the background
story, with tidbits pasted in from the 'help' files.  Another key here is
that the cut-scenes were information-only and nothing ever really happened
in them.  Imagine how much the game would suck if in the middle of the cut
scene, the Imperial Fleet destroyed your ship (thus ending your game).

> > > > >> Never take over control of the player's character.
> > 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
>
> Adevnture games *are* linear, so I don't see cut scenes as doing much
> more damage.
> 
> > little place in muds, which should concentrate on widenening the plot of
> > the game.
> 
> Oh yes, of course.  I can't even imagine how one could actually
> do any sort of a cut scene for a mud.
> 
Maybe for training skills in a guild.  A character enters the guild, opts
to train a certain skill, then (start cut-scene) the guildmaster gives a
short lecture on the proper uses of the skill, including a small
demonstration (end cut-scene).  Before some interactive lessons on using
the skill.  The scene could be optional if you've gone through this as
another character, as the information given will be directed at the
player, not the character.  (such as tips on how and when to use the
skill, and limitations of the skill, basically a detailed 'help' file on
the skill that is 'very strongly suggested' that the players read it.)

Cut-scenes can also be thought to be constantly running in the background
and players choose which ones are worth watching (i.e. rising and setting
of sun) by choosing where to look.

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

Another option would be a mudworld where everyone was psycotic, but I
believe Genocide(full pk, no NPCs, no character advancement/development)
did this already.

Gunther