[MUD-Dev] You, the game of philosophy.

[Adam Wiggins]

[Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad:]
> Derrick Jones <gunther at online1.magnus1.com> wrote:
> >something stupid/out-of-character.  Players usually assign blame to th=
e
> >code.  "That mobile attacked me back!" or "How come I died when I deci=
ded
> >to step off that cliff?" and "I was hunted down and attacked by a sava=
ge
> >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 someth=
ing
> >stupid gets you killed, and that orcs are to be avoided when theres an
> >army of them storming the plains...
>=20
> Isn't holding the idea that some players are "bad" a very dangerous
> position for a designer to hold??

I hardly think so.  It's merely a fact.

> Who are "good" ?

We can define the criteria for good and bad as simply being those
that are more and less competent at achieving the game's goals.
Naturally this is highly dependant upon the game.  A 'good' player
in a flight simulator is one who can take off, fly the mission successful=
ly,
and land the plane.  A 'bad' player is one who stalls the aircraft every
time they try to make an altitude change.  In a role-playing game, a
'bad' roleplayer is someone who constantly makes out-of-character
judgements and actions for their in-game character.  In an adventure
game, a 'bad' player is someone that can't come up to the solutions for
the game's puzzles on their own.

Now, the real question you're asking is probably 'Where does the line
for good/bad player end, and the line for good/bad design begin?'  The
easiest answer is just observing the percentage of good to bad players.
A good game design should end up with a fairly even spread, with some
extra weight on the 'good' end of things.  I hestitate to use this
as a general indicator, because it's highly dependant on the game's
market.  Ie, many single-player games (especially adventure) for the PC
are designed to be fairly easy, in order that most players will be able t=
o
play all the way through it.  Of course, now that I think of it, for this
sort of game we can define good and bad by the number of hours it takes
to complete the game.  Most adventure games shoot to have the average
player spend 20 hours playing them.  This means that good players will fi=
nish
it in five hours, and some bad players will take 40 or 60 hours, or may
not finish it at all.

Note that good and bad players isn't supposed to be some sort of a judgem=
ent
on the person who is playing.  I'm bad at arcade games, simply because
my reflexes are sub-par.  I don't feel worse as a person because of this,
it just means that I suck at action games.

> The ones that enjoy your original design?

I might also note that enjoyment of a game and your ability to play it
don't necessarily corespond.  While it is true that usually we like to
do things which we're good at, I've seen many 'bad' players enjoy themsel=
ves
quite a bit on muds.  I've also seen good players that were bored out
of their minds, simply because the game is *too* easy for them.

> *snicker* Haven't you failed somewhere
> when you have to resort to defining some players as bad?

Erm, if there's some way to create a game which doesn't have any sort of
a scale for competency attached to it, I'd be thouroughly impressed.
Note that you can make a game which doesn't place much value on this
competency, but this doesn't deny its existance.

> Haven't you failed in communicating your game philosophy?

Again, I'd say that's the issue at hand here - at what point has the
game designer actually failed in their task, and at what point is it
simply incompetent players?  If I took a chess board with me back in
time a million or so years and somehow convinced some cave-men to play
the game with me, I'd be surprised if any of them were anything but
terrible at it.
This does not mean that chess is a poorly designed game.

> >> > >Again, I take exception to all of this because of the basic premi=
se.
> >> > >The character is *not* you, Glassner.  It is a character which co=
mes wit
> >> > >its own abilities, desires, and faults.  It is up to you to direc=
t 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 posse=
ss
>=20
> Correction, the characters YOU play are puppets. Or at least you
> believe so.

Hmm.  This looks like a religious retort - sort of like responding to
the statement that human beings are simply collections of flesh and bone
by saying that "YOU may be a collection of flesh and bone, but I am not!"
Characters ARE puppets.  We usually attach some sort of emotional
value to them on top of this, but the fact remains.

> How can you be so certain that my puppet isn't me?  Are
> you that obsessed with my exterior?

Because it's...uh...not?  A radio is not you, even though I may talk to
you via it.  A book is not you, even though you wrote it and I read it.
This message you are reading is not me, even though it is a medium for
my thoughts.

> What you suggest is that I control the puppet intelectually with a
> proper mental distance, but I find myself emotionally involved.
> That's where the fun is.  That distance you value would block my fun.
> I guess this has a lot to do with Descartes and other philosophers.
> If I sense through the screen and are able to deduce what I might
> sense in the future by reasoning about my actions, how can you then
> say that what I sense in the game is fundamentally different from what
> I sense in other contexts?  After all, I only know that I think,
> right, at least I think I know?  I can only hope that there is
> something subtantial in what I sense.  I have no real evidence that I
> should trust the real world more than a game world. Ok, the game life
> is a shorter life, but it is still a life? Isn't it?  Actually I'm not
> quite sure if the game life is shorter, maybe it is only
> time-compressed.  ;^)

Hmmm.  Well, I think this is taking it a bit far.  I agree that muds and
P&P RPGs have a way of drawing you in to the point of a very serious
attachment.  This is, in most instances, a Good Thing.  However, getting
confused about whether or not you are a blood-sucking zombie or a greedy
pickpocket is, I think, a Bad Thing.  IMO it is this distance which lets
us play the game.  If I had to become a blood-sucking zombie in order to
play a game in which my character is such a thing, I would not want to pl=
ay
the game, nor, I imagine, would most other sane people.  There has to be
a distance between you and the character, period.  Secondly, we were
talking mainly about adventure games.  I don't find much of any adventure
game immersive enough to confuse me into thinking I'm actually there.
I may get 'into' them as far as caring about what happens to the characte=
rs
in it and what is going to happen next in the story, but I am generally
always aware that I am playing a computer game.

> >Good role players make convincing illusions, but should never convince
> >themselves. =20
>=20
> Haha, you have a lot of faith in the integrity of the mind.  But I've
> seen quite a lot of proof that should suggest otherwise.  Our "wants"
> and "wishes" and a lot of other stuff interfere.  Why do people buy
> tickets in the lottery?  Is it a lack of understanding of realistic
> behaviour or what?  Or are they driven by some kind of desire? Is it
> you or a puppet who play in the lottery?  A "puppet" when you loose,
> and "you" if you win?

I find this analogy a little hard to swallow, but I agree with your point.
People do tend to get a bit silly about things they care about, to the
point of losing sight of reality.  I generally think that this is not
a particularly good thing.

> >See my puppet analogy above.  If you think *you* are in the game, that=
s
> >scary.
>=20
> "you" ? Is that a mental or physical entity?  Does it exists?  Is it
> one thing or many things?  Is it a separate entity?  Can you prove to
> me that you exists outside this game world called mud-dev?  You forget
> that one part of your brain might accept that this is "only a game"
> while another part of your brain ignore that "fact".  Which part of
> your brain is more "you" than the other?  Which part is dominating
> during gameplay?

Yes.  Mental.  Yes.  One.  Seperate from what?  No, not unless you live
near me.  Not really.  My brain is all one part, but while certain sectio=
ns
may be very much obsessed with what's happening on the screen, the 'overm=
ind'
as it were is always keeping myself in check.  I tend to think that if
the other ever got control I would no longer be a sane person.

> >This here I find odd.  What makes stupid characters unconvincing?  I l=
ike
> >to think I play stupid characters quite convincingly. And yes I believ=
e I
> >have had a character die from jumping off a cliff (he didn't know any
> >better).
>=20
> Well, totally inconsistently behaving characters is perhaps what was
> meant.  Most novels assign different personalities to different
> characters, right?  If Paul and Lisa swap and change roles without
> motivation througout the book then it won't be easy to get into the
> thing...  Building a character takes time.  Of course, if the topic of
> the novel IS inconsistent behaviour then you have a different
> situation.

Yes, yes.  I assume the original 'stupid' meant having a character do
ridiculous things for no good reason.  This, of course, is right up there
with your character having a heart attack for no good reason.