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

[Derrick Jones]

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:

> Derrick Jones <gunther at online1.magnus1.com> wrote:
> >something stupid/out-of-character.  Players usually assign blame to the
> >code.  "That mobile attacked me back!" or "How come I died when I decide=
d
> >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 ba=
d
> >players as they leave.  I'm targeting my game towards the type that
> >realizes that mobiles defend themselves any way then can, doing somethin=
g
> >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??  Who are "good" ? The ones that
> enjoy your original design?  *snicker* Haven't you failed somewhere
> when you have to resort to defining some players as bad?  Haven't you
> failed in communicating your game philosophy?

Hrm..perhaps a little defining of terms here would have helped.  I define
'good' players as those within my target audience, and 'bad' players as
those outside my target audience who interfere with the enjoyment of the
game by the 'good' players.
My target audience is small compared to the general population, and I
make no apologies for this.  I target intelligent players who expect their
gamewolrd to behave intelligently. (this alone precludes most people.)  I
target players who believe that a quick mind should prevail over a quick
typist.  I design for imersion, and insist my players be able to
distinguish between the mud-world and the real world.  My target audience,
if truth be told, consists of one very picky mudder...me.  Those who enjoy
playing the game as I do will find that my world will be to their liking.
Those who want mindless hack-N-Slash or pointless Jump-through-hoops
quests will not like my design, and will only detract from the gaming
experience of those who appriciate such a design.

> >> > >
> >> > >Again, I take exception to all of this because of the basic premise=
=2E
> >> > >The character is *not* you, Glassner.  It is a character which come=
s with
> >> > >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
>=20
> Correction, the characters YOU play are puppets. Or at least you
> believe so.  How can you be so certain that my puppet isn't me?
Pretty much so.  You'll still wake up tomorrow if my game-world proves too
dangerous a place for your puppet to survive.  My design is even friendly
enough to allow your puppet to exist if the real world proves too much for
you to handle.  (Do you know the difference between the two? If so, then
you understand that the character is _not_ you.  If not...hrm...well,
there's a pretty room with padded walls that's just waiting for you.)

>Are you that obsessed with my exterior?
I think I missed this one.  I'm going out on a limb to guess that you mean
that the character appears differently from the player.  Well, yeah.  The
character is a series of 1's and 0's stored magnetically on disk, while
you are real.  Of course I acknowledge the difference.  I'd probably go to
jail if I created a senario that killed hundreds of flesh-and-blood
people.  That sort of thing is frowned upon in most places.
>  Another thing to think about, I have total control over a real puppet.
Put a sock puppet on your hand.  Now make it fly.  You don't have complete
control over the puppet.  The puppet is constrained by the (real world's)
laws of physics.  Now tell your puppet to compute the last digit of pi.
I've always wondered...
> And... puppets have been used in therapy
Do you _really_ believe the sock on your therapist's hand is a person?
I'd suggest more therapy if you do.

> 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 'suggest' that you realize that it is only a game.  That you keep enough
emotional and intellectual distance to realize that the mud-world isn't
real.  I'd also 'suggest' seeking help if the distinction is blurred in
your mind.
> I guess this has a lot to do with Descartes and otherphilosophers.
> 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.  ;^)

Yes, it could be argued that what we refer to as 'the real world' is
merely an illusion, and we are merely computer simulations playing what
the designers argue to be a non-realistic game.  But I prefer to approach
life thru the assumption that I do exist, as does my environment.
However, there is seemingly inconvrovertable evidence that the world
simulated in the code I wrote is not real (I'd be real impressed if I
managed to create a real universe).

Now I guess the clearest way to distinguish between the mud-world and the
real world would be the sheer number of senses involved, so if you are
mudding and lose track of which is which (a delema you apparently hold as
a sign of good mental health *boggle*), realize that the world to which
your only connection is a string of text isn't the real one.

> >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
I'm begnining to doubt if its well placed.
> 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?
People realize that under normal circumstances a lottery ticket is a poor
investment, but the 'thrill' of gambling is worth the price of a ticket.
If there is a decent jackpot, buying a ticket may initiate hours of
pleasant daydreaming with those closest to you.  How much is that
experience worth?  If you play the lottery and _expect_ to win, then your
perception of reality is a bit distorted, as it is distorted if you
believe it is not you shelling out the money for tickets, win or lose.

> >See my puppet analogy above.  If you think *you* are in the game, thats
> >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
I don't exist.  I'm only a character on AddictionMUD.  If you believe
that, you need help.
> 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?
definitions:
=09player--the human being sitting at the computer.
=09character--a virtual being existing only within the confines of
the game, controlled by the player.
Still confused which is 'you'?  (here's a test to find out if you guessed
right: pinch yourself...did you type 'pinch me'? or did you reach down
and grab your buttocks?  Which one causes 'you' pain?)

Gunther