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

[Derrick Jones]

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Richard Woolcock wrote:
> This may be going a little off-topic, but if your 'puppet' can exist without
> you, is it really a puppet?  In your mud, is your character:
> (a) A 'mud' person, who's personality you temporarily replace with your own, or
> (b) An empty shell, a 'puppet' which just sort of sits there without you.
(c) a 'mud' person whose personality you control more directly.
> 
> This is a serious question - I know at least one person on this list is
> doing something with players being 'spirits' who take over bodies when they
> want to interact with the real world (or something like that).  Another
> way of thinking about it...when you log off, if your character didn't 'vanish'
> or 'go to sleep' would they (a) flop on the ground, maybe twitching a bit, or
> (b) go down the pub (or whereever else they usually hang out)?
> 
> I suppose you could even expand on (b) - perhaps the body will do things if
> left alone for a while?  or maybe it'll answer back to some of your 'commands'
> with things like "Attack the dragon?  What sort of idiot do you think I am?".
> However I don't personally like taking control away from players, unless
> they are drunk or something.
> 
> KaVir.
Hrm...haven't thought of that.  Having the character talk back to the
player.  Reminds me of those old golf games that have an on-going
comentary on your ability.  Perhaps when a player instructs the character
to do something really stupid (like attacking the dragon) the character
says something to the player ("You moron, trying to get me killed?"), but
grudgingly obeys...

I don't believe in taking control of characters either, but I allow
different levels of control which fall into two basic catagories:

Active Control:  The player issues commands and the character obeys to the
best of its ability.  I'm aiming the I/O of my parser to mimick an ongoing
conversation between player and character.  If the player, for example
tells the player to 'put the bread in the bag', the response from the
parser might be 'It would help if you gave me a bag first...', and
repetative attempts might be met with a 'Look, I ain't got no bag!'
followed by the list of the character's inventory.  (pardon the grammer in
the characters response...I'm still debating how to personalize the
responses based on the character)  Active control is what most people
envision when you say you're mudding.

Passive control:  The player sets up reactions do different situations,
and the character responds automatically.  For example, if the players
link is broken, the player may instruct the character to return to its
home as quickly as possible, and enable the homes defences.  Or the player
can instruct the character to visit the ration supply store each time the
characters enters a certain town.  One level of these controls will be
tintin-style triggers and aliases.  Another will be a 'dead-line' mode
where the player defines what actions the character attempts when the
player is off-line.  In my current design(all of this is still in the
design stages), the daily activities will have to be cyclic on a 24 hour
mud-time basis.  The time restaint may be lifted (but encouraged as
mud-world activities such as the opening and closing of shops will be
based on a 24-hour day), but the cycic nature of the actions will probably
remain.  I'm going to let players add conditions to their character code
(I've already set all commands to give a return value based on the level
of success.)  The interface to the passive control will probably have a
few levels. First is the free-form tintin-style control, which allows
players to have their characters react to unpredictable or unique
situations.  Second will be a menu-driven select-a-reaction.  This will
respond to common problems with common solutions: 'recall if I'm attacked'
or 'eat if I'm hungry' type simple stuff mostly.  Third is a system-level
menu that responds to certain variables with a command-list.  For example,
if a player selects the 'dead-link' option on the menu, they will be able
to issue the following commands whenever the characters link is broken:
"get recall pouch;recite recall;s;s;e;e;s;e;e;n;n;unlock door;open
door;e;close door w;enable defences'.  This string of commands is
definable by the player, of course.

Basically, the goal is to create nice scripts that remove some of the
pressure away from the typist, and give players a greater control of their
characters.   Say for example, a character falls off a cliff(an example
already worked to death here, sorry).  There are a few seconds where the
character is actually falling.  Now if the _player_ has great typing
skills and a lightnig-fast reaction time, the character may be saved by a
last-second 'levitate' spell.  With character scripts, players can
pre-define their character's reaction to just such an occurance.  Now, the
character can be saved if the _character_ has the wisdom not to panic, and
a quick reaction time.  (Debate: Is the game or player controlling the
character as it falls?)

Also, as a side note, there are certain times where the game has every
reason to control players actions.  I'll list some that come to mind.

Reflex actions: Things that are done on the unconscious level should be
controlled by the game.  This allows character personality development
beyond the control of the player.  "Will you stop that infernal
twitching!" might be screamed at a character whose player never once
ordered the character to twitch.

Incapacitation:  When the character is unconscious, the player shouldn't
be able to volentarily wake the character.  Also under this catagory is
exhaustion, holding breadth for too long, flinching when injured.  A
character who is drunk/feverous can be conscidered to be partially
incapacitated.

Mind control:  If a character is 'charmed', 'geased', or possessed they
may do things the player doesn't want them to.  One situation would be
lycantropy where the character is controlled by the game while it is in
animal form.  Also, I allow for items to have personalities which may
refused to be used in certain manners.  A character wearnig a suit of
armor that wants him to head north will find it hard to resist if the
armor has means of self-locomotion.

Extreme Player Stupidity:  There's a lot of grey area here.  Perhaps some
warning requiring the players confirmation of the form "Are you _sure_ you
want me to jump in that lava (y/n)?".  This can be construed as a
character rebelling against player control, which may be a Bad Thing. I
haven't given the area too much thought, but I will probably allow players
to kill their characters at will.


Hope the above explainations answered your questions.
Gunther