[MUD-Dev] Re: Introductions and descriptions

[Richard Woolcock]

Adam Wiggins wrote:
> 
> [Derrick Jones:]
> > One other detail.  I really dislike those descriptions that give you too
> > much information.  For example, 'He wields The Sword of Devistation in his
> > right hand.' gives you the proper name of the object (the sword) of which
> > the character has no knowledge.  Perhaps simular recognition code could be
> > written for objects as well as for people.
> 
> One would assume this would be handled by object inheritence?  Characters,
> locations, and items (swords of devestation) are all objects in most
> systems, after all.
> Note that you'll also need code to implant memory about something you've
> read about if you want this.  Ie:[example object-recognition snipped]

As a 'cheap' alternative, you could use skills for this.  Thus Bob, who has
Survival 0, looks in the room and sees 'a tasty-looking mushroom', 
while Fred - with Survival 5, sees 'a deadly skull-cap toadstool'.  This
is not as 'nice' as learning about each object, but would be less cpu/memory
intensive.  Skills such as 'Occult' could be used for strange artifacts,
whilst 'Melee' might show you 'A finely crafted steel katana' rather than 
'a sword' - perhaps someone with a little Melee might see 'An oriental sword'.

> > Hrm...this has the potential of creating a possible problem.  If player
> > appearances are automatically generated, there comes into possibility the
> > situation where a player receives a character that is a bit too much like
> > their RL description.  The chance is slim, but given enough characters
> > created, it will happen on occasion.  In the cases, the taunts directed
> > at a character with an abnormality (which happens to be shared by its
> > player) will create a potentially hostile environment for the _player_ as
> > well as the character.  Normally, I'd say such a situation is up to the
> > player to deal with, but in today's Politically Correct society, you've
> > almost have to cater to those few who may take offense.(sigh)
> >
> > Is there some mechanism built in for overiding the automatic generation,
> > or the possibility to re-generate should an unplayable character be
> > generated?
> 
> IMO very little should be left to chance.  Otherwise you get people
> making characters over and over in order to get what they want.  If
> you make it difficult to get characters (waiting period, difficult
> application process, one character per e-mail, etc) then you just piss
> people off, since they have to play a character they don't like.  Why
> not just allow them to choose what they want to begin with?

The only random thing I have is name.  You get to chose your primary,
secondary and tertiary 'attributes' out of physical/mental/social, then 
spend a number of points in each of the three attributes within each
catagory (Physical has Strength/Dexterity/Stamina, for example).
Abilities are similar, with Talents, Skills and Knowledges.  Players can
also select virtues, which determine their initial willpower/humanity.
Basically its the WoD char gen system, and it leaves nothing to chance.
As far as appearance goes, players can choose eye/hair colour (and 
Appearance itself is an attribute).

> Note that the randomly generated name thing mentioned earlier in this
> thread doesn't bother me, since I can just tell people that I'm named
> something different if I want.  Which is kind of cool - you get the
> guy who everyone knows as "Slash" getting all embarrassed when someone
> learns that his given name is Otis Squeedlebunk.

Unfortunately I have no coded 'nicknames'.  The main trouble I see is
that players will chose the same nickname every time they die and come
back - so I may as well not bother even generating names.  Of course,
you don't HAVE to introduce yourself - or Otis in the example above
might chose to only give his first name to people (and be suitably
embarrassed when people find out his surname).

> Our character creation is based on attributes, but the player selects
> them instead of randomly generating them.  Now, there are so many attributes
> that we don't present them to the player all at once.  Instead, we choose
> a representative selection - everyone can choose to be especially strong
> or especially tall, but the options to have a big nose or be the seventh
> son of a seventh son will pop up less often.  Anyhow, we just use the
> Ars Magica (I believe) point system.  Each attribute is assigned a number
> of points based on its nature.  For instance, a big nose or nappy hair
> would be worth 1, while a natural talent for bird-watching would be -1.
> More 'imporant' attributes such as especially strong or stunningly
> beautiful would be worth -4, while especially weak or incredibly ugly
> would be worth 4.  When all is said and done the player ends up with a
> score which they must 'pay' for with character creation points from their
> account.  New accounts have no points, so they must end up with 0 or
> less points.  There is also a cap on the number of attributes.  Thus,
> you could make Cyrano at a cost of 4 points (talent for swordsmanship -3,
> charismatic -2, big nose +1), or your average troll for no cost (especially
> strong -4, incredibly ugly +4).

This sounds similar to the Merit/Flaw system used by the WhiteWolf games.
Thats something else I would love to add, if only I can find the time.

KaVir.