[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is suppo

[Travis Casey]

Brandon J. Rickman <ashes at pc4.zennet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, "Travis Casey" <efindel at polaris.net> replied:
>
>>Are there any muds which don't have a "time based interface" (by which I
>>presume you mean a real-time interface, as opposed to a turn-based
>>interface).  Turn-based seems like it would be impractical for a mud -- if
>>one player has to go to the bathroom, should all the other players be put
on
>>hold until he/she gets back?
>
>A lot of things seem impractical for muds (like ZenMOO), but some interface
>questions can't be solved with the typical assumptions of real-time
>mud interaction.  Yes, in a turn-based mud you would have to wait for
>AFK players, and perhaps this is such a fundamental change that these new
>turn-based games fall outside of [the petty world of] mud-dom.  Should
>we talk about these new play-by-mail-ish mud games?

Certainly.  :-)  Just taking turns eliminates some problems (like most
typoes, some advantages for scripters, and the advantage to being a fast
typist.)  Turn-taking also can allow for differential turn lengths -- that
is, the length of a turn in game time doesn't always have to be the same.
This makes long-term activities, such as training and travel, more practical
in the game.

I can't think of any way to utilize the latter aspect (which IMHO is the
best part) without moving to a small-group model more like that of paper
RPGs.  To do otherwise would require either allowing players to become
separated in time, which complicates things incredibly; or making everyone
do long-term actions at once, which seems too artificial if all the PCs
aren't in one group, or making those who are doing long-term actions wait
while others take lots of turns, which can be done without a turn-based
system.

>So the player was unprepared due to stupidity, carelessness, or the
>general unpredictability of the universe.  That the player made a typo
>doesn't change the fact they were unprepared.  But to put it a different
way,
>you would like to design the interface in such a way that the player
>would be prevented from making mistakes.  Why is is this an interesting
>design goal?

You're putting words in my mouth.  My only point was that using a modal
interface penalizes players much more for simple typos than a non-modal
interface does -- I've said nothing about preventing players from making
mistakes.

An interface which unduly punishes the user for simple mistakes is,
quite simply, a bad interface.  Thus, this is an important part of designing
the interface.

>And in most games, setting down the sword _has no other consequence within
>the game_.  But if you were a monster would you rather attack an armed or
>an unarmed hero?  This has a lot to do with the music skill thread, but
>in this case swordplay is considered a more useful activity.  Yet while
>we are complicating the actions the character must take we keep trying
>to simplify the actions of the player.

Do we?  I wish to simplify the *interface*, not the *actions*.  There is
a difference between the two.  It should be noted as well that the
*character*
and the *player* are two distinct things... making the *character* do more
does not necessarily mean that the *player* must do more.

>I think the really valuable conclusion of this
>discussion is that character actions need to be
>atomically scripted for the benefit of new players, but advanced players
>would be able to rewrite the scripts to their personal level
>of sophistication.  And yes, this means that advanced players would be
>more vulnerable to typos, or "interface mistakes".

I have no problem with making experienced players more vulnerable to
typos --
they should have had time to learn the interface so that they know how to
handle them.

>>In any case, though, it should be noted that typos are an artifact of the
>>interface -- if the player actually *were* his/her character, it would be
>>impossible for him/her to try to weld a sword when he/she meant to wield
it.
>
>Is there some kind of perfect one-to-one, artifact-free interface between
>my mental self and the physical world?  If so, where can I buy one?
>If the player actually *were* his/her character, what the heck is this
>random skill check stuff?

It's God playing dice with the universe.  :-)  I come from a paper RPG
background, and that's what I really want to recreate.  In a paper RPG,
there are almost never such problems, because the "interface" to the game
is a human GM, who is capable of asking for clarification, realizing when
a player probably meant something else, and accepting quick restatements
("I'm going to weld my sword.  I mean, wield it.").

This doesn't eliminate tactical errors (e.g., forgetting to bring your
sword at all).  If you wish to allow for things like a character's
sword being stuck in his/her scabbard, it seems to me that it makes more
sense to account for that separately -- after all, the physical ability
of the player to type well isn't related to the physical abilities of
his/her character.  (At least, it isn't on most muds.)

>I would like to point out a possible gap between real-time _interaction_
>and real-time _interface_.  The "real-time nature of muds" is
characteristic
>of the interaction, not the interface.

The interface is how players interact with the mud, so this seems like
a false distinction to me.  Or are you talking about the interaction
between the characters and their universe, rather than the interaction
between the players and the mud?

>This reply has been stewing in my dead letter file long enough.  I'm
>sure I haven't been nearly explicit enough in my opinions.

Join the club.  :-)  I'd like to reiterate that all I'm getting at is that
the interface shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult to "pilot" one's
character -- some difficulty is unavoidable, but we should try to reduce
it where we can.  A modal interface for asking for clarification on commands
seems to me to be too likely to cause problems -- especially given the ease
with which it should be possible to make in non-modal (and the one in the
original example really is non-modal, as the original author has since
clarified.)
--
      |\      _,,,---,,_        Travis S. Casey  <efindel at io.com>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
     |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'        rec.games.design FAQ:
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)      http://www.io.com/~efindel/design.html