[MUD-Dev] multiple intelligences

[Travis Casey]

Brandon J. Rickman <ashes at pc4.zennet.com> wrote:



>I just came across a book by Howard Gardner called _Frames of Mind_, the
>Theory of Multiple Intelligences.  I thought it might be interesting fuel
>for discussion re: skill systems, learning and training, creating new magic
>systems, and bard justification.  (Bard justification being the quasi-flame
>discussion of the usefulness of music skills in our pristine mud worlds.)
>
>I've only read the first few sections, but the "types" of intelligence are
>pretty easy to fathom from their names: linguistic, musical,
>logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and
>intrapersonal (there may be others).
>
>I would say it the first of these, linguistic intelligence, that causes the
>most problems in text-based muds.  The things a player says, the poetry a
>bard composes, the encrypting of foreign languages in a realistic manner,
are
>all reliant on the actual person at the other end of the interface.  Trying
>to model, or evaluate, language skills is, it seems, pretty unsatisfactory.
>This is an area where I would agree with CJ that the character/avatar
should
>be "dumb as a post".

I'd like to point out that character "intelligence" can exist in multiple
ways.  One way might simply be a rating, which has no explicit game effects,
but which the player is expected/required to roleplay.  At the opposite
extreme, the character might be set up to automatically take certain
actions -- e.g., defend him/herself from attacks.  In the middle, a
character's
intelligence(s) can be used to manipulate the data that the player receives
from the game.

IMHO, character intelligence is a good thing, and players should be required
to roleplay their character's intelligence.  (That's a little less onerous
in my ideal mud, since I think players should be free to design their
characters within limits.  Thus, if you have to play a really dumb
character,
it's because you chose to do so.)  Of course, this is from the perspective
of someone who thinks that roleplaying should be a more major thing in muds
than it generally is -- for a more adventure-style mud, it may make more
sense for characters not to have any intelligence attribute -- they simply
act with whatever intelligence the player brings to them.

I do believe that character intelligence(s) should factor into the game in
some ways -- such ways might include adjusting the character's learning
rate for skills and factoring into the chance of success with skills.  I
also believe in having some minimal level of automation built into the
character -- mainly because no one can be at the keyboard 100% of the
time.  However, I do believe that this automation should be less than
what many muds already have -- I don't like the "type kill and wait" combat
style.

>The other areas of intelligence are free to some interesting
interpretation.
>Mastery of special swordfighting skills could be dependant on musical
>intelligence because of the rhythmic and contrapunctal elements  (like the
>Renshai in those silly Reichert books).  Different schools of magic might
be
>based on different or different combinations of intelligence skills (this
>might be rewarding in itself; imagine not having magic based on the
>earth/water/fire/air model).

These can be a great help in creating a particular feel for a world.  I'd
say the main thing to watch out for is making one of them *too* important,
but I'm sure the readers of this list don't need that warning.  :-)

I think I'm going to have to make a post on magic systems... elemental
magic seems to be one of the first things that comes to people's minds
when they abandon the D&D magic system, but there are plenty of other
magical theories which exist, both in paper RPGs and in RL.

>Further, a multiply intelligent character wouldn't be as horribly crippled
>by a single low score in one area, unlike AD&rnt/D where low INT almost
>guarantees you will get roasted by the next evil magician.  There might
>actually be some challenge in playing a character with intellectual
>shortcomings, or a disproportionate skill in one area.

I don't see where low INT does much of anything in AD&D -- saving throws
vs. spells are based on class and level, and sometimes on WIS or DEX, but
almost never are affected by INT.  Still, there are other systems where
your point is true.

I think it should be mentioned that "intelligences" can be factored into
other attributes -- for example, in AD&D, spatial and bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence should be considered part of dexterity, interpersonal
intelligence should be part of charisma, and intrapersonal intelligence
should be part of wisdom.  Musical, linguistic, and logical-mathematical
seem to be left in the "intelligence" attribute.

Another note that should be made is that all of the intelligences seem
to correlate very well in the real world -- that is, if you're good at
one of them, you're probably good at the others as well.  Thus, it may
be more efficient (in the sense of having fewer numbers to keep track of)
in a realistic game to keep one intelligence score and allow advantages
and disadvantages that change specific intelligences (as GURPS does, for
example).

Which is not to say that separating them is a bad idea -- doing so would
make it more apparent to players that they can have them vary from each
other, and would also be natural for a mud that doesn't have advantages
and disadvantages among the options in character creation.
--
      |\      _,,,---,,_        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