[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface ...

[coder at ibm.net]

On 26/10/97 at 06:12 PM, Derrick Jones <gunther at online1.magnus1.com> said:

>On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 coder at ibm.net wrote:

>Toughest part of the system as I see it will be to comunicate the
>information to players in a way that doesn't seem twinkish. (with the
>troll example, how would a player playing a troll know that eating a
>carrot could prove fatal?  <sarcasm\> Surgeon General's Warning:  If you
>are a troll, eating this product may be hazardous to your health.
></sarcasm>  )

First thought:  Handle it the same way you'd handle your character putting
his hand down on a burning hot stone -- automatic reaction jerks his hand
off.  Should a troll attempt to eat a carrot, his first reaction is to
retch and spit it out.  

>> >Not all skills have to advance/decay at the same rate.  Or even at all.
>> >For the golf example, each character would have a personal maximum based
>> >on character stats, so that poor dolt would never really become good at
>> >the game, but after many, many years he wouldn't be quite so bad.  If you
>> >really don't like the idea of basing maximums and advance/decay rates on
>> >player stats, determine them at the time of character creation (either
>> >random or chosen).
>> 
>> For me this echoes back to the seperation of character and human player. 
>> I have no problem with the character having stats which limit their
>> current ability, but I have a big problem with those stats being
>> unalterable.  For me the game is more about overcoming those limitations
>> than it is working within them.
>
>Again agreed.  I meant determine initially at creation.  There's no
>reason why they shouldn't be able to change.  

All too often I forget the body stuff.  For me this is not problem:  Your
body can't do something you want to do?  Go get or steal a different
body...

>Back to the Golf example (I
>spend way too much time at a country club (I work there)), the main
>reason that women's tees are so far in front of men's tees (thus evidence
>that women on average drive the ball shorter than men) is that the female
>anatomy is such that ...

True, anatomy can account for a lot.  There are few hourglass figured
sprinters, ballerinas, or marathon runners.  Heck there are too few
hourglass figured...err...hourglasses.  Yeah.  

Similarly, at 6'4" I have a much tougher time putting on muscle than a
shorter fellow.  Muscular strength is proportional to the cross sectional
area of a given muscle, which, given that my musceles are proportionally
longer, means that I have to grow significantly more tissue to get the
same increase in strength than, say, a dwarf.   Oxygen consumption also
has some interesting curves with increased body mass, especially when
crossed with height.  Then there's the basic bone strength problem....

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
----------(*)                              Internet: coder at ibm.net
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...