[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is supposed to be playing, anyway?

[##Make Nylander]

[Original message sent by Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

	First, thank you for an excellent posting that echoed my
	sentiments almost to the word.

| So here's my question. I know it was a long time in coming, but really -- 
| what sort of things do you look for in a MUD? How would you like to play, 
| if you were to log onto someone else's game and find that it was exactly 
| what you've always wanted?

	Most of what you mentioned falls under basic principles of
	user interface design (consistency, visibility, appropriate
	response to user, error handling). Sadly, many of us programmers
	sacrifice user-interface implementation to increasing internal
	complexity of the game driver. 
	An extensive, feature-loaded user interface isn't necessarily
	a bad thing IF it's also _configurable_. Let the player decide
	how many bells and whistles he/she wants. The game should not
	impose any features on the player. I can understand that a
	programmer, having spent numerous hours implementing a nifty
	feature, wants everyone to use it regardless of whether it
	actually increases playability or "fun-factor". 
	I personally do not believe a MUD, as a game, should be
	"realistic". If I want to buy bread, going through

	> buy bread
	Your hands are full.
	> sheathe sword
	You sheathe your sword, freeing your right hand..
	> buy bread
	You are holding no money.
	> get 10 gold from purse
	You aren't holding that.
	> remove purse
	You remove a purse and hold it in your right hand.
	> get 10 gold from purse
	Your hands are full.
	> get 10 gold from purse
	Your hands are full.
	> drop shield
	You drop your shield, freeing your left hand.
	> get 10 gold from purse
	You get 10 gp from a purse and hold it in your left hand.
	> buy bread
	You give 10 gp to the baker.
	The baker gives you a bread.
	You take a bread and hold it in your left hand.
	> draw sword
	Your hands are full.
	
	just plain pisses me off. What some implementors seem to
	forget that expecting a player to emulate in detail
	real world actions with the limitations of a text display/
	keyboard interface is just ridiculous. Okay, going through
	the above drill turns some players on, and that's fine, but
	not offering players an "autosheathe/autodraw" option is
	bad user interface design.
	I guess what I expect a good MUD to be is a storyteller.
	A good storyteller grabs your attention, diverts you
	from noticing little inconsistencies and unnecessary
	details and maintains suspension of belief. A good MUD
	user interface is non-intrusive, it contains enough
	functionality for interaction with the game world in a 
	consistent, precise manner, but it does break the illusion
	by distracting you.
	In MUDs, like in any make-believe games, the game acts as
	a source of stimuli to the player's imagination. Game 
	reality, as perceived by the player's mind, is more extensive
	and complex than its actual physical representation (text
	on screen). If the system underestimates the player's imagination
	by force-feeding unnecessary details or requires the
	player to concentrate on encoding input/decoding output by
	having too complex an user interface, no amount of
	technical sophistication can produce a good MUD.

			-- Newt
	
--
I never regret my failures, but I regret every missed opportunity.