[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is supposed to be playing, anyway? (Was: PK Again)

[Marian Griffith]

On Thu 18 Sep, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

> On Thursday, September 18, 1997 1:08 AM, Maddy [SMTP:maddy at fysh.org] wrote:

> I've always found it unintuitive to have to put a weapon away before 
> wielding another one. When I say 'wield sword', and I'm carrying an axe, 
> then I'd say it's pretty damn obvious I want to stop using the axe, which 
> the game OUGHT to be able to figure out.

Most games I've played lately do this automatically. It just doesn't seem
to be part of the standard games for some odd reason.

> > Surely you also see that having a wide choice of skills makes things more
> > interesting for people?  Don't you think it'd be boring if there was only 
> a
> > "use weapon" skill?  Having every player looking the same, with the same
> > skills and speaking the same language is very boring.

> Yes, a wide choice of skills is great, but skills like musical instruments 
> are just plain stupid. What the hell does this add to the game?

You are, of course, assuming that the only activity in a game  is to do
something else. Probably fight monsters and or other players. There are
a very great number of games where this is not the case.
You are also assuming that players will want to fight on such games and
this too is not necessarily true. When I play my goal is mostly to keep
the group together and alive. Fighting skills play little role in that.
Even healing skills play only a limited role.
Admitted on a game where the only means to advance are by combat  (e.g.
the majority of muds)  skills to play musical instruments are of little
importance as they do not directly or indirectly contribute to that.

> 	>play lute
> 	You play your lute.

> Yes, it's nice being able to run some form of bard who carries around a 
> musical instrument, but does a 'play lute' command REALLY enhance the 
> experience for anyone? What's wrong with ',plays his lute merrily, skipping 
> about the marketplace' instead of a social command?

If the skill of playing that lute is developed even remotely like the
fighting skills there is a lot more to it than a glorified social.

> All of us are PROGRAMMERS. We are by definition *not* the average player. 

I beg to differ, but I see your point ;)

> And this attitude is exactly the type of arrogance that pisses me off about 
> MUD development, because your market is too specific and too narrow and as 
> far as I'm concerned it makes you the single worst type of MUD admin on the 
> face of the planet. I'd like to design a flexible and easy to use game that 
> middling numbers of people (say 50 at a time) will log onto and enjoy. I 
> don't need hundreds of people online; that's just too crowded.

Different tastes in different games. That does not mean another game is
less valid.  It will attract less people,  or it will attract different
people.  Consider the bigger mushes.  Nothing there ever happens except
for social events that are engineered and executed by the players. Even
combat is basically a social activity with the game telling how you are
doing relatively,  but leaving it up to the player to actually describe
the fighting.  A vast difference from the average mud,  but these games
attract a number of players that the majority of mud admins can only
dream of.

> I've been on it for a good long while, and this is true. However, the 
> discussions tend to be 'how much should the players be able to do' rather 
> than 'how should the players communicate with the server'. We're discussing 
> design issues on the back end and administrative issues on the front end, 
> and somewhere in the middle there are a bunch of players trying to play a 
> game who SHOULD be the main concern.

There's been discussion of that topic too, it's just not very popular.
Probably because there is little controversy in it?

> > I agree with being able to say anything, but emoting (or posing) anything 
> > is too prone to abuse.  Say if you want languages and anything you 'say' is
> > translated for people who don't speak your language, well to get around 
> > it you just emote what you want to say.

> Clarify for me exactly *how* it is helpful for certain of your players to 
> be unable to communicate with each other.

Depends on the type of game. If roleplaying is stressed it might be very
usefull to enhance the atmosphere if characters truly can not understand
each other rathat than pretend they can not.

> > I personally like the idea of a mud that has languages.

> I personally hate it. There's no way to enforce it, and everyone more or 
> less speaks 'common' anyway. What the hell do you gain from it?

*grin* the very simple conclusion that has been arrived at in an earlier
language thread was  to have characters only speak their native language
with a certain degree of fluency (depending on their social status).  If
they want to learn 'common' they have to spend time and effort doing so,
and even then they will never be quite as literate.  With two characters
both imperfectly speaking common,  communication might be botched up  in
interesting ways :)

> > I personally feel that channels are a waste of time and like the 'who'
> > command are too open for abuse.

> Abuse is possible wherever you have user input. Deal with it.

But remove the obvious possibilities. You may also want to remove them
for thematic consistency reasons.

Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey