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

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

Quick reply, I'll go into more detail and fill holes later...

On Monday, September 22, 1997 4:23 AM, Maddy [SMTP:maddy at fysh.org] wrote:
>
> But we're talking 12 year olds - not hackers.

There's a more significant intersection there than you would think.

> You may decide you want to delete the character, but it won't let you.
> Given that you've just spent N-minutes creating this character according 
to
> your own needs, it doesn't really make sense that you'd want to delete 
him
> so soon.

Given that the availability of documentation is so restricted (not 
downloadable or printable), chances are that I've built my first character 
without a clear understanding of what will work best in the game. Ever go 
to a gaming convention and seen a guy running some game say "Who's the 
cleric?" -- and the whole group raises their hands? Or *nobody* raises his 
hand at all? Bad situation. Same thing when you start up a character on a 
MUD... you log on as a troll, and the first thing you see is thirty trolls 
running around. Screw that, I want to do something different. What do you 
mean, 'no'?

> but no-one said they were targetting the game for large groups - we
> were discussing how to add elements to the game that make it more fun for
> groups.

Let me restate: If game X is targeted at group Y then group Z will think 
game X sucks.

Agreed, that wasn't the point of the grouping thread. I was attempting to 
relate an example to discussions which have taken place on the list 
recently, in the hope that people would get more involved with it if they 
could see it had some relevance to other topics they were interested in.

> Er where in the above paragraph did I state the players should only work 
in
> teams.  Lets see - I said that players should be able to do stuff in 
groups,
> I don't see how this equates to they shouldn't be allowed to do stuff by
> themselves.

It doesn't. But you still shouldn't say that, and I thought it was worth 
mentioning that you shouldn't say that, even though you didn't say it.

> > All of us are PROGRAMMERS. We are by definition *not* the average 
player.
>
> We might be programmers - but some of us have played muds, some of us 
have
> done PnP RPGs, some of us have done both - therefore we have some vague 
idea
> about the kinds of games we like to play.  I personally don't care if 
anyone
> logs on, I'm just running it for my fun.

This goes right back to target audience.

> The "how should the players communicate with the server" part already 
works
> tho.

No, it doesn't. People constantly complain about how difficult it is to get 
things done on a MUD. You don't hear it here, because we already know what 
we're doing.


> > If it's so easy, why do we spend so much time discussing how different 
the
> > underlying server has to be for these types of people?
>
> Because so far the only type of player that is really catered for in 
MUDs,
> are powergamers.

Which is an interface issue as *well* as a game mechanics issue.

> No - I'll replace them with um..nothing at all - they're powergamers - 
they
> run around killing things for XP & levels.  Since I don't have XP or 
levels,
> my mud isn't going to be that interesting for them.

Levels are very convenient for keeping score, but we certainly have our 
share of powergamers on WoD MUSHes, and there's no concept of levels 
whatsoever there.

> > What if English isn't my native language?
>
> Well you're going to have a hard time reading/understanding the room
> descriptions etc aren't you?  The whole mud is in english, so if you're
> going to have problems knowing how to type "get sword" you're not going 
to
> get very far.

Part of the assumption of NLP is that someone understands the basic syntax 
and structure of the language in question, and therefore there is no need 
to document that. This is, particularly in a MUD, a bad assumption. I can 
get the general sense of a paragraph written in German, Dutch, French, S  
panish, Portuguese, and other languages -- but I certainly can't construct 
a sentence from scratch in any of them.

> > What if my vocabulary isn't quite as good as yours?
>
> Well I'm sure your vocabulary will be good enough to use fairly wildly 
used
> verbs.

The two word commands you're using as examples are hardly anything that 
require NLP.

> Ok what if you're amazingly strong and able to lift up bob.  Surely "get
> bob" would pick bob up and sling him over your shoulder?  What if there 
is
> an object called "laid"...etc...

Exactly, so how do you deal with that?

> Why bother having races if they all look, act and sound the
> same.  You might as well only let players be human fighters or something.

Why exactly do you need the races to be unable to understand one another? 
Does this help, somehow?

> So if you wanted to tell Bubba that the dragon was coming you'd type 
what?
> "dance the dragon is coming" ??? Well when I last checked none of "the
> dragon is coming" are adverbs.  You'd perfectly within your rights to 
type
> "dance quickly" tho.

How about 'dance as if <any phrase>'? I mean, 'dance as if lost in the 
music' is perfectly reasonable, right? How exactly is 'dance as if the 
dragon is coming' less reasonable?

> You gain difference between the various races,
> why would a dwarf in a remote village miles from human settlements be 
able
> to instantly speak your language.  Why would he want to speak to you, 
rather
> than killing you on sight for being different?

Yes, languages do make a very useful reason to have NPCs that can't be 
spoken to. But I thought we had already agreed that there shouldn't be a 
way to tell them apart?

> Abuse to the players - not to the game.  JerkFace logs on - does a who -
> spots a player and goes and kills then.  Remove the who command and 
JerkFace
> has no idea who is a player and who isn't.

Remove the who command, and I log on and see a series of people that may or 
may not be PCs. I try to find out where something is. I can't tell who's a 
PC, who's been here a while, who's high level, who's of an appropriate 
class, it becomes a major pain in the behind. I see plenty of NPCs who 
would be able to help me, *if* they were able to understand and respond to 
the question, which they aren't.

> Yes, well removing the difference between players & NPCs improves the 
games
> fun-factor as well.  I (personally) think it sucks that when you walk 
into a
> room you automatically know the names of everyone.

I dislike that myself. I prefer short descriptions.

> > To use a recent example from another thread, if I can go into the woods 
> > with an axe and build a log cabin, I can also build a reasonable 
facsimile
> > of a telephone pole. I can also build a big cross and set it on fire. 
Abuse
> > is possible in any situation. Wouldn't you say walking off into the 
woods
> > and finding a big line of telephone poles would be disconcerting on a 
MUD?
>
> Well since there isn't a "build telephone pole" skill/command, how would
> they do this?

With the same primitives that allow them to build something you as the 
designer never thought they would.

> We were - you have just mistakenly assumed that because our ideas aren't 
to
> your liking - they aren't fun.

Actually, pretty much everyone was discussing specific concepts from 
several angles. Which is why I asked exactly what people *do* find fun, as 
this seems to have been overlooked. Discussing fun things and discussing 
what makes things fun are entirely different conversations.

> The ultima series are very primitive - you're
> restricted to a set number of actions - a bit like the point-n-click
> adventure games.

Sounds like socials to me.

> > All in all, I could be easily misled into thinking you're being overly
> > defensive.
>
> Maybe I am - maybe I'm not - maybe I just disagree totally with what you
> said?

Which had a whole lot of parts, so you're saying none of them have any 
merit at all?