[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface

[Nathan Yospe]

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

:On Wednesday, September 24, 1997 4:48 AM, Maddy [SMTP:maddy at fysh.org] 
:wrote:

:> I don't think any of my PnP characters have ever stopped developing and 
:I've
:> had some of them for years.

:They stop developing as soon as you hit the limitations of the game system 
:(max level or max skills or max abilities, or even just a point of 
:diminishing returns), the limitations of the medium (the field allocated in 
:the MUD data structure overflows or maxes out), or the limitations of the 
:game world (your character wanders into the wrong area and dies instantly 
:because you typed 'e' instead of 'w'). If, for example, you were playing a 
:permanent death system and you died, no further development is possible. 
:Period. If you're playing stock AD&D, a normal character can be resurrected 
:a MAXIMUM of 18 times. Period. Constitution drops by one every time you're 
:resurrected, and you get weak and sickly long before that.

Again, Caliban, you are using outmoded constructs. Please, explain to me how
this becomes a problem, say, in JCL's system, where the only limiting factor
is your own creative development in designing traps and tools? Or in my own
system, where, while death is potentially permanent if precautions are not
taken, and skills do eventually peak to a diminishing return, but the
potential for new ways to interact with both world and society is effectively
infinite, and the space for legendary status as well?

:On a P&P game, incidentally, you have a personality that can be developed 
:infinitely. Even when any of the listed 'maximums' are reached, even if you 
:never gain a single experience point and never get off level 1. On most 
:MUDs, you don't have this option. You try to speak to someone in character, 
:and they look at you strangely and ask you some game mechanics question.

:	Lady Derfle has arrived.
:	>'Greetings, fair maiden. And where art thou bound?
:	You say "Greetings, fair maiden. And where art thou bound?"
:	Lady Derfle says "what level are you"
:	Lady Derfle says "im 10"
:	Lady Derfle says "wanna group?"
:	Lady Derfle says "i need xp"
:	Lady Derfle says "so i can level and use these armbands"
:	Lady Derfle says "if i log off ill lose them"
:	>quit

:Please spare me the Diku comments, I have yet to be on any MUD where people 
:actually RESPONDED in character.

I'd say Scott's Eternal City qualifies. I've seen several others, well over 
a dozen, not counting certain mushes and mucks. Counting them, several dozen.

:> What do you class as "no real reason".  If you
:> were playing an orc and I were playing a dwarf, it would make perfect 
:sense
:> for me to kill you.  You're a vile scum sucking orc, a spawn of evil
:> etc..etc..

:It also makes perfect sense for anyone in your game world to randomly catch 
:fatal diseases, so why not implement that?

Why not? Just make it a result of doing something stupid, taking a risk you
should have known better than to take. That's how I've done it. It just
forces you to ante up for a clone, in the end. And take the loss in physical
memory like a whatever you are.

:> There could be a religion that requires its members to kill
:> anyone with blond hair.

:There could be all sorts of things. What exactly does this religion add to 
:the game? Ummm... pissed off players and roving groups of antisocial dorks. 
:Maybe we should do something different.

The most fun I've ever had on any game was engineering an escape from just
such a horde (donut cult), where said horde was played by other gamers. The
most fun on a mud was in defending my own Order of the Dew against a
bloodthirsty lot of wargod worshippers. Sounds like there are exceptions to
your own preferences. Ever stop to think that maybe YOU are trying to lump
ALL players into your own mold, as much as any of the rest of us are trying
to lump OUR MUD'S players into our molds? Lay off the righteous trip already,
it is starting to piss me off.

:> Well the problem is, is that all your balance problems seem to be based 
:upon
:> XP/Level based systems and they don't really make sense if you don't have
:> either of them.  I'm sure that I'll have loads of balance problems to 
:start
:> with, which is why I'm going to take most of my system from an already
:> stable PnP system.

:I'm basing my examples on level/XP based systems because it's relatively 
:certain that we all understand how those work. I could always base it on 
:the attribute/skill based system White Wolf uses, but that's very MUSHlike 
:and people would complain. I could also base it on Amber diceless, but 
:people would still complain. I could base it on Man, Myth, and Magic which 
:had a dozen nationalities and a hundred odd skills and sixty some classes, 
:but I don't think anyone here has any experience with it. What *should* I 
:target toward? 'Level' is a generic term we all understand. Race, class, 
:experience, spell, we all understand what these mean. There IS an 
:equivalent in your system, regardless of how you classify it. Ars Magica 
:doesn't really *need* a canned spellbook; you can do anything you like, 
:magic is infinitely mutable, and really a 'spell' ought to be a foreign 
:concept under this system. But there ARE established 'standard' magic uses, 
:because people demanded them -- thus, they are spells just like any other 
:game might have.

Unless I misremember, Maddy had his own developed PnP? In any case, there is
not going to be an analogous concept in any game. Certainly, the analogy is
tenuous at best for my system, nonexistant for JCL's...

:> > I have that problem on occasion myself. I mean, really, you can emote
:> > about anything, and I see people who pose such ludicrous things you 
:feel
:> > like demanding to see their character sheets. Building a house of 
:cards,
:> > no problem. Balancing a dagger on the top? Hold on a second here,
:> > Houdini! Make a roll for that one...
:>
:> A good reason to get rid of emotes?

:Baby and bathwater.

Emotes are extranious. Especially in a system that keys ANY behavior to
physical activity. I might allow "Bubba pantomimes, ..." as a concession,
but I doubt it. Emotes have no place in my game.

:> Well think about the situation.  You're walking along and you see this 
:guy
:> walking towards you with a sword.  At that stage I'd give the guy a wide
:> berth as will all the NPCs walking about too.  What if you were walking
:> along and a mobile/NPC killed you?  There isn't really that much 
:difference,
:> you're still dead.

:There are vastly different power levels in the game. I may be walking 
:around with some decent armor and a hefty weapon, but some other guy will 
:have no armor or weaponry at all, and someone else may be wearing all but 
:impregnable armor and some vastly damaging weapon that ignores all physical 
:armor worn by the opponent. If I can take twelve sword hits on average, and 
:that weapon does as much damage as *twenty* sword hits on the average, it's 
:a one shot. Even without any weaponry, if he's significantly stronger and 
:faster and more skilled than I am, he's going to win. Period.

Sounds like a game balance/design problem. Would it be such a problem if 
these LP/Dikuisms were not present? (And they ARE LP/Dikuisms, make no
mistake. The consistancy with which you make falacious assumptions that could
only come from an experience limited to those paradigms makes me suspicious,
as you claim not to even play them.)

:And I *do* have the same problem with mobs, incidentally.

Well, its something, at least.

:> If there isn't any risk in the game, then there really
:> isn't any point in playing.  You'll just wander about, swatting NPCs like
:> they were flies safe in the knowledge that they couldn't harm you.

:Consider...

:	Game 1: If I start a fight, I may get killed.
:	Game 2: I will never be killed, ever.
:	Game 3: If I log on, I may get killed.

:Game 1 has a moderate risk. Game 2 has no risk. Game 3 has an extreme risk. 
:Game 2 is no fun after a while, because you figure out there's nothing to 
:stop you. Game 3 is no fun after a while, because it's essentially random. 
:Game 1, on the other hand, carries a definite 'fault' assignment -- if *I* 
:start a fight, *I* may get killed. It's my implicit consent to the 
:possibility. People seem to like the idea of Game 3 far too much for my 
:taste, because they're betting they'll be the ones doing the killing.

If *I* fail to check for traps when entering an obviously hostile territory,
if *I* associate with diseased beggars and vermin, if *I* wander into the
toughest bar this side of Actures in spite of the obvious HoverHogs parked
outside, *I* DESERVE to get killed even if *I* didn't start any fights. It
is a matter of scope. You seem to think in a combat only risk game, whichis
pointless unless you are using the "only combat advances your level" way
of doing things.

:> Yes I can see this is a problem, but the game would only suck if the 
:other
:> player could kill you in one blow.  I'm expecting that you'll have 
:several
:> seconds before he'll even get his first attack in, giving you plenty of 
:time
:> to get away.  If he does kill you and other people have seen him kill 
:you,
:> he's going to be a lot of hot water.  The locals will report him as being
:> your murderer and the local Lord will make him a wanted criminal.

:If, if, if, if, if, then it's not a problem? In other words it's not a 
:problem 2^-5 of the time? One out of 32? Yeah, that's a good argument.

If != 1/2, first off, so your logic is bad from the start. Plus, there were
only three conditionals, if you parse the paragraph carefully.

:> Don't you think it a challeng surviving in a hostile environment, where
:> everyone wants to cut you into tiny pieces?

:Not when 'everyone' includes people who have significantly more experience 
:in the environment than I do. Which it does, because your development team 
:and your friends and the people you like will get onto it earlier, so by 
:the time the public can get onto it there's an existing userbase of maybe a 
:dozen people who are already experts. Those people proceed to dominate the 
:game. The rest of the userbase can avoid them. Some small part of that 
:userbase then gets good at the game, and eventually begins to rival the 
:existing experts. Over time, the number of experts grows, and the longer 
:the game has been around the less attractive it is to new players -- 
:because it now operates purely on an expert level, and the new player is 
:hopelessly outclassed. Such a game really and truly sucks.

Doesn't wash. Contacts are not going to be that frequent, and planning ahead
is far more valuable than you give it credit for. Don't attract attention
until you are ready to handle it, and there is no problem.

:> Well I'd assume that the vast numbers of people on it, actually do like 
:it.
:> The game has been targeted at X, so like you've already said, Y is going 
:to
:> hate it.  Admittedly it seems odd that the founders just left it running,
:> since it is their game I'd have expected they'd just take it down.

:They were going to, because Group X wasn't playing: Group Y was. They 
:expected Groups X and Y to both log onto the game, with Group X eventually 
:outweighing Group Y as the game was more targeted to their desires. 
:However, Group Y turned out to be so distasteful to Group X (even in small 
:numbers) that Group X would rather leave a good game than hang out in the 
:same place with Group Y. Group Y eventually outnumbered Group X. Members of 
:Group Y took over the game, creating a social culture to their liking even 
:though there were few game constructs to support it. When the founding 
:staff said 'this is a big mistake' and indicated a desire to take it down, 
:some members of Group Y wanted the game to stay up and volunteered to 
:maintain it, run the site, etc. The founding members, being reasonable and 
:fair-minded people, said no problem and turned it over.

Sounds like they were a little TOO fair minded to me. Still, I suppose it's
nice to have a place to keep the assholes happy by themselves.
--

"You? We can't take you," said the Dean, glaring at the Librarian.
"You don't know a thing about guerilla warfare." - Reaper Man,
Nathan F. Yospe  Registered Looney                   by Terry Pratchett
yospe at hawaii.edu   http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe           Meow