[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:42:10 PST8PDT, Nathan Yospe <yospe at hawaii.edu>
wrote:

>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? 

This doesn't come under the heading of character development, in my
mind. For one, each and every character you ever have will have a
commensurate ability to do all of these things; if I know how to build a
catapult, my character can therefore build a catapult. If I know how to
mix gunpowder, so does my character. If one of my characters knows, all
of my characters know. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude under
this model that one character is pretty much the same as another, and
therefore character development is completely irrelevant. 

This is no doubt rectified by further statistics in JCL's world setting,
such as skills and attributes, which would give you some area for actual
character development along more traditional lines. Character
development in Zork, for example, is nonexistent. Your character's
abilities are defined *and limited* by your own. While this is certainly
intriguing, most of us left Zork behind rather quickly. In games, we
want to not only express our own abilities, but transcend them and do
things we normally could not. 

>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?

Death being 'potentially' permanent does not qualify in my mind as
permadeath, provided such precautions are available to all characters in
some fashion; it's when the advanced character has precautions and the
new character doesn't that we have problems. 

>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.

Several hundred. However, I don't always count these among MUDs; in
fact, my suggestions that we just might learn something by looking at
MUSHes and MUCKs were met with some level of derision. 

>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.

The random slaying of a character by another does not qualify. It is
exactly this sort of balance (the effect being a result of your own
actions) that I am proposing here.

>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.

Hold on a moment here. I'm saying that when a character is killed, it
should be a direct result of his own action or lack thereof. It should
not be a direct result of some other player's action *unless* there is a
reasonable and clear opportunity to avoid it. I am *not* saying PK is
totally bad and should never appear in a game, I am *not* saying that
everyone ought to play games the way 

>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.

It is therefore virtually impossible in your game for my character to be
flamboyant, shy, or otherwise anything more than some faceless, generic
mannequin with some armor and weaponry. I don't find that acceptable.
I'm sure lots of people do. Personally, picturing a world like that
horrifies me. I pity those people. We live in a world where we can
express our individuality, and I value that very much. I wouldn't trade
it for anything. Not for money, not for power, not for love, and most
certainly not for the sake of some game.

>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.)

This was an example, not an assumption, qualified by the conditional
'if'. An example which is, in fact, very LP/Diku similar, and I can't
help but wonder what the hell you were smoking when you thought I
claimed not to play them. I have on many occasions expressed a distaste
for them, which is not the same at all. 

Interestingly, if your system has infinite diversity in infinite
combinations, how exactly do you justify your disagreement with the
presence of vastly differing power levels? Are you saying that while you
can do any number of things and your character development opportunities
are virtually unlimited, the relative power of one character to another
is still a narrow band? Isn't that a limitation?

>If *I* fail to check for traps when entering an obviously hostile territory,

Define 'obvious'. 'Outside town'?

>if *I* associate with diseased beggars and vermin, 

Define 'associate'. 'Walk near'?

>if *I* wander into the
>toughest bar this side of Actures in spite of the obvious HoverHogs parked
>outside, 

What exactly *is* a HoverHog? A floating pig? Hey, that's cute. I'm
gonna go get a drink, I'll bet this is a silly and fun sort of place.
How exactly am I supposed to *know* this is the toughest bar this side
of Actures? 

>*I* DESERVE to get killed even if *I* didn't start any fights. 

This comes under 'implicit' consent, which I mention an awful lot with
very little indication that people recognise 'explicit' as being an
antonym rather than a synonym of the word.

>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.

You seem to take my examples far too literally, which is pointless
unless... um, actually, I've mentioned so many times that my examples
are never intended to be the end-all of game constructs, it's just
pointless.

>:> 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. 

That's true. However, that cuts in both directions, and I am hoping that
the imbalance approaches an equilibrium over time. In practice, it all
too often makes the problem significantly worse.

>Plus, there were
>only three conditionals, if you parse the paragraph carefully.

	If he can kill you in one blow
	If ("I'm expecting") you have several seconds to react
	If (continuation of above) you have plenty of time to get away
	If he does kill you 
	If ("If [...] and") other people have seen him kill you

That's five by my count (after careful parsing).

>:> 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. 

I'd like to note that nothing I dealt with in this example was addressed
at all, so I would certainly love to hear what exactly doesn't wash
about it. 

>Contacts are not going to be that frequent, 

Oh, even better, you mean I'm only rarely going to see other players?
Yeah, that just makes me want to drop everything and run play your
game...

>and planning ahead
>is far more valuable than you give it credit for. 

Planning ahead *is* extremely valuable, which is why (if you'll recall)
I wanted the documentation downloadable and printable. You're claiming
to be pretty familiar with what I think, aren't you?

Note also that the experienced player in the game will be better at
planning ahead, too. He'll have the benefit of a lot more experience at
the planning process, and more intricate knowledge of the nuances of the
system; he will, for example, be able to know immediately that he can
get along just fine without the apparently-invaluable skill of
gumblefrotzing until he actually has the proper equipment to gumblefrotz
which he knows from past experience is very difficult to get and it will
take several days to become capable of doing so. 

>Don't attract attention
>until you are ready to handle it, and there is no problem.

How the hell am I supposed to know? 

=+[caliban at darklock.com]=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=[http://www.darklock.com/]+=
"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more 
doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a 
new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by 
the preservation of the old institution, and merely lukewarm defenders in 
those who would gain by the new one."                      -- Machiavelli
=+=+=+[We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams]+=+=+=+=