[MUD-Dev] Re: MUD Design doc (long)

[Thinus Barnard]

Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

> Intuitive action is not always correct. It may also be intuitive, if the
> flower is in a room with a bonfire, to throw the flower into the bonfire.
> Does it need a "burn" handler? A "throw" handler? What if the flower is not
> in a room with a bonfire, but can conceivably be put into one? Should the
> "burn" handler be on the flower, or the bonfire? Is it a good idea to use
> inheritance for this, and give the generic MUDObject type all these
> handlers? Wouldn't you get stupid things like trees and doors with "throw"
> handlers? Who the hell throws a tree? (Caber throwing notwithstanding.)

You can give the generic MUDObject all the handlers, but these handlers just
return a default response. To throw a tree the default response would be
something like 'Try as you might, for some strange unknown reason, you cannot
throw the tree.' If you want the specific object to actually do something when
thrown you have to override the generic handler and write a specific handler for
this object. It depends how your message handling system works of course.

I don't agree with handling these commands though. I believe in a small command
set that focuses on the game. If in a certain area it is important to be able to
throw a certain object, then the descriptions should give the player enough
clues on how to accomplish this. Why? Before I put a verb on an object I always
ask, why? If you have a room with lots of flowers then tell the player in the
room description the flowers smell like the air right after a short but powerful
thunderstorm. Why put the verb in? Push/press/pull I will implement, but as part
of the standard command set. There are a lot of things than can be pushed,
pressed and pulled. Push/press/pull will also alter the game status by opening
doors or activating traps, etc.

I know that some people argue about the realism factor and some say all these
little commands make the mud more interesting. As for realism, a mud is not
realistic. A mud is very limited and it is not an alternate reality. What is the
payback for supporting all these commands? A conversation between two players:
Monica: O Bill, you must check out this mud, you can smell, throw, tickle, lick
and excite everything.
Bill: Not now, I just went to war. I am in charge of a small squad that has to
infiltrate the lands of the evil baron. If our squad can locate the poison first
I will definitely get a promotion and a nice bonus and I will finally have
enough money for that mythical blade.
Monica: That reminds me. I have to get back to the order of flame. They need
every magic point they can get to sustain the magical gate to the nether world.
Maybe we will be able to destroy the demonic horde today, we came very close
yesterday.

I dunno. I think you can make the mud interesting and fun for players by
focusing on the game. Make your plots interesting, make your politics
interesting. Make your NPCs interesting. Add a little depth to your NPCs. Make
it possible for a player to get into a fortified area by slipping through the
patrols and guards. Put in a hidden passage. Put in a trap at the end. If a
player does discover the treasure and steals it or some of it, have the
treasured moved to another room. Make different traps. Place guards at different
places. The mud must react.

If your mud is just for socializing ignore everything I just said.