[MUD-Dev] The impact of the web on muds

[Travis Casey]

On Saturday, 17 January 98, Marian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Jan, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
>> Marian Griffith <gryphon at iaehv.nl> wrote:
>> >Mike wrote:

>> Moria/rogue/nethack.. ? :) But you are probably right, if the writer
>> is excellent then he can draw on vague associations.  But... will a
>> mudplayer read each and every description like a poem? (wouldn't that
>> be great, btw, limrick descriptions?) What if he is simply moving
>> through the landscape, and ignore the text.  A volcano? Ooops..
>> Couldn't happen with graphics.  Graphics is extremely effective (fast
>> interpretation, lots of info in a small space if done right).

> Yes, which is why graphical games are more suited for 'fast action'

Unfortunately, all of the muds that I've seen have some aspect of
real-time play to them -- characters don't take turns and get to do
their actions at times determined by the game system, but rather, time
is important in reacting to others.

In a paper RPG, it's quite common for a player to ask the GM to repeat
a description, or ask a question like, "What's the elf in the corner
wearing?"  Since the game is not run in real-time, the character does
not lose a chance at an action.  On a mud, however, a player who reads
slowly or has to go back and reread a description to catch something
is penalized relative to other players.  Adding graphics to the
interface could help to mitigate these sorts of problems, which can
happen even on muds that aren't primarily "action muds."

>> >they want.  On the other side,  it also allows the players to fill in=
 the
>> >missing details.

>> That's fine in a singleplayer environment (like a novel).  This has
>> some downsides in multiuser environment where you want players to
>> communicate about the world though, if what you say is true.. Because,
>> if players fill in the missing details, how can they interact
>> efficiently?  They are living in a world of their own... :^)

> You are exagerating of course.  I was referring at the difference betwe=
en
> saying "There is a large and terrifying dragon here." and showing one.

Of course, with such a description, you're really bludgeoning the
players -- you're *telling* them that their characters should be
terrified, rather than trying to create a feeling of terror in them.

This is very bad for roleplaying -- *to whom* is the dragon supposed
to be terrifying?  A small child?  A farmboy out on his first real
adventure?  A seasoned dragonslayer?  I may not believe that my
character could be terrified by *any* dragon -- in which case you're
telling me to go against my idea of my own character!

Further, there are other questions, like "What's 'large' mean?"  Any
real dragon must have *some* definite size, and that may or may not
seem large to my character.  To repeat the same examples above, even a
ten-foot long dragon might seem large to a small child, while our
seasoned dragonslayer would probably think it quite small.

By describing things in this fashion, you're robbing me of my ability
to decide for myself how my character feels about the objects and
situations around him/her -- and that's what makes this sort of
"description" bad for roleplaying.

If you want to describe a terrifying monster, try to create a
description which will evoke the feeling of terror in the player --
make him/her afraid for his/her character.

> As a writer I don't have to worry about what is large and terrifying to=
 you,
> not even about what you think a dragon looks like.  Those details will =
be
> more easily supplied by the imagination of the players.  As a graphic a=
r-
> tist I would have to work very hard  to come up with an image of a drag=
on
> that is both large and terrifying and looks like a real dragon to all t=
he
> players.

But who says you have to?  Just as your text description doesn't try
to give all the details of the dragon's color, size, texture, etc.
that it could, there's no reason that a graphical representation has to
be highly detailed.  The dragon could be shown in a cartoon/comic-book
fashion, could be represented by a semi-abstract icon, or could be shown
like a charcoal sketch.  Such representation leave more room for the
player's imagination -- just as giving a less detailed textual
description does.  (Granted, they don't leave *as much* room -- my point
is simply that you seem to be contrasting a very sketchy description
with a photo-realistic graphic depiction.)

If a writer doesn't worry about "what is large and terrifying" to the
reader, the result will be a poor description that won't make the
reader feel anything -- although it might *tell* the reader what the
writer wants him/her to feel.  A good writer *does* worry about these
things.

It's a careful balance -- when trying to create a description which
evokes an emotion, you don't want to give too much detail, but you
also don't want to give too little.  Unfortunately, where that balance
lies differs for different people -- thus, some find H.P. Lovecraft's
stories absolutely terrifying, while others find them stilted and
boring.

> Because I am not allowing for any fantasy by the players. That's
> the difference I was aiming at when I said that text allows the reader =
to
> fill in the missing parts.  Of course  the picture of a dragon is as mu=
ch
> an icon as is the word dragon itself. (Players don't need to describe t=
he
> dragon to know they are talking about it,  just saying 'the green drago=
n'
> is enough to identify it to everybody.)  But this is not true for many =
of
> the more esoterical creatures you may encounter in a mud.

This seems to me to be an argument that works more in favor of
graphical muds than against them -- if I have the mud tell players
"There is a large undine here," 99% of them will have no idea what an
undine is, how it looks, or what "large" is when talking about an
undine (remember, "large" when speaking of creatures is relative -- a
"large cat" might be an 8kg/18lb tomcat, while a "large horse" is much
bigger than any human, and a "large tyrannosaur" will weigh several
tons).

In order to make "undine" meaningful, I have to provide a description
of what an undine is -- in most muds, this will be accessed with "look
at undine" or something similar.  This, however, tends to make the
game seem more like an abstract exercise to the players -- especially
if the undine is hostile and immediately attacks, the player may not
get to look at it, and therefore have some way to picture what
he/she's fighting, until after killing it!

Further, describing things in this way makes representing similar
creatures difficult -- what if I want to have another type of creature
that looks almost exactly like an undine?

By contrast, showing a picture gives the player an immediate idea of
what the thing looks like, allowing him/her to picture the scene
better, and possibly helping the player to feel that his/her character
is actually interacting with a real creature, rather than a collection
of game statistics.

>> What if users were able to draw their own drawings?

> Actually the same would still apply.  Only very good artist manages to
> create the impression of a specific emotion in a game.  Text does this
> much more easily for some reason.  Maybe because to interpret text you
> have to allow it much closer to your emotions than you need to do with
> images.

I disagree; text makes it easier to bludgeon the players by *telling*
them what they should feel.  It takes at least a moderately skilled
writer to make the player truly *feel* the emotions.

IMHO, text and graphics both have their advantages -- I personally
find that some of my emotions respond more to written descriptions,
and some to graphical depictions.  Which is superior depends both on
what emotion you want to draw out, and on the personal qualities of
the player you're trying to draw them out of.

To give a few examples from my own experience...

I've never cried at any movie, but there are some stories and songs
that will *always* make me cry.  I think this is mainly because a
written work is more able to draw me into the characters and make me
feel for them as real people -- when watching a movie, I don't feel
that attachment.

On the flip side of things, no description of what a beautiful woman
looks like in a book has ever aroused me; but pictures of (and, of
course, the actual presence of) beautiful women can arouse me.  The
picture I build up in my mind simply isn't enough.

Neither horror movies nor horror novels scare me -- at least, not
while I'm reading them... horror movies, however, can often at least
startle me -- make me jump out of my chair at something.  I've never
had that happen when reading a horror story.

I've never been grossed out by anything I've read, but I have been
grossed out by pictures.

I've never felt awe from something I've seen in a movie or in a
picture... but I have felt awe at things that I've read.

Of course, all of this is merely anecdotal, and is just how things
affect me -- but I hope my point is made; that both graphics and text
have things to offer, and there's no reason to feel that either one is
inherently superior to the other.

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_        Travis S. Casey  <efindel at io.com>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'   visit the rec.games.design FAQ:
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)       http://www.io.com/~efindel/design.html