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

[Richard Woolcock]

Travis Casey wrote:
>=20
> 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:
>=20
> >> 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 tha=
t
> >> 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 (fas=
t
> >> interpretation, lots of info in a small space if done right).
>=20
> > Yes, which is why graphical games are more suited for 'fast action'
>=20
> 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.

But turns cannot work in this type of environment - the words "Just get
on with it" have sprung up on many occasion during my roleplaying=20
experiences.  I also recall a little cartoon in the back of a roleplaying
magazine in which a group of adventurers are walking into a room full of
other adventurers and a bunch of orcs, all just sitting around.  One of=20
the recent arrival says "whats going on?".  One of the other adventurers
who's sitting down says "Oh, we're just waiting for the GM to work out
the damage on my fireball".

Equally, you can't have a pen&paper roleplaying game done real-time.  Try
it - give each player a little clock which goes off every x many seconds
(depending how fast their characters are), and tell them they can yell=20
their action every time the clock alarm goes...but if they forget - too
bad.

*BEEP* Bubba yells "I'm attacking the...."
*BEEP* Boffo yells "I'm drawing my..."
*BEEP* Biffo yells "Wait! where are the..."
*BEEP* You yell "The dragon breathes on you! DIE!"

> 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."

Yes they can help...although if you're falling down a pit, you can't
"scroll back" to see what was at the top, which roughly equates to your
penalizing of slow readers.  Fact is, everyone in the mud gets discrimina=
ted
against - the slow readers, the bad tacticions, the people who don't spen=
d
as much time playing as others, the unlucky, those who have don't have an=
y
existing friends in the mud to help them...

> >> >they want.  On the other side,  it also allows the players to fill =
in the
> >> >missing details.
>=20
> >> 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.. Becaus=
e,
> >> if players fill in the missing details, how can they interact
> >> efficiently?  They are living in a world of their own... :^)
>=20
> > You are exagerating of course.  I was referring at the difference bet=
ween
> > saying "There is a large and terrifying dragon here." and showing one.
>=20
> 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.

I agree completely.  The desciption should be created dynamically accordi=
ng
to the players perspectives (I believe this was discussed in the player-
recognition thread).  Bubba the village boy sees "A huge lizard thing",
Bubba the village boy who's heard about dragons sees "A huge man-eating
dragon", while Bubba the experienced dragon slayer sees "A young green
Wyrm".  How would graphics cope with this?

   The dragon grins evilly at you, a look of menace in its eyes.
   The dragon grins at you with amusement.
   The dragon smiles fondly at you.
   The dragon smirks as it sees you.
   The dragon glances at you, a wicked smile on its face.

Each of the above portray an impression as to the dragon's intent.  How
would graphics cope with this?

   You smell the scent of rotten flesh coming from the floorboards.
   You hear a voice behind you say "Don't turn around"
   You feel something cold and sharp pressed into the small of your back.
   You taste the bile rising in your throat.

Graphics deal with vision - how will you cope with the above?
[snip]
> > 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 wil=
l be
> > more easily supplied by the imagination of the players.  As a graphic=
 ar-
> > tist I would have to work very hard  to come up with an image of a dr=
agon
> > that is both large and terrifying and looks like a real dragon to all=
 the
> > players.
>=20
> 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 show=
n
> 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 poin=
t
> is simply that you seem to be contrasting a very sketchy description
> with a photo-realistic graphic depiction.)

Seeing "A large green dragon claws you" wouldn't scare me.
Seeing a cartoon dragon hitting me would make me laugh - it would also
spoil the atmosphere, unless the mud was supposed to be funny.

> 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.

Ah, but a good CODER could determine what would make the character
scared.  You don't want to roleplay your character being scared of a
dragon?  Too bad; you shouldn't have played a farmer.  Just as in a
pen&paper rpg the GM might say "No way can you attack the dragon!
You're terrified!  Make a courage roll just to see if you can avoid
running away screaming!" it was quite fair to put this into a mud,
and doesn't cause problems for roleplaying.

> 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.
>=20
> > 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 reade=
r to
> > fill in the missing parts.  Of course  the picture of a dragon is as =
much
> > an icon as is the word dragon itself. (Players don't need to describe=
 the
> > dragon to know they are talking about it,  just saying 'the green dra=
gon'
> > is enough to identify it to everybody.)  But this is not true for man=
y of
> > the more esoterical creatures you may encounter in a mud.
>=20
> 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).

Despite my comments on dynamic descriptions earlier in this post, I do
still feel that being able to SEE a huge monster with tentacles/etc is
more effective than seeing a description.  Dynamic descriptions I can
do however, but not dynamic graphics ;)

> 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!
>=20
> 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?

The close it looks to an undine, the more likely people will be fooled.
The result?  People who fight a lot of both creatures will be able to=20
tell them apart, whilst other people usually won't (unless told what to
look for).  I consider this to be a good thing.

> 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?
>=20
> > Actually the same would still apply.  Only very good artist manages t=
o
> > create the impression of a specific emotion in a game.  Text does thi=
s
> > much more easily for some reason.  Maybe because to interpret text yo=
u
> > have to allow it much closer to your emotions than you need to do wit=
h
> > images.
>=20
> 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.

Ah, but how good an artist is needed to inspire players to feel emotions
due to graphical images?

> 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.
>=20
> To give a few examples from my own experience...
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.

Same here - but turn the sound off and no movie even makes me jump.
I think that sound adds atmosphere which graphics alone can never do -
When I first started playing Doom II for example, it used to make me=20
feel very tense when I could hear growls around me, and sometimes it
would even make me jump.
Perhaps the next phase of mud after graphical will be "graphical with
sound"...

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

Hmmm well I was reading this magazine a while ago which featured a
story some guy had sent in about his first (and only!) experiment
with anal sex, after he had managed to get his gf particularly drunk.
Having only read the quote, which was something like "There was a loud
crack, as though someone was cracking their knuckles, followed by what
can only be described as the sound of tearing paper" I felt particularly
'grossed out' as you put it.  Having said that, there was also a photo
of a sausage snapped in half, which may well have added to my feelings.

> 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.
>=20
> 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.

I agree of your first point, but not on the second.  Both graphics and
text certainly have things to offer, but BOTH are inherently superior
to each other in different areas.  If someone tries to create a graphical
version of a text-based game, then I would be very surprised if it was
a success.  I am getting more and more tempted to start working on a
graphical mud of my own, but if I do, it will be nothing like any text
based mud.

Out of interest, can anyone recommend a good book on socket programming?
It a skill I'm sadly lacking to any useful degree...all I need to do then
is work out how to draw a pixel on the screen, and the rest I can do ;)

KaVir.