[MUD-Dev] Re: skill system

[s001gmu at nova.wright.edu]

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:18:32 -0700 
> John Bertoglio<alexb at internetcds.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: J C Lawrence <claw at under.engr.sgi.com> 
> 
> >> On Thu, 28 May 1998 08:11:12 -0400 Andrew C M
> >> McClintock<andrewm at tiger.hsc.edu> wrote:

[...]

> >> My general view of game features is that they must do one of three
> >> things:
> >> 
> >> 1) Provide a game-world goal for players to achieve.
> >> 
> >> 2) Provide a game-world problem for players to solve.
> >> 
> >> 3) Solve a game-world problem for players.
> >> 
> >> This is based on the definition of a game as being comprised of
> >> goals, barriers, and freedoms.
> 
> > Before I respond to the post, I think it is necessary to narrow the
> > definition of skills and examine the other elements at work
> > here. Much of what goes into a world building system is designed to
> > answer one simple question: "If I try to do this will I be
> > sucessful?". 
> 
> Agreed.  This was one of the brunts of my text.  It actually is a
> curious form of interface transparency, and utterly vital.  Users
> must, at some level, be able to predict the likely effects and results
> of their actions.
> 
> Too much prediction and you have no game (excess freedom, not enough
> barriers).  Too little prediction, and you have no game (excessive
> barriers, few freedoms).

[...] 
 
> >> This last point seems the nastiest, and comes in two flavours:
> >> 
> >> 1) Should the fact of, or the structure of the skill web be exposed
> >> to players?
> 
> > If the nature of the skill web is stored in a mathmatical matrix in
> > the server, it will become common knowledge whether directly exposed
> > or not.  
> 
> True.  However we are all well familiar with the spread of myths and
> contorted understandings on MUDs.  Players come up with the most
> curious concepts for how things work or accomplished internally
> (something that should be encouraged?).

methinks you answered your own question with the other quote I saved
above.  How the player views the mechanics of the game directly impacts
the level they can predict the response to their actions.  Some
obfuscation of the mechanics is a Good Thing (tm).  One would hope that
obfuscation is accomplished through complexity, and not randomness (ppl
don't like finding out that god is playing dice with the universe...)

> > There are all kinds of cool things you can do to mask it,
> > however. Example: Everybody "knows" that the monastary on the
> > mountain will take one character at a time to train as a Quack-Foo
> > fighter (a partically potent form of martial arts). Everybody
> > "knows" the character *must* have a grounding in the basic Foo
> > fighting skill (which is rare but still easier to come by). What
> > nobody "knows" except the server is that once in a while a person
> > fitting the right attribute/talent profile will be invited to
> > study. This might be controled by the phases of the moon, the
> > calendar of feast days, a lack of a current student or just dumb
> > luck.
> 
> Precisely.

Ditto.  :)
 
[...]
 
> >> Making the answers to #A vague (large granularity) dones't solve
> >> the problem, it mrely makes the answers unreliable and largely
> >> useless.
> 
> > Make them accurate but only within the players ability to
> > perceive. This mean that, in general, by the time a fighter can
> > accurately assess his opponents, he won't need to in most
> > cases. Opponent identification is an action. It is governed by
> > attributes, talents and specific skills. An ace swordman might
> > notice a potential opponent had the moves of an expert swordsman (I
> > don't know how, ask a swordsman) so would be reported an estimate of
> > the sword skill. Most people would have a reasonable estimate of a
> > persons strength, but would miss the knuckle scarring of an expert
> > brawler...etc.
> 
> I statistics reports relatively, but for yourself (ie your character), 
> and for the other characters you query.  Loosely, any statistic is
> relative to a weighted average of all the other instances of that
> statistic you have met in the recent past, with a heavier weight given 
> to exceptional values in the more distant past.  The cannonical joke
> of which is:
> 
>   > stats
>   Strength: 150
>   > l
>   Bubba picks up a huge boulder with one hand and crushes it to 
>   sand on his head.
>   > stats
>   Strength: 25
>   > l
>   A leaf flutters off the tree above and smashes Boffo to the ground.
>   Boffo is stuck under the leaf and can't move.
>   > stats
>   Strength: 65
> 
> Nothing changed except for his perception of strength.
> 
> The attempt is to model a form of self-image as weighted against
> perception.  Most delightfully stat reports react to illusions as if
> they were real.  The leaf above may well have been illusory, or Boffo
> may well have been play-acting to purposefully delude your
> perceptions. 

I'm not sure I really like the idea behind this system.  IMO, the strength
stat should be there to help you answer questions like 'Am I able to lift
this rock?'  I don't see how watching boffo lift it (or not lift it) would
affect my perception of MY strength.  It might alter my perception of the
weight of the rock, but not my strength.

All I see this system doing is hiding important information... I would
argue this most certainly crosses the line mentioned above.  How can I
predict if 'lift rock' will work? 

-Greg