[MUD-Dev] Re: Room descriptions

[apocalypse at pipeline.com]

Hal Black :
>Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be arguing at cross-ends here.
>You say first that the room itself is independent of the viewer, not part
>of his anatomy, but you then say that divorcing feelings and sensations
>generated by the entity's anatomy from the room is bad.

Not at all, the room is not part of his physical self, and
that upon entering he (the person observing, which is actually
two people, 1) the character, 2) the guy on the computer 'trying' to see
it through number 1's eyes) has to do some complex analysis of what he sees.

Hal Black:
>An infant will put anything it can get a hold of into its mouth.  Try it
>sometime.  And remember, we can have that child's whole history if we want.
>If the child has tasted gum before, the game engine can know.

>From first hand experience, im going to have to disagree, when
little toby ate part of a lemon at christmas 1 year ago, his whole 
face puckered, and to this day he wont touch, eat, or go near anything 
even remotely resembling a lemon. He was only 4 weeks old.
Thats an interesting idea about the game engine "knowing", but
in my view almost impossible. We're talking about storing potentially
millions and millions of "experiences" and dependancies, why not
let the viewer decide.

Hal Black:
>Well, if she is rich and likes to have an excuse to buy more shoes, the
>fault in the description would be that it not specific enough to her,
>more context-placing needs to be done.

Ah, but my point is that its not up to me to make it specific to 
her, and everyone else, its her fault for not making up her
own mind how she views it.

Hal Black:
>It is more "true" because hopefully we can reduce a lot of the absolutely
>false things that are portrayed and trigger emotions and imagination.
>(more on this in a bit)

Totally subjective. Its not false for some vampires to love the sun,
the old ones (even in V:TM) can go out in sunlight for times
and take no damage at all. The only way it can be false, is if
in our own creations we make it false.
 

>From KaVir :

>Even if the viewer WAS able to ignore "a terror which goes beyond all normal
>fear", do you really think they'd sit there smiling as their face melted off?

As quoted from V:TM
"Despite the tragedy of their exitence, vampires can escape
from their curse and become mortal again. Though exceedingly
difficult, it is a major theme of the game and something that
will direct the ambitions and thoughts of many characters"
(p186,"rebirth",V:TM)
"Basic to Golconda is the act of remorse...The character must
make some sort of penance, such as donating to a worthy charity
or aiding someone in need, or in some cases punishing herself.
The worse the sins, the more she needs to do."
(p188,"golconda", V:TM)
[a great reason of why an old vampire would love the sunlight,
he has sinned greatly in his vast lifespan, its time to pay up
and maybe rid himself of the curse]

I dont really think everyone would ignore "a major theme of the game" and
discard it totally. Just as I dont really think that all of their faces 
would melt off, thats highly dependant on which myth you ascribe to.
I can think of many in which vampires survive daylight quite nicely. But this 
isnt really the point. And their face wont melt, at most itll burn, and
they'll leave the source of the pain (if they choose to,or if the GM
forces them to).


>From KaVir :

>1) Create a 'pretty' description, with lots of details.
>2) As above, but make the details dependant on the viewer.
>3) Create factual descriptions, accurate yet lifeless.

>The third method is the only way to create a description that is totally
accurate
>to everyone - but is this really a good thing?  Using the second method
would allow
>correct - and far more entertaining - descriptions almost all of the time.

Thats really the same as a static description. Classified as a 
drow for example in a room with sunlight, im made to run screaming from
it, howling, and blind. What if im an aberation of the genetic code?
what if im playing a drow that likes pain? what if im already blind?
Thats no more accurate or entertaining than a static one. Correctness
and whats entertaining reside totally within the viewers own 
opinionated mind.
We can go round and round on this spot. Some of us want to let the
viewer do the inference and have to decide what the room does to him
others want to try to do the same thing, just in a more specific way
(i.e room descs based on the person). Its plain to see their the same,
one just describes it to each person seperately.

Hal Black :
>And to answer your question, who are we to say what a given person feels
>when they are in a given locale?  We are the gamemasters.  

Exactly, totally, and completely. By making a description specific
to anyone, we are doing just that. You are X, therefore, because
I see you have done w,c,z,and d, im going to adjust this room to
say this. Thats no different than a "one-time" description, its
just done in a different way. (again, you have to remember,
"correctness" and "entertainment" and the like are totally up
to the viewer. 

Hal Black :
>Much like cave-dwelling salamanders and fish,
>this race has somehow evolved to not have pigmentation or protection from
>the sun.  This race will therefore have evolved to hate the sun.  Because
>perhaps in the world I've created, being blind, crippled and burned by the
>sun makes one sterile at best.  So, anyone of this race without an
>instinctive fear of the sun will die.  Thus, by natural selection, 99% of
>this race will have a fear of the sun.

Therefore, why would he ever walk around any place that could possibly
have sunlight in it? why wouldnt he stick to dungeons, mountain caves,
and other dark places? what is HE doing out of character tromping around
the nice warm forest amidst the sprites and humans? 

Hal Black :
>And because we are trying to place this person in a role, we as gamemasters
>should not tell them to feel something that is out of character with something
>they DO feel.  This race will not be caressed by the sun, they will be burned
>by it. 

Hehehe...Id argue that we didnt place them in the role, they chose it,
and as such, they need to act accordingly. I shouldnt have to tell them
to not walk around in daylight filled rooms, if 99% of their race hates
the sun. The responsibility of RP, and understanding is totally up
to them, they are the character, im just the guy who makes the world,
its up to them to interpret it, not me. 

 
Hal Black:
>That's why I think we should 
>just provide hints when we can, and leave the imagination to the player.
>Nothing is more frustrating for me as a player to be told that I'm feeling
>something that I'm not.

Id agree, but im saying that no matter what way we choose to show them the room,
we are going to, in a lot of cases, force them to "feel something they dont".


>If Sam and Mark are twins, certainly they will see almost exactly the same
>things.  However, if Sam is blind and Mark can't smell, they will certainly
>need different descriptions of the perfume shop if you really want to put the
>player in the role they are playing.

Again we can go round and round :) If mark cant smell, and the room tells him he
can, whoa! hey sam! I can  sm(inhale)ell here!!!! the end result is the
same , no matter what we try to do, we are going to force them 
inevitably into something they may not be thinking and feeling.
Id rather do it once, than try to discern what every possibility could be
for every player, for every thing they could be wearing (to stop sunlight for 
example), for every space-suit, faulty space-suit, every boot with a hole
in it every pair of wet gloves, all the hundreds of items that change
what the player can see/hear/smell or feel, all the little things
that the guy on the computer just found out about his character..
Thats just too many times im trying to get into someones head
that isnt mine. Ill take my chances with one time, but hundreds, thousands?


Hal Black :
>Sam in his spacesuit.
>    > go west
>    [first he sees the room description]
>    This room is clogged with a greasy, black, oily smoke.
>    [he takes his first breath in the room]
>    You inhale the clean air from your spacesuit.
>    [or maybe there is no message at all??]
>
>Sam in a leaky spacesuit.
>    > go west
>    [first he sees the room description]
>    This room is clogged with a greasy, black, oily smoke.
>    [he takes his first breath in the room]
>    As you inhale, your lungs burn and you start to cough.
>    [Sam thinks, hey, there is a leak in my spacesuit.]
>

see above ;)


>I think situations should be descriptive as possible...  But where appropriate.
>Otherwise, as a player trying to play a role, I just feel angry when I am
>forcefully removed from my role by the engine telling me to feel a certain way
>when I wouldn't, or when someone starts talking about the home-run race in
>a medieval game.

Dont you see though, that "viewer specific" descriptions do this just
as forcefully, and "un-correctly" as a static one. The only difference is
whoever
wrote the specific descriptions tried to get inside that viewers character
more than one time. He just colored thousands more descriptions with his
own personal ideas, prejudices, understandings, than the person that
writes one. Those "viewer specific" descriptions are no more accurate 
or entertaining than one, in fact, they have intruded so much, that now
wherever I go, im told, "for my specific circumstances" what I see, hear
etc. Cant I get a chance to do that? Why does the game engine have to kick
me out of my character in each room, and tell me specifically for my character
now, what i see, hear, etc..


Im going to use a simple principle here :

Akhams Razor.

"The simplest explanation is often the real one" (not entirely quoted as written
but definately appropriate and consistent).

In summary, to make specific descriptions, is to try to invade
each of the now millions of minute possibilites within each
characters perceptions (and hehe, I definately do not relish
the idea of trying to write all those descriptions, someone
would be at it for years of real time).
That is exactly no different than a one time invasion. 
And we are invading, we are trying to tell
them what we think they see. We are imposing our ideas on them
no matter what we write...WE wrote it...or someone else did...
they just read it. 


Shakti