[MUD-Dev] Persistent Worlds

[J C Lawrence]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:08:30 -0800 
John Buehler <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:

> J C Lawrence writes:

>>> My point is that spontaneous generation was disproved a couple
>>> of centuries ago.
>> 
>> This would only seem significant if the simulation aspects of
>> your environment are primary.

> 'Simulation aspects'?  

Yup.  This is presuming a design divide over whether the environment
is attempting to model/simulate an external system (ie it must
conform to an external definition and deviations from that
external's systems behaviour are, simply, errors), or whether the
system is an attempt to simulate an internally defined and therefore
(hopefully) logically consistent system which attempts to have its
internally observed behaviour be explicable in terms of its own
self-referential and internal definitions.

> That's like saying you should have simulation in your world only
> if you need the advantages of simulation, right?  

No.  Simulation is a definitional tool -- the question is the manner
in which you define your world, and by which you do or do not
determine that your world is "in error".

There are many degrees of abstraction in simulation.  Am I
attempting to simulate the "real world" (tm) all the way down to the
current known boundaries of qutumn theory and non-newtonian
mechanics?  That is certainly a simulation.  Or, are you attempting
to have your system adhere to (say) a set of behavioural patterns
(think graphs and dynamics) which you have defined as the standard
you should model against?  That too is a simulation.  The critical
point in both is that the environment is defined as an approximation
to another set of definitions with deviations from those definitions
deemed errors.  Somewhat conversely you may have an environment
which carries no referential baggage and attempts to explain itself
no more audibly than our current "real world" bends your ear trying
to explain cold fusion, or which even doesn't even pretend to have
any significant level of internal consistancy at all, but instead
presents a seeming jumble of "interesting" special cases without
giving any nod to there being some background logic.

They're all valid models depending on your purposes.  Yospe at one
point was doing a MUD as a tool in teaching physics to students.  He
spent considerable time on building models that duplicated known and
observed real world behaviours.  Quite an impressive problem, and
one that most AberMUDs for instance never consider.  Similarly, I've
built a particle economy within Murkle (my test bed) that rules all
resource based behaviour in my world (at a rather huge performance
cost).  I'm building a system which is attempting to adhere to
externally imposed criteria -- something which UO for instance
attempted and quickly abandoned.  EQ however makles few claims to
internal consistancy outside of "bigger numbers are badder" in
standard DIKU fashion, and thus carries much lower simulation
expectations.

> Simulation in and of itself has no value to a MUD.  

Really?  You have a curiously narrow definition of MUD there.

> The effects that simulation brings into the environment have
> potential value.

Yes, quite a few possible values.

> For what it's worth, simulation is a means of modeling *some*
> behavior or system, not just a real one.  All MUDs are simulators.
> Most simulate a spontaneous generation model.

Part of that is backing story, but yes, there is a difference
between adherance to an external model and adherance to an
internally self-referential constancy.

> So to return to the point, the primary goal of a MUD is to provide
> entertainment.  

No, that is a primay goal of some MUDs.  I'm no aware of any
requirement that MUD not serve other purposes.

> If providing a reproductive model for introducing new characters
> has characteristics that are more desireable than those obtained
> by having a spontaneous generation model, it would seem that
> simulating the reproductive model has value.  That statement is
> essentially independent of whether simulation of reality is a
> primary goal.

True, and a nicely put functional definition.

> The problem of presenting cause and effect in MUDs is a fairly
> large one.  Having the effect of generation of a character without
> any apparent cause has an corresponding effect on the attitude of
> players about your game environment.  If they see animals as a
> non-renewable resource, that will add to the player's tendency to
> conserve those resources - especially if the character's
> well-being is derived from having a viable animal population.
> Obviousy, that 'tendency' isn't sufficient by itself, as was
> described by a past post.  I believe it was Raph who described a
> closed ecology where the players promptly wiped out the entire
> ecology.  Other effects obviously have to be put in place to
> encourage or require players to conserve limited resources.

Homo Sap. doesn't have a good history of ecological self discipline,
especially when the maleffects are not immediate.  Earth is
scattered with the history of such man-made disasters from the
Sahara on down to the Tragedy of the Commons.

--
J C Lawrence                                       claw at kanga.nu
---------(*)                          http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev