[MUD-Dev] Maintaining fiction.

[Matt Mihaly]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Madman Across the Water wrote:
> Matt Mihaly wrote:
  
>> Hypothetical: I have a MUD where _everything_ is based on what
>> equipment my character has. Upon death, a character gets his name
>> changed but keeps _everything_ else (because it's all based on
>> equipment and in your view loss of equipment is not necessary for
>> permadeath). Funnily enough though, my "new" character happens to
>> have the same name as my old one (nothing odd about that. I know
>> lots of people also named 'Matt.') It's not the same character
>> though, because his database entry is different. Everything else
>> just happens to be exactly the same. So, nothing has changed from
>> the point of view of the player. yet this seems to fit your
>> definition of permadeath. Pretty useless definition, no
>> offence. If you quibble with the name thing, then you'd down to
>> simply claiming that changing someone's name is sufficient for
>> having permadeath.

> I'd just argue that in your hypothetical world, what I call
> permadeath is irrelevent, since the character is totally
> irrelevent.  I give you a counter-hypothetical: There is a MUD in
> which you lose _everything_ when you die. You give you best
> equipment to a friend, go off on an adventure, get killed. You
> make a new character and are given your old character's stuff
> back. Does this MUD thus _not_ have permadeath?

Is the character irrelevant? What defines a character? This is what
I'm asking. Permadeath implies the permanent death of the
character. Without being able to say what a character is, it's hard
to say what permadeath is. It seems obvious, but so does "I think
therefore I am.", despite there being flaws in that logic pointed
out within weeks of Descartes' publication.

> I don't think my definition is useless just because there is a
> hypothetical MUD in which it doesn't apply. If permadeath has your
> definition, than what Ackadia (for instance) does needs another
> name; if permadeath has my definition, than what you describe
> needs one. Neither is a useless concept.

What is your definition though? I don't think you gave one, did you?

--matt

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev