[MUD-Dev] Maintaining fiction.

[Matt Mihaly]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Madman Across the Water wrote:
> Matt Mihaly wrote:
  
>> But all those things change, just like my equipment.
  
> Perhaps a line could be drawn at: the equipment has a "physical"
> (within the context of the world) existence apart from the
> character. Skills, stats, flags, etc, do not. While they change,
> they cannot be transfered from one character to another the way
> equipment can.

So if they change, then how do they define the character?

> As you say, the question of identity is a tricky one, and an
> important one. And likely not one that we'll get universal
> consensus on.

I don't care about a universal consensus. I'd just like to be able
to come up with an answer that I'm satisfied with. I've realized
that I don't know what a character is and it's really bothering
me. It's pretty fundamental to most of the discussions here, as well
as to MUDs generally.

Here are some possibilities. I'm quite sure I'm leaving out tons of
possibilities too.

  - a character is defined strictly by his position in a database.
  - a character is defined by his name.
  - a character is defined by his non-transferable attributes.
  - a character is defined by his non-transferable attributes and his
    transferable attributes.
  - a character is defined strictly within the mind of the observer.

The latter one seems to make the most sense in broad terms, but
doesn't address the question of what is permadeath in a MUD.

Think of how people take characters from MUD to MUD. The character
is eternal, as it is more than just some database entries. If I meet
Bob the Pirate, and have a talk with him, and come away thinking
that Bob is a jovial reckless chap, it's not because some database
somewhere spewed out the words "jovial reckless chap." It's almost
certainly because of intangibles.

By way of an example, I was reading a high fantasy book earlier
today that combined an original world with some elements of
Arthurian legend, specifically Lancelot, Guinevere, and Arthur. They
were, in a sense, "ooc" additions (at least, some of you would treat
it that way if it happened in your MUDs). On the other hand, they
were excellent characters, and it's because of who
Lancelot-the-character is, not who Lancelot-in-the-book is. If I
didn't have all sorts of attachments to Arthurian characters, it
wouldn't have been nearly as powerful. I was quite moved by the
book, as I find that the perfect despair of the
Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur love triangle is beautiful.

The point is that the character Lancelot exists independent of the
specific story.

--matt

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