[MUD-Dev] Absolute Death (legalese mode on)

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:55:26 +0000 (GMT), Matt Mihaly
<the_logos at achaea.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

>> Each individual designer knows what his MUD's "reality" is
>> supposed to be. He also knows what is and is not logical within
>> that reality.  Theoretically, the players know this as well.

> The designer knows, but it's not the designer's decision. It is
> the decision of the players, and individual players come up with
> different conclusions.

It most certainly *is* the designer's decision.

In my system, when you send a group of fighters to attack another
group of fighters, each group will inflict between 90% and 110% of
its number as casualties upon the opposing force (absent other
modifying factors).  Fractions are rounded down.

As a logical and necessary consequence of this rule, you cannot
defeat an opposing force of 10 fighters with less than 10 fighters
of your own.  An attack force of 9 fighters will inflict between 8.1
and 9.9 casualties, rounded down to 8 or 9 -- which is less than
ten.  Furthermore, an attack force of 10 fighters will logically and
necessarily destroy any attack force of fewer than 10 fighters,
because it will inflict a bare minimum of 9 casualties (and a
maximum of 11).

It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for an attack force of 9 or fewer
fighters to defeat an attack force of 10 or more fighters. We have
just demonstrated this. No matter what you may believe about your
attack forces and their superior skills and training, your nine
fighters will lose to ten fighters *every* time.

This is a logical and necessary consequence of the design. It was
introduced because the average battle will involve at least several
hundred fighters, which makes individual determinations
time-consuming.  Rather than calculating hit rolls, a series of
numbers are calculated for each side and subtracted from the other
until one or both sides has no fighters remaining gives a reasonably
equivalent result. To the average player in the average conflict,
there is no effective difference in the two methods. However, on a
small scale, a one-fighter edge becomes an automatic victory.

And *that*, no matter how you slice it, is the REALITY of the
game. How you EXPLAIN it is up to you. You may decide this is
because the onboard computer system is designed to manipulate ships
in squadrons of ten fighters and the use of a partial squadron
requires special-case logic that slows the computer's calculations,
or that the system is biased and doesn't like perfect squares, or
that a nine-fighter squadron cannot effectively surround an
opponent, or whatever. Each player may have a different *perception*
of that reality, but the reality itself is not altered -- nine
fighters still lose to ten. Your explanation will be merely an
amusing diversion, in any case, since it all boils down to a single
(logical) line of code:

	for(dinit=defender,ainit=attacker;
		attacker>0 && defender>0;
		dinit=defender,ainit=attacker)
			attacker-=((dinit*(dice(4,6)+86))/100),
			defender-=((ainit*(dice(4,6)+86))/100);

As far as the game is concerned, this is reality. It has no
reason. It has no explanation. It is simply the logical and
necessary result of combat. Why? Because it is. Full-stop.

> I've yet to see a design that operates on axiomatic
> principles. Please post an example here.

"Why do you keep saying that word? I do not think it means what you
think it means." -- Mandy Patinkin, "The Princess Bride"

Hypothesis: 

  Every game design is axiomatic. 

Proof:

  1. Axiomatic means "having the nature of an axiom". (Webster's
  Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

  2. An axiom is "an established principle in some art or science,
  which, though not a necessary truth, is universally
  received". (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

  3. A principle is "A source, or origin; that from which anything
  proceeds". (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

  4. We may view a game design as the application of an art or
  science. As which we choose to view it is irrelevant; it is
  self-evident that art and/or science play a part in the design of
  a game.

  5. Within that game, "universal reception" may be defined as
  "applicable to all players".

  6. Within any game, everything proceeds as a consequence of the
  rules.  We may therefore say that the "principles" of a game are
  its rules.

  7. It is self-evident that anything has the nature of
  itself. Therefore "a rule" by necessity "has the nature of a
  rule".

  8. By composition and replacement, we may therefore define
  "axiomatic" as it applies to game design with: "having rules which
  apply to all players".

  9. It is self-evident that all games have some non-empty set of
  rules.

  10. When a rule does not apply to some subset of players, this is
  itself a rule; the rule that it does not apply to that subset is,
  likewise, a rule which *does* apply to that subset. Therefore, all
  games have rules which apply to all players.

  11. Therefore, all games are axiomatic.

  12. All game designs define -- and therefore include, or "have" --
  the nature of the game.

  13. Therefore, all game designs are also axiomatic, QED.

> "Design" also does not refer to any specific principles, but just
> to a 'plan' (however arbitrary) with an intent behind it.

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, you can make whatever
rules you want -- but they're still the rules. Even when you make
exceptions to the rules, those are rules.

> Yes, on a very small scope, a lot of the actions are
> predictable. But most of the game is not.

Actually, the game is perfectly predictable. Computers are not
whimsical. An identical process presented with identical input will
produce identical output -- every single time. No matter HOW long
you run it.

> For instance, in Achaea you have to eat and drink, but you never
> have to urinate or defecate. That makes no logical sense at all,
> even within the context of the world.

You are confusing the logic and necessity of the *fictional* game
world with the logic and necessity of the *actual* game
world. Unfortunately, only the *actual* game world is the game
"reality".

If the game is designed to require that characters urinate and
defecate, you're right, it makes no sense. If it is not, then it
makes perfect sense. The game's rules do not include urination and
defecation. As a necessary and logical result of that exclusion, you
never have to urinate or defecate. This is, furthermore, perfectly
predictable.

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