FW: [MUD-Dev] Interesting EQ rant (very long quote)

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services wrote:

>> Matt Mihaly writes:

>> In-game knowledge is not trackeable without the use of AI way
>> beyond what we have now. All that can be done now is mock up a
>> system to make users jump through hoops. Until you have a system
>> that knows whether my character knows something (instead of
>> pretending that the only way to gain a piece of knowledge is via
>> some special command as opposed to general communications), then
>> you're not modeling in-game knowledge. You're mocking it.

> Does this mocking of in-game knowledge also extend to skill systems?

> Maybe I'm just not understanding, but aren't there a lot of skill
> systems out there where the _character_ has to learn something in
> order to use a skill?  In these cases, it is not possible for a
> _player_ to simply visit a web-site and suddenly start making the
> best pizza around.  The _character_ must also develop skills to use
> this knowledge in many cases.

Hmm.

 
> How is this different?  It seems that our current AI works just fine
> to accomplish this.  And aren't we asking the player to jump though
> hoops so that the character can gain skills?  I always thought that
> making this distinction between player and character was one of the
> things that characterized almost all forms of RP.

Well, in Achaea, I make them jump through hoops to gain skills because
the hoops involve paying us money.


> I guess I don't really see the difference between this and other
> forms of knowledge.  I also don't see the difficulty in tracking
> other forms of knowledge, since we do a decent job of tracking a
> character's knowledge about skills.

I can't quite put my finger on the difference, but there definitely is
one. I was going to chalk it up to purely conceptual knowledge
vs. <some other kind of knowledge> but couldn't express myself
properly (it's 4 am). I will say though that the reason modeling
in-character knowledge like we're talking about seems silly to me is
because as long as you have any communication between characters,
there is no way to know what information has passed between them. _No
way to know._ You could pay people to snoop every conversation, and
they would start speaking in code. You crack the code, they start
using a stronger one. Obviously most players aren't going to do that,
but the point it illustrates is the impossibility of tracking
character knowledge in a manner that isn't going to often fly in the
face of what a player _knows_ his character has experienced.

By way of example rather than explanation (as explanation seems to
elude me right now), what if I said to you (assuming we were
characters in a game, and assuming what I'm telling you is the truth:

"Hey Paul!" says I. "The key to the Garden of the Holy Lemon Tree is
buried under the statue of St. Meyer the Beloved. Say 'porkmelon' to
make the statue move."

Paul trundles off to the Garden and gravely utters the magic word
'porkmelon.'

"Hmmmm." says Paul. "Porkmelon."

Paul taps his foot impatiently.

"PORKMELON!"

(The statue continues to stand in the background, defiantly unmoved.)

Paul mutters to himself about that idiot Matt and walks back to Matt's
house.

"Matt, you eediot!" says Paul, in a voice reminiscent of a certain
12th century Pope. "I said porkmelon three bloody times and the statue
didn't so much as grimace."

"What? How odd. I myself have at times desired the bounty of
St. Meyer, and have uttered that very same magic word to gain the key
to the Garden." says a puzzled Matt.

Paul throws down a glove and demands satisfaction.

Matt sighs, knowing how Paul gets when he's been drinking since noon,
and says, "Friend Paul, let's stroll over to the offending statue and
see together whether we might get it to move."

(Long scene of them walking. Sounds of minstrels singing "My Favourite
Things" waft in from somewhere.)

Matt says, "Here we are Paul. Now we shall see the truth of things."

Matt says, "Porkmelon."

(The statue immediately moves 2 feet to the left on previously-hidden
rollers.)

Paul says, "What the hell?"

"Ooooooh," says Matt. "Maybe someone ELSE has to tell you that the
magic word is porkmelon. How silly of me to assume that me telling you
porkmelon would be the same as Gandalf the Recluse Wizard telling me
that the magic word was porkmelon!"


Don't you see how silly that seems from an in-role perspective (which
is the only reason to care really. If you're not concerned about role,
then who cares how the character got the knowledge)?


Now counter that with:

I know how to kick you in the face.

You want to know how you can kick people in the face.

I could tell you, "Dude, raise your leg, point your knee at the filthy
heretic's face, and rapidly finish the kick with your lower leg."

But does that mean you know how to kick me in the face? No. Or rather,
maybe you think you know, or maybe you do know, but if you can't do
it, then you can't do it.

I know I haven't put my finger on the difference here, but there
certainly seems to be a difference between the two examples above that
is fairly fundamental to why I think most people would find the word
'porkmelon' not working for Paul simply because Paul didn't get that
information from the "right" source much more objectionable than you
not being able to throw a snapkick to the face after someone told you
how to do it.

--matt




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