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

[John Buehler]

Matt Mihaly writes:

> Do you understand what I'm saying? You don't seem to from your
> responses.

And as I read this set of replies, that very question was going
through my mind as well (applied to you, however).  We are after very
much the same thing, but believe that different effects will result.

Your approach:

Characters encounter each other, use the normal mechanisms of
communication to communicate passwords and stuff and continue on.
When that character wants to use the password, it uses it.  The player
wrote it down or just decided to memorize it.

My approach:

Character knowledge must be represented.  When two characters meet,
they have to use a less-frequently used mechanism in order to transfer
knowledge, despite the fact that they normally just use 'say' to talk
to each other.  When the character wants to use the password, it uses
it.  The player doesn't get involved with the value of the password at
all.

Your version of what's wrong with my approach:

Use of that special mechanism is disruptive.  It damages the
suspension of disbelief because a player has to contend with that
special mechanism when they normally just want to say what the
password is.  It's distracting.

My version of what's wrong with your approach:

Having players know passwords is disruptive.  It damages the
suspension of disbelief because the characters are exchanging the
passwords, but the *players* know the passwords.  Players interact
with each other in the real world (or just by using 'tell') and can
communicate passwords in ways that are unbelievable to the game
context.

> What type of player does modeling character knowledge in this
> inconsistent manner appeal to? It certainly doesn't appeal to
> GoPers, it isn't going to appeal to hardcore roleplayers (anyone who
> says otherwise, come talk to me after you've beaten your head
> against a wall after the game consistently actively denies the
> experiences your character HAS had).

I love the way you presented that :) "What type of player does
modeling character knowledge in this *inconsistent* manner appeal to?"
Nice rhetorical technique there.  I guess my response would be "All
players like to work with inconsistent mechanisms" :)

When exactly do you obtain the password, Matt?  I mean the one that
you're so adamant that you have?  The password isn't accessible to
you, the player.  When your character interacts with the NPC who has
the password, you use whatever NPC mechanism there is for
'conversation', and the password is transferred to your character.
The password is never presented audibly or visually to the *player*.
When two player characters meet, they use the same mechanism in order
to transfer that bit of knowledge.  In truth, there actually isn't a
password.  Just an indication that a character knows the password.

If there is a password that a player has made up, that player can
either just tell other players "Bob sent me" is the password or they
can use some mechanism to get it represented in the game context.

I submit to you that all players will be able to deal with this
general mechanism.  It's purely a matter of presentation.  The
concepts behind it are not as unappealing as you so vehemently claim.

JB

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