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

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, John Buehler wrote:

<example of the magic word 'porkmelon' has been snipped>

> It's all about character knowledge versus player knowledge.

Yes, that's exactly what it's about John. And since one character told
another, then both have the knowledge. However, there's no way for
your code to know that. I can easily explain why you can't kick me in
the face just because I've explained to you how. Can you easily
explain why I, the character, don't know that the magic word is
Porkmelon when another _character_ has told me this?

 
> As I said in another post, the player doesn't get to know that the
> password is "Porkmelon".  This is why I don't damage the suspension
> of disbelief.

No, you don't damage it, you wreck the suspension of
disbelief. Characters communicate. To pretend they don't, or that they
can't communicate useful knowledge is what is unbelievable.

> Paul's inclusion of the topic of character skills is the perfect
> illustration of this point.  My character knows how to use Kung Fu
> moves, but I, as a player, don't have a clue.  As you seem to be
> supporting with your own example, if I the player know Kung Fu, it >
> doesn't do me any good in the game world because my character has to
> learn the moves.  And it learns it from another character via
> in-game mechanisms.  I cannot simply go to another player and find
> out how to use Kung Fu.

You're just not understanding. My example was about characters, not
players. The characters were talking to each other. That's why it said
"Bob says" rather than "Bob's player says". Again, characters talk to
each other. We're talking about worlds, not simultaneous one-player
games.

> This is the analagous situation with all character knowledge, be it
> skills, recipes or passwords.  The information is kept in the game
> context and is communicated in the game context.  I don't walk my
> character up to another character and start talking about Kung Fu
> moves, resulting in that character being able to do Kung Fu.  No
> more than I'd walk my character up and talk about passwords and have
> that other character know the password.  The use of 'say' is a
> player to player communication mechanism.  The characters themselves
> don't understand any of what is said.  The difference with 'say' is
> that it is governed by game context rules - specificially, how far
> away a character is from the speaking character.

OH, I see what you're saying. So characters can't communicate with
each other? Talk about the necessity for suspension of disbelief!

For someone who is so concerned about roleplay, it seems odd that
you'd not let characters roleplay with each other. All roleplay
involves communication, and if there is communication between
characters, then information such as the password can be passed.

Once again, I'll just make the observation that for someone concerned
about not attracting the hardcore gamer, you seem to be doing
everything possible to ensure that the ultra-hardcore roleplayer is
the only type of player you'll attract.

--matt

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