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

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, John Buehler wrote:

> 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.

Chuckle, yes, we seem to sort of pass each other in the night quite
often I've noticed.

 
> 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.


I guess I tend to prefer to look at characters as being a little more
sophisticated than the relatively few pieces of data you're going to
use to represent them.

 
> 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.

Erm, no, the characters know the password too. How could the character
possibly use the password if he didn't know it? And if it's just a
password (which is, by definition, a word) by can't he just tell it to
another character? Are your characters all completely incapable of
communication?


 
>> 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" :)

Heh heh, thanks. I thought that was amusing myself.

 
> 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.

My character obtains it when he is told it. I prefer my characters to
be able to interact (communicate) with other characters though,
whereas you prefer to have them well, not, I guess.

 
> 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.

Well, ok, put it in a game. I bet the first thing players are going to
ask is "What, my character can't talk to another character?"

--matt

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