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

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, J. Coleman wrote:

> Matt Mihaley:

>> Further, frankly, I don't see that it matters whether a character
>> gets that information from another character or from a totally
>> out-of-character method like a website.

> Isn't the (in-game) discovering supposed to be part of the fun? If
> players can just get the quest information from a website, that
> what's the point of doing the quest? Just have an NPC that the
> players can walk up to and say "I went to <website>" and the NPC
> just gives them the quest reward. There's no point in doing the
> quest if you're going to cheat about it - that's like taking a test
> with all the answers written on your shoe.

If it's so much fun, why are people going to websites to learn how to
do quests? Obvious answer to me is that it's not very much fun
figuring it out for most people.

I fail to see how any harm is done by players having websites full of
quests, but I do see how harm is done trying to prevent it. If you
don't want to use the website, don't use it. It's as easy as that. If
you do, then the opportunity is there for you. Sounds to me like
everyone wins.

>> What I'm concerned with is the player experience. I don't see which
>> group of players your method of doing things appeals to. Certainly
>> not roleplayers, and certainly not GoP players. GoP players will
>> just think it's silly to worry about in-character vs. ooc
>> knowledge, and roleplayers will want to know why, when their
>> character DOES know something (because he's been told by 50 other
>> characters who have already done the quest), the game tells them
>> the character doesn't. It's taking single-player mechanics and
>> pretending that you're still playing a single player game.

> Has anyone *really* created "multi-player mechanics" yet? I know
> there's been some discussion here about fixing the single-player
> quest problem for multiplayer games, but has anyone actually done it
> yet? Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would LOVE to
> play a MUD/POW/MMORPG/etc that has truly multi-player quests, and
> not just one that has single-player quests that can be redone over
> and over.

No idea. I, however, tend to view mandating a separation of character
and player knowledge as indicative of being stuck in a single player
mindset. I treat the virtual world as real, and I do not believe in
the fiction of a chinese wall between character and player.

> I think this is a good example of one of the things that will define
> the next generation of MOGs - truly multiplayer content.

These games already exist and have for quite awhile. Games where the
focus is on the other players (as opposed to the focus being on NPCs
like in Everquest etc) are the "next generation" in my opinion
(nevermind that they've been around in text form for at least 10
years.)


>> What you want is hardcore roleplaying it sounds like, which by
>> definition is not for the casual player.

> I agree here - this is not for the casual player. It also seems like
> something we won't see in the next 5 years or so, if we ever
> do. Having a computer roleplaying game is one thing, but a computer
> roleplayer?  This is going to require (IMHO) nearly a full Turing
> machine to do properly. By the time we get such high-quality AI, we
> could just use it to run the NPCs and get a much higher
> return-on-investment.

Yeah. That's a long ways off. Be neat if/when it comes though.

>> And when said character is talking to another character and
>> suddenly magically knows how to add? The thing is, people who want
>> to roleplay that badly (and you're talking about really hardcore
>> roleplayers if they're going to pretend they can't even add
>> properly), then I don't think you need to code in all those
>> restrictions. They only work against a good roleplayer, because
>> they won't manage to stay consistent with the character he has
>> devised for hiself.

> Personally, I think this is picking nits. There are always going to
> be things the player can do that the character cannot. I don't think
> it's at all unreasonable that all values be shown to a player as
> many or few if they have no skill in math.

> Players are always going to "game" the environment, whether or not
> it's intentional. Unless you go to the trouble of filtering
> *everything* the player sees, including say, gossip, and emote
> channels, there are going to be gaps. There may well be gaps anyway
> - look at the profanity filter on EverQuest. Simple enough to get
> around, you can say @$$ (not something the filter will catch) and
> everyone who sees/hears that will know what you said.

Ok, so if players are going to "game" the environment, why try to
force them to be hardcore roleplayers? If they're gaming the
environment, they aren't hardcore roleplayers.

>> What I'm mainly interested in hearing is:

>> 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).

> That, I think, is the whole point of this discussion - who says it
> has to be inconsistent? If you have "some special command" for
> transferring knowledge, then the game *is* modeling the character's
> knowledge.

If characters can talk to each other, then you've got a way to
transfer knowledge that cannot be tracked. Personally, I think
claiming that characters cannot use free-form communication with each
other to transfer knowledge is silly.


> Players can and will attempt to circumvent the system if at all
> possible - looking on web sites, telling players (via say or gossip)
> the secret password, etc etc etc. If anything, it's the players who
> are being inconsistent here, not the game world. "General
> communications", in my experience (feel free to point out
> counter-examples), is used for OOC topics more often than not. In
> any instance where it *is* being used for in-game information, the
> players are obviously (again, IMHO) immersed in the world to the
> point where it's perfectly reasonable that they would use whatever
> means are available to communicate knowledge. If the players are
> interested in passing information on to another person, then they
> should use the game's mechanism for doing so.

They are. It's called 'say' on most muds.


> There is absolutely no reason not to attempt knowledge modeling in a
> game. Once it is attempted, there is no reason not to use it. Simply
> because "it hasn't been done before" is not a reason it shouldn't be
> done now - to borrow a phrase, doing something new is hard. I, for
> one, would be willing to put a little (or a lot) of extra effort
> into a project, if it would even slow the rampant spoiler website
> culture.

Well, besides it being silly and requiring a massive suspension of
disbelief? My argument here basically boils down to the fact that
pretending characters cannot talk to each other is ridiculous.


> I don't have anything against hints / spoilers / walkthroughs - in a
> single-player game, or even a multi-player game with no significant
> persistence, like Quake X. I *DO* have a problem with people all
> over the world knowing the "secret" password to get into the thieves
> guild of Sometown, without having exerted any in-game effort to find
> out.

Why? It's not a secret. That's the point. You're trying to fight
against the nature of reality. Look, if there was a "secret" password
to get into the grocery store, don't you think I could find it out
just by asking someone who has used it to go to the grocery store
before? Likewise with characters in-game.


> This applies to anything in online gaming - if something is
> significant in the game world, it should take significant effort or
> skill *in that game world* for someone to obtain.

Right, again, I think this is ignoring reality myself and I think it's
naive and limiting. For example, player politics become impossible (or
at least dull as hell) if we were to follow your stricture. After all,
by your rules, I'm not allowed to exercise intelligence or rhetorical
skills in in-game politics because my character hasn't put in effort
in the game world to obtain them.

In fact, just generally, apparently I'm not allowed to use any sort of
sophisticated reasoning, as my player in the game hasn't obtained
it. I'm apparently also not allowed to celebrate real holidays in
virtual worlds because hey, my character couldn't know about those.

Let me just state once again how foolish I think it is to _pretend_
(because that's what it is) that the character and the player are
completely separate beings. They aren't and _no one_ plays them like
they are as it's not possible. It's like claiming that the virtual is
unreal, despite the fact that it's part of reality and thus clearly
real.

--matt


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