"Advanced" use of virtual worlds? (Re: [MUD-Dev] MMORPGs & MUDs)

[Matt Mihaly]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Travis Casey wrote:
> Friday, February 08, 2002, 6:13:50 PM, Matt Mihaly wrote:
 
>> Hmm, I don't think we are. I think we can settle this pretty
>> easily too. If your character can know something, where is the
>> data stored? I maintain that it's stored in you and is thus part
>> of you.
 
> But it's not.  Data about my character is stored in many places;
> some of it is in me, some of it is in my notebook, some of it is
> in my GM, some of it is in the GM's notebook, some of it is in
> other players in the game, some of it is in the character sheet,
> and so on.

> If the only information about my character were in my head, then
> it would be impossible for someone else to play my character --
> but it's not.

Nod, I mis-spoke really. It is, actually though, impossible for
someone to play your -specific- character. That would require that
everyone have exactly the same idea of what the character is, which
fundamentally is impossible. From an essay on Ideas by Dr. Harold
Brown, "Ideas are subjective in that individuals can be aware only
of their own ideas. If two individuals are imagining Pegasus or
thinking about the Pythagorean theorem, each is directly aware of a
distinct idea, although these ideas may share many features. This is
analogous to the sense in which two reproductions of the Mona Lisa
are distinct objects even though most of their properties are
identical, but it is impossible for one individual to inspect
another's ideas."

The salient point in my argument is that anything -you- do as a
roleplayer comes from you. A character cannot have any ideas (an
idea requires a mind) or thoughts. You can form the idea of a
character having an idea, but it is you having the idea and
pretending it was the character.

>> When you, playing a character, are talking to me, playing a
>> character, and we get to know each other, the information is
>> being stored in us.
 
> Yes, it is.  But it also exists as a part of our characters.  When
> someone else plays my character for me because I can't make the
> D&D game, my character doesn't suddenly stop knowing everyone it
> knew before.  Indeed, when this happens, my character can meet and
> start to know a character that I'm not even aware of the existence
> of at the moment.

Well, I'd argue it's not the same character, but only a very similar
one. Leaving that aside for the sake of argument, your character
still doesn't gain any knowledge or know anything. You do, the GM
does, the other people playing your character do, etc. The character
IS real, but that's not the same thing as saying it has a mind.
 
> [the party has just met an NPC named Bubba]
 
> GM: Travis, Efindel [my character] already knows Bubba.  The two
> of you were apprentices together under Magister Boffo.
 
> Me:  What do I [*] know about him?

<snipped example trying to show a difference between Travis and a
character, Efindel>

Well, again, the character doesn't know any of that. The GM does.

> And, of course, there are also skill rolls and similar things.  I
> can't draw a map of Efindel's home town of Tarnath, but Efindel
> can, since he has a good "Area Knowledge: Tarnath" skill.  I don't
> know who the current ruler of the elven kingdom in my old GM's
> campaign is, but Efindel would, since he's still alive in that
> world.  And so on.

Can he? So where is it? Who actually drew it? The person that
actually draws the map would have to know how to draw it, unless
you're willing to assert that he was possessed by a foreign
intelligence.
 
>> Characters are ideas, and don't have data storage
>> mechanisms. Avatars do, but characters and avatars aren't the same
>> thing, and people don't roleplay avatars. They roleplay characters
>> by using avatars (witness that many people play the character
>> Gandalf, using many different avatars).

> Characters do indeed have data storage mechanisms -- the memories of
> people and notes on paper.  Further, I'd like to note that the
> distinction between "character" and "avatar" that you're making is not
> one that I recognize -- from my point of view, a character with a
> different "avatar" is not the same character.  

In that case, there is no way to put aside the fact that you and the GM
are not talking about the same character, but merely characters with many
features in common. If a character in a new avatar is not the same
character, then a character in a different mind cannot be said to be the
same character either. 

> It is, at most, a new character modeled after an existing
> character.  (Now, loosely, we may speak of it as being "the same
> character".  However, that's no more true than, say, saying that
> two different versions of an operating system are "the same
> operating system".  They may have a lot of things in common, but
> they are not *exactly* the same operating system.  We just call
> them "the same" as a matter of convenience.)

Oh, I agree totally, but I don't think you're going to be happy with
the consequences of that point of view.

> Thus, from my point of view, there are many different characters
> named Gandalf.  They all have points of similarity, but they are
> different characters.

Yep, I'd agree with that. Again, in your examples, you and the GM
were not speaking of the same character, but different characters
sharing many similarities, so I'm back to just pointing out that the
character still resides entirely in you. (Characters are ideas, and
ideas can only exist in minds, not on paper or hard drives.)
 
--matt


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