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

[Matt Mihaly]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Travis Casey wrote:
> Friday, February 08, 2002, 5:37:57 PM, Matt Mihaly wrote:
 
> No, he's not.  There's no poison there for him to pick up.  There
> may not even be any liquid in the cup the actor picks up.  The
> *character* is picking up poison and drinking it.  The *actor* is
> picking up a cup, and may be drinking something else, or may just
> be miming drinking.

In that case, there is simply no poison being drunk. You're simply
assuming there is for the sake of a narrative. That's well and good.

> For that matter, a scene can easily take place "off-stage" in a
> play -- in which case something can be done by the *character*,
> while the actor never even pretends to do it.

No, the scene never took place at all. Writing something down isn't
the same as the thing being described happening.
 
> I've already talked about this point in another post; to
> summarize, though, characters can know things that their players,
> or their actors, don't.  The character can know these things
> through game mechanics (e.g., "roll your 'Area Knowledge' skill to
> see if you know where the inn is"), through GM intervention (GM:
> "You remember having been an apprentice with that man years ago.
> Here's what you know about him..."), or in other ways.

Characters, like all knowledge, are ideas. Ideas are held in minds
only. Characters, being ideas, are held in minds. They aren't minds.

>> That you were pretending to be someone else when you opened the
>> chest doesn't change the fact that you opened the chest.
 
> He didn't open a chest, though.  There's not even a chest in the
> room where he is.

Well, no chest was opened then I'd say!

> There are several things that should make the fact that characters
> are different from players obvious:
 
>  - A character doesn't know everything its player does.  I've
>  played characters who don't know anything about modern technology
>  -- and even played them in a modern setting.

Well indeed! A character doesn't know ANYTHING that the player does.
 
>  - A character can know things its player doesn't know.  See
>  examples above.

It isn't possible. See the above.
 
>  - A character can do things that its player can't -- for example,
>  I can't cast a fireball spell, lift five hundred pounds over my
>  head, or run a mile in thirty seconds -- but I've played
>  characters who could do those things.

A character cannot do that. Saying "Gandalf casts a fireball." is
not at all the same thing as saying "Travis sum 2+2." Leaving aside
solipsistic arguments denying the existence of anything but a single
mind (by definition, the mind of the person forming the idea),
Gandalf and Travis aren't similar entities at all. Gandalf is an
entity with no spatial or temporal existence, while Travis is an
entity with both.

Simply because Gandalf is presented as an entity with a mind and
capabilities doesn't actually make it so.

>  - A player may be able to do things that his/her character can't
>  -- for example, a player who can speak can play a character who
>  is mute.  (And a good friend of mine did just that in a
>  campaign.)

Sure, since the character is always a subset of the player (ie it is
an idea in the player's head),

>  - A single character can be played by different players at
>  different times.

No, not possible. Very similar characters, but not the same. Ideas
in another person's head cannot be examined by you, thus there's no
way to play -exactly- the same character.

>  - A single player can play multiple characters -- either at
>  different times, or simultaneously.

Sure, eople are capable of multiple ideas.

--matt


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