[MUD-Dev] What's in the lack of a name?

[Rayzam]

From: "shren" <shren at io.com>
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Rayzam wrote:
>> From: "shren" <shren at io.com>

>> What's in the lack of a name? The lack of a world. The examples
>> given above is great for the birth of a world, and that'd be a
>> great genre not yet well developed. I can see the Sims Online
>> being like that. Snag a piece of virtual real estate, build up
>> houses or businesses or whatnot, and name both the area and the
>> individuals. That builds community.

>> However, in a fantasy realm, I'd take that view as the world not
>> seeming as real to me. If I'm dropped into a world where there
>> were those before me, the many NPCs, I'd expect from my own real
>> life experiences that populated areas would be named. I'd even
>> want names for the Place Where the Goblins Live. NPCs should
>> refer to things by names. These names should be consistent,
>> unless there's a reason not to be, i.e. a place having a
>> different name for the Elves versus the Humans. But within that
>> context, the names are still constant. Names tie into
>> backstory. They tie into making the world real. The lack of names
>> for places is related to those places being previously unknown or
>> forgotten.

> We're going to just have to agree to disagree here.  The NPCs in
> the various games I've played have had the character depth of
> vending machines, and the backstory always seems to have little to
> no effect on the game as it is.  There always seems to be a huge
> disjunct between the world the way the designers try to convince
> you it happened and the way things are now.

I'm going to have to agree with you here :) NPCs generally have no
real depth to them, because we haven't progressed much towards the
Turing Test.

> So, I get no immersion from the backstory at all (for me the
> beginning of time on any mud is game launch, not when some
> backstory says time started), and only limited immersion from the
> names designers give places.

I suppose I'm quest/content oriented. Quests are often performed for
someone [NPC]. If the NPC says go to (276,32) on Continent A, bleah! 
If the NPC says to go to Buffy's Pass, where a wyrm is reputed to
have moved into, that's better for me. If other NPCs both related
and not related, talk about it, even better. Because I may have
heard other NPCs talk about it before I meet the one that gives me
the quest. So when he says, go to Buffy's Pass, I go, Aha! I heard
those rumors!

> That's probably just me.

And that's fine. I suppose I'm advocating having the seeds available
for those who would use them. Not that everyone should, would, or
could. It's like cruise control on a car. Many cars have it. It
gives drivers the option to use it. I wouldn't use it, because it
doesn't feel like driving to me.  Others use it all the time. To
each his own. But for those that would take the feature and use it
daily, you're denying them that option.

Players who cared to, would rename places anyways regardless of the
designer-given names.

>> Now that's for locations. And players can rename them for their
>> own usage as they see fit. But unless the rest of the game world
>> [NPCs] start using the same vernacular, then you haven't really
>> differentiated between having names and not having names.

> I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  Players can name things
> whatever they want - it's generally pointless if the game names it
> otherwise.

It's only pointless for the game to name it if its never used by the
game anywhere else. I can't imagine a map of a town that had no
street names on it. Can you get to that city? Uh, which city? Well,
if you're talking to another player, they can give it the
player-chosen name.

What game-given names become is a structure for the game to be
consistent within itself and comprehensible to the players. So for
getting to 'that city', the game needs to have a name for that city,
like Dawn's Touch, as a referent.  Approaches to Dawn's Touch have
signs saying it's Dawn's Touch. Inhabitants consider themselves
citizens of Dawn's Touch. A trader may announce a caravan going to
Dawn's Touch that is hiring mercenaries for protection. A bard
troupe is performing in Dawn's Touch.

So I was saying that unless you have a common, consistent reference
system for location in game, the game cannot converse with the
player in a comprehensible manner.

Having a game with only player-given names means that all content is
PvP, or player-driven. Otherwise, it requires a high level of
maintenance, where the designers have to update the names of places
with whatever the players call them.

> I've never encountered an NPC smart enough to be using vernacular
> of any sort in a long time.  They always seem to be generic, cut
> from the same mold, and teaching them to differentiate based on
> names would just be unnecessary work.

Exactly. That's why game-to-player content requires game-given names
to work, without being a lot of work.

>> When it comes to items, I like the concept of giving most things
>> generic names, but having them nameable by players. The caveat is
>> that all of them will be named, just because they can be, and
>> because it's cooler that way.  And that detracts from Named items
>> really being special.

> You seem firmly nestled into the status quo.  That's fine - I
> don't demand that you change, only ask you to consider the
> alternative.  Why should an item have a built-in name?

No problems, though here I suppose I wasn't clear. I'm not against
items being named. And I do believe most items should have a generic
name, like longsword, which I don't consider a built-in name.  So
it's a sword. But have it be nameable by players. So Bubba who takes
the sword off of the Chief of the Ice Demons, can name it Icesword,
Frostbite, Coldbrand, Screamcicle, or whatever. Then it means
something to them. Which is exactly the point you were making.

When you give that ability, all items will be named. So can there
exist Elric's Stormbringer in such a system? Or Excalibur? You can
code it so that those items can't be renamed. You'll still have
players naming generic swords as Excalibur tho, because it looks
cooler. I don't suppose that in, ahem, 'real life' someone would
mistaken a generic sword I was calling Excalibur with the 'real
one'. In a text game, the only description often visible to anyone
besides the wielder is the name. So while I'm for players havign the
ability to name items, I'm giving a nod to the fact that it will
make special items less special. Because their uniqueness or
specialness can no longer be distinguished from generic items named
the same thing.

Rayzam
www.travellingbard.com



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