[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
1588: Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Ling <K.L.Lo-94@student.lut.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:29:37 +0100 (BST)
References: [1]
Organization: Kanga.Nu
On Tue, 20 May 1997 clawrenc@cup.hp.com wrote:
> In <199705190115.DAA06158@regoc.srce.hr>, on 05/18/97
> at 06:19 PM, silovic@srce.hr (Miroslav Silovic) said:
>
> >The similar example: causing commands that failed because of typos to
> >have IC consequences (for instance, typing 'west', when there is no
> >exit to west, should produce an error, because while player didn't
> >know that there is no exit, character certainly did know that.
>
> Again this comes back to the question of distinction I posed a couple
> days ago (which got very little feedback). Are you the human merely a
> background mentor for the character in the MUD, or is the character in
> the MUD merely a proxy for you the human (along with whatever personae
> etc you wish to assume)?
>
> If you take the former view, then yes, walking into the wall is both
> surprising and probably unacceptable. If you take the later view
> (which I prefer) then walking into the wall is not only preferable,
> but not walking into the wall breaks the logical consistancy of the
> world.
Hmm... I think I sit in the former? That's why I was so interested in
Nathan's risk assessment. Say my character (Kate) was piloting a Gear
(little, well, 5 metre tall, mech things). By typing west, Kate should
happily pilot that thing thru a brick wall. She shouldn't try walking
into the same wall if she was undressed though. Or should it prompt me?
> w
Are you sure you want to walk into the wall?
Icky, icky, icky, icky (soz, lost my vocab for a second).
| Ling "Mental slavery,
_O_O_ Freshwater fish since 1976 set my spirit free"