[Raewyn]

Dear TMS members,

In your opinion, what would be the best "look and feel" that a text-based MUD could possibly give you? Obviously, it is different than looking at two oak desks (or something similar), where one is stained and polished and the other is simply bare.  Text-based worlds are also interactive and may or may not have the ability to be read like one would read a book. So, how do you get around it?

Specifically, when just looking at rooms and objects in a MUD, what do you like to see as a first impression? Do the room lines have to be a certain length? What kind of colors do you like to see (and do they make a difference?)? Does the type and placement of color have an effect on your perception of the game (red room title, green exits, for example)? Do items have to be descriptive, or does 'green fern' suffice?


If it is not going to be a picture, what is the next best thing you can do with a thousand words?

Thank you! :)

Raewyn

Edit (04/21) - Apologies, after reading it again it no longer looked like a newbie question. :( (Does simply being a newbie count?) :)

[Ilkidarios]

I like detailed descriptions, but I write for a living.  I think that long descriptions are for books, though.  When I play MUDs, I don't like to read long descriptions to find something I am looking for.  I like IRE's systems in which they have the basic objects and you can look at them for further detail.  However, I do not like their systems because it has many objects in the description that are not physically there.
             So in summary, I believe that a MUD should have a basic outline with more detail when one wishes to "look" at the object.  This means that when looking for a specific object, I wouldn't have to sift through a giant mound of text in the room, I would have a basic list of objects with which I could pinpoint the exact thing I was looking for.
I think what I want is there to be the basic outline of the object, such as "clay pot" instead of "clay pot with a motiff of a bull on it sitting on a table on the west side of the room", while I like to be able to visualize a MUD environment somewhat, I do not have all day to sit around looking for something.

[gth]

Consistency is also important - especially on any MUD where timing and combat are important. Having exits clearly listed, lists of objects and/or people in the room differentiated from the room description itself would also be more important, since the life of your character may depend upon that kind of short, sharp awareness of your surroundings.

Conversely, I can imagine that in a MUSH having the character's positions about the room embedded into the room description itself would be much more like a novel - describing the dark corner of the inn and having someone sitting in that corner described in the one sentence sounds very fitting (pity the coder who tries to do it though .

Room descriptions themselves should read like a book - most people can read anywhere from 70 to 90 characters across before moving from the end of one line to the beginning of the next becomes an effort. Typeface/fonts etc are in their client settings though - up to them to fix that side up. Lastly, I tend to encourage first-letter capitalisation in room names just so it's a bit obvious.

Colour tends to be a love/hate thing. I'll tread the middle ground and say I don't mind it, but of course I'd never read a *novel* where the words were all coloured.

[Xerihae]

Moved Don't worry about it, I'm not going to jump on you for posting in a forum then deciding later it was the wrong one.

As for the topic at hand, like has been said consistency is a great plus for me. Room descriptions that are roughly the same number of characters across lend a professional feeling to a world, whereas I find ones that vary anywhere from 60-80 characters to the clients maximum line length is off-putting.

Colour... I can handle a bit of enforced, understated colour like set room titles in one colour, exits in another, and objects in a third. When putting colour in a MUD you should try and pay attention to HCI concepts and avoid combinations that clash or might be invisible to people with certain types of colour-blindness. The ability to customise it or turn it off is always good.

Spelling and grammar. I can forgive a certain laxity, but there's nothing worse than running from an area where the builder has obviously been careful to use proper English and typed out their room descriptions lovingly, to one that has been haphazardly put together by someone with a minimal grasp of spelling and grammar. It just doesn't look professional.

I've mentioned looking professional a couple of times, because for me this is what separates the "serious" MUDs from the ones being run by people who figured out they could run a stock codebase and started yelling "Me too! Me too!". If a MUD has a professional look then it's immediately obvious that the owners have at least some pride in their work and are serious about running an effective, well-designed game.

[welcor]

Let's see if this post makes the link on the front page correct again (it was still pointing to the newbie forum).

My personal opinion towards room descriptions are quite concise, if I have to say it myself:
1. a room description should wrap at around 75 chars width.
2. a room description needs to be written using proper english.
3. use color sparingly, if at all.
4. don't describe things that can be moved out. Ie. don't describe a vase on a table. Put in a vase on a table.
5. as written by Ilkadarios, make detailed descriptions available for everything, but keep the default description short and use keywords that can be figured out.

Take a look at the TBA website at http://welcor.n3.net, specifically the menu points "specifications" and "why build ?". As you'll see, the above is more or less what we try to teach there.

[KaVir]

Bad formatting (including line-wrap at 80+ characters), excessive colour, poor spelling and grammar, inaccurate information, etc - these are the sort of things which give a bad impression.

But to give me an actively good impression I would need to see more than just a lack of mistakes - I would want to see the descriptions change to reflect my interaction with the mud, to make me feel that I'm really in the world and not just the spectator of some generic, static scene...

You are walking through a forest, the leaves on the trees a mottled brown from the onset of autumn. Many leaves have already fallen to the ground, and they crunch dryly beneath your shoes with every step. The sun is beginning to rise on the eastern horizon, its red glow barely visible through the tall trees.

[Ashon]

Originally Posted by In your opinion, what would be the best "look and feel" that a text-based MUD could possibly give you?

Depends on the type of game.  But Consistency is the most basic requirement that I need.  I want a game consistent with the theme, consistent with the feel, and consistent with the type experience that the game is trying to impart.

Originally Posted by Text-based worlds are also interactive and may or may not have the ability to be read like one would read a book. So, how do you get around it?

I'm a big IF fan.  And while I don't want it to read like a book, I want the characters to feel like they are IN a book.  Also, the key word in that quote.  INTERACTIVE!  Make the game INTERACTIVE.

Originally Posted by Specifically, when just looking at rooms and objects in a MUD, what do you like to see as a first impression?

I don't look for anything specific.  

Originally Posted by Do the room lines have to be a certain length?

YES, they need to be consistent, and logical.

Originally Posted by What kind of colors do you like to see (and do they make a difference?)?

I'm torn on this.  It really depends on the game.  If I'm playing a PvP (Which I don't do a lot of) I want IMPORTANT Information to be colorized.  Otherwise if I'm playing I'd rather not have any color.  However, as an Implementor, I want my players to be able to colorize as they feel fit.  Color in text, I don't think helps convey much information in a flowery description.

Originally Posted by Does the type and placement of color have an effect on your perception of the game (red room title, green exits, for example)?

Of course it does.  The color draws the eye towards that word, list, or phrase.  But it can be distracting.  Drawing the eye away from more important information.

Originally Posted by Do items have to be descriptive, or does 'green fern' suffice?

Depends.  If it's just filler like most muds use, then 'green fern' is fine.  But if you want an interactive game, a more in depth game, you need to describe how players can interact with it, codewise.  I want to be able to 'feel fern' or 'taste fern' or 'pick fern' or even 'hide behind fern'.  But, that's just me.  

Originally Posted by If it is not going to be a picture, what is the next best thing you can do with a thousand words?

If you can't make a movie, write a book, right?

[Alsta]

Dynamic room descriptions are always a good way to captivate the reader (read: player). If your mud has the capability, different descriptions for night and day, summer and winter etc. are always a good way to go. A Theseus and random phrasings of the same sentence also give a room the feel it's not just a static world. Also, room descriptions should be written for the people who will read them, read every object described, and attempt to interact with them in as many ways as possible (at least using the five senses).

The room long, the first impression as it were, shouldn't really be any longer than 5-7 lines (even 7 is a bit much). Every object described needs at least an extra description you can view or smell or touch (and it's always much better if this isn't a circular description.. becomes a little pointless then).

The use of 'you' in a long description is always a big no-no in my book. Same with having descriptions of things you can't see (ie. "This house has a fresh and rosy smell." - look is for viewing with your eyes.. use smell for finding out such information).

Good spelling and grammar is a given. For line length, I'd go with anything between 75-79 max. Colourwise, I can't stand MUDs that make you go blind. I usually play with a black background, and prefer all room descriptions in white (bold maybe for the titles, and it doesn't hurt to have the exits in a soft colour like cyan). As long as there's some separation between title, exits, long desc and objects it can look fine - though, this is just what I'm used too.

NB: I used 'should' a lot of times here.. these are just my opinions, not the be all and end all of room building.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Alsta @ April 22 2005,19:18) The use of 'you' in a long description is always a big no-no in my book.

I couldn't disagree more.  The use of 'you' is a vital part of any description written in second person, allowing the player to better identify with their character and improving their immersion in the game.

IMO the 'no you' rule is just an outdated fashion among muds that lack the ability to utilise dynamic descriptions.  It also completely contradicts the rest of the gameplay (the other in-game messages use 'you'), further distancing the player from the scene in which their character exists.

http://www.theinspiracy.com/ArPOV.htm

"...to gamers, second person narrative should have a familiar feeling. Perhaps this rings a bell: "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. You see a pointy stick here." Classic text adventures were often written in second person, implying that "you", the player were somehow participating in the adventure described. In fact, "the medium of participation" is a basic definition of interactivity."

http://www.ruthnestvold.com/2ndper.htm

"The use of the second person in any form is an invitation to projection, be it onto a character or a fictionalized reader in the text, drawing the reader into the text in ways other forms do not."

[Ashon]

First off, Interesting read's KaVir!

I'm going to draw a middle point here. I think when most Head Builders layout that the use of you is forbidden. They are worried about the Builder forcing an emotion, or thought on the character that may not mesh with the players view of their character. They may not be able to express that this is what they mean when the say, "Don't use you in building".

You stand in an apparently empty hallway. Is a good description as far as I'm concerned. But then I'm into light on the description camp.

Of course, using you is completely different when the game and the character are responsive to the world around you. Recently we've discussed a system that hooks into our senses code, wherein, if the characters go around eating a lot of bitter foods, they will start to increase a bitterness enjoyment variable. So when they use a bitter food, the character might get a message stating: You enjoy the bitter beer. Whereas a character without a high bitter enjoyment would get a message stating: The bitterness in the beer makes you pucker. (or whatever).

In this case, where through interaction with the environment the player influences the feelings of the character, I feel it is appropriate to give force feelings and emotions on the character/player.

[Ashon]

Just a quick thought,

Has anyone done a coloring scheme where Items which are better then the one you have equipped appear in a different color? Or a EQ style Color the name of a MOB depending on the same algorithm as the consider command?

If so, do you have any thoughts on it?

[Alsta]

The use of 'you' forces a reaction.

Originally Posted by "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

How do you know it's a maze of twisty little passages? It could just be hallway in a cave. You know it, because you are being told that. Doesn't the experience of passing through those twisting passages give you that knowledge?

Originally Posted by You see a pointy stick here.

How does the reader know that? You could be glancing around at the walls instead. This is forcing the person to look at the pointy stick, not allowing him to look around the room a little to find the pointy stick.

Classic text adventures are 2 decades old - they can be used as good historical research, but not as modern references. If they were, I'd be multiplaying LOTR on the spectrum.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Alsta @ April 23 2005,00:34) The use of 'you' forces a reaction.

No, it simply provides the information in an immersive way - the player is no longer some bystander reading a neutral description, but is instead looking through the eyes of their character, seeing what their character sees when they type 'look'. As I pointed out already, this is the thing second-person excels at - drawing the reader in, making them feel as if they are participating.

The word 'you' is used on every mud I've ever seen when typing 'grin', or 'draw sword', or 'inventory', or any one of a number of other commands. The 'look' command should be no different.

[Angie]

Originally Posted by This is forcing the person to look at the pointy stick, not allowing him to look around the room a little to find the pointy stick.

"There is a pointy stick here" does exactly the same.

It is possible to make the same assumptions about the player or character with or without using second person. By eliminating "you" from descriptions you don't solve the problem - and, as KaVir pointed out, you lose some immersiveness points.

Consider the following three examples:

It reminds you of a light bulb.

It resembles a light bulb.

It looks like a light bulb.

All three sentences make the same assumptions - namely that the player (or character) has seen a light bulb before, and that they consider whatever they're looking at to be similar for some reason. They differ in the degree of involvement for the reader/player. I find the first one strongest emotionally, the last one completely neutral (even boring).

Dynamic descriptions get the best of both worlds, even if they are limited to what the game knows about your character. If the game mechanics have no way of knowing you're glancing at the walls or your group member's cleavage instead of the pointy stick, it won't make a difference whether the stick's description uses "you" or not. Because, how would you know there's a pointed stick there?

[Alsta]

Looking at a room is not the same as grinning or drawing a sword. If you grin, you grin - nothing more too it. Different ways to grin, sure, but it's still a grin. A look is a glance around the room. It's a first impression of a room. If I look into a room, my first impression would be the colour and material of the walls, the floor, and (depending on the height of the room) the ceiling. It wouldn't be the obscure piece of wood lying in a corner (unless of course that was the only object in an otherwise empty room).

It should be up to the player to decide what they see when they look into a room (as much as the room creator can make it possible). Forcing a person to see an obscure object without any exploration, just by a cursory glance is poor writing in my opinion. I'll stand by that, until next time I walk into a forest and see a half-buried bronze coin engraved with a silver sword - upon my first glance.

[Burr]

Originally Posted by Alsta said: "Forcing a person to see an obscure object without any exploration, just by a cursory glance is poor writing in my opinion."

That too is a problem unrelated to the use of the word "you." It has to do with timing, not perspective. The obscure object could hide in a subdescription, or require a second or third glance or simply a certain amount of time to be spent in the room. Such implementations can be achieved with or without second-person perspective.

***

More significant than perspective, I believe, is the tone of any particular description. Without appropriate pacing, voice, etc., the player will feel out of place whether the description claims he is the actor or an observor.

[Molly]

Ashon wrote: April 22 2005,189