[Jherlen]

I'm probably gonna reignite a debate many builders have already had once or twice before by posting this...

I've been around to a few different MUDs and had a chance to glimpse their guidelines for building areas. A guideline I've noticed on many roleplaying MUDs is one prohibiting the use of the word "you" in descriptions. Generally, the people behind the guidelines back this up by saying its in place to prevent descriptions that force emotions on a player, like:

"The haunted house is scary, a chill runs up your spine." or "The waterfall is one of the most beautiful sights you've ever seen."

And I agree, those are bad descriptions, but I don't think the word "you" is the cause of it. Descriptions that force emotions or actions on a character are bad, whether they use the word you, or not. I also think descriptions like "You can see a tall building rising into the sky towards the east." or "A vast expanse of icy tundra stretches out before your eyes." are fine. In both sets of examples I've given, the statements can be rewritten without the use of "you", so what's the big deal?

Granted, I do more coding than building, so my opinion might not hold as much weight, but I'm interested in seeing what some experienced builders have to say on this subject.

Jherlen

[Iluvatar]

I don't think it's really a debate at all. 'You' is obviously a part of speech and has places where its use is warranted. Where it's used though is historically for "you are here" type rooms the basic licensors enabled as examples for descriptions and carried onward by simplistic downloaders.

To me and to quite a few whose opinions I value, 'you' is a result of either force or conscious choice by the 'actor' ie <look west> "You see tall buildings with spires of smoke curling from the chimneys." "You were swept into the maelstrom of the storm and carried far aloft. Prayers to your Gods for a soft landing would be wise."

A basic room should be somewhat generic and never impose questionable standards or emotions or potentially unreasonable actions upon a player. "There is a wonderful smelling flower here, you pick it up and get warm feelings from the heady aroma." Okay, I'm an Anti-Paladin, give me a break, I want to eat it.

'You' is typically an imposition, a potentially unwanted word that implies 'you must or you did' when it's not really an option you would choose or are capable of in roleplay or real life. Many worlds handle it differently with either uncaring apathy due to need for growth concerns or lack of a clear understanding what the proper function should be in their particular context. I mean "you are here and about to get your butt whupped by $n" is perfectly fine in a PK intense world but it seems lacking in a world that prides itself in room interaction, quests or role-play.

Is there a hard, fast rule? Not really. Totally banning 'you' from descriptions is silly. Making it something that builders are always cognizant of avoiding is smart and solves tons more problems than it creates.

[Kastagaar]

In the common mud, "You" is almost always used to "force" an action or an emotion on a character. Its usage, however, can be saved by judicious usage of dynamic descriptions. For examble, saying "the water in the room comes up to your knees" as a generic term might work if you're human, but if you're a dwarf or giant, other body parts may be appropriate. A builder with dynamic descriptions can detect this and build appropriately.

Kas.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Descriptions that force emotions or actions on a character are bad, whether they use the word you, or not.

It's bad to tell someone they're hungry, thirsty, or tired? Or that it really hurt when Bubba the Ogre stuck his sword through their leg? Or that they feel the rage boiling in their veins when they go berserk?

Originally Posted by To me and to quite a few whose opinions I value, 'you' is a result of either force or conscious choice by the 'actor' ie <look west> "You see tall buildings with spires of smoke curling from the chimneys." "You were swept into the maelstrom of the storm and carried far aloft. Prayers to your Gods for a soft landing would be wise."

What is the difference between typing "look" and typing "look <west>"? Are you implying that the former should be written in third person while the latter should be written in second person?

[Orion Elder]

Originally Posted by It's bad to tell someone they're hungry, thirsty, or tired? Or that it really hurt when Bubba the Ogre stuck his sword through their leg? Or that they feel the rage boiling in their veins when they go berserk?

Not at all. But, those won't be a part of a room description, which is the topic of this post thus that has no bearing on the situation.

Originally Posted by What is the difference between typing "look" and typing "look <west>"? Are you implying that the former should be written in third person while the latter should be written in second person?

I can, to an extent, see the point in doing this. When you type look it should be a generic description (though as detailed as possible). When you type look west, you're looking in a specific direction, and what they see can be plainly detailed. Yes it is possible you might need to apply racial parameters (such as height, eyesight, etc) to this situation, look west is a very BASIC description of what is to come in the next room... but it's not as necessary for such a basic desrcription compared to one so detailed as a full room description.

As for the 'you' subject. My personal opinion is no. I don't even use it in the look <direction> info.

[enigma@zebedee]

I can't say that we have banned the word 'you' specifically, although we do generally frown on room descriptions which enforce emotion. (Area reviewers should report such descriptions as typos which need fixing before the area goes online).

Where you is used quite a lot is in descriptions like the following:

You have reached the intersection between two streets, before you is a battered signpost while all around the devestation is staggering. The town has been levelled and all that remains is a pile of rubble.

I would say that that description is fine, on the other hand:

You have reached the northern end of main street, a smaller road extends away to the east while behind you main street extends south. You gasp as you survey the devestation around, the town has been levelled and only ruins remain.

This is obviously bad because:
1. It assumes direction of travel/way person is facing.
2. It forces an aciton (gasping).

I can see why restricting the use of you would be an easy way to reduce the number of such descriptions, but you can do descriptions just as badly without using it (although admittedly its a lot harder).

Originally Posted by It's bad to tell someone they're hungry, thirsty, or tired? Or that it really hurt when Bubba the Ogre stuck his sword through their leg? Or that they feel the rage boiling in their veins when they go berserk?

No, that is quite a different concept. That's a Dynamic description, versus a Static. Changing the description of a gnome so it says
"The large, heavyset gnome towers over you, grinning evilly. You shudder in fear of what he might do." is just plain silly.

-- The gnome towers over me, and i'm an 8 foot tall Death Knight!? Why is he always grimacing, even when he just got knocked unconscious?! Why do I shudder in fear, I am a Death Knight and master of all gnomes!? --

With combat you can have the combat engine check if it hurt or not, so it's a dynamic description. With hunger, you check if they have eaten or not, dynamic again.

Let me write a banquet hall that has in the description "Seeing all the food you are overcome with hunger", now if they had just gorged on alot of food and they are stuffed, how does that work?

IMO, players are more of a culprit then builders. Especially when it comes to the "You drool in lust at the sight of her" desc's. Anyways, neither way is wrong, it just depends totally on taste.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by It's bad to tell someone they're hungry, thirsty, or tired?  Or that it really hurt when Bubba the Ogre stuck his sword through their leg?  Or that they feel the rage boiling in their veins when they go berserk? Not at all. But, those won't be a part of a room description, which is the topic of this post thus that has no bearing on the situation.

Of course they could be!  There is no reason why a room description at the top of a hill shouldn't tell you that you're weary after your climb*, or why a description of a banquet shouldn't tell you that you're hungry*, or why the sound of a waterfall shouldn't remind you of your thirst*.

* Assuming, of course, that those facts are true for your character.

Originally Posted by No, that is quite a different concept. That's a Dynamic description, versus a Static.

Verses a static?  Why?  There's no reason why a room description should be static.

Originally Posted by Changing the description of a gnome so it says "The large, heavyset gnome towers over you, grinning evilly. You shudder in fear of what he might do." is just plain silly.

What if my character is a 1-foot tall sprite with a courage rating of 1%, and the gnome has performed the "evil grin" social at me within the last couple of seconds?  Why would the description be silly under those conditions?

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by Of course they could be! There is no reason why a room description at the top of a hill shouldn't tell you that you're weary after your climb*, or why a description of a banquet shouldn't tell you that you're hungry*, or why the sound of a waterfall shouldn't remind you of your thirst*. What if my character is a 1-foot tall sprite with a courage rating of 1%, and the gnome has performed the "evil grin" social at me within the last couple of seconds? Why would the description be silly under those conditions?

*chuckle* What they mean is all descriptions in general should cater to all walks of life, no matter their race, upbringing, hunger status, shoe size, or sexual orientation

I currently have a rule set up to prevent from using 'You' in room descriptions at all. But reading this thread and seeing the possible ways that it could be used without invoking or assuming anything about a character, I may try to be more leniant. Preventing it however prevents from running into the various problems already listed here. And when you have to go through and check eeeeeeevery room description and eeeeeeeeeevery mob description and eeeeeeeevery object description (not the mention no one else has interest in doing this), having less things to look for or check is always a good thing.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by *chuckle* What they mean is all descriptions in general should cater to all walks of life, no matter their race, upbringing, hunger status, shoe size, or sexual orientation

I've never disputed that point. I'm just asking what's silly about my sprite seeing the grinning gnome towering overhead.

[Orion Elder]

KaVir, not everyone has dynamic room descriptions, nor does everyone have an interest in implementing them. CAN it be done? Yes... no one has denied that. Should it? That's a matter of opinion... I don't have dynamic room descriptions nor do I have, at this particular moment, any plans to implement it. Thus dynamic descriptions have no bearing for me.

Based on Jherlen's statement, I don't think he (or she) has it either. Your assumption that everyone should (or your implication, at the very least) is not warranted.

Under normal circumstances (this means barring the use of dynamic room descriptions), the use of 'you' in my opinion is a bad thing.

[KaVir]

Ah, so you're saying it's a "bad thing" in the context of people who are unable to install a snippet?

[enigma@zebedee]

Where you have dynamic descriptions (and builders who have the time to code in all the varients on the description) then that sort of description is very effective.

As a simple example I just updated a room in an old area where the room description mentions a torch that has gone out. Now it only mentions the torch if it is actually there.

In the same way if the monsters long description checks your height and gives an appropriate message based on it then great - on the other hand if the description is fixed then something can't be said to tower over you unless its significently bigger than the biggest player character can ever be. (Including things like potions of giant strength).

[Jherlen]

We don't have dynamic room descriptions, no. If we had them, I can definitely see how using "you" in them would be completely fine. However, for static descriptions, things which everyone on the mud would be seeing, I don't think forcing emotions or making assumptions would be a good thing to do.

I'm still for using "you" however. I really think if you use it responsibly, it wouldn't harm anything. After all, a builder can still make a room description like "Anyone who looked upon this fearsome beast would likely flee in terror." -- and that's just as bad as saying "You look upon this fearsome beast and flee in terror.", if everyone in the game will be seeing that description.

On the other hand, I still think there are lots of ways you CAN use you in a static description without forcing any actions or emotions on a character, that's why I question the rule of thumb that using you in a static desc is always bad. It depends, I think, on the intelligence of the people writing your descs.

[Zaroth]

The subtle bash about not being able to add a code snippet agitated me a bit, and is the main reason for this post.  Any coder that is able to understand basic code structure can add any snippet, custom or not.  Nothing is impossible with coding, some things just take longer than others.  Many don't care to code, and those that do, do so willingly to help benefit their MUD and the MUD community as a whole.  

Many may like the idea of using a random room generator for the use of filler rooms, but even at that its semi-questionable at best.  "You" shouldnt ever be used when dealing with emotions or feelings of any sort, and I can't for the life of me see how you would trust an AI section of code with the random room generator and trust it'll properly create rooms you, or your MUD would be proud of.

Zaroth

[KaVir]

You seem to have missed the point.

Imagine the scenario where someone created a mud in which there was no implementation of hunger - you could eat, but it was purely cosmetic (it just destroyed the food object).  Within such a mud, how would you feel about an echo at breakfast time, lunchtime and tea time, telling everyone on the mud that they're feeling hungry?  Personally I'd think it was silly, because some of those people might well have stuffed themselves only minutes earlier.  But does that mean you can make the sweeping statement that telling players "you are hungry" is a "bad thing", on the basis that some muds might not have implemented hunger?  Of course not.

The problem is not with using "you", or with telling people how they feel - the problem is with sending potentially inaccurate information.

As an aside, every mud I've ever seen has used at least a very basic form of dynamic room description - if the character is unable to see due to being blind, or because the room is too dark, they will see a more appropriate message instead of the room description.  I think that's good, because it would be silly to have every room description blank on the basis that some people might not be able to see - although there is obvious much potential for improvement (such as, for example, including sounds and smells which would not be affected by lack of vision).

And I've no idea why you brought up the concept of randomly generated rooms - they have nothing to do with this issue.

[John]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 03 2003,12:16) I've never disputed that point.  I'm just asking what's silly about my sprite seeing the grinning gnome towering overhead.

Nothing, but are the only people who are going to look at him people who're smaller then him? Unless he's some custom giant that no-one else can be then no.

I think you should be used sparingly at best. Take ANY example of when "you" is used in a room description and I'll show you an alternative way to describe it without using "you".

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 04 2003,03:21) Within such a mud, how would you feel about an echo at breakfast time, lunchtime and tea time, telling everyone on the mud that they're feeling hungry? Does that mean you can make the sweeping statement that telling players "you are hungry" is a "bad thing", on the basis that some muds might not have implemented hunger? Of course not.

No but it's a bad thing because your giving players information that isn't true. Might be true for the majority of people but it won't be true for all people.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 04 2003,03:21) the problem is with sending potentially inaccurate information.

And the chance of sending inaccurate information increases ten-fold when you use "you" in a room description.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I've never disputed that point.  I'm just asking what's silly about my sprite seeing the grinning gnome towering overhead. Nothing, but are the only people who are going to look at him people who're smaller then him?

No - so obviously when someone else looks at him, they should see something else.  It's only a problem if the information sent to the player is potentially inaccurate - so in this case, if the description is static (ie shows exactly the same information regardless of who is looking).

Originally Posted by I think you should be used sparingly at best. Take ANY example of when "you" is used in a room description and I'll show you an alternative way to describe it without using "you".

Well I think "you" is the ideal solution (I will include my reasoning at the bottom of this post).  Take any example of when "you" is not used in a room description and I'll show you an alternative way to describe it using "you".  Further more, show me any static description (either with or without the use of "you") and I'll show you information in it which is potentially inaccurate - and it's the inaccurate information, not the use of "you", which is the problem.

Don't confuse "fixing the problem" with "hiding the symptoms".

Originally Posted by Within such a mud, how would you feel about an echo at breakfast time, lunchtime and tea time, telling everyone on the mud that they're feeling hungry? Does that mean you can make the sweeping statement that telling players "you are hungry" is a "bad thing", on the basis that some muds might not have implemented hunger?  Of course not. No but it's a bad thing because your giving players information that isn't true. Might be true for the majority of people but it won't be true for all people.

EXACTLY - which is the very point I was making!

Anyway, here's the post I mentioned, which I originally wrote in December 2001, in response to someone who claimed that the use of "you" was one of their personal pet peeves:

One of my personal pet peeves is people who think that using "you" in a room description is wrong.  There is nothing wrong with using second person - indeed, for a mud it is the ideal choice, and most of those who claim otherwise rarely have any explaination for WHY it's bad, other than "that's the way I was taught".  I "taught" my cat t