[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 to use a litter tray, but that doesn't mean I wanted her to use it for the rest of her life - it was just a short term solution to keep her from making a mess on the carpet.  Teaching a builder to use third person is pretty much the same thing - it's an aid for incompetent writers who haven't been "potty trained".  The trouble is, it's a bad habbit which seems to stick with them, and with which they contaminate others.  Not only does this stunt the creativity of the writer and the quality of the mud, but it also gives the builder the false impression that by not using "you" they've suddenly become a "good builder".  Here are some points to take into consideration:

1) Many of the early areas (ie stock areas) were badly written.  They were also written in second person.  Many people seem to think that the two things are related.  They are not.  Writing in third person can be good practice, and it's easier than writing in second person, which is perhaps why newbie builders are often taught that way.  In addition, because most academic work is written in third person, builders are likely to be more comfortable with that style of writing.

2) Writing in second-person is not "bad writing style".  It is "unusual", because it places the reader into the story.  As the idea of most muds is to make the reader feel like they are their character, this is ideal.  If you'd rather create a generic "picture on the wall" description that different players can look at and try to interpret as best they can to imagine what their characters would see, use third-person.  If you'd rather tell the player EXACTLY what their character can see, hear and smell, making them feel as if they are actually looking through the eyes of their character (rather than reading about their character in a book or watching them on TV), use second person.

3) It is bad style to mix first/second/third person.  If you decide to use third person in your descriptions, you should change the rest of the mud to the same style - so "You draw your sword" should be "KaVir draws his sword", "Bubba grins at you" should be "Bubba grins at KaVir", "You get a big pot pie from your backpack" should be "KaVir gets a big pot pie from his backpack", etc.

4) The reason many people started using third person in muds is because it's easier to make the descriptions "generic" (ie, so they don't contain things specific to a certain character).  However dynamic description snippets have been available for over two years now.  If your coders find it too difficult to install snippets, or if you are too lazy to put the extra time into writing dynamic descriptions, then you may want to stick to third person.

[shadowfyr]

> 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".

How about this. It is a room item in my player house rather than a room description from an actual true area, but I challenge you to remove all the 'you' uses in it and still make it have the same impact as was intended:

--
As you gaze upon the model, you see a small town. Around the
edges of the town are five points of colored light, blue, white,
green, yellow and red. However, your attention is drawn to a
lone patch of darkness at the towns center. Suddenly you experience
a sense of disorientation, as you are swallowed by shifting shadows
and then just as suddenly find yourself standing on a desolate plain.

Before you, upon the top of a raised plateau, rests the ghostly
apparition of a dark and forboding castle, but once more your gaze
is drawn away, this time upward to the sky above the castle, until
you find yourself staring at a pair of glowing eyes, set
within a shapeless form of shadow. You feel such a sudden sense
of keen interest and extreme malice radiating from the shadow form
that you can't help but scream in terror and lose consciousness.

You awaken on the floor next to the model.
--

So, since the player has to initiate the result, is it permissable? If the player later finds the castle and there is no shadowy form, they can worry or shrug it off at leisure, but the point is to drive home the nature of what is being seen and in the case of a mud you don't have a picture to replace the thousand words needed to engender the proper response.

In most cases though, I have to agree. Using 'you' can be avoided and should be if it forces perspective. However, it is silly to do, 'The trail ends here. To the south is a shear drop.' if you -know- that the only way they could have gotten there was from the north (it being a dead end) and you could have used 'You follow the trail south to where it dead ends at a shear drop.' What, someone might mark that for a teleport location, so you shouldn't use the active version?

Forcing the abandonment of 'you' is a good sign that you don't have anyone willing to do quality control and if someone isn't checking every room, object and item, then odds are worse mistakes are going to crop up than a bad use of 'you'. Where I play the entry to one sub area will sometimes fault the first time you try to enter do to a bug and another room in the same general areas won't even load until the mob inside spawns the first time, which since the area spawns on a delay means a 1/2 hour or more after a reboot. At the time it was made no QC was ever done and the original creator has left along with most of the original staff that made the mud. The only people who have the authority to fix them are too busy doing more critical changes or QCing new areas. Banning 'you' is an excuse to not do a good job of checking quality and leaving it to the players to complain about what is wrong and may possibly never get fixed, do to everyone being 'to busy', not a solution.

[Orion Elder]

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

I will reiterate myself, since you obviously misunderstood (or simply did not READ) what I said. Some people do not have it, and some people simply don't give a ####. If my previous statement was too subtle, I apologize.

People who are 'unable' to install a snippet has nothing to do with it. I am quite able to install a snippet, and if I wanted I could write my OWN version of dynamic descriptions. I simply don't have an interest in it.

Room descriptions are supposed to be exactly that. Descriptions of a room (this being a representation of a virtual location, not necessarily a four-walled box), not how the player perceives it based on all this information you already know about them... that should be left up to the player.

For example, a dwarf with a courage of 1% encounters a Titan... that would to you mean the dwarf would fear the Titan... but, get this... the player who created the character intended it to be scared of everything BUT Titans! *gasp* STUPID PLAYER! Don't they know that tht 1% courage means they have to fear Titans?! While your system does work... I wouldn't say it works WELL (and that's my opinion).

Room descriptions should describe a setting.

[KaVir]

That's all very nice Orion, but it still doesn't prove your "I am the world" line of reasoning; My mud doesn't support feature X, therefore anything which requires feature X is a "bad thing"?

As I've said already, the problem is not with using "you", or with telling people how they feel - the problem is with sending potentially inaccurate information. Obviously the more limited your mud, the more limited the information you'll be able to send - but the fact that mud X doesn't implement hunger doesn't mean that sending "you are hungry" messages to the players is always a "bad thing". And the same applies to any other form of feedback.

Originally Posted by Room descriptions are supposed to be exactly that. Descriptions of a room (this being a representation of a virtual location, not necessarily a four-walled box), not how the player perceives it based on all this information you already know about them... that should be left up to the player.

No, it shouldn't, because the player isn't the person standing in the room - the character is. The player perceives the world through the senses of their character. If the character is blind, the player should not be able to see. If the character is short, they should find themselves looking up at taller people. If the character is cowardly, they should find themselves feeling afraid.

[Orion Elder]

Originally Posted by That's all very nice Orion, but it still doesn't prove your "I am the world" line of reasoning; My mud doesn't support feature X, therefore anything which requires feature X is a "bad thing"?

Do you intentionally not read what I've stated, or do you have some interest in trying to make me look bad? I will requote what I stated before, which this "bad thing" quote is coming from:

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

Under normal circumstances. Meaning without the use of such a system as dynamic room descriptions. Under those circumstances use of the word 'you' is, in my opinion, a bad thing. I never said dynamic room descriptions are a bad thing. I said use of 'you' is a bad thing, EXCEPT (possibly) in the case of something like dynamic room descriptions. Which, based on the information provided, I think it is safe to say this person does not have those. I also stated it was my opinion. You trying to reapply what I said to something else does not change what I said, or the meaning of what I said.

Originally Posted by As I've said already, the problem is not with using "you", or with telling people how they feel - the problem is with sending potentially inaccurate information. Obviously the more limited your mud, the more limited the information you'll be able to send - but the fact that mud X doesn't implement hunger doesn't mean that sending "you are hungry" messages to the players is always a "bad thing". And the same applies to any other form of feedback.

Hunger is based on factual information.

Originally Posted by No, it shouldn't, because the player isn't the person standing in the room - the character is.

Yes, and the player controls the character and interprets what the character feels. If you want to create an AI system, boot the player altogether and let the world run by itself. If I want to play a role I want to be in control of that role. I don't need a computer to tell me how I should react. That is MY choice to make.

Originally Posted by The player perceives the world through the senses of their character. If the character is blind, the player should not be able to see. If the character is short, they should find themselves looking up at taller people.

EXACTLY! The PLAYER perceives. The character observes. That's the key point. The above is factual information. If a character is blind they can't see thus the character observes no visual information for the player to perceive and, in turn, interpret. The character is short, they character looks up at other characters who are taller. The character observes, the player perceives and interprets.

Originally Posted by If the character is cowardly, they should find themselves feeling afraid.

Here, I disagree. Fear is an emotion, and emotional reactions are up to the player to determine the reaction. However, we're rather off-topic now (we're now discussing player versus character reactions, as opposed to building ... and while the two are SOMEWHAT related they're not in the context of this post). If you'd like to continue discussing reactions of players versus characters, I would suggest starting a new thread.

In any case, I've given my opinion (which was the point of this thread), so unless something else catches my eye I think I'm done. G'day.

Originally Posted by No, it shouldn't, because the player isn't the person standing in the room - the character is. The player perceives the world through the senses of their character. If the character is blind, the player should not be able to see.

I will have to halfway agree with this. Yes, if the person is blind they should not be able to see. In the end though the room is a description of the surroundings and should be left up to the player to decide how their character reacts to it's environment.. within reason.

If a PC is blind then by all means, drop a -- You cannot see. -- message upon them, but -- again all this is personal opinion -- it should be left up to the player to decide if their character trembles in fear from not being able to see. Likewise, I think the player should decide if something in their they see fills their character with lust, sadness, madness, rage unless it is a certainty (as in dynamic descriptions that check).

On the room descriptions, as I said it's all personal opinion. I prefer not having 'you' in my descriptions because it tends to relax my descriptions and I tend to make more mistakes with it then without it. I have seen beautiful descriptions with the word 'you' in them as well.

No not everything that is not supported by code is a bad thing, but everything that I don't like is, on my mud, a bad thing and I reserve that right =) Muahaha. I think Kavir is basically right in his main point that it is not the 'you' but the incorrect information. Although disallowing it to keep a better room description standard is a good thing in my book, as is disallowing it to keep users from writing stupid player descriptions (which for the most part will be static unless you have a dynamic player-desc system with tokens for replacing emotions in other characters, but I have YET to see that... hmmmmmm).

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Do you intentionally not read what I've stated, or do you have some interest in trying to make me look bad?

I'm wondering the same thing myself.  For the third time, the problem is not with using "you", or with telling people how they feel - the problem is with sending potentially inaccurate information.

As you yourself have said in your most recent post, you think it's okay to use "you" if you have dynamic descriptions.  The point that I have to keep reiterating is that it's not a matter of dynamic or static descriptions - it's a matter of information accuracy.  If your mud cannot provide an accurate statement about something, then it shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Hunger is based on factual information.

Now you're generaling the other way.  Not all muds have hunger implemented - therefore within such muds a "you are hungry" message would not be based on factual information, and should therefore not be used.  Once again, it's not a matter of "you", or telling people information about themselves - it's a matter of how accurate that information is.

Originally Posted by No, it shouldn't, because the player isn't the person standing in the room - the character is. Yes, and the player controls the character and interprets what the character feels. If you want to create an AI system, boot the player altogether and let the world run by itself. If I want to play a role I want to be in control of that role. I don't need a computer to tell me how I should react. That is MY choice to make.

So in a pen&paper roleplaying game, you think something like this would be perfectly reasonable?

GM: Suddenly a huge green dragon the size of a house sweeps down from the sky and lands before you.  You're paralysed with fear!

Player: No I'm not!  I don't need you to tell me how I should react. That is MY choice to make.

GM: But your character has a courage rating of 1% and a phobia of dragons - you even called him Conan the Cowardly!

Player: Yeah, but I don't want to be afraid this time, and this is MY character to control in any way I see fit.  So I'll give the dragon the finger, and then go down the tavern for an ale.

In the above example, the GM knows the character would be afraid.  In some muds, the same assumption can be made.  It all depends on what information you have available - if you know the character would be afraid, then I see no problem with telling them that.  If you know the character would be hungry, then I see no problem with telling them that.  If you know the character is craving alcohol, then I see no problem with telling them that.

But the point I'm making is not about dynamic descriptions, or about the use of emotions - the point is concerning the use of "you", and the fact that there is nothing wrong with it.  The only problem is sending inaccurate information to the player, and that's something which you cannot generalise about, because many muds know different quantities of detail about the characters.

[Orion Elder]

Originally Posted by As you yourself have said in your most recent post, you think it's okay to use "you" if you have dynamic descriptions.  The point that I have to keep reiterating is that it's not a matter of dynamic or static descriptions - it's a matter of information accuracy.  If your mud cannot provide an accurate statement about something, then it shouldn't.

Is it about informational accuracy? Yes. But, as I pointed out, the MUD will NEVER know how I would REACT only what I'd observe. As I already stated... if you want an AI system boot the player altogether. So, emotions can be GUESSED at, but it is STILL a guess. Unless you put your poor players through one #### of a long creation process. You want to argue informational accuracy, fine. My character may have 99% courage... but get this, he's afraid of spiders. As he walks through an old, musty area a spider lands on his shoulder. The builder, working on the basis that anyone with 75% courage couldn't fear spiders, has my character, with a hearty laugh, swat it from his shoulder. STUPID PLAYER! GO ALONG WITH MY ALL-KNOWING VISION OF HOW YOU SHOULD REACT! *mutters*

Originally Posted by So in a pen&paper roleplaying game, you think something like this would be perfectly reasonable?

As for your GM conversation... would it be reasonable? Yes. Would it happen? No. I'd have decked the Gamemaster for being a dweeb and telling me how I should react. My character may fear everything EXCEPT for lizards (and in turn dragons), something they'd not know without allowing me to react for myself. The GM doesn't know how my character would react to that nor would a MUD. Unless you have one #### of a long character creation process (and I really doubt you DO collect all this information) you should not make assumptions.

And don't kid yourself, that's exactly what you're trying to perpetuate with this. Sending factual statements (in the situation of dynamic room descriptions) such as "The dwarf is taller than you" or something similar is fine. Telling them they fear something is not. But, that is simply my opinion. Just as you have YOUR opinion.

Furthermore, I said hunger is a factual state. I didn't say everyone supported it. Whether a MUD supports hunger or not, hunger is still a factual state (though maybe not to the mechanics of that particular MUD). If they don't support hunger, why would they be telling people they're hungry, though? That makes no sense. Just as trying to force an emotion on a player simply because, based on the best information you have, you THINK they would feel that emotion makes no sense.

Also, chances are, in a MUD that tells people they're hungry (via some automated process, I assume) when they don't even support hunger at all, they would not really care about the 'you in room descriptions' topic anyway.

But, you talk about providing accurate information... you can't provide accurate emotional information to someone without being that person. You can give it that college try, but you're not always going to be right. My character has 10% courage... he encounters a dragon... get this, he's not afraid of dragons. But, the builder figures everyone with 10% or lower courage fears dragons! STUPID PLAYER! Getting in the way again.

Factual information can be verified. For example a person's height. Thus telling them they would look up at something can be verified. Telling them they would fear something couldn't, without either asking the player and getting a response or asking them how they would react to every POSSIBLE situation. Now, as I've asked before I'll ask again... before this topic is deviated even further from the topic at hand, if you want to continue, please start another thread for it.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by GM: Suddenly a huge green dragon the size of a house sweeps down from the sky and lands before you.  You're paralysed with fear! Player: No I'm not!  I don't need you to tell me how I should react. That is MY choice to make. GM: But your character has a courage rating of 1% and a phobia of dragons - you even called him Conan the Cowardly! Player: Yeah, but I don't want to be afraid this time, and this is MY character to control in any way I see fit.  So I'll give the dragon the finger, and then go down the tavern for an ale. So in a pen&paper roleplaying game, you think something like this would be perfectly reasonable? As for your GM conversation... would it be reasonable? Yes. Would it happen? No. I'd have decked the Gamemaster for being a dweeb and telling me how I should react.

Then I suggest you never play Vampire the Masquerade.

Originally Posted by You want to argue informational accuracy, fine. My character may have 99% courage... but get this, he's afraid of spiders.

The same logic can be applied to any form of information, but you have to draw the line somewhere - muds are not full simulations of real life.

Thus you can assume people don't have their eyes closed when they type "look", and that they don't have their fingers stuck in their eyes when a sound occurs nearby.  You can assume that if they're hungry, the smell of food will appeal to them - there's no need to define every single food type that they like, or take into account any recent activities which may have put them off eating certain food.  Nor is there any need to make each character specify their exact muscle distribution - you can assume that everyone is fairly balanced.  Equally, if you wish to have something like fear or courage, there is no need to implement every possible phobia.

As long as the information is accurate within the rules of the simulation, you can do a pretty reasonable job.

And finally, stop telling me to start a new thread, because (1) this is still related to the original post, (2) it's completely on-topic, and (3) you're not a moderator on this forum.

The original poster claimed that "you" wasn't the cause of bad descriptions, to which you and several others disagreed.  I agree with the original poster, and I'm explaining why.

[Iluvatar]

I am thoroughly enjoying this somewhat ‘heated’ debate and actually laughed a few times. I don’t feel the conversation has gone off track at all and I believe even beneficial to quite a few.

Oh well, I guess I was wrong and the use of “you” is still a controversy to many. I think I’ll reiterate and simplify my point though for your consideration since those of us who object to its use rarely seem to have a valid answer to “why” according to KaVir. Don’t get me wrong, I totally respect KaVir, but I think he’s overcomplicated a simple issue in my opinion.

‘You’ is a personal thing; a subjective, forced reaction in response to some verb that has/was attempted to imply or apply to your character. If your character walks into a place that exists, then the implication is things exist there that can be looked at or smelled or felt or otherwise experienced but nothing specifically targeted since all ‘you’ did was walk in. Sure, I realize “you are here now” can be a valid response to the action of walking into a new place and I use such a simplistic term because that’s what a lot of builders actually do. Is it realistic though? Find a safe place in some wooded area, close your eyes and carefully walk ten paces deeper into it (without hitting a tree), then open them. Does some voice say to you “you are here now” or do you experience sights, sounds, smells and textures of things around you all at once on a grand scale? Something grabs your attention and sure, ‘you’ look at it.

As I stated in my original post, “you” has its place in grammar and story telling and is extremely valuable in the mind-numbing worlds of super-PK where if you take the time to read you get dead in a hurry. In worlds that pride themselves on interactive rooms or promote the seemingly rare talent of “knowing how to read,” the ability to avoid its use and make generic rooms is a valuable attribute for any aspiring builder. Those who learn when it’s actually appropriate to use are even more rare and valuable.

An interesting side note… I have received from 5-10 builders’ applications every month for at least the last six years from aspiring writers. They are requested to provide three written rooms as examples of their talent for our consideration to hire. It both totally amazes and saddens me that stock mud type descriptions and DOOM type blood and guts is the general rule and not the exception.

[Orion Elder]

KaVir:
As for Vampire, I probably won't. I generally don't play tabletop games.

Originally Posted by The same logic can be applied to any form of information, but you have to draw the line somewhere - muds are not full simulations of real life.

If you aren't going to take in all the facts, then you aren't providing accurate information (your main point). You're providing information with an attempt at accuracy. But, it's still not necessarily accurate information.

[quote= ]
Thus you can assume people don't have their eyes closed when they type "look", and that they don't have their fingers stuck in their eyes when a sound occurs nearby.
[quote]

I would ask how having their fingers in their eyes affects their hearing, but I'm somewhat sure that was a typo.

You can assume that if they're hungry, the smell of food will appeal to them - there's no need to define every single food type that they like, or take into account any recent activities which may have put them off eating certain food.

In your opinion. But, that then removes the accuracy of your information and thus negates your whole point.

Originally Posted by Nor is there any need to make each character specify their exact muscle distribution - you can assume that everyone is fairly balanced. Equally, if you wish to have something like fear or courage, there is no need to implement every possible phobia.

In your opinion. But, that then removes the accuracy of your information and thus negates your whole point.

Originally Posted by As long as the information is accurate within the rules of the simulation, you can do a pretty reasonable job.

See, this is where your point train derails and kills all the passengers. You, the designer and/or builder, may feel the information is accurate... but the player may not. Is that your option? Sure. Is it right or wrong? Who knows. Do I think it's pointless to limit the characters interpretation of the world simply because the designer is a control freak? Absolutely.

I want to provide an experience for the player to envelope themselves. Your system, by trying to dictate to the player their life seeks to remove them from the world and place them outside your reality as a watcher, not a participant. You may not see it that way, and that's fine. But, that is how it looks to me.

Originally Posted by And finally, stop telling me to start a new thread, because (1) this is still related to the original post, (2) it's completely on-topic, and (3) you're not a moderator on this forum.

First of all I didn't TELL you to do a DAMNED thing. I ASKED once and made a suggestion the other, both of which are a far cry from telling you to do something which would be a demand. Secondly, I already SAID it was still somewhat related to the original post, but only marginally. Thirdly it is NOT completely on topic... the topic is the use of 'you' in room descriptions' ,,, you, and in part myself, have taken it over and deviated it quite a deal away from the original topic. Finally, I never claimed to be a moderator of this forum. I made what I felt was a reasonable request, and I will continue to do so at my leisure.

So, you stop giving me orders. I'm not your slave, I'm not your puppet, nor am I some thoughtless zombie that succumbs to your whims.

Originally Posted by The original poster claimed that "you" wasn't the cause of bad descriptions, to which you and several others disagreed. I agree with the original poster, and I'm explaining why.

You've already explained why multiple times. Your point has been made. I don't agree with parts of it, but it has been seen. I stated my disagreement with your disagreement. You stated your disagreement with my disagreement, and on it went. We have deviated quite substantially into simply trying to tell the other how wrong we think they are. You can continue to do so at your leisure. I have no interest in playing this childish 'no you are' game any longer.


Iluvatar:
You have covered part of my point, for that I thank you.


Whoever:
*bows* Enjoy. Cheese and Flowers, my brother... cheese and flowers.

[Molly]

I think maybe people should not be so quick to impose the standards of their own mud upon everybody else's. After all, we all are different, we have different tastes and different styles of writing. Our muds are different too, and what's perfectly fine and acceptable in one mud, may be totally out of line in another. And isn't that diversity a wonderful thing?

I totally agree with Illuvatar that the quality of a desc doesn't have much to do with whether it contains the word YOU or not. I also think most of us are able to recognise a good desc when we see it.

Personally I prefer descs that are entertaining, in some way or another. And if that means breaking a few rules on the way - fine by me.

I've seen too many descs that were totally flawless concerning grammar and spelling, but also totally without flavour, imagination, originality and wit. Just boring, boring, BORING.

Accuracy is fine, but if all the descs in a zone tells me nothing more than the basic facts of the room I am in, it very soon gets boring to me.

A mud is a text based medium, so the text should entertain, in some way or other. If a book fails to entertain me, I don't read the book.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by If you aren't going to take in all the facts, then you aren't providing accurate information (your main point). You're providing information with an attempt at accuracy. But, it's still not necessarily accurate information.

But you're providing information which is accurate within the rules of the mud - and that's the best you can ever do, in any aspect of the game, because it's not possible to create a full simulation of real life.  If you don't do this - if you want to account for every possibility - then your mud won't have any descriptions.  And that means there won't be anything for the players to immerse themselves in - which is the same point Molly so succinctly covered in her post.

On a related note, there's interesting article here, which I pointed out the last time this issue was debated (but I think that was on a different set of forums): http://www.theinspiracy.com/ArPOV.htm