Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Orion Elder · 04-05-2003, 06:40 AM

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*

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.

04-05-2003, 06:40 AM	#25
Orion Elder Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 346	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 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.