What is a good Description?
William Lessard
I have been trying to understand this for awhile. I have wandered around
several MUDs and I present these examples.
1st - My original Description of the room.
You stand on a dusty road. You can see it stretch to the west
disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east you can see the
town of Shadowdale. All around you are farmer's fields with the rare
house showing up a dirt track leading off of the road.
2nd - What I reworded it to after comments made on this NG
The road you stand on is very dusty. It stretches to the west
disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east is the town of
Shadowdale. All around are farmer's fields with the rare house at the
end of a dirt track that connects it to the road.
Is it a dislike of having ANYTHING tell you what is there?
What voice should be used? 1st person, 3rd person, active or passive or
whatever. Why is the first one repugnant to so many. Is the second one
acceptable and why?
Bramage
--
Fraternally
William Lessard
Ezekiel Bates Lodge AF&AM Attleboro Mass
Wayne Lodge #112 F&AM Michigan
Master Mason
Royal Arch Mason
Humble (usually) student of life
Do one good selfless act for a fellow human every day
Taoist
Federal Law allows for compensation of upto $500 per unsolicited E-mail.
Any person or company sending me e-mail soliciting any service or
product agrees
to this per e-mail charge of $500.
Peter Register
@excite.com:
> And Why.
>
> I have been trying to understand this for awhile. I have wandered around
> several MUDs and I present these examples.
>
> 1st - My original Description of the room.
>
> You stand on a dusty road. You can see it stretch to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east you can see the
> town of Shadowdale. All around you are farmer's fields with the rare
> house showing up a dirt track leading off of the road.
>
> 2nd - What I reworded it to after comments made on this NG
>
> The road you stand on is very dusty. It stretches to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east is the town of
> Shadowdale. All around are farmer's fields with the rare house at the
> end of a dirt track that connects it to the road.
>
> Is it a dislike of having ANYTHING tell you what is there?
> What voice should be used? 1st person, 3rd person, active or passive or
> whatever. Why is the first one repugnant to so many. Is the second one
> acceptable and why?
>
On Nightmare we have a pretty strong stance against using the word 'you' in
descriptions. Oftentimes the use is ok, but many creators tend to use it in
ways we would rather they didn't.
Don't
1) Assume something about the player.
---> You are standing on a ... well, what if i'm sitting...or laying...or
flying.
---> Your cloak flaps around you in the strong wind ... don't have a
cloak.
2) Force emotion on a player.
---> You look down from the top of the tall cliff and feel a sudden burst
of nausea ... I'm a birdman. I damn well don't feel nausea. I _like_ being
up high.
---> You shiver in the frigid cold ... I'm a frost giant, i don't get cold.
I'm enchanted not to get cold. I AM cold but I damn well refuse to show
weakness and shiver.
Just a few examples of usages of 'you' that we forbid. Its not a hard and
fast rule. We just make it seem that way so a new creator really has to
believe that using 'you' in a particular instance is worth arguing with an
approval person about.
-murmur
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> And Why.
>
> I have been trying to understand this for awhile. I have wandered around
> several MUDs and I present these examples.
>
> 1st - My original Description of the room.
>
> You stand on a dusty road. You can see it stretch to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east you can see the
> town of Shadowdale. All around you are farmer's fields with the rare
> house showing up a dirt track leading off of the road.
>
> 2nd - What I reworded it to after comments made on this NG
>
> The road you stand on is very dusty. It stretches to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east is the town of
> Shadowdale. All around are farmer's fields with the rare house at the
> end of a dirt track that connects it to the road.
Neither are very good: you corrected the wrong thing, IMO! The first
sentence is the screwy one - it looks very weird if you're looking at
the room through a crystal ball or a scry spell or something. You're
not standing on a dusty road then, you're sitting in your chair, or
whatever!
Also, both descriptions assume the player is standing. What if he has
just sat down?
On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with the original
third and fourth sentences.
> Is it a dislike of having ANYTHING tell you what is there?
> What voice should be used? 1st person, 3rd person, active or passive or
> whatever. Why is the first one repugnant to so many. Is the second one
> acceptable and why?
I don't think there's anything wrong with "you see". I _do_ believe there's
something wrong with "you feel", because the player should be left to
decide his character's feelings, not have them thrust on him.
If I have this description:
"Darkness and gloom pervade this part of the forest. The canopy of greyish
leaves above casts murky shadows, and what little light there is seems faded,
muted, cold. An unnatural silence hangs over the area. Nothing moves."
then there should be no need to tell the player that "you feel a sense of
foreboding".
Also note that the above description carefully avoids making references to
sunlight or the weather, for example. Which is nice, because it'll fit
perfectly whether it's a summer day or a winter night with snow on the ground.
This can't _always_ be done, of course, but it's best to strive for it as
much as possible, unless you want to make multiple descriptions depending on
the time of day, season, weather, etc. Note that the above description still
isn't perfect - if I were to actually write that description for a room, I'd
probably rewrite the "canopy of greyish leaves" for winter.
> Bramage
Chyron
--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his
heart he dreams himself your master." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal
"People who think they have a right not to be offended are trouble."
-- Alsee
William Lessard
when running a RPG game then it will be wrong. Since I am answering
Player questions.
IE: Thief 1 says "What do I see"
DM Reply "You see the dirt road. I takes off out into the distance both
to the east and west. You can feel the wind in your face bringing the
smell of smoke and death.
In this case YOU is correct since I am answering a question.
In a MUD however it is not correct since there is no one technically
asking the question.
Well just means I have to take a bit longer to create a good ZONE with
good descriptions.
Sheesh been around about 10 years in MUDs never thought completely about
this level of looking at the MUDs.
Maybe part of why I did not think about it as much is a LOT of players
simply brief it and never see the extensive collection of descriptions.
Bramage
Trying to improve his zones and his MUD.
Realms of Exploration
208.177.185.123 5005
Need Coder - I have put in snippets but some things I want to learn and
change for the better.
Need Builders - Speed up the conversion to Unique zones.
Alpha Stages
Myles L Skinner
William Lessard <wles...@excite.com> wrote:
> I understand what is happening here. If I translate what I usually do
> when running a RPG game then it will be wrong. Since I am answering
> Player questions.
>
> IE: Thief 1 says "What do I see"
> DM Reply "You see the dirt road. I takes off out into the distance both
> to the east and west. You can feel the wind in your face bringing the
> smell of smoke and death.
>
> In this case YOU is correct since I am answering a question.
>
> In a MUD however it is not correct since there is no one technically
> asking the question.
This is an issue that keeps cropping up. This time around, I've decided to
offer my own take on it by culling some examples from our own MUD. I don't
think that the use of the second person is all that bad, if it is handled
with care.
This is not to say that we don't have some problematic "you"s here and there,
only that there are some perfectly valid ways to use the second person in
writing a room description.
Some examples:
> Queen Street West
> Traveling north along Queen Street from here will lead you along Spadina
> Road, which will eventually lead you to the University of Tierceron. If you
> were to follow Pennyfather's Rents to the south, you would arrive at the
> harbourfront. Queen Street continues to the east and west.
This is a fairly uninteresting stretch of street, but then, in our city, we
have a lot of streets to cover. They aren't all tourist attractions. (Of the
400 or so rooms of street, maybe 250 are "interesting". Not a bad ratio) In
this case, the "you" is impersonal *and* subjunctive: If you go this way,
you'll end up here. I don't have a problem with that usage.
Using "one" instead of "you" or resorting to passive voice is NOT a good idea.
> The Lobby of l'Hotel Royale
> A wide staircase at the west end of the lobby leads up to the second floor.
> The oak bannisters have been carved with baroque designs that interior
> designer Aubrey Smythe-Jones refers to as "those Coronaise squiggle things,
> you know?" Ms Jones is the mastermind behind the hotel's innovative design
> scheme...(clipped for brevity)
Here, the "you" is part of a direct quote. Whether or not the player's
character is familiar with Aubrey's work is open to debate. However, this
quote is a narrative comment directed at the *reader*. That little throwaway
line tells you more about the hotel than pages and pages of actual description
would.
(seen after player takes a closer look at a rather tacky painting)
> This is a picture of a small child embracing a dalmatian puppy. Of course,
> you already knew that. Why are you taking a closer look at this painting?
> It's kitsch. Go to the Tierceron Regional Art and Historical Museum if you
> want great art.
Okay, this is pushing it a bit--it's one of those Infocom-like moments where
the interface gives you a quirky personal response. It fits with our overall
tone, and is far more interesting than "You see nothing special."
> Broom Closet
> This small closet contains cleaning supplies for the hotel. There are several
> buckets, piles of rags, a few mops, and, of course, a couple brooms. What
> did you expect, really? You could waste a little time searching for hidden
> exits to weird crypts in forgotten monasteries, but personally I wouldn't
> waste my time if I were you.
This one is *really* contentious, but in our defense, it directly lampoons a
specific room on one specific MUD that many of our builders used to play at
on a regular basis. :)
You could also spend a lot of time arguing metaphysics, and trying to figure
out who the "I" is in that sentence...
> Historic Elmwood Manor~
> Elmwood Manor was one of the very first homes built in what is now known as
> Tierceron. Back in the days of Fort Bitumen, a wealthy entrepeneur named
> Thomas Jones made the pilgrimage to Lac Gravette. He was so impressed with
> the beauty of the lake and its surroundings that he decided to build his
> home here. Descendants of the Jones family live in Tierceron to this day.
> Elmwood Manor is maintained by the Tierceron Historical Society. The Society
> asks that you keep in mind that this is a protected site, and that you
> refrain from touching or molesting any of the antiques in its collection.
> Admittance is free, but a small donation to the THS would be greatly
> appreciated.
Brochure mode. Not at all unusual to see the word "you" in this context.
Similar in tone is "We Thank YOU For Not Smoking" which everyone reads whether
they smoke or not. There's a good reason that sign doesn't say "One Is To Be
Thanked For Not Smoking Unless Nothing Is Being Smoked By One."
> rue d'Ormand~
> You climb down the fire escape and find there is no way back up, which leaves
> you on rue d'Ormand. The outer entrance to the famous gift shop of l'Hotel
> Royale can be found on the south side of the street; the library is to the
> north. Immediately to the west, rue d'Ormand crosses High Crowder's Road.
If you enter this room from anywhere BUT off the fire escape, you will not
see this room description--you'll see another one. "Directional" room
descriptions are fine if you take care to trap the cases where they don't
make sense.
> The otherwise unremarkable trade route suddenly bursts with life and colour
> as you arrive at Hueterni--the forest of hues. A multitude of sounds can be
> heard from deep within the forest, from the placid chirping of birds to the
> hungry growl of a roving wolf.
This is another directional description. You see it ONLY when you arrive at
the zone "Hueterni Forest" via realspace (from an approach vector ranging
from 270 to 90 degrees. Other vectors give you a different message. Anyway.),
but once you are in the zone, you'll see static room descriptions for the
zone and not an arrival message.
We don't have any blanket prohibition on the word "you"; we evaluate each on
a case-by-case basis. I believe that EVERY technique is potentially valid;
CONTEXT determines what will work and what won't. This means that a writer
has to be sensitive to the effect they are creating, and THAT requires
sophistication.
We have some very good writers building at our MUD. (of course, we're always
looking for more! (plug, plug))
If anyone's at all interesting in having a look at our work in progress (or
maybe even wants to help out), feel free to drop by Covenant and have a look
around the big city of Tierceron:
telnet://tierceron.com:1685
or drop me a line at: sha...@tierceron.com and we can arrange for a tour.
ms
--
Covenant MUD: "Under Development for Fewer than One Hundred Years!"
Hmmm I wonder?
"William Lessard" <wles...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3C1F7E74...@excite.com...
> And Why.
>
> I have been trying to understand this for awhile. I have wandered around
> several MUDs and I present these examples.
>
> 1st - My original Description of the room.
>
> You stand on a dusty road. You can see it stretch to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east you can see the
> town of Shadowdale. All around you are farmer's fields with the rare
> house showing up a dirt track leading off of the road.
>
> 2nd - What I reworded it to after comments made on this NG
>
> The road you stand on is very dusty. It stretches to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east is the town of
> Shadowdale. All around are farmer's fields with the rare house at the
> end of a dirt track that connects it to the road.
>
> Is it a dislike of having ANYTHING tell you what is there?
> What voice should be used? 1st person, 3rd person, active or passive or
> whatever. Why is the first one repugnant to so many. Is the second one
> acceptable and why?
I don't know about the group but I would have done it different from you.
The road is very dusty. It stretches off to the west disappearing into the
forests there.
Off to the east is the Town of Shadowdale. All around are Farmers fields. at
the far end of a dirt
track off to the west is the rare house.
This is assuming the house is off to the west....
I prefer this sort of description as it does not assume you are even there
it is a description of the area you are currently observing/ in....
Mike.
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
Except this sort of description is generally not as nice as
descriptions which include a person. This is true also for
the demonstrated example - both versions originally suggested
are quite good and pleasant descriptions. Your version is much
more stale and wooden. And this isn't your fault - it's what
often happens when a description is "de-personized".
> Mike.
Otis Viles
>Except this sort of description is generally not as nice as
>descriptions which include a person. This is true also for
>the demonstrated example - both versions originally suggested
>are quite good and pleasant descriptions. Your version is much
>more stale and wooden. And this isn't your fault - it's what
>often happens when a description is "de-personized".
One might think that the only to accomodate this correctly would be
to have multiple descriptions; for instance, in the room during the
day, in the room during the night, not in the room but still observing
it during the day, not in the room but still observing during the night.
That's four I can think of right there and there are definitely more.
On MUDs which have the concept of "deafness" it gets even worse; some
parts of the description should be apparent if deaf but not blind, some
if blind but not deaf, some if blind *and* deaf (unless you're numbed),
etc.
--
Otis Viles: Mudder, RPGer, KMFDM fan, Internet Oracle Priest
dr...@speakeasy.org, http://www.daestroke.com/cierhart/
dr...@daestroke.com, http://stormclouds.daestroke.com/
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> On 19 Dec 2001 00:09:54 +0100, chy...@ludens.elte.hu wrote:
>>Except this sort of description is generally not as nice as
>>descriptions which include a person. This is true also for
>>the demonstrated example - both versions originally suggested
>>are quite good and pleasant descriptions. Your version is much
>>more stale and wooden. And this isn't your fault - it's what
>>often happens when a description is "de-personized".
>
> One might think that the only to accomodate this correctly would be
> to have multiple descriptions; for instance, in the room during the
> day, in the room during the night, not in the room but still observing
> it during the day, not in the room but still observing during the night.
> That's four I can think of right there and there are definitely more.
> On MUDs which have the concept of "deafness" it gets even worse; some
> parts of the description should be apparent if deaf but not blind, some
> if blind but not deaf, some if blind *and* deaf (unless you're numbed),
> etc.
That gets prohibitively time intensive _real_ quick. We have a
few rooms in the MUD that do that, but not too many. Most are
just static descriptions - and frankly, I think the 80/20 rule
applies to this. 80% of player enjoyment comes from 20% of the
coding effort.
Of course, were I more cynical, I'd say that room descriptions
are themselves in that other 80% of coding effort.
Otis Viles
>That gets prohibitively time intensive _real_ quick. We have a
>few rooms in the MUD that do that, but not too many. Most are
>just static descriptions - and frankly, I think the 80/20 rule
>applies to this. 80% of player enjoyment comes from 20% of the
>coding effort.
>Of course, were I more cynical, I'd say that room descriptions
>are themselves in that other 80% of coding effort.
I know it does and I think I meant to tack a point on at the end:
"No description is going to be perfect but some are worse than others.
Choose your poison carefully."
Acius
> On 19 Dec 2001 00:09:54 +0100, chy...@ludens.elte.hu wrote:
>
>>Except this sort of description is generally not as nice as
>>descriptions which include a person. This is true also for
>>the demonstrated example - both versions originally suggested
>>are quite good and pleasant descriptions. Your version is much
>>more stale and wooden. And this isn't your fault - it's what
>>often happens when a description is "de-personized".
>>
>
> One might think that the only to accomodate this correctly would be
> to have multiple descriptions; for instance, in the room during the
> day, in the room during the night, not in the room but still observing
> it during the day, not in the room but still observing during the night.
> That's four I can think of right there and there are definitely more.
> On MUDs which have the concept of "deafness" it gets even worse; some
> parts of the description should be apparent if deaf but not blind, some
> if blind but not deaf, some if blind *and* deaf (unless you're numbed),
> etc.
I've got a quite nice (potential) solution to this problem coded on my
MUD. It saves a lot of work but does require a little bit of builder
education. In essence, the idea is to write a small "description"
language that supports a conditional operator (something like the
ternary operator in C). The description is displayed to the player by
taking the code, evaluating all the conditions, and then spitting out
the description when done.
An example I used for the original proposal:
"There is a massive stone obelisk off the path to
the west. Its face has been chiseled smooth.
?(FULLMOON:There are several rows of runes, glowing
with an alien light, engraved at eye-level on the
side of the obelisk. )"
This would work by checking to see if the variable FULLMOON (there is a
global pool of variables, represented as LP/C closures) is non-zero. If
it is, the following text would be included in the description,
otherwise, it would be left out.
My original discussion of this idea is quite long. If you want to take a
look at it, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/walraven/message/209 and
read the message of our MUD's mailing list (there are other relevant
messages relating to it as well).
-- Acius
Nicolas Bryant
> > Queen Street West
> > Traveling north along Queen Street from here will lead you along Spadina
> > Road, which will eventually lead you to the University of Tierceron. If you
> > were to follow Pennyfather's Rents to the south, you would arrive at the
> > harbourfront. Queen Street continues to the east and west.
>
> This is a fairly uninteresting stretch of street, but then, in our city, we
> have a lot of streets to cover. They aren't all tourist attractions. (Of the
> 400 or so rooms of street, maybe 250 are "interesting". Not a bad ratio) In
> this case, the "you" is impersonal *and* subjunctive: If you go this way,
> you'll end up here. I don't have a problem with that usage.
>
> Using "one" instead of "you" or resorting to passive voice is NOT a good idea.
While I agree with most of what you go on to say (given that the
general atmosphere on your MUD is clearly jokey and positively
brimming with post-modernist irony) I do take issue with this one a
little bit, for a reason already raised: suppose you are viewing this
room through a magical crystal ball? Under those circumstances you
can't actually travel north or anywhere else. I agree that using "one"
can be clumsy. I actually don't have any problem with passive voice,
on the whole, but here it isn't needed (or one doesn't need it :-> ).
(This may not be an entirely accurate paraphrase, as Queen Street
seems to lead in three directions in the original - north, east and
west).
"To the north is the beginning of Spadina Road, which eventually leads
to the University of Tierceron. To the south Pennyfather's Rents leads
to the harbourfront. Queen Street continues to the east and west."
This description makes no assumption at all about where the player is
relative to the location being described.
One other comment regarding some of the later stuff. To have a
description of a broom cupboard that says, essentially "It's full of
brooms. It's a broom cupboard, what did you expect?" is not
necessarily a problem, but I think you need to be wary about insulting
the player's intelligence. More importantly, having room descriptions
like this will strongly discourage the player from exploring broom
cupboards and other "obvious" locations in the future. So if,
elsewhere in the MUD, there is an area where there *are* actually
secret passages in cupboards (or behind paintings) then it's quite
likely the user will never think to look for them - and in that case
you would have done him a disservice.
Nicolas Bryant
[snip]
Hear hear! I've always thought a system like this would be worth
doing. You could easily extend it to cover sensory information too.
For example, in LPC terms, define a macro HEAR(X) to be (excuse my
elderly, if not downright wrong, LPC syntax):
if (this_player() -> can_hear()) {write(X)}
This could even be extended for things like sound propagation, with
two different messages being specified:
HEAR("The corroded metal gears of the windmill groan and protest as
they turn", "you can hear a groaning sound, as of over-stressed
metal")
This would result in normal people in the room with the windmill
seeing the first message, people in the room with the windmill who are
blind hearing the second message, while people one location to the
south would be told "From the north you can hear a groaning sound, as
of over-stressed metal" - the second message again. This could then be
modified farther to take account of sound volume and distance - louder
sounds carrying farther.
Other possiblities - is the sun shining? is the illumination in the
area torchlight? is the wind blowing? is it raining?
I think that so long as the basic groundwork is done, the effort
involved in writing room descriptions wouldn't actually be that much
greater, and the end result would be a far more interesting
implementation of blindness, deafness, illumination, weather and many
other things.
Jon A. Lambert
>
> I have been trying to understand this for awhile. I have wandered around
> several MUDs and I present these examples.
>
> 1st - My original Description of the room.
>
> You stand on a dusty road. You can see it stretch to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east you can see the
> town of Shadowdale. All around you are farmer's fields with the rare
> house showing up a dirt track leading off of the road.
>
> 2nd - What I reworded it to after comments made on this NG
>
> The road you stand on is very dusty. It stretches to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east is the town of
> Shadowdale. All around are farmer's fields with the rare house at the
> end of a dirt track that connects it to the road.
>
> Is it a dislike of having ANYTHING tell you what is there?
> What voice should be used? 1st person, 3rd person, active or passive or
> whatever. Why is the first one repugnant to so many. Is the second one
> acceptable and why?
>
It would be the positional assumption, as others have said.
Better would be "You are on a dusty road."
I think the last sentence is somewhat clumsy and confusing. It's
not all that clear which of the prepositions belongs with which
object. I see another poster here read it as "THE" rare house.
I'd split it into 2 sentences.. One describing the fields and
one describing the occasional houses.
J. Lambert
Jon A. Lambert
>
> IE: Thief 1 says "What do I see"
> DM Reply "You see the dirt road. I takes off out into the distance both
> to the east and west. You can feel the wind in your face bringing the
> smell of smoke and death.
>
>
> In this case YOU is correct since I am answering a question.
>
> In a MUD however it is not correct since there is no one technically
> asking the question.
Well... descriptions should be written with the assumption that
you don't know who is asking the question. The question is still
there though in a mud, "What do I see?" And we do know quite a
bit about who is asking the question in a mud. Surely not as
much personal info about a player as a GM would, but some.
Your server's building code might not support it. BTW...That's
one reason why you may need a coder. Coders can build you tools,
and IMO are probably best utilized in that fashion. It's just
a rough guess but I bet I spend more than half of my time
supporting builders' requests. Time well spent though. :-)
J. Lambert
Myles L Skinner
Otis Viles <dr...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2001 00:09:54 +0100, chy...@ludens.elte.hu wrote:
>>
>> Except this sort of description is generally not as nice as
>
> One might think that the only to accomodate this correctly would be
> to have multiple descriptions; for instance, in the room during the
> day, in the room during the night, not in the room but still observing
> it during the day, not in the room but still observing during the night.
I think the readership of this newsfroup would consider my solution to be
truly perverse, because I know from years of reading that people like things
"just so" and the more code, the better. :)
I really object to telling people what they should feel or think in a
description, but I'm not going to fuss over the details of time of day, or
season, or weather, unless there's a really good reason for doing so. For the
most part, I'm happy if a room description can evoke a mood or somehow
contribute to the narrative of the zone to which it belongs.
That's not to say we won't follow guidelines. I don't want to see a mob
described in a room, because who knows where the mobs will actually go?
Likewise, I hate things like "the village idiot wanders by" in a room
description. Don't describe actions, certainly.
Objects are another story. If they are in the room desc, I want to play with
them! Like this room:
"This room is carpeted in sea-foam green shag. The dresser, bedside table, and
headboard are all made out of white wicker. A simple wooden chair sits next
to the table. The bed looks inviting, although someone has made the rather
unfortunate decision to add a peach-coloured quilt to complement the decor.
Above the bed hangs a picture of a small child embracing a dalmatian puppy."
Any player who walks into this hotel room can sit on the chair, lie down on
the bed, or open a drawer on the dresser and get one of the hotel's little
bars of free soap or perhaps a tourist brochure advertising for places that
went out of business 50 years ago. (Actually, there's a wonderful illusion
going on that the player is actually interacting with the room description,
which I think is a nice touch).
Really, I think that if there are enough interesting things to do that it
isn't necessary to fuss too much about some of the fiddly details in room
descriptions. As long as I can say something to the READER, I don't much
care if I'm saying something to the player or their character. Characters
can't read room descriptions anyway. ;)
Myles L Skinner
Nicolas Bryant <nbr...@manpowersoftware.com> wrote:
>mski...@xena.acsu.buffalo.edu (Myles L Skinner) wrote in message news:<9vocsb$kck$1...@xena.acsu.buffalo.edu>...
>
>> Queen Street West
>> Traveling north along Queen Street from here will lead you along Spadina
>> Road, which will eventually lead you to the University of Tierceron. If
>> you were to follow Pennyfather's Rents to the south, you would arrive at
>> the harbourfront. Queen Street continues to the east and west.
>>
>
> While I agree with most of what you go on to say (given that the
> general atmosphere on your MUD is clearly jokey and positively
Post-modernist irony. I like that. :)
> ...I do take issue with this one a little bit, for a reason already raised:
> suppose you are viewing this room through a magical crystal ball? Under
> those circumstances you can't actually travel north or anywhere else.
Hmmm. I can see your point, but I'm inclined to think this is a non-issue.
After all, if you were in the location you were looking at, travelling south
WOULD take you to the harbourfront.
I don't actually know what kind of remote viewing we'll allow in our MUD, so
it's hard to comment directly. How about this? What if your crystal ball, or
spell of faroverthereseeing, or whatever, was SO GOOD you actually felt as
though you were present in the location you were viewing? Then you could get
away with just about anything.
Even if your crystal ball wasn't quite so sophisticated, I think it's a small
leap for a player to understand that if they were in this remote location,
this is what they would see.
On a more prosaic note, I'd want to be very careful about non-magical means
of remote viewing. We're installing windows all over the place in our MUD,
and I wouldn't want to look out a window and see, "You are standing on Queen
Street" or something equally nonsensical.
> One other comment regarding some of the later stuff. To have a
> description of a broom cupboard that says, essentially "It's full of
> brooms. It's a broom cupboard, what did you expect?" is not
> necessarily a problem, but I think you need to be wary about insulting
> the player's intelligence.
Yeah, well, I did say it was contentious. Your point is well taken though.
And it is always full of brooms. You can take a broom, or a mop, and wield
it like a club. A really ineffective club, mind you.
> More importantly, having room descriptions like this will strongly
> discourage the player from exploring broom cupboards and other "obvious"
> locations in the future.
Do you think so? I'll have to think about that one.
Given that there are so many toys even in ordinary rooms (or at least, there
will be when we open), I'm not quite convinced that one admittedly self-
indulgent silly room desc in a city of 1200 rooms will put people off
exploring.
> So if, elsewhere in the MUD, there is an area where there *are* actually
> secret passages in cupboards (or behind paintings) then it's quite
> likely the user will never think to look for them - and in that case
> you would have done him a disservice.
Actually, the "nothing to see here" can be a fun little side-quest in itself.
From Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":
>s
That entrance leads to the Infinite Improbability Drive chamber. It's
supposed to be a terribly dangerous area of the ship. Are you sure you
want to go in there?
>Yes.
Absolutely sure?
>Yes.
I can tell you don't want to really. You stride away with a spring in your
step, wisely leaving the drive chamber safely behind you. Telegrams arrive
from well-wishers in all corners of the galaxy congratulating you on your
prudence and wisdom, cheering you up immensely.
>Go south!
What? You're joking, of course. Can I ask you to reconsider?
>No.
Engine Room
You're in the Infinite Improbability Drive chamber. Nothing happens; there
is nothing to see.
>look
Engine Room
I mean it! There's nothing to see here!
>Look.
Engine Room
Okay, okay, there are a FEW things to see here...(description follows)
I'm not quite sure how that might work in a MUD, though.
Otis Viles
>I've got a quite nice (potential) solution to this problem coded on my
>MUD. It saves a lot of work but does require a little bit of builder
>education. In essence, the idea is to write a small "description"
>language that supports a conditional operator (something like the
>ternary operator in C). The description is displayed to the player by
>taking the code, evaluating all the conditions, and then spitting out
>the description when done.
>
>An example I used for the original proposal:
>
>"There is a massive stone obelisk off the path to
>the west. Its face has been chiseled smooth.
>?(FULLMOON:There are several rows of runes, glowing
>with an alien light, engraved at eye-level on the
>side of the obelisk. )"
>
>This would work by checking to see if the variable FULLMOON (there is a
>global pool of variables, represented as LP/C closures) is non-zero. If
>it is, the following text would be included in the description,
>otherwise, it would be left out.
>
>My original discussion of this idea is quite long. If you want to take a
>look at it, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/walraven/message/209 and
>read the message of our MUD's mailing list (there are other relevant
>messages relating to it as well).
This is similar to what the company I work does for web sites. We make the
platform that a major US automotive companies dealers use for their sites.
Many pages have "tokens" in them to do similar replaces on. I'm not convinced
that EVERY situation can be accounted for that way but I'm sure this would
work for many cases.
Myles L Skinner
Nicolas Bryant <nbr...@manpowersoftware.com> wrote:
>
> positively brimming with post-modernist irony)...
As I take you totally out of context here. *cough*
Here's one sort of description that I really can't recommend for everybody,
because it depends heavily on the tone of the overall MUD in order to work.
Out of context, these might even seem really strange...
But I rather like the occasional room description that, well, that doesn't
describe a room at all. No visuals whatsoever. These excerpted room
descriptions say nothing about what you see, and yet, they are among my
favourites in the MUD, because they tell stories.
Artizan's (sic) Guild~
It is a curious and little-known fact that there is, in fact, only one
"Artizan," and this is his guild. Wilmot Kingsbury, Tierceron's leading
sign-painter ("Proffesional Sign's Done Quickley"), was very keen on getting
his shop set up on the trendy Stockfish Row. After losing out on a lease on
the row, he rallied to found the guild, hoping to involve himself in the
merchant community. So far, nobody else has been interested in joining,
although Mr Litwhiler did drop by once to say hello.
(NOTE: Litwhiler owns a chandlery on Stockfish Row, which is just down the
road a ways. Litwhiler's sells vanilla-scented candles, among other things.
I think the room name 'Artizan's Guild' was inspired by the stock zone of
New Thalos.)
The Comet Bar~
This bar is known primarily as the birthplace of an odd drink known as the
Tierceron Twist. It was created by Neil Holowitz, a hapless undergraduate
alchemist from the University of Tierceron who was mistakenly hired as a
bartender after stating he was "good at mixing stuff." Since he didn't know
how to make any actual drinks he simply mixed copious amounts of random
alcoholic beverages with some bar lime and soda, and a legend was born. The
recipe for the Tierceron Twist is now a closely guarded secret, and batches
of "TT" are prepared in advance at a remote location away from the prying
eyes of curious customers.
(Conclusive proof that my sister, who wrote this one, is a loonie.)
Tierceron Weavers' Guild~
The Tourist's Guide to Tierceron has this to say about the Tierceron Weavers'
Guild: "Several blocks south of the congested University Quarter is a small
yellow-brick building--charming in its modesty--that houses the Weavers' Guild.
For over two centuries, local farm children have brought their families'
cotton rags here, and the weaver has turned them into rugs." Which just goes
to show you how out-of-date the guide is these days. The words "charming" and
"modesty" no longer have anything to do with the guild; they're a bunch of
arrogant hucksters trying to capitalize on peoples' love of tradition.
(The Tourist's Guide to Tierceron is available on our web pages. It is one
of the most idiotic travel guides you will ever see, and yet it is no worse
than anything you'll find in the 'Travel' section of your local book store.)
Not for the faint-of-heart, and probably not suitable for most MUDs. Just a
slightly different take on room descriptions.
Are we really having an intelligent discussion in this newsgroup this week?
What *are* the odds...?
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> In article <b132ed9.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> Nicolas Bryant <nbr...@manpowersoftware.com> wrote:
>>mski...@xena.acsu.buffalo.edu (Myles L Skinner) wrote in message news:<9vocsb$kck$1...@xena.acsu.buffalo.edu>...
<snip>
>> One other comment regarding some of the later stuff. To have a
>> description of a broom cupboard that says, essentially "It's full of
>> brooms. It's a broom cupboard, what did you expect?" is not
>> necessarily a problem, but I think you need to be wary about insulting
>> the player's intelligence.
>
> Yeah, well, I did say it was contentious. Your point is well taken though.
>
> And it is always full of brooms. You can take a broom, or a mop, and wield
> it like a club. A really ineffective club, mind you.
Erk. Really? How _many_ brooms could you take out? Is it still full of
brooms after you've taken them all out? This kind of begs for a dynamic
description :)
>> More importantly, having room descriptions like this will strongly
>> discourage the player from exploring broom cupboards and other "obvious"
>> locations in the future.
>
> Do you think so? I'll have to think about that one.
I agree with the above. I also don't think "fourth wall" dialogue is a
good thing in a MUD if you try to build any sort of serious atmosphere.
For a humorous MUD, this may not be a problem, of course.
> Given that there are so many toys even in ordinary rooms (or at least, there
> will be when we open), I'm not quite convinced that one admittedly self-
> indulgent silly room desc in a city of 1200 rooms will put people off
> exploring.
True. We have a "zone-end" room called The End Of The World, with a rather
screwy description. Can't say I much approve of that either, but one room
among thousands is no biggie. It certainly is a strange anomaly, though.
I've always felt this sort of thing is best left for single-player
interactive fiction, where it can be _very_ effective in the hands of an
adept storyteller.
> ms
Nicolas Bryant
> In article <9vr7dj$me7$1...@lucia.acsu.buffalo.edu>, mski...@lucia.acsu.buffalo.edu (Myles L Skinner) writes:
> > In article <b132ed9.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> > Nicolas Bryant <nbr...@manpowersoftware.com> wrote:
> >>mski...@xena.acsu.buffalo.edu (Myles L Skinner) wrote in message news:<9vocsb$kck$1...@xena.acsu.buffalo.edu>...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> One other comment regarding some of the later stuff. To have a
> >> description of a broom cupboard that says, essentially "It's full of
> >> brooms. It's a broom cupboard, what did you expect?" is not
> >> necessarily a problem, but I think you need to be wary about insulting
> >> the player's intelligence.
> >
> > Yeah, well, I did say it was contentious. Your point is well taken though.
[snip]
> >> More importantly, having room descriptions like this will strongly
> >> discourage the player from exploring broom cupboards and other "obvious"
> >> locations in the future.
> >
> > Do you think so? I'll have to think about that one.
[snip]
> True. We have a "zone-end" room called The End Of The World, with a rather
> screwy description. Can't say I much approve of that either, but one room
> among thousands is no biggie. It certainly is a strange anomaly, though.
>
It's not "screwy" I object to, it's messing with things that can
generate wrong assumptions. I imagine most people on this group would
deplore the practice of setting up a problem that requires a player to
be psychic to solve it - the coder creating something that, to him, is
"obvious" but which isn't to anyone else. I probably take this farther
than most because I am, myself, so completely lacking in common sense
that nothing is obvious to me. :-)
Some examples from my MUD newbie days:
1) I didn't realise that you had to "wield" a weapon, because it never
occurred to me that, if you were carrying a sword and about to attack
something, you wouldn't try to use the sword in preference to your
bare hands.
2) It never occurred to me that it might be useful to type "search",
because each "room" I entered was described in a level of detail that
indicated my character was looking around quite carefully in all
directions, and all the objects in the room were explicitly listed.
Therefore I assumed that my character had already searched as much as
was feasible. (This was actually compounded on that MUD, an old LP
2.4.5 effort, in that in most locations typing "search" would only get
you the response "what?" - the standard message of incomprehension.
Only in rooms that explicitly defined the action "search" would you
get an intelligent response.)
3) In one particular location 3 items were mentioned in the room
description but were not present as actual objects - a bed, some
rubble, some barrels. In this one location (and nowhere else on the
MUD) it was necessary to type "search bed", "search rubble", "search
barrels" rather than just "search". I didn't get it.
Now, I am obviously a pathological case, and some of this was due to
sloppy coding or the lack of help files, but hopefully this underlines
a) how clueless players can be, and b) how important it is not to do
*anything* which could reinforce an unconscious and innaccurate
prejudice about how things on the MUD behave.
Mike Harrold
We use XML-style descriptions that can handle different times of the
day (sunrise, daytime, sunet, nighttime), different weather (sunny,
cloudy, rainy, snowing, blizzard, sandstorm, etc.) and also different
seasons (spring, summer, autumn, winter). That way there can be snow
on the ground (in winter), or even a blizzard actively going on. If
it's the middle of summer then the ground is baked dry and the sun
beats down mercilessly.
The good part is that it is all optional. You only need to write
certain sentences or verbs within the XML system, if they're at all
needed (usually not in the bowels of the earth).
/Miko@AlexMUD
Mike Harrold
Personally, I think this is the best solution to those players that
insist on brief'ing everywhere. (Other than removing brief, of course.)
If you make rooms interesting, they'll pay more attention.
/Miko@AlexMUD
Mike Harrold
William Lessard <wles...@excite.com> wrote:
>And Why.
>
>I have been trying to understand this for awhile. I have wandered around
>several MUDs and I present these examples.
>
>1st - My original Description of the room.
>
>You stand on a dusty road. You can see it stretch to the west
>disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east you can see the
>town of Shadowdale. All around you are farmer's fields with the rare
>house showing up a dirt track leading off of the road.
>
>2nd - What I reworded it to after comments made on this NG
>
>The road you stand on is very dusty. It stretches to the west
>disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east is the town of
>Shadowdale. All around are farmer's fields with the rare house at the
>end of a dirt track that connects it to the road.
>
>Is it a dislike of having ANYTHING tell you what is there?
>What voice should be used? 1st person, 3rd person, active or passive or
>whatever. Why is the first one repugnant to so many. Is the second one
>acceptable and why?
>
Well, as others have said, you've fixed the wrong parts. However, I will
nit-pick anyway. Not that I would necessarily impose all the following
conditions (there are always exceptions to any rule), but this should at
least give you something to think about.
"The road you stand on is very dusty."
Two things wrong; (1) I'm sitting down, (2) it's posnowin.
"It stretches to the west disappearing into the forests there."
It's pitch black in the dead of night and I have no light. There is no
moon visible, nor stars, since it's cloudy overhead. Essentially, I
can't see more than about 25 feet in front of me. I sure as hell can't
see the forest.
"Off to the east is the town of Shadowdale."
I'm new to the region. I have NO idea what town it is. Despite the
cloudcover, I can tell there is a town there (lights, noises, etc.),
at least I could before the blizzard began.
"All around are farmer's fields with the rare house at the end of a dirt
track that connects it to the road."
Again, my visibility is shot; I can't see any houses or dirt tracks.
Actually, this sentence is probably the best of the lot.
So, as you can see, writing good descriptions isn't easy.
Here's an example of one from AlexMUD. It too has problems, mainly that
it assumes the market is always busy. (Usually they're not in the middle
of the night, although since players can trade all hours of the day in
some of the shops and stalls, maybe it is?) However, despite its
shortcomings, it's still a very good description (and also long!).
In the Market Square
The loud, crowded field of hurrying forms that makes up the Market
Square of Ardenfall lies all around. Farmers, crafters, merchants,
wanderers, pickpockets and citizens all hurry about, shoulder to
shoulder, looking for just the right price or just the right item.
Little can be heard above the natter of haggling and accusation, except
the occasional call of "thief!", though this is as often just some
fellow trying to get a better deal as an actual robbery. Tents, stalls
and stands crowd about, placed seemingly at whim, and the occasional
hawker or wandering merchantman walks about, calling for others to look
over their fine goods. Tight knots of city militia occasionally patrol
the market, but they seem nearly overwhelmed by the bustle.
The packed square leads off in all directions except to the west,
southwest and northwest, where various buildings and warehouses line
form a border. A large stone edifice dominates the square to the south.
Obvious Exits: north, northeast, east, southeast, south.
The smell of leather goods emanates from a domed, canvas tent.
A wooden jewellery stand offers cheap trinkets for sale.
Regards,
/Miko@AlexMUD
William Lessard
> Well, as others have said, you've fixed the wrong parts. However, I will
> nit-pick anyway. Not that I would necessarily impose all the following
> conditions (there are always exceptions to any rule), but this should at
> least give you something to think about.
>
Exactly why I posted it. To get ideas and such so I can improve.
I can build a good zone concept wise but my descriptions definately need
help.
That seems to be the crux of the problem. Without a coder as far as I am
aware, to do some really in depth work to account for different issues.
How much can be done. If you have a static room that does not change
based on all possible criteria you have to find a middle ground. Also if
you run too long what is the use of it. FInally it has to be balanced
with the players and what they are going to do. Most players I know
change their settings so that they are on brief. All they see is room
exits and title. Why go to the trouble of an extensive and long winded
description or go to the trouble of making it so that no matter how you
are clothed, spelled or viewing the room it is exactly perfect for the
player.
I am not saying that going back to my first description or even to the
short one liners I had is right. But isnt there a point where you are no
longer doing it because it is what you need to satisfy the player but
what you want to do and call upon your builders to do?
I am not argueing against descriptions but I just want to comment.
I have seen MUDs fail because they went overboard. Eclipse of Fate was
one I was an IMP on. I fought hard for the players. I fought against
changes that I knew as a player I would not want to deal with. With a
coder out putting in smell and taste descriptions to be used dynamically
yet something like the fix for duping objects gets ignored.
What I see as both a player and an IMP is what a coder and IMMs want is
not always what the players want.
Which is more important? Getting rid of all the "you see this"
descriptions and dynamically coding the rooms so that they can enter by
flying in from above and see a perfect description or fixing that nasty
bug that causes the player file to corrupt and crash the MUD.
I will attempt to work better descriptions but if I have a choice which
you always do, I would rather make the MUD more playable for the players
themselves. I hope I am saying this right.
Bramage
Realms of Exploration
208.177.185.123 5005
Need - Coder - I have ideas and am not able to surpass snippets yet.
Need - Builders - to help rebuild the world.
Alpha Stages
Mike Harrold
William Lessard <wles...@excite.com> wrote:
>Mike Harrold wrote:
>
>> Well, as others have said, you've fixed the wrong parts. However, I will
>> nit-pick anyway. Not that I would necessarily impose all the following
>> conditions (there are always exceptions to any rule), but this should at
>> least give you something to think about.
>>
>
>Exactly why I posted it. To get ideas and such so I can improve.
>I can build a good zone concept wise but my descriptions definately need
>help.
Hopefully we've given you something to think about.
[snip]
The description above is a plan description, no dynamics.
>you run too long what is the use of it. FInally it has to be balanced
>with the players and what they are going to do. Most players I know
>change their settings so that they are on brief. All they see is room
>exits and title. Why go to the trouble of an extensive and long winded
>description or go to the trouble of making it so that no matter how you
>are clothed, spelled or viewing the room it is exactly perfect for the
>player.
It depends on the place. I'm not advocating all descriptions be that
long, but in this case it's applicable. Why? Because it CLEARLY states
that the location is full of people, and has regular militia patrols, so
that when someone complains that they shouldn't have been arrested
because there was no one to witness that they killed someone, we quietly
laugh and point out the obvious.
>I am not saying that going back to my first description or even to the
>short one liners I had is right. But isnt there a point where you are no
>longer doing it because it is what you need to satisfy the player but
>what you want to do and call upon your builders to do?
Usually you can turn 3 line descriptions into 5 line descriptions simply
by using additional adjectives or by phrasing things a little
differently. Also, if the description seems disjointed, you can often
expand it by joining sentences together in more thoughtful ways.
>I am not argueing against descriptions but I just want to comment.
>I have seen MUDs fail because they went overboard. Eclipse of Fate was
>one I was an IMP on. I fought hard for the players. I fought against
>changes that I knew as a player I would not want to deal with. With a
>coder out putting in smell and taste descriptions to be used dynamically
>yet something like the fix for duping objects gets ignored.
>What I see as both a player and an IMP is what a coder and IMMs want is
>not always what the players want.
All the dynamics that were added to descriptions were done to please the
builders, ofter at their request. No one is forced to use the system,
but if someone uses "sunlight" or "rain" in a description, we'll reject
it - they either rewrite it, or use the dynamic system.
>
>Which is more important? Getting rid of all the "you see this"
>descriptions and dynamically coding the rooms so that they can enter by
>flying in from above and see a perfect description or fixing that nasty
>bug that causes the player file to corrupt and crash the MUD.
Oh, we don't actively get rid of descriptions that don't meet our
current criteria. Being the oldest DIKU out there, we have some really
old stuff. Usually things get rewritten in bits as other areas are added
(or if someone spots a typo or something in a bad description, the
entire description gets redone instead). We do enforce the criteria on
new stuff though.
>I will attempt to work better descriptions but if I have a choice which
>you always do, I would rather make the MUD more playable for the players
>themselves. I hope I am saying this right.
I think your points are perfectly valid. However, IMHO, a playable MUD
is no excuse for plain out BAD descriptions.
Regards,
/Miko@AlexMUD
KaVir
[snip]
> I've got a quite nice (potential) solution to this problem coded on my
> MUD. It saves a lot of work but does require a little bit of builder
> education. In essence, the idea is to write a small "description"
> language that supports a conditional operator (something like the
> ternary operator in C). The description is displayed to the player by
> taking the code, evaluating all the conditions, and then spitting out
> the description when done.
Yeah it's nice idea - I released a snippet a couple of years ago which does the
same sort of thing. However, I find that it works really well not just for
room descriptions, but also for help files - eg:
-KaVir----------------------------[ STRENGTH ]-------------------------11/10/99-
This represents the pure physical muscle power of your character.
Stephen's two dots of strength combined with his two dots of Potence means
that he is far stronger than most mortals, despite his average build.
In combat, Stephen will inflict two dice of damage, plus two automatic
successes due to his Potence discipline. While using a weapon, he will gain
additional damage dice, the exact number depending on the weapon used (one
for the dagger tucked into his right boot, for example). Further damage
dice may be gained from certain fighting stances or other factors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[See also: attributes physical]
No prizes for guessing the theme of my mud :P
KaVir.
Peter Register
@excite.com:
> I am not argueing against descriptions but I just want to comment.
> I have seen MUDs fail because they went overboard. Eclipse of Fate was
> one I was an IMP on. I fought hard for the players. I fought against
> changes that I knew as a player I would not want to deal with. With a
> coder out putting in smell and taste descriptions to be used dynamically
> yet something like the fix for duping objects gets ignored.
> What I see as both a player and an IMP is what a coder and IMMs want is
> not always what the players want.
>
Err on the side of what the game designers want. If your designers suck,
the game is going to suck no matter how much you later pander to players.
If your game designers don't suck, the players (or the next batch of players
after your current ones leave in a huff) will come to understand and like
your vision of game mechanics and game design.
Almost every instance in my experience where game design has been largely
dependant upon what players have requested (beyond trivial things like "an
armour shop in this town", or "hey, a spell that does X would be neat") has
ended in disaster.
I'm not saying ignore players, but design by committee almost never works.
-murmur
William Lessard
> the game is going to suck no matter how much you later pander to players.
> If your game designers don't suck, the players (or the next batch of players
> after your current ones leave in a huff) will come to understand and like
> your vision of game mechanics and game design.
>
> Almost every instance in my experience where game design has been largely
> dependant upon what players have requested (beyond trivial things like "an
> armour shop in this town", or "hey, a spell that does X would be neat") has
> ended in disaster.
>
> I'm not saying ignore players, but design by committee almost never works.
>
> -murmur
Changed the title to follow a thought
One MUD from about 5 years ago, I do not remember the name, decided to
add back in the need for eating and drinking. They had, me included,
about 50 players who were consistently there. They lost about 2/3rds of
the players because the players didnt like having to eat and drink.
Another MUD that died as a result decided that players were leveling too
fast. I was an IMM there. First place I ever was an IMM. There was an
average of 20-30 players at any given time. Maybe 1-2 players were able
to get to level 50 which was an avatar like level in 1 week. This MUD
was modeled after Crimson II. The code was changed and slowed down the
progression of players signifigantly. Since I was new I stayed out of
the debate. They lost everyone.
Both these instances show the IMPs/IMMs did not care about what the
players may have thought about the changes.
I have seen this rampant across the MUD world. The IMMs/IMPs decide they
know what the players need. Very much like a parent telling the kids
what they are going to do. Now I can understand a NEW MUD creating code
and doing things. Then hoping players will come and enjoy. BUT what take
an established MUD and change something and watch the players leave and
wonder what the hell went wrong. Why is it that Many IMMs/IMPs/Coders
have to change the formula that is working. I understand trying new
ideas and such but when you get signifigant negative feedback fron your
player base why sit there stubbornly and ignore that?
My personal view on a MUD is to create something for players to enjoy.
Not some white elephant that I killed as a trophy. To say "LOOK AT WHAT
I CODED" To me the bottom line is the enjoyment of the players. To that
end when I decided to start my new MUD I have decided what type of
players I want to connect with. I will make sure that the MUD stays
faithful to the community of players I want there. Trouble is I should
run 2 MUDs because I am split on the type of players I hope for.
Bramage
Just some rambling thoughts
Realms of Exploration
208.177.185.123 5005
Looking for a Coder and Builders
Peter Register
No, it doesn't show that. It shows that they believed in their own vision
of what was important to implement. In this case, it turns out that they
were either wrong, didn't set things up in such a way that the players would
eventually appreciate it, or that the game itself wasn't solid enough to
keep a group of players despite a feature going in that they didn't like.
> I have seen this rampant across the MUD world. The IMMs/IMPs decide
> they know what the players need. Very much like a parent telling the
> kids what they are going to do. Now I can understand a NEW MUD creating
> code and doing things. Then hoping players will come and enjoy. BUT
> what take an established MUD and change something and watch the players
> leave and wonder what the hell went wrong. Why is it that Many
> IMMs/IMPs/Coders have to change the formula that is working.
In my case, i'd say its probably to keep the game evolving and not becoming
stagnant. Sometimes this is an easy thing to add on. Sometimes it requires
a major rethinking and refactoring of what you already have.
> I
> understand trying new ideas and such but when you get signifigant
> negative feedback fron your player base why sit there stubbornly and
> ignore that?
>
Ignoring players is silly. Pandering is equally as silly. An occasional
player has a well thought out idea about what is good for the game (not
their character). A large percentage, however, would be perfectly happy if
the mud had a button that distributed free levels, money, and equipment.
Good for them. Bad for the game.
> My personal view on a MUD is to create something for players to enjoy.
> Not some white elephant that I killed as a trophy. To say "LOOK AT WHAT
> I CODED" To me the bottom line is the enjoyment of the players. To that
> end when I decided to start my new MUD I have decided what type of
> players I want to connect with. I will make sure that the MUD stays
> faithful to the community of players I want there. Trouble is I should
> run 2 MUDs because I am split on the type of players I hope for.
To me, the bottom line is making the game I'd love to play. To finally get
the system to the point where _I_ think its the best thing out there. Not
to show that I can code it, frankly I'm not a great coder, but to make it
like i want i. Hopefully the players will follow. If not, I failed and the
mud suffers. Other muds will prosper. Evolution. No problems. The idea
that i'm coding 'for the players' though is hogwash. People create areas
for players. When you're developing the system, hopefully you're doing it
to fulfil some vision you have.
-murmur
Muddy Boots
<wles...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>One MUD from about 5 years ago, I do not remember the name, decided to
>add back in the need for eating and drinking. They had, me included,
>about 50 players who were consistently there. They lost about 2/3rds of
>the players because the players didnt like having to eat and drink.
>
Such a significant change in design is going to have far-reaching
ramifications - mostly because, up to that point, the MUD was not
designed to handle the need for eating and drinking.
But, MUDs grow, change...evolve. If they lost 2/3rds of the players,
they still have 1/3rd that believe in the vision that the admins had
in mind.
>Another MUD that died as a result decided that players were leveling too
>fast. I was an IMM there. First place I ever was an IMM. There was an
>average of 20-30 players at any given time. Maybe 1-2 players were able
>to get to level 50 which was an avatar like level in 1 week. This MUD
>was modeled after Crimson II. The code was changed and slowed down the
>progression of players signifigantly. Since I was new I stayed out of
>the debate. They lost everyone.
>
>Both these instances show the IMPs/IMMs did not care about what the
>players may have thought about the changes.
>
I think both of these cases show that the admins were more interested
in their vision of how the MUD should be played, rather than allowing
the players to completely drive how the MUD is designed.
You can't make everyone happy, all the time, and as Murmur stated,
"design by committee almost never works". This is because you have
two opposing forces. The admins, who are more interested in the
long-term goals of the MUDs, and the players, who are more interested
in the immediate gratification of their characters (and themselves).
>I have seen this rampant across the MUD world. The IMMs/IMPs decide they
>know what the players need. Very much like a parent telling the kids
>what they are going to do. Now I can understand a NEW MUD creating code
>and doing things. Then hoping players will come and enjoy. BUT what take
>an established MUD and change something and watch the players leave and
>wonder what the hell went wrong. Why is it that Many IMMs/IMPs/Coders
>have to change the formula that is working. I understand trying new
>ideas and such but when you get signifigant negative feedback fron your
>player base why sit there stubbornly and ignore that?
>
But where do you draw the line between player satisfaction, fulfilling
the vision of the designer? Sometimes things change, and admins see a
need for a change, which the players will invariably not like.
You can't obey the whim of the player...because players are often too
interested in their own gain, as opposed to play balance, and
fulfilling the design vision.
>My personal view on a MUD is to create something for players to enjoy.
>Not some white elephant that I killed as a trophy. To say "LOOK AT WHAT
>I CODED" To me the bottom line is the enjoyment of the players. To that
>end when I decided to start my new MUD I have decided what type of
>players I want to connect with. I will make sure that the MUD stays
>faithful to the community of players I want there. Trouble is I should
>run 2 MUDs because I am split on the type of players I hope for.
>
>Bramage
At first glance, that paragraph made no sense. Upon further
inspection, I realized that what you are saying is that, rather than
follow your own vision, you will nobly state that you are going to
"listen to your players". To accomodate this, you are going to only
accept players that follow your vision.
Why not just follow your vision in the first place? The end result
will be that you will have the kinds of players that you want playing
your MUD.
Anderon
Leave me alone
describing the room, not the emotions it can invoke. Plus it can make
generalized assumptions that may be out of place at the moment. For any
description i would try to touch on at LEAST 3 of the 5 senses. Avoid
anything that is like "off to the east you can see". Directional
descriptions should be saved for when someone does a "look east". When
plugged into a general room description such things just look like the
builder got lazy.
"William Lessard" <wles...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3C1F7E74...@excite.com...
> And Why.
>
> I have been trying to understand this for awhile. I have wandered around
> several MUDs and I present these examples.
>
> 1st - My original Description of the room.
>
> You stand on a dusty road. You can see it stretch to the west
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east you can see the
> town of Shadowdale. All around you are farmer's fields with the rare
> house showing up a dirt track leading off of the road.
>
> 2nd - What I reworded it to after comments made on this NG
>
> disappearing into the forests there. Off to the east is the town of
> Shadowdale. All around are farmer's fields with the rare house at the
> end of a dirt track that connects it to the road.
>
> What voice should be used? 1st person, 3rd person, active or passive or
> whatever. Why is the first one repugnant to so many. Is the second one
> acceptable and why?
>
Dan
<wles...@excite.com> wrote:
..what is a good description...
>And Why.
A lot depends on how your mud works. The answer for a bog-standard
Diku or traditional LP mud is going to be different from that of a
more advanced one (as Kavir's example from his mud demonstrated.)
My comments below assume you have a traditional kind of mud where
descriptions are fixed and are presented the same whenever the room
is viewed.
>The road you stand on is very dusty.
This will be wrong (or "bad") because:
- I might not be standing, I might be sitting, lying down etc.
- I might not be physically present, I could be looking from an
adjacent room, or using a scrying device or spell
- It might have just been raining, in which case there would be
no dust.
>It stretches to the west disappearing into the forests there.
This doesn't flow very well but has no major problems. Some
punctuation might have come in handy.
>Off to the east is the town of Shadowdale.
Fine, but how do I know that? Is it visible? What part of it can be
seen? Is it spread out below in a valley or can I just see the
city wall and gate blocking the road? How far away is it?
>All around are farmer's fields
But they aren't all around - there is a forest to the west and a town
to the east. How do I know they belong to a farmer? They could belong
to a wealthy Lord and just have tenant farmers. What is it you are
trying to say by using "farmer's fields"? Do they have crops? Cattle?
What sorts, cow, sheep, pigs, horses?
>with the rare house at the
>end of a dirt track that connects it to the road.
Suddenly this location has gone from feeling relatively small to
feeling huge. Is the road on a ridge that I can see so many fields
and pick out farmhouses in the distance?
>Is it a dislike of having ANYTHING tell you what is there?
>What voice should be used? 1st person, 3rd person, active or passive or
>whatever. Why is the first one repugnant to so many.
The important thing in my opinion is not to tell the player what he
is doing or feeling since he might not want to or be able to do it or
feel it - you impinge upon his ability to roleplay in that
environment. (Obviously there are exceptions to this, but its a useful
general rule.)
1st person is very difficult to use well in a traditional mud because
the room descriptions are so inflexible. "You are standing..." No, I'm
sitting. "You crunch the leaves underfoot..." No, I'm sneaking
silently towards my victim. And so forth.
Active voice generally gives a description that flows well - passive
constructions tend to grate a little. "The wind rustles the crisp
autumn leaves" is much better than "The crisp autumn leaves are
rustled by the wind."
>Is the second one acceptable and why?
Well, I've dissected that above and so my answer would be no. (You can
see why new builders rarely last more than 2 weeks on my mud...)
Still, it's only fair to provide an alternative...
The dirt road stretches along the hillside here. In the distance to
the west it disappears into a dark forest, whilst to the east it
curves gently down towards Shadowdale's west gate. On the north side
of the road, a rough grass field disappears over the hilltop. To the
south, a patchwork panorama of fields and hedgerows spreads out across
the valley - marked here and there by the dark speck of a farmhouse.
Note that this description doesn't assume anything about dynamic
content - it doesn't mention mention weather or light, or things that
would be affected by them, animals in the fields that might or might
not be there, crops that might change due to the time of year, and so
on. (A decent mud should of course provide a mechanism for including
such dynamic elements.)
I also haven't assumed anything about the skills, knowledge, actions,
preferences or location of the viewer (other than that the town gate
visible to the east is known to be Shadowdale's.)
I'm sure someone else will now proceed to dissect my description. =)
--
Scatter ///\oo/\\\
Dan
Bryant) wrote:
>Acius <redso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C1FFC2...@hotmail.com>...
[big snip]
>> This would work by checking to see if the variable FULLMOON (there is a
>> global pool of variables, represented as LP/C closures) is non-zero. If
>> it is, the following text would be included in the description,
>> otherwise, it would be left out.
>
>Hear hear! I've always thought a system like this would be worth
>doing. You could easily extend it to cover sensory information too.
>For example, in LPC terms, define a macro HEAR(X) to be (excuse my
>elderly, if not downright wrong, LPC syntax):
>
>if (this_player() -> can_hear()) {write(X)}
MudOS based LP muds have been able to do this for a long time, using
the process_string() system. Basically, before being output to a
player, description text is passed through the process_string() efun
which looks for text enclosed with '@@'. These portions of text
represent functions which are called and the text returned by these
functions is substituted into the original description.
As a trivial example, take the description "The treetops are
@@moonlight@@." The process_string() engine takes @@moonlight@@ and
calls the moonlight() function in the room. This function would check
for the existence of moonlight at the current time and return an
appropriate piece of text for if there is or isn't - "lit from above
by the full moon" for example, or "invisible in the darkness above" if
the moon wasn't present. This text then replaces @@moonlight@@ in the
original description, so that the player sees "The treetops are lit
from above by the full moon."
Of course, such functions can in theory do almost anything - but this
powerful mechanism for dynamic descriptions goes mostly unused.
>I think that so long as the basic groundwork is done, the effort
>involved in writing room descriptions wouldn't actually be that much
>greater, and the end result would be a far more interesting
>implementation of blindness, deafness, illumination, weather and many
>other things.
In my experience, the reason dynamic descriptions are not used more
widely is simply because of the extra work involved in writing all the
optional descriptions that most players won't even notice are dynamic
in the first place.
--
Scatter ///\oo/\\\
Hmmm I wonder?
Most of the people building will not be Authors but will have played the
Text based adventure Games like Level 9's Scapeghost or Time & Magick
Trilogy.
The problem with them is They dictate who you are and what your capabilities
are, so if it says
"The grass brushes against your ankles,"
Then they know you are in a field wearing sandals - or nothing so the grass
is brushing against your ankles,
The question you need to ask is "what restrictions are there to players
movements"
For instance in a cave you could determine that all characters are of normal
size and the ceiling is too low for them to fly/float so in that case "You
splash through the puddles on the ground" would probably be ok as they
cannot avoid them,
I think the concensus is everyone makes mistakes with descriptions and
everyone has their own viewpoint as to what descriptions should say, I
prefer just the dry scene setting description as the players should be
creating their own RP in the location.
The other question is What about Descriptions on exits, most people would
not type "look door" unless the door was locked, so unless there is
something special about an exit I tend to not describe it. otherwise I would
have to describe over 1000 exits, and that also includes the Success fail
and odrop's as well,
For instance "(S)outh along main street" could have the following
descriptions
Desc = Main street stretches out south.
Fail = You cannot go that way the Guards block the way
Ofail = is turned away by the guards
Succ = You travel South along main street
osucc = Travels South along main street
odrop = Comes in from the north
Now imagine doing that with Every exit and object and player and room, it
becomes a Massive task that could mean either a large city for people to
explore with not many descriptions or a single street with many
descriptions, New Mu* may start with few descriptions but then once the
world is complete the Wizards should be going back through the world adding
the extra little tweaks to make the world interesting.
just my 2p
Mike.
Peter Register
news:u2e3vqb...@corp.supernews.com:
Success fail and odrop's as well,
>
> For instance "(S)outh along main street" could have the following
> descriptions
> Desc = Main street stretches out south.
> Fail = You cannot go that way the Guards block the way
> Ofail = is turned away by the guards
> Succ = You travel South along main street
> osucc = Travels South along main street
> odrop = Comes in from the north
>
> Now imagine doing that with Every exit and object and player and room,
> it becomes a Massive task that could mean either a large city for
> people to explore with not many descriptions or a single street with
> many descriptions, New Mu* may start with few descriptions but then
> once the world is complete the Wizards should be going back through the
> world adding the extra little tweaks to make the world interesting.
>
Good lord, if i had to do that with every door/exit, we'd get nowhere. Then
again, with LP we don't. ;)
-murmur
Alan Schwartz
You don't have to do that with every exit in MUSHes, either. That's what
parent objects are for.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Javelin@M*U*S*H (mush.pennmush.org 4201) | Alan Schwartz
Paul@DuneMUSH | dune...@pennmush.org
Javelin@Belgariad, and elsewhere | PennMUSH Server Maintainer
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
PennMUSH God's Guide: http://www.pennmush.org/~alansz/guide.html
PennMUSH Source: ftp://ftp.pennmush.org/pub/PennMUSH/Source
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
tel...@xenon.triode.net.au
> 1) I didn't realise that you had to "wield" a weapon, because it never
> occurred to me that, if you were carrying a sword and about to attack
> something, you wouldn't try to use the sword in preference to your
> bare hands.
Sometimes, you do actually want to use bare hands in preference to a weapon
but admittedly not vey often. More often though, you might be carrying several
weapons and need to select the most appropriate depending on what you are
up against.
> 2) It never occurred to me that it might be useful to type "search",
> because each "room" I entered was described in a level of detail that
> indicated my character was looking around quite carefully in all
> directions, and all the objects in the room were explicitly listed.
> Therefore I assumed that my character had already searched as much as
> was feasible.
The best possible design is to have a time-phase based system where
the only way to search a room is to do nothing at all for one time-phase.
Thus, when you first enter a room you see the exits immediately (the
non-secret exits anyhow). If you wait a short while you see the brief
description, wait a bit longer and you get the long description, after
that you start to see all the objects in the room -- most obvious objects
first, then less obvious. If you do any other action during that time-phase
then you don't do any searching... so the assumption is that any character
that is not given any explicit command will be looking around at the room
and its contents.
This means that the 'brief' command is not required -- the faster you
walk the less you see.
This also applies to things like tracking -- if you have tracking switched
on then it should work just like the search and you have to wait a little
while in each room for the tracks to become obvious.
- Tel
Hmmm I wonder?
<tel...@xenon.triode.net.au> wrote in message
news:a0e9al$edn$1...@merki.connect.com.au...
> The best possible design is to have a time-phase based system where
> the only way to search a room is to do nothing at all for one time-phase.
> Thus, when you first enter a room you see the exits immediately (the
> non-secret exits anyhow). If you wait a short while you see the brief
> description, wait a bit longer and you get the long description, after
> that you start to see all the objects in the room -- most obvious objects
> first, then less obvious. If you do any other action during that
time-phase
> then you don't do any searching... so the assumption is that any character
> that is not given any explicit command will be looking around at the room
> and its contents.
>
> This means that the 'brief' command is not required -- the faster you
> walk the less you see.
>
edition 3 :-)
the Spot and search skills are quite hard to do and I am having to rewrite
the look command.
so when you 'look' at the room, every object is checked against your spot
skill to see if you see it, Marking on the object if you have seen it - This
will come clear in time,
Some objects will not have a difficulty level set - these items you always
see.
but say a comb left on the table has a difficulty of 13 and you fail to see
it.
look again you may spot this, so on the comb is a propdir listing the
players who have seen it.
This list is checked every time someone looks so once seen it is still
visible.
but if someone gets the comb, all lists are wiped, then if dropped elsewhere
they have to spot it again.
Search command would do the same as look but for Dark exits (invisible)
but as players could be also Dark (wearing a cloak of invisibility) or
objects,
again the list is used but would be cleared on being got/moved. as hidded
passages/doors cannot move then
once found they would always be known about, but invisible players/objects
found can be lost by being moved or got.
Any thoughts? does anyone see a problem with this system?
Mike.
Jon A. Lambert
>
> the Spot and search skills are quite hard to do and I am having to rewrite
> the look command.
> so when you 'look' at the room, every object is checked against your spot
> skill to see if you see it, Marking on the object if you have seen it - This
> will come clear in time,
> Some objects will not have a difficulty level set - these items you always
> see.
> but say a comb left on the table has a difficulty of 13 and you fail to see
> it.
> look again you may spot this, so on the comb is a propdir listing the
> players who have seen it.
> This list is checked every time someone looks so once seen it is still
> visible.
> but if someone gets the comb, all lists are wiped, then if dropped elsewhere
> they have to spot it again.
>
> Search command would do the same as look but for Dark exits (invisible)
> but as players could be also Dark (wearing a cloak of invisibility) or
> objects,
> again the list is used but would be cleared on being got/moved. as hidded
> passages/doors cannot move then
> once found they would always be known about, but invisible players/objects
> found can be lost by being moved or got.
>
> Any thoughts? does anyone see a problem with this system?
>
Consider the vast numbers of lists attached to a character as they roam
the world.
Perhaps a better solution would be to add the objects number to it's
position and use it to seed random. Then spot check always returns
the same results for a discretion or spot check.
Example
Room "The cave" - object #2534
Object "The comb" - object #9272
Object "The table" - object #827
If the comb is on the floor...
srand(2534+9272)
if ((rand() % 18) + 1 < discretion_stat); // or whatever you use
show the comb
If the comb is on the table in the room...
srand(2534+9272+827)
if ((rand() % 18) + 1 < discretion_stat); // or whatever you use
show the comb
Once the comb is seen or not seen in a particular position and room
it's guaranteed to have repeatedly results in the same position and
room. If one's spot stat changes or the comb moves you'll of course
see a different set of repeatable results.
You can even add the spot stat into the seed as well as characters
mental condition.
I have no clue whether the server you use assigns object numbers
or even supports seeding of random. So YMMV. :-)
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://tychomud.home.netcom.com> *--
--* If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.*--
Hmmm I wonder?
"Jon A. Lambert" <jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0f3ka$l9l$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Perhaps a better solution would be to add the objects number to it's
> position and use it to seed random. Then spot check always returns
> the same results for a discretion or spot check.
>
people who have seen it. not the people.
ie
examine comb=/seen/
Comb /seen/
Lorien:1
loxley:1
Arianne:1
Yoda:1
All the players listed have seen the item so can see it unless it is moved
or picked up in which case the propdir is removed. - or I can use their
dbref instead of name.
Mike.
Jon A. Lambert
"Hmmm I wonder?" <ad...@muckworld.com> wrote in message news:u2mk9vr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> All the players listed have seen the item so can see it unless it is moved
> or picked up in which case the propdir is removed. - or I can use their
> dbref instead of name.
>
Here's a link to what I was describing.. it's probably more clearer.
http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/1997Q4/msg00441.php
Or you can do a search there for 'fixed random seeding' to turn
up some more.
Hmmm I wonder?
>
> "Hmmm I wonder?" <ad...@muckworld.com> wrote in message
news:u2mk9vr...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > All the players listed have seen the item so can see it unless it is
moved
> > or picked up in which case the propdir is removed. - or I can use their
> > dbref instead of name.
> >
>
> Here's a link to what I was describing.. it's probably more clearer.
>
> http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/1997Q4/msg00441.php
>
> Or you can do a search there for 'fixed random seeding' to turn
> up some more.
function and cannot seed it. also using FuzzBall Server (and it's clones)
the Propdirs are REally quick to access. There is benefit in your way on
something like LPMud and the other C based engines but at present and using
the softcoding in Fuzzball I do not have access to the functionality needed
to pull this off. The man page for random reads as follows.
random ( -- i )
Returns a random integer from 0 to the MAXINT of the system running the
MUCK.
In general this number is (2^31)-1 or 2,147,483,647 (2.1 billion).
Mike.
Barnes
> mski...@xena.acsu.buffalo.edu (Myles L Skinner) wrote in message news:<9vocsb$kck$1...@xena.acsu.buffalo.edu>...
>> > Queen Street West
>> > Traveling north along Queen Street from here will lead you along Spadina
>> > Road, which will eventually lead you to the University of Tierceron. If you
>> > were to follow Pennyfather's Rents to the south, you would arrive at the
>> > harbourfront. Queen Street continues to the east and west.
> While I agree with most of what you go on to say (given that the
> general atmosphere on your MUD is clearly jokey and positively
> brimming with post-modernist irony) I do take issue with this one a
> little bit, for a reason already raised: suppose you are viewing this
> room through a magical crystal ball? Under those circumstances you
> can't actually travel north or anywhere else.
Even though you're viewing it through a crystal ball, it doesn't negate
the fact that travelling north from that location would lead you along
Spadina Road. It doesn't in any way presume to tell you what you _are_
doing, which is the big no.
I'd say it's an acceptable description, even if it does read like a page
torn from a street directory.
Barnes