Nightmare mudlib 2.4 for MudOS 0.9.16
George Reese
Nightmare mudlib 2.4 Release
The archwizards of Nightmare are very happy to announce the release of
Nightmare mudlib 2.4 for the MudOS 0.9.16 driver. This is a mudlib for
people interested in putting up a mud with all the bells and whistles in
a minimum amount of time. For those who choose the Nightmare mudlib 2.4,
you will have the advantage of total development support. As the
creator of the Nightmare mudlib, I am happy to answer any questions
that my come up while trying to setup the mudlib so you can get your wizards
online and coding. I have even been known to login and lead people through the
process on their machine :)
Where to find the new mudlib:
jericho.connected.com 5999 in the mudlibs directory
orlith.bates.edu in pub/mud/mudlibs
file name: Nightmare.v2n4.tar.Z
Features of the Nightmare mudlib:
5 player classes:
cleric, fighter, mage, monk, rogue
skill and limb based combat:
Skills raise either though actual use or through player training and
fall into four catagories, combat, weapons, deception, magic. Each
player class specializes in trasining in certain skills.
Limb based combat lends a more realistic feel to weapon and armour usage,
such that helmets only protect against blows to the head... a player
cannot wield two weapons (or a two handed weapon) and wear a shield too...
Fun movement messages for players missing limbs (easy to change to they
can't move if you want that degree of realism, we did not :)).
race based stats system:
We have multiple player races which determine the genetic makeup of a
player (culture is up to player creativity). This includes the
traditional str, int, con, dex, cha, wis, but also sight bonuses for
lighting conditions.
support for unlimitewd wizard built guilds
player biographies listing birth dates, wedding dates, unique monster kills, and
death dates.
A system of mud based time, allowing for night and day (if desired), keeping
track of significant dates within the mud world, and a new development which
is shown in its beginning stages in Nightmare mudlib 2.4, BIORHTYHMS.
Simple inheritable pubs and shops as monsters rather than rooms.
Inheritable door rooms for the easy creation of rooms with doors, either
lockable or not. In addition, easily creatable chest like lockable
containers such that in order to create any sort of key with this mudlib, you
will only ever need to create an item with the right id.
RoSpecial inheritable fishing room file to allow players who are poor or
not in the mood for killing to fish for dinner rather than spnding coins.
Multiple currency economy with a simple banking system for easily added
banks in immortal areas.
Unlimited p[laying potential. No wizard/player dichotomy. Instead,
players may advance in level without limit. In addition, there are
no limits on high high skills or stats may be raised. Special
priveldges given to pmortal players level 20 and above.
The Easter bunny.
In development for future releases:
Biorhythms, although present in the current release, are not as fully developed
as we eventually plan them to be.
Support for high mortals paying money to build areas and pay for mercenaries.
Again, this is present to a degree in the current release, but not at all fully
developed.
Waether systems that will mean more than just environmental messages.
And certainly more...
*** Notes for those with the Nightmare mudlib 2.3 ***
Upgrade modules will be available next week.
Secureity fixes are available for those who mail me at
bo...@hebron.connected.com
I do not wish to publish them for the sake of those who do not get
in touch with me.
Locations again:
jericho.connected.com 5999
orlith.bates.edu
anonymous login for each.
George Reese
bo...@hebron.connected.com
"Milk me sugar."- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Attributions of intentions and beliefs to dogs smack of anthropomorphism."
-Donald Davidson
Descartes@Nightmare
Descartes@Igor
Jamieson Norrish
(George Reese) writes:
5 player classes:
cleric, fighter, mage, monk, rogue
Gosh. Classes. Fascinating. Five of them you say? Well I never.
skill and limb based combat:
Skills raise either though actual use or through player training and
fall into four catagories, combat, weapons, deception, magic. Each
player class specializes in trasining in certain skills.
Ah, of course, I am not wise enough to see the subtle distinction and
shades of meaning between the terms "combat" and "weapons". Now, what
happens when I climb this cliff while reading a book?
Limb based combat lends a more realistic feel to weapon and armour usage,
such that helmets only protect against blows to the head... a player
cannot wield two weapons (or a two handed weapon) and wear a shield too...
Fun movement messages for players missing limbs (easy to change to they
can't move if you want that degree of realism, we did not :)).
No, please, not a slight degree of realism. ARGH, I can't stand it,
it's just too much.
support for unlimitewd wizard built guilds
More coded guilds? *yawn* As I've said before, this stuff should be
left as an abstract concept, a creation of the players.
player biographies listing birth dates, wedding dates, unique
monster kills, and death dates.
Plus a FREE birth certificate if you send in three bottle tops, and
give a valid email address! Only here, and for a strictly limited time
only! Plus, for the famous few, pride of place in the MUDNews obituary
column.
Simple inheritable pubs and shops as monsters rather than rooms.
The wandering pedlar takes on a new meaning...
RoSpecial inheritable fishing room file to allow players who are poor or
not in the mood for killing to fish for dinner rather than spnding coins.
Ooh ooh ooh! I'm off to go fishing, I'm off to go fishing. Gee, do we
have species of fish too? What about gutting and cleaning? Cooking?
What about vegetarians? What do they do?
The Easter bunny.
Get your eggs here...
In development for future releases:
Biorhythms, although present in the current release, are not as
fully developed as we eventually plan them to be.
Well, what can I say?
Waether systems that will mean more than just environmental messages.
Oh no, my suit of chainmail has *rusted*! Gak, what a thing to happen!
And certainly more...
No doubt.
ObUseful: Harking back to the discussion on libraries so long ago on
rgmm, what sort of books do people include in them, how long are the
books typically, how much relevant/useful/quest information is
included, and how many players use the library? In short, are
libraries popular, and what purposes do they serve?
Jamie
George Reese
that I am responding to one of the most pompoius and self-important post
sI have ever read. Not one thing said had any merit in the realm of
something so trivial as a point, and certainly I would imagine
Jaimie to have something better to do than say bad things about a mudlib he
knows nothing about without even saying anything to back up his mouthful
of bullshit. Perhaps I should not even be wasting my time responding to
this
But, since I have spent a great deal of time and energy putting this
mudlib together, I do not have the tolerance to let the post of
this ignorant asshole go without comment.
In article <JAMIE.93A...@kauri.vuw.ac.nz> ja...@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Jamieson Norrish) writes:
>In article <1qknho$7...@hebron.connected.com> bo...@hebron.connected.com
>(George Reese) writes:
>
> 5 player classes:
> cleric, fighter, mage, monk, rogue
>
>Gosh. Classes. Fascinating. Five of them you say? Well I never.
>
What is wrong with 5 character classes? People can add
more if they like or scrap the bunch if they do not. If you might
have actually looked at the mudlib (oh my god no!) you would
have seen a document on why I shose those classes. "Well I never.", you
say? I did not claim that it had never been done before. As a matter of fact,
probably everything in the Nightmare mudlib has been done before. Most
of it we just did differently. Is there something wrong with that
dear purveyor of great wisdom?
> skill and limb based combat:
> Skills raise either though actual use or through player training and
> fall into four catagories, combat, weapons, deception, magic. Each
> player class specializes in trasining in certain skills.
>
>Ah, of course, I am not wise enough to see the subtle distinction and
>shades of meaning between the terms "combat" and "weapons". Now, what
>happens when I climb this cliff while reading a book?
>
I guess you are not wise enough to see the difference. Too bad.
As far as climbing and reading, well, if that is your cup of tea,
the mudlib is easily modifiable to take care of that. I personally
think it is hard enough to get players to read without adding restrictions.
> Limb based combat lends a more realistic feel to weapon and armour usage,
> such that helmets only protect against blows to the head... a player
> cannot wield two weapons (or a two handed weapon) and wear a shield too...
> Fun movement messages for players missing limbs (easy to change to they
> can't move if you want that degree of realism, we did not :)).
>
>No, please, not a slight degree of realism. ARGH, I can't stand it,
>it's just too much.
>
What the hell are you trying to say? Pointing out that I have
not accoumplished VR nirvana? Good work Sherlock.
> support for unlimitewd wizard built guilds
>
>More coded guilds? *yawn* As I've said before, this stuff should be
>left as an abstract concept, a creation of the players.
>
This is the only comment in your entire post with a point, and unfortunately
it is an ignorant uninformed point. Should cover that dorsal blowhole
before you think there Jaimie. Nightmare has the support for adding
guilds.
Immortals code the guilds, cause they are given the power to code.
But they code guild powers and theme based on high mortal requests.
Each guild is run by a high mortal who purchases theguild and pays
to get powers added. That high mortal sees to guild atmosphere,
admission policies, and dismissal policies. The code has to be
written somewhere (clearly not by you, you are too busy talk shit
about things you know nothing about), but the ideas and control
is in the hands of high mortals. The nightmare mudlib simply
has supports for making sure players do not join 2 guilds, etc.
> player biographies listing birth dates, wedding dates, unique
> monster kills, and death dates.
>
>Plus a FREE birth certificate if you send in three bottle tops, and
>give a valid email address! Only here, and for a strictly limited time
>only! Plus, for the famous few, pride of place in the MUDNews obituary
>column.
>
Are you trying to say there is something wrong with the above feature?
Or are you being negative and sarchastic because that is the only way
you are capable of feeling good about yourself? I happen to
think this is kinda neat idea having bios.
> Simple inheritable pubs and shops as monsters rather than rooms.
>
>The wandering pedlar takes on a new meaning...
>
Gosh I hate being redundant, but what the hell is wrong with the idea?
Where is your point?
> RoSpecial inheritable fishing room file to allow players who are poor or
> not in the mood for killing to fish for dinner rather than spnding coins.
>
>Ooh ooh ooh! I'm off to go fishing, I'm off to go fishing. Gee, do we
>have species of fish too? What about gutting and cleaning? Cooking?
>What about vegetarians? What do they do?
>
The only thing I can find here that RESEMBLES (and this is being generous)
a point here is that he is sarcastically trying to say that simply
having fishing is not real enough... you have to do this that and the
other thing, and while you are at it, o not
offend the vegetariens. Well, since he has no idea what fishing is like
on Nightmare, this cannot possibly be his point.
> The Easter bunny.
>
>Get your eggs here...
>
Have to be negative about the Easter bunny too.
Do you have anything at all positive to say about anything other than
yourself?
> In development for future releases:
> Biorhythms, although present in the current release, are not as
> fully developed as we eventually plan them to be.
>
>Well, what can I say?
>
Since when did having nothing to say stop you?
> Waether systems that will mean more than just environmental messages.
>
>Oh no, my suit of chainmail has *rusted*! Gak, what a thing to happen!
>
> And certainly more...
>
>No doubt.
>
Ok... finally, a lesson for Jaimie on posting to te net.
It is called a point, look into it.
I suppose, on a lighter side to make my point, I appreciate
comments on the Nightmare mudlib (from those who have seen it).
But it just really annoys the hell out of me when people spount
negative things over the net about topics they have no clue ofjust
because their pathetic egos need to see their own name in print.
And to that in, I am only helping his cause as he gets to see
his name over the net yet one more time. But Jaimie, any
two year old can sit at the keyboard and type bullshit. But only
reason an adult your age would possibly post something like this
is cause they do not have the brains to make up something
constructive to say.
Jamieson Norrish
(George Reese) writes:
[Personal invective deleted.]
What is wrong with 5 character classes? People can add
more if they like or scrap the bunch if they do not. If you might
have actually looked at the mudlib (oh my god no!) you would
have seen a document on why I shose those classes. "Well I
never.", you say? I did not claim that it had never been done
before. As a matter of fact, probably everything in the Nightmare
mudlib has been done before. Most of it we just did differently.
Is there something wrong with that dear purveyor of great wisdom?
No, there is nothing wrong in covering known territory, and doing it
differently. It just seems odd to me that classes still exist in MU*s,
when they are an abstraction which makes any claim of realism (see
below) ring rather hollow. Of course, abstraction is inevitable.
However, it is not difficult to use a skill system (or some other
alternative) in order to remove some of the more gross distortions.
>Ah, of course, I am not wise enough to see the subtle distinction and
>shades of meaning between the terms "combat" and "weapons". Now, what
>happens when I climb this cliff while reading a book?
I guess you are not wise enough to see the difference. Too bad.
Well, what is the difference? I would have thought that in defining
all skills into four groups, the first thing to ensure would be that
the groups overlapped as little as possible. Having "combat" and
"weapons" seems to go against this. Why?
>No, please, not a slight degree of realism. ARGH, I can't stand it,
>it's just too much.
What the hell are you trying to say? Pointing out that I have
not accoumplished VR nirvana? Good work Sherlock.
See my above comment about realism.
>More coded guilds? *yawn* As I've said before, this stuff should be
>left as an abstract concept, a creation of the players.
This is the only comment in your entire post with a point, and
unfortunately it is an ignorant uninformed point. Should cover
that dorsal blowhole before you think there Jaimie. Nightmare has
the support for adding guilds.
Immortals code the guilds, cause they are given the power to code.
But they code guild powers and theme based on high mortal requests.
Each guild is run by a high mortal who purchases theguild and pays
to get powers added. That high mortal sees to guild atmosphere,
admission policies, and dismissal policies. The code has to be
written somewhere (clearly not by you, you are too busy talk shit
about things you know nothing about), but the ideas and control
is in the hands of high mortals. The nightmare mudlib simply
has supports for making sure players do not join 2 guilds, etc.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, you miss my point. Guilds are not the
fundamental way of learning skills - skills are learned through using
them, and it is also possible to train someone in how to use a skill.
This has no inherent connection with guilds at all. Guilds are simply
abstract creations, which don't even require a special room, or a
special NPC, or anything. Just the characters, forming their own
institutions, or not. Just like in the real world. How about that.
> player biographies listing birth dates, wedding dates, unique
> monster kills, and death dates.
>
>Plus a FREE birth certificate if you send in three bottle tops, and
>give a valid email address! Only here, and for a strictly limited time
>only! Plus, for the famous few, pride of place in the MUDNews obituary
>column.
Are you trying to say there is something wrong with the above
feature?
No; how does it work?
Or are you being negative and sarchastic because that is the only
way you are capable of feeling good about yourself?
I'm afraid it's not that either.
> Simple inheritable pubs and shops as monsters rather than rooms.
>
>The wandering pedlar takes on a new meaning...
Gosh I hate being redundant, but what the hell is wrong with the
idea? Where is your point?
Nothing is wrong with idea, and I did not say there was. The comment
was simply a comment, rather than a flame, or a criticism.
The only thing I can find here that RESEMBLES (and this is being
generous) a point here is that he is sarcastically trying to say
that simply having fishing is not real enough... you have to do
this that and the other thing, and while you are at it, o not
offend the vegetariens. Well, since he has no idea what fishing is
like on Nightmare, this cannot possibly be his point.
Never mind; obviously you have failed to see the humour in it; for
that I apologise, but it's not my task to try and ensure that you will
find the same things as humourous as I do.
>Get your eggs here...
Have to be negative about the Easter bunny too.
Do you have anything at all positive to say about anything other
than yourself?
I didn't realise I'd said anything positive about myself. However,
again I was not being negative; simply questioning the idea of having
an Easter bunny in a game which also supports realistic limb-based
combat.
[More invective deleted.]
And to that in, I am only helping his cause as he gets to see
his name over the net yet one more time.
Ah, I fear you have failed in your purpose, then, since you have spelt
my name incorrectly every time, except in the automatic attribution.
Still, I appreciate the effort.
Apologies to those who couldn't care less about any of this.
Jamie
Niilo Neuvo
> No, there is nothing wrong in covering known territory, and doing it
> differently. It just seems odd to me that classes still exist in MU*s,
> when they are an abstraction which makes any claim of realism (see
> below) ring rather hollow. Of course, abstraction is inevitable.
> However, it is not difficult to use a skill system (or some other
> alternative) in order to remove some of the more gross distortions.
Guilds existed in the middle ages, so why can't they be considered
realistic (a class in a mud usually means the same as a guild)?
And when you have explained that please explain how a school is
different from a guild.
And then please explain how a school is not realistic.
++Anipa
--
NN NN NN NN NNNNNNNN
NNNN N NN N NNNNNN
NNNNNN N NN N NNNN
NNNNNNNN NN NN NN NN
Jacob Hallen
>And then please explain how a school is not realistic.
Schools are the most unrealistic things anyone has ever thought up.
All the schools I have been too have been the most wierd and far out
places I have ever visited. How many stories about wacko teachers have
you heard in your lifetime? How many crazy students have you met? How
many 48 hour studying sessions on caffeine pills, Coke and coffe have
you done? What did you look like afterwards?
No, schools are most certainly not realistic.
Now take ponds instead. Ponds are nice places with squishy bottoms,
interesting vegetation, lots of flies and mosquitos. Ponds are
very realistic, and you can learn a lot more in them than you ever
learn in school. For instance they are perfect for learning how to sit
on the leaf of a waterlilly and catch flies and mosquitos with your
tounge.
Jacob Hallen
Cary Aipperspach
>In article <ANIPA.93A...@kaarne.cs.tut.fi> an...@cs.tut.fi (Niilo Neuvo) writes:
>>And then please explain how a school is not realistic.
>
>Schools are the most unrealistic things anyone has ever thought up.
>All the schools I have been too have been the most wierd and far out
>places I have ever visited. How many stories about wacko teachers have
>you heard in your lifetime? How many crazy students have you met? How
>many 48 hour studying sessions on caffeine pills, Coke and coffe have
>you done? What did you look like afterwards?
>
>No, schools are most certainly not realistic.
I don't know about you, but the criteria I take for something being
"realistic" is that it emulates as close as possible something that
actually exists in real life. Are you trying to claim
there is no such as a school in real life? Are you saying you do not
have any sort of degree from any known educational institution?
Now tell me schools are not realistic.
Mike Mc Gaughey
>ja...@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Jamieson Norrish) writes:
>> No, there is nothing wrong in covering known territory, and doing it
>> differently. It just seems odd to me that classes still exist in MU*s,
>> when they are an abstraction which makes any claim of realism (see
>> below) ring rather hollow.
Ever been to India?
>Guilds existed in the middle ages, so why can't they be considered
>realistic (a class in a mud usually means the same as a guild)?
>And then please explain how a school is not realistic.
You're both missing the point. Why is magic in muds - it's not
`realistic' at all. It's there because that was what they wanted in
their mud. Same for classes, same for limb-based combat, same for
everything except, perhaps, game driver crashes.
It's meaningless to talk about the lack of realism of a particular
feature - all that's important is: `how well does it achieve the effect
that the designer wanted'. If the effect you wanted was that players
were born into particular castes, then classes are *precisely* what you want.
Mike.
ps: J: you actually appear to be complaining about `lack of imagination' -
a rather dangerous topic :)
--
Mike McGaughey AARNET: mm...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
"Head stompin', ass kickin', finger licking nastiness"
Scarrow
>You're both missing the point. Why is magic in muds - it's not
>`realistic' at all. It's there because that was what they wanted in
>their mud. Same for classes, same for limb-based combat, same for
>everything except, perhaps, game driver crashes.
>It's meaningless to talk about the lack of realism of a particular
>feature - all that's important is: `how well does it achieve the effect
>that the designer wanted'. If the effect you wanted was that players
>were born into particular castes, then classes are *precisely* what you want.
While I don't really agree that guilds in a previously set up fashion are
unrealistic (after all, I would allow the NPCs to run the guild ... this is a
valid form ... I feel PCs are more transient travelers ... they can perhaps
join a guild for a while, but probably don't have much ability to create new
ones, etc.), you seem to be entering into the "magic isn't real, so nothing
else has to be" argument. This argument has been used before, and really
doesn't make much sense.
Realism is not the same as reality. Realism can be equated to something
like the effort to make a game balanced and practical. For example, I could
place a spell on my mud that killed every other player in the game. Sure, I
just handwave and call it magic. This upsets the balance and just doesn't
make much sense (why should the spell be so powerful with little effort put
forth by the caster, why should it be so selective, etc.?). Hit-location
based combat mechanisms add to the greater degree of realism, and further
more, unlike RPGs, you don't have to worry about the complexity of the
calculations being a burden on playing time (on the other hand, you should
try to make it appear straight-forward and sensible to the players ...
nothing too cryptic).
Your argument with castes and classes doesn't make much sense, as
classes in RPGs tend not to reflect social status, but rather range of
ability. For example, if I pick a cleric as my character on AD&D, my
available options for development have just been horribly minimized. I can
never used bladed weapons (which is a really inaccurate thing, considering
the wars waged with bloodshed in the name of religion ... of course, the
Paladin can be viewed as the templar form of cleric, but the point is, why
keep adding new classes to fill niches that could be filled simply by skills
selection on a much broader scale without classes?), can never develop the
skills and abilities of a thief if I so wish, etc.
Now, a caste system, if appropriate to the design layout of the game,
could be quite well done. This just has little relevance to the concept of
classes as portrayed currently (these are not caste levels). Even then, I'd
suggest that caste level probably start out the same for everyone, since a
random method would allow people to make characters until they got a caste
they liked and a selectable method would probably generate a lot of nobility,
etc.
--
Shawn L. Baird (Scarrow) | "By all means, take the moral high ground --
bai...@ursula.ee.pdx.edu | all that heavenly backlighting makes you a
-------------------------| much easier target." --Solomon Short
Jeremy C. Jack
>an...@cs.tut.fi (Niilo Neuvo) writes:
>
>>ja...@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Jamieson Norrish) writes:
>>> No, there is nothing wrong in covering known territory, and doing it
>>> differently. It just seems odd to me that classes still exist in MU*s,
>>> when they are an abstraction which makes any claim of realism (see
>>> below) ring rather hollow.
[Stuff Deleted]
>>Guilds existed in the middle ages, so why can't they be considered
>>realistic (a class in a mud usually means the same as a guild)?
>
>>And then please explain how a school is not realistic.
[Stuff deleted]
(Apologies to Mike for using his article,but I skipped the originals and
didn't feel like going back...)
This particular argument has always struct me as silly (I run into this
with lots of friends who put up muds and decide structure). The
definition of classes vs. guilds is just an attempt to describe the
structure anyway. The words themselves are aproximations, not
definitions. A guild in midieval times = a union today + tech school.
You learned your trade and had the union there. Now, if you're only
willing to allow your players one option, then a guild is fine...
However, the system I always suggest is that of a class (which is
defined as the trade you practice) and then a player structural
organization separate from this (often times defined as a guild). This,
for those concerned with realism, is significantly more so. Granted
masons will probably join the masons guild (but what mud uses masons?).
However, assassins guilds would obviously not (as the D&D system from
which mud structure unfortunately evolved) restrict themselves to some
class defined "assassin". Mage expertise, thievish/roguish tricks, and
the warrior "muscle" would all be expected to take their part. For my
own systems, we use class to define base trade (magic study, deitic
devotion, para-legal gain, study of arms, etc.) and then allow these
trades, or "classes", to join the player organizational groups they
like. ("The order of <local god here>", "The Assassins", "Fellows of
the King", etc.). This distinction has allowed power distribution that
is easier to handle and allows a lot more player freedom (i.e. the
players get more choices). It works nicely. Don't get hung up on the
words used to define the structure. It's the structure itself that's
important.
--------------------------------------------
Jeremy C. Jack (k08...@hobbes.kzoo.edu)
a_different_name@each_different_mud
David Bennett
>Yeah, yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, you miss my point. Guilds are not the
>fundamental way of learning skills - skills are learned through using
>them, and it is also possible to train someone in how to use a skill.
>This has no inherent connection with guilds at all. Guilds are simply
>abstract creations, which don't even require a special room, or a
>special NPC, or anything. Just the characters, forming their own
>institutions, or not. Just like in the real world. How about that.
In this you are wrong. There were/atre guilds. They DO teach specialised
skills. Why do you think people are called ninja's, cause they wear
funnny clothes and wave their arms around? No. Because they were
trained by their guild in ninjitsu. Same with theives guilds, the
art of theiving is a dark ark, but the mob exists, so does the mafia.
Both of which are excelent examples of theives guilds :)
You can learn from the real world too. But classes/guilds are not
unrealisitic. You think the mafia will teach you anything if you are
not in it? You think the ninja people will teach you how to fight
if you are not a member.
Perhaps you should try osmosis. It will have about the same effect.
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
--
David Bennett, gu...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au | University Computer Club
Where Pink fish swim backwards. | c/o Guild of Undergraduates
These words I am singing now mean nothing more than meow to an animal - TMBG
Disclaimer: Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.
Jamieson Norrish
Guilds existed in the middle ages, so why can't they be considered
realistic (a class in a mud usually means the same as a guild)?
Guilds are realistic, yes. However, my point is that they are abstract
and purely in the minds of the people whom they affect. There is no
reason for them to be coded, since they don't really exist. All that
is required is for skills to increase through use, and for characters
to be able to train other characters in using a skill. Then the
*characters* can set up whatever system of skill training that they
like, whether it be guilds, or a simple master-apprentice
relationship, or something entirely different.
Why should people be forced into one type of institution by code which
simply limits opportunity and destroys realism, without adding
anything which couldn't be achieved (and better) through other means?
Just because guilds existed in the middle ages doesn't mean that the
must be forced upon characters. Guilds are created by the people, not
through natural laws - and the code of a MU* should concern itself
primarily with natural laws (physics), rather than setting in stone
social and political institutions which spring entirely from the minds
of the characters.
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
and other fancy words deleted.]
Social classes are created by the people in the society. Guilds are
institutions created by the people in the society. Laws are created by
the people in the society. Restrictions on only belonging to one guild
are created by the guild members.
I think that everyone agrees on this.
So why is it being coded, rather than left up to the players to
create?!
To take a trivial example of how coded guilds ruin realism:
No matter how many members such a guild has, it always has the same
resources, and (if coded) the same amount of power. Every character in
the MU* could belong to this one guild, and yet it would be no
different from a guild which had one member. This is ludicrous! Now,
someone will inevitably suggest coding a solution to this, but that is
missing the entire point. There is no need to code any of it, since it
can be left up to the players. If they want to live in a society which
allows everyone to be a member of every guild, then they can do so. If
they want to abandon the guild system entirely, and just have
individual master-apprentice relationships, then that can be done too,
since *none* of it needs to be coded.
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
Bennett) writes:
ja...@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Jamieson Norrish) writes:
>Yeah, yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, you miss my point. Guilds are not the
>fundamental way of learning skills - skills are learned through using
>them, and it is also possible to train someone in how to use a skill.
>This has no inherent connection with guilds at all. Guilds are simply
>abstract creations, which don't even require a special room, or a
>special NPC, or anything. Just the characters, forming their own
>institutions, or not. Just like in the real world. How about that.
In this you are wrong. There were/atre guilds. They DO teach
specialised skills. Why do you think people are called ninja's,
cause they wear funnny clothes and wave their arms around? No.
Because they were trained by their guild in ninjitsu. Same with
theives guilds, the art of theiving is a dark ark, but the mob
exists, so does the mafia. Both of which are excelent examples of
theives guilds :)
Would people please read what I wrote. I did not say that guilds are
unrealistic. I did not say that guilds did not and do not exist. I did
not say that guilds should be removed from MU*s.
I did say that coding guilds is completely unrealistic, because guilds
are an abstract concept which is a construct of the people that they
affect. In order to learn skills, it is not essential to have a guild.
Sure, there are examples of not being able to be taught a skill unless
you are in the right guild, but that doesn't require code either - the
people who form the guild can simply refuse to teach anyone they don't
regard as in the guild. Where's the need for code?
You can learn from the real world too. But classes/guilds are not
unrealisitic. You think the mafia will teach you anything if you are
not in it? You think the ninja people will teach you how to fight
if you are not a member.
See above - all of this relies exclusively on the people who make up
the guild, not the guild itself, which doesn't exist except on an
abstract level. Therefore, it can easily be left to the players, and
all the busy wizards can be saved the trouble of coding guilds.
Jamie
George Reese
>feature - all that's important is: `how well does it achieve the effect
>that the designer wanted'. If the effect you wanted was that players
>were born into particular castes, then classes are *precisely* what you want.
>
mind that I see classes and guilds as very different sorts of things
(not that anyone on this net should know this, but it is in the faq that
new players read (assuming they read it :))
classes are supposed to represent general life callings of the world created
on our mud (ideally I would like to add merhcant's class, but the non
combative nature of cleric's has them already small enough). Sort of
like I work in television production as a general life calling. This
means that there are certain skills I am probably pre-disposed towards
learning and alson concentrate in. A sclass is simply this general
sort of thing which decides which skills you chose to spend the most
time learning and which you are predisposed towards learning. The use
of those skills is left up to the individual.
A guild on the other hand on Nightmare, is primarily a social
institution to bond players of a certain role playing type:
assassins, philosophers, thieves, rangers, druids, etc. Compare
these perhaps to institutions like SAG (screen actor's guild) or
the fraternal order of police, etc. They also help player's specialize.
Assiassins would get certain special abilities most rogues do not have.
Disclaimer: Nightmare does not *yet* have all of these guilds, these
are examples of what the guild system is supposed to do.
Now I know this does not perfectly match reality, but I really do not give
a hoot. I was not trying to make great advances in virtual reality by
creatinbg this mudlib. Although I think the concepts of fishing and
biorhythms are new to the mudworld (lord knows they probably are not,
but I have never seen them, and I actually did come up with the ideas
myself (Hey! an original thought!)), I realize that the NM mudlib
does not really break any new ground. But it does serve the
purpose outlines at the head of the original post:
To provide admins with a basic mudlib with all the bells and
whistles that can be put up and running with a minimum amount of
hassle and development time. And, in fact, complaints on my mud
from players generally involve comments that the mud is too real.
Perhaps total realism is not something we want.
>ps: J: you actually appear to be complaining about `lack of imagination' -
>a rather dangerous topic :)
I agree... it appears to me he is arguing the same thing.
He sure as hell should come on the mud and play it a bit before he
makes that assertion though.
Jamieson Norrish
(George Reese) writes:
A guild on the other hand on Nightmare, is primarily a social
institution to bond players of a certain role playing type:
assassins, philosophers, thieves, rangers, druids, etc. Compare
these perhaps to institutions like SAG (screen actor's guild) or
the fraternal order of police, etc. They also help player's specialize.
Assiassins would get certain special abilities most rogues do not have.
Disclaimer: Nightmare does not *yet* have all of these guilds, these
are examples of what the guild system is supposed to do.
Okay, a question. Why do this through code? Why not allow players to
form their own social bonds, rather than inflicting it on them through
the strict regime of a guild? People who do the same thing and think
the same way tend to prefer each other's company over those who don't
think the same way, and so such bonds would probably form naturally. I
can't see why people need to spend the time and effort coding this
sort of thing, when it can be done better without coding.
Perhaps total realism is not something we want.
No, of course not; however, giving characters (and consequently
players) more choice is something good, I think you'll agree. Cutting
down on unnecessay coding is a way of doing this.
>ps: J: you actually appear to be complaining about `lack of imagination' -
>a rather dangerous topic :)
I agree... it appears to me he is arguing the same thing.
He sure as hell should come on the mud and play it a bit before he
makes that assertion though.
Way hey, first I "appear" to be complaining about something, then I'm
"arguing" about it, and finally I'm making an "assertion" about it.
I'm doing pretty well considering I haven't said anything whatsoever
about "lack of imagination". My point about guilds is simply that they
can be better handled by leaving the players to it, rather than coding
it and forcing something upon them. It's two different ways of looking
at it, rather than anything to do with imagination.
Jamie
George Reese
>create?!
>
If you read previous posts, the players are an integral part of any guild.
The guild is run by a player, and its social dynamics are up to the
members od the guild. Anything the guild can do in the way of
powers are extras that were not a part of the game to begin with.
They have to be coded, but these power are purchased by the guild
leader (who, if they have half a brain, is charging a tithe).
You seem to think that players of muds will get together and form
guilds of their own. Well they do not. There needs to be some sort
of structure to support it, but not mandate it.
>No matter how many members such a guild has, it always has the same
>resources, and (if coded) the same amount of power. Every character in
>the MU* could belong to this one guild, and yet it would be no
>different from a guild which had one member. This is ludicrous! Now,
This is simply not the case. Ask stupid people on Nightmare who want to be
philosopher's :)
George Reese
the supremacy of skills determining what a player can do as opposed
to what class a player is. Although I can see why they think this is
a valid sort of situation where you have either skills are suprem OR
classes are supreme, as far as the release in question, they are not to
a large degree mutually exclusive.
This post shoul;d also help to answer Jamie's question of why combat skills
and weapon skills are different.
On Nightmare, there is no limit to how high any given skill can advance.
In addition, any power may be used by anyone (clerics can steal,
fighters can cast magic missiles, rogues can parry in combat, etc.).
By choosing a class, a player is simply picking a pre-disposition to learning
certain skills (a person who chooses cleric is someone who is more adept
at learning how to heal people, or to use their faith, BUT anyone can
have the faculty to do that, it just takes them more time and work
to do so). Combat skills are melee, attacking, defense, and double
wielding. These are general skills of fighting which determines how
good a player is when thrust into any combat situation. Weapon skills
are used to determine a player's profeciency in certain types of weapons (a
player good at using dagger's may be clumsy with a two handed sword, no
matter how much training they have doene in the combat arena).
Finally, skills advance naturally through use AND by spending
experience. I do not wish to rehash another old argument here, bu simply put
I think experience is just that experience, which means training with it
is logical. However, I do not believe experience system is perfect, but
it works well for what we are doing.
I hope this helps address Jamie's and Shawn's valid concerns.
Jamieson Norrish
(George Reese) writes:
You seem to think that players of muds will get together and form
guilds of their own. Well they do not. There needs to be some sort
of structure to support it, but not mandate it.
Oh really? They need a structure to support it? How did they arise in
RL then? Even on MU*s guilds would happen, giving a suitably realistic
world. I do not believe that characters need to be forced into joining
a guild if they want a particular skill, regardless of what the
players think. Is it possible for a character to learn a "guild" skill
from a guild she isn't a member of, even if the leader of the guild
wishes to allow this? Or would some of the code have to be changed?
How about starting up new guilds? Can I get together with one other
person and declare ourselves a guild? Or does this need to be coded,
or require lots of money, or something? Sure, in order to be viable
and lasting a guild might require lots of members and money and such
like things, but that doesn't mean that two people cannot form a guild
straight out simply by saying they are one. Does you code allow for
this?
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
(George Reese) writes:
On Nightmare, there is no limit to how high any given skill can
advance. In addition, any power may be used by anyone (clerics can
steal, fighters can cast magic missiles, rogues can parry in
combat, etc.). By choosing a class, a player is simply picking a
pre-disposition to learning certain skills (a person who chooses
cleric is someone who is more adept at learning how to heal people,
or to use their faith, BUT anyone can have the faculty to do that,
it just takes them more time and work to do so). Combat skills are
melee, attacking, defense, and double wielding. These are general
skills of fighting which determines how good a player is when
thrust into any combat situation. Weapon skills are used to
determine a player's profeciency in certain types of weapons (a
player good at using dagger's may be clumsy with a two handed
sword, no matter how much training they have doene in the combat
arena).
Ah. Thank you. So the weapon skills are almost like modifiers to the
combat skills?
Finally, skills advance naturally through use AND by spending
experience. I do not wish to rehash another old argument here, bu
simply put I think experience is just that experience, which means
training with it is logical. However, I do not believe experience
system is perfect, but it works well for what we are doing.
Okay, another question: how do character's gain experience, and can
this experience be spent on advancing any skill. That is, if I get
experience from stealing something, does this mean I can use it to
train in healing, or something?
I hope this helps address Jamie's and Shawn's valid concerns.
Yes, it answers one of the questions I asked in my original post.
Thank you.
Jamie
Scarrow
>By choosing a class, a player is simply picking a pre-disposition to learning
>certain skills (a person who chooses cleric is someone who is more adept
Well, firstly, just a gentle reminder that anything I wrote was not a slander
of your system, which I haven't seen. I don't consider class backgrounds to
be classes in the same sense as I talk of classes (my current implementation
has them, and my next will have something similar). This simply helps to
determine initial skills in my mind, however, and does not prevent the person
from, for example, becoming a master magesmith. They might find it easier to
pick up other weapons at first, but if they decide, for example, to instead
concentrate on magic, then magic will slowly become their area of expertise.
>Finally, skills advance naturally through use AND by spending
>experience. I do not wish to rehash another old argument here, bu simply put
My thoughts run somewhat simularly, with usage and training both being valid
advancement methods. Now, training costs money and is not used to reflect
experience in any sense of the word. All experience is through the usage of
skills. Most any playing command will result in the usage of a skill
(talking, for example, would be a valid use of your language) and much of the
experience process is somewhat transparent because of this. This does some-
times lead to the unfortunate assumption that you aren't getting more
experienced over time. On the other hand, it's a little more realistic in
that you actually have to practice hobbies, esoterica, etc., to get better at
it (this depends again on the nature of your mud ... I don't really want a
mud filled with people making ships in bottles).
I'm still working/thinking about something like the tree based structure
for skills that Paranoia used to use (old edition), which though more complex
had the added benefit of allowing you to build up experience in general areas
which would increase your attempts in that area while still allowing you to
specialize (akin to something like knowing a lot about computers, and thus
being able to function fairly competently even when faced with an unknown
challenge).
>I think experience is just that experience, which means training with it
>is logical. However, I do not believe experience system is perfect, but
>it works well for what we are doing.
Experience and training are not really equivalent. This is something like
comparing book learning to actual experience. It depends somewhat upon the
skill itself, the person's abilities, etc. (something I do plan to account
for, with skill difficulties, training limits, stat bonuses, etc.) The
completely generic experience system (ala AD&D) is mostly what I'm formally
opposed to.
Scarrow
> Guilds existed in the middle ages, so why can't they be considered
> realistic (a class in a mud usually means the same as a guild)?
>Guilds are realistic, yes. However, my point is that they are abstract
>and purely in the minds of the people whom they affect. There is no
>reason for them to be coded, since they don't really exist. All that
Maybe not coded. I think it's completely valid that they be built and pre-
exist the characters. This is somewhat of a personal view, but (as we've
already discussed via e-mail, etc.), I find that a larger social structure
can be built if NPCs assume many roles. This is based on the concept that
most mud social structures aren't really large enough to support a full
structure without the assistance of NPC roles.
>Just because guilds existed in the middle ages doesn't mean that the
>must be forced upon characters. Guilds are created by the people, not
>through natural laws - and the code of a MU* should concern itself
>primarily with natural laws (physics), rather than setting in stone
>social and political institutions which spring entirely from the minds
>of the characters.
This is basically true, but guilds don't have to be created by players,
which is more what you imply above. Administrators obviously qualify as
people, and can therefore create guilds. I notice you don't say anything
about running a guild. I think the concept of a guild as an entity, with
certain prejudices, etc., might be properly coded. Players are, of course,
free to join or ignore guilds (well, not neccesarily ... for example, if
you think of the church as a guild structure, it could be that tithing is,
for example, required ... of course, they can still not do it, just with
the possibility of getting caught). Some special traits of guilds might
require additional coding, in an NPC based scenario. Without NPCs at all,
at least, combat and RPG style muds would be pretty dull. Even 100 players
spread over a few thousand rooms is really too sparse.
Scarrow
>Social classes are created by the people in the society. Guilds are
>institutions created by the people in the society. Laws are created by
>the people in the society. Restrictions on only belonging to one guild
>are created by the guild members.
>I think that everyone agrees on this.
>So why is it being coded, rather than left up to the players to create?!
Well, firstly, players may only form a small minority of the society. As I
mentioned in my previous post, they often aren't even numerous enough to
really be considered a society without accounting for NPCs as well. Also,
how many orders, schools, etc. in the modern world have you founded? How
many were founded before ever you existed or by others you didn't know? In
a sense, I agree with some of what you're saying (current guild concepts are
often quite realistic), but unfortunately you have a tendency to get
religious and start attacking others in a case where, I feel, they're
perhaps just trying to be a bit more practical. Again, it depends a lot on
the actual guild concept. Guilds in Diku, for example, are about the
flakiest I know of.
>To take a trivial example of how coded guilds ruin realism:
>No matter how many members such a guild has, it always has the same
>resources, and (if coded) the same amount of power. Every character in
Not neccesarily true. The code could (and maybe does in some instances)
account for all of this. It's not a flaw that exists because of coding,
but rather because of design.
>the MU* could belong to this one guild, and yet it would be no
>different from a guild which had one member. This is ludicrous! Now,
>someone will inevitably suggest coding a solution to this, but that is
>missing the entire point. There is no need to code any of it, since it
>can be left up to the players. If they want to live in a society which
I think I made this point above and in the other posting. There is something
to be said for leaving too much up to the players (and believe me, several
"RPG MU*s" already do this ... I find it somewhat dull typically, since
everyone spends time trying to role-play and critique other's role-playing
than they do just trying to play the damned game ... invariably some fool
comes up with the "Dude Ranch 'n' Fascists" guild which becomes inordinately
popular. Even if context is forced, I haven't seen much in the way of
succesful results. Now, players can certainly form groups, charge tithes,
etc., in my mud (there just isn't a formal structure for it), but there will
also be pre-existing guilds available.
I could leave the history and theme of the mud up to the players as
well, but would I? The players don't run the mud, the administrators do. Or
at least, I hope so. This doesn't mean players don't have some flexibility,
but they're playing in _my_ world.
George Reese
>RL then? Even on MU*s guilds would happen, giving a suitably realistic
>
in little clicks, they will hardly do more than that without structure
to back it up. My experience with mortal government on muds is
ample evidence of this.
>How about starting up new guilds? Can I get together with one other
>person and declare ourselves a guild? Or does this need to be coded,
We call this a prty or a family depending on its nature.
Two people can get togeter and decide to be wed if that is there wish
And any number of people may group together for any reason and
be themselves.
Either you do not understand the concept of guilds on our system,
or you just have a completely different idea of what they should be
If it is the former, then perhaps I do not know what else to say.
If it is the latter, yippee, code it on your own mud.
-Descartes
.
Kenneth K Lee
Sure, you can remove the coding from the guilds, and allow the
players to run their own guilds or societies or whatever. While we're at
it, lets get rid of monsters, since they are entirely unrealistic, after
all, they really don't do much in the game except give out experience and
money, and you really can't interact with them, since they're basically
stupid - and AI for muds is quite a bit down the road.
Hey, you know what, shopkeepers are a stupid idea, they aren't
real enough. They don't try to rip you off, they don't give you dirty
looks if you're from out of town or if you have your shirt untucked or
didn't shave. Let's have players replace them too! Hell, same for the
city guard, and the bartender. Wow, such realism!
I just can't wait to play a mud like this, where I can escape from
reality so I can pour beer, count change and then in my spare time after
6 or 7 hours of working at the bar, I can learn skills from a guild of
players. Wow what fun!
Jamieson Norrish
(Scarrow) writes:
Maybe not coded. I think it's completely valid that they be built and pre-
exist the characters. This is somewhat of a personal view, but (as we've
already discussed via e-mail, etc.), I find that a larger social structure
can be built if NPCs assume many roles. This is based on the concept that
most mud social structures aren't really large enough to support a full
structure without the assistance of NPC roles.
As always, you make a valid point. NPCs are necessary, and hence there
must be parts coded. However, with specific respect to guilds, little
needs to be added to the NPC except a means of training characters in
skills.
This is basically true, but guilds don't have to be created by players,
which is more what you imply above. Administrators obviously qualify as
people, and can therefore create guilds. I notice you don't say anything
about running a guild. I think the concept of a guild as an entity, with
certain prejudices, etc., might be properly coded. Players are, of course,
free to join or ignore guilds (well, not neccesarily ... for example, if
you think of the church as a guild structure, it could be that tithing is,
for example, required ... of course, they can still not do it, just with
the possibility of getting caught). Some special traits of guilds might
require additional coding, in an NPC based scenario. Without NPCs at all,
at least, combat and RPG style muds would be pretty dull. Even 100 players
spread over a few thousand rooms is really too sparse.
Again, good points. I am just of the opinion that where possible, the
players, acting through their characters, should determine such things
as social mores and customs, who likes whom etc. Imposing from above,
although perhaps giving the air of a huge mass of other people who
prevail against the ideas of the characters (and this would need to be
done to be convincing, rather than constraining and frustrating), does
make the world of the MU* a less changeable place from the characters'
perspective.
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
(Scarrow) writes:
Well, firstly, players may only form a small minority of the society. As I
mentioned in my previous post, they often aren't even numerous enough to
really be considered a society without accounting for NPCs as well. Also,
how many orders, schools, etc. in the modern world have you founded? How
many were founded before ever you existed or by others you didn't know? In
a sense, I agree with some of what you're saying (current guild concepts are
often quite realistic), but unfortunately you have a tendency to get
religious and start attacking others in a case where, I feel, they're
perhaps just trying to be a bit more practical. Again, it depends a lot on
the actual guild concept. Guilds in Diku, for example, are about the
flakiest I know of.
True, to an extent. :)
The point I am trying to make is that a lot of the coding that goes
into guilds removes a lot of the flexbility from the game, and doesn't
add very much which couldn't be gained through other means. Sure, have
guilds which are predominantly made up of NPCs, and have a structure
which is imposed by the administrator through those NPCs. However,
there shouldn't be the morass of coding which restricts three players
saying, "Here's a room we can sit in, I've got the skills, now let's
call ourselves a guild and make money/power/whatever." Those sorts of
arrangements, which are certainly guilds, should not be interfered
with in any way by code which adds nothing to them.
Whether through characters or NPCs, an entire guild should be the
product of people, rather than code which simply imposes on the world.
Not neccesarily true. The code could (and maybe does in some instances)
account for all of this. It's not a flaw that exists because of coding,
but rather because of design.
I think that it would be impossible, or perhaps just needlessly
consuming, to have code to cover all such possibilities, though. Sure,
some parts could be coded, but it's easier to leave it to the
characters or NPCs.
succesful results. Now, players can certainly form groups, charge tithes,
etc., in my mud (there just isn't a formal structure for it), but there will
also be pre-existing guilds available.
Sounds good to me; pre-existing organisations are wonderful - I just
think they should reflect the view of the members (and non-members, to
some extent) rather than some great idea that is set in stone.
Jamie
John Garnett
[stuff deleted]
>Would people please read what I wrote. I did not say that guilds are
>unrealistic. I did not say that guilds did not and do not exist. I did
>not say that guilds should be removed from MU*s.
>
>I did say that coding guilds is completely unrealistic, because guilds
>are an abstract concept which is a construct of the people that they
>affect. In order to learn skills, it is not essential to have a guild.
>Sure, there are examples of not being able to be taught a skill unless
>you are in the right guild, but that doesn't require code either - the
>people who form the guild can simply refuse to teach anyone they don't
>regard as in the guild. Where's the need for code?
I think that what is being advocated here is that coders of guilds (or
anything else for that matter) should reevaluate the level of
complexity/sophistication at which the "primitives" (building blocks) should
be. Rather than coding something in an adhoc fashion, instead look for more
primitive building blocks that can be composed to obtain the end that
you desire. The idea is to determine and create the necessary building
blocks that players would need to form a guild but don't necessarily
let them know that they can form a guild. Wait and see if they figure it out.
Hopefully the building blocks that you choose will be reusable and
able to be composed into some other social structure you may not have
anticipated. To me, the possibility of "emergent" structures and events that
weren't conceived of by the writers of the code is one of the more exciting
aspect of coding a MUD.
So all of this begs the question "what are the primitive building
blocks necessary to let players create interesting guilds?".
Here are some suggestions:
0) ability of players to pay a creator to create a guild hall. Perhaps
give the guild leaders limited building privileges (e.g. creation of rooms
and commands to describe them). If the guild members slack off on paying
for the upkeep of the guild, then the guild would be dissolved. This
would prevent lots of defunct guilds from junking up the landscape.
1) ability to create and wear some identifying "badge" of membership.
(This badge could be anything and need not look like a policeman's badge
or whatever mental image popped up when you saw the word "badge").
2) some mechanism for allowing players to propose and vote on issues
(with the vote extending over a period of days). An example usage of this
is in choosing a leader or on whether or not to offer a prospective
member a badge (or to eject a member who has 'broken the rules' perhaps
by teaching a non-member skills characteristic of the guild).
3) ability to pay money to NPCs to guard the entrance to the guild hall
(against anyone not wearing a particular "badge").
4) ability to create documents that describe the charter of the guild.
5) ability to choose the set of skills characteristic of the guild (perhaps
by paying an NPC (or PC) guildmaster with high skills of the appropriate
type lead the guild). Perhaps guild members would find it easier to learn
skills from this set (perhaps weighted by the amount of that skill possessed
by members of the guild -- e.g. if the sum of the 'stealth' skill possessed
by the members of the guild was high, then the stealth skill is easier to
learn (by new members) than it would be if the sum was low). In this way,
a player would tend to join the guild which had the most members with the
particular skill that player was interested in.
6) need to include some ways for guilds to compete against each other.
e.g. perhaps have a limited # of NPC guildmasters each of which is skilled
in different set of skills. Maybe the guildmasters could be "persuaded"
to come to a different guild if offered enough money (or other perks).
If anyone has better ideas than these (and I'm sure there are people out there
who do), feel free to share them. I think the main point is not to create
readymade guilds out of the blue but rather to let them spring up according to
the desires and actions of those who would use them. Use smaller
primitives than 'the guild proper' such as skills, masters, voting,
document creation, limited building, etc.
--john
Stephen Schmidt
in the hopes that raising it will prevent a recurrence of the flamage.
There are two approaches that can be taken to designing MUDS:
1. Players are the only people in the game society - NPCs either perform
only trivial menial tasks (like shopkeeping) or are outside society (like
monsters).
2. Players are only a small minority of people in the game society, and
much of the social structure of the MUD is provided by the NPC, who fill
such important roles as guild masters, kings, village constables, etc.
NPC have to be hardcoded ahead of time (although the body-switching
features of the TMI-2 mudlib may help blur this distinction, and the
theme RPG Mushs and Mucks that exist also blur it).
Much of this flamewar has essentially boiled down to someone taking
approach 2 yelling at someone taking approach 1 that their method is
unrealistic, or vice versa. If people would think before shooting their
mouths off, this kind of unpleasantness would happen less often.
--
Steve Schmidt <>< wh...@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Jamieson Norrish
everything else is possible. I disagree almost entirely with your
proposed building blocks, however.
Here is my (by no means exhaustive) list of things which are required,
not in any depth.
Skill training: The ability to train another character/NPC in a skill.
Building: The ability to build rooms and objects, etc, albeit under
strictly regulated and controlled conditions.
Writing: The ability to read/write on given materials.
NPCs: This is the difficult one, and I'll leave it up to Shawn to
enlighten me as to how to integrate non-AI NPCs into a MU* without the
results being hideously restrictive and out-of-place.
Jamie
John Garnett
>>
>This is not RL, this is a game.
I wonder if anyone else is tired of this sort of statement:
"This is not real life, this is a game."
What actually is the distinction being made here? Granted a MUD is
a model of reality, but if models aren't contained in this reality then
where are they? Is not something which is contained in reality
also a part of that reality (by definition)?
We can call a MUD a game but then we could call life a game.
Games aren't any less real just because they are games. In general,
the consequences of losing a game should be less than the consequences of
losing something not considered a game. However, I see no set
line which devides games from things that are not games. If you
meet and come to know the person you end up marrying while "playing"
a MUD, is the MUD just a game? Things happen inside MUDs which are
very real. People meet new friends, talk with old friends, become
excited or sad, feel a sense of accomplishment, or perhaps just let
off steam. My point is that MUD is both a game and not a game as are
most things in life.
Here the statement "This is not real life, this is a game" appears as an
excuse for constructing a reality (MUD/game) in an adhoc fashion rather than
out of smaller building blocks which can be composed to form emergent
structures (yes that's a mouthful). Sometimes, using adhoc methods is
the only practical way to attain a given end because doing it the "right
way(tm)" is either too difficult or would lead to a non-interesting reality
(e.g. not fun for players to play in). However, when attempting to
add some object or structure to a MUD, I think it is always a good idea
to at least attempt to look for the base set of attributes (building blocks)
and rules of combination that will allow the thing you want to create to occur
in some natural fashion. Doing things in this way opens up the possiblity
for unexpected (yet good) things to happen. Coding things in an adhoc
way reduces the possibility for code reuse. Perhaps MUD is a game, but
that doesn't mean a MUD can't be internally consistent and a reality
(not 'the reality') in its own right.
--John
Scarrow
>Again, good points. I am just of the opinion that where possible, the
>players, acting through their characters, should determine such things
>as social mores and customs, who likes whom etc. Imposing from above,
>although perhaps giving the air of a huge mass of other people who
>prevail against the ideas of the characters (and this would need to be
>done to be convincing, rather than constraining and frustrating), does
>make the world of the MU* a less changeable place from the characters'
>perspective.
Actually, I believe the social mores and customs should be set by the
implementors and then it would be up to the players to either conform to these
values or somehow defy them (perhaps introducing an element of risk). For
example, I don't think you'd find slavery too popular an institution if left
to the players. However, it may be that your specific history requires that
the majority of the people (read NPCs or PCs) believe slavery to be a just
institution. Players would be left to form their own decisions, but becoming
something like an active resistance movement against the institution could
have certain risks. In this essence, I'd rather have NPCs running the guilds
(or at least, the predefined guilds [we're really talking the formal type of
guild format here ... guilds as recognized by the law]), with players being
subordinate. This could perhaps change over time, but only if appropriate
adjustments were made for the fact that players are much less frequently
around and that, as a head of an official guild, their actions would need to
be suitable to their position/views (i.e., if you're the guildmaster of the
guild of necromancers, you probably don't spend a lot of time saving people
and playing humanitarian, if you're the guildmaster of the guild of thieves
you might have a responsibility to keep the level of thievery high, etc.).
If not (and often this is where coding really comes into play), there need to
be ways of dealing with this (especially since players aren't likely to
always be able or willing to do this themselves). For example, the current
leader of the guild of thieves (unrecognized as a guild by the law, but
recognized as a threat by the law, perhaps) may get his throat slit if he
lets down his guard a little too much (or perhaps attempts are made
occasionally just to determine that he's still fit). Such things are often
of such a specific nature that you have little choice but to code them in.
The mud should be changeable, yes, but remember that it's a mud and typically
you want to encourage some sort of atmosphere. You have to make sure that if
you set up a feudal system, it doesn't turn itself into a democracy behind
your back. If it does, it's time to invent a few vicious NPCs to turn things
around. You see, I'm not interested in political reform, etc. I'm
interested in pitting interested players against the dark political and
social backgrounds of something like a feudal era (albeit with
modifications). The players need to adapt to the way the world works, not
the other way around (again, adaptation doesn't mean they must believe firmly
that everything is just, for it most certainly won't be ... it just means
they need to figure out how best their character can live with, or even
thrive upon, the unjustices at hand).
I know a lot of ground has been thoroughly covered, but I did want to
point out why I'm not in favor of a system where players truely control the
social nature of the mud. Admittedly, it depends a lot on what you have in
mind. What the players want will inevitably be felt as well, but alas, my
work is not for them, but for myself.
Scarrow
>There are two approaches that can be taken to designing MUDS:
>1. Players are the only people in the game society - NPCs either perform
>only trivial menial tasks (like shopkeeping) or are outside society (like
>monsters).
>2. Players are only a small minority of people in the game society, and
>much of the social structure of the MUD is provided by the NPC, who fill
>such important roles as guild masters, kings, village constables, etc.
>NPC have to be hardcoded ahead of time (although the body-switching
>features of the TMI-2 mudlib may help blur this distinction, and the
>theme RPG Mushs and Mucks that exist also blur it).
Actually, I would opt for option three, which takes the view that NPCs are
essential for both menial tasks and providing social structure. There should
also be an option four, for those who believe NPCs are completely
unessential. However, what has appeared to me to be mostly a reasonable
discussion between people of differing opinions, you have taken to be a
flamewar. I don't consider it a flamewar when two people agree about the
best method to do something that is appropriate to this newsgroup and then
banter the idea back and forth. Perhaps you refer to the "FLAME:" in the
header (which stemmed from Jamie Norrish's flame of the Nightmare mudlib, or
whatever you call those LP things, as I recall). I kind of skipped over the
discussion (probably more worthy of being called a flamewar than this one)
about qualifying subject lines, but just to throw my two cents in quickly:
a) I hate all caps with a passion (not counting abbreviations
typically)
b) They don't neccesarily make the subject that much more informative
(as witness this thread).
>Much of this flamewar has essentially boiled down to someone taking
>approach 2 yelling at someone taking approach 1 that their method is
>unrealistic, or vice versa. If people would think before shooting their
>mouths off, this kind of unpleasantness would happen less often.
I think I would be less well informed if people of differing opinions had not
presented their views. Although there were points of strong disagreement, I
don't recall anything particularly slanderous or offensive. In essence, you
throw in your own opinion and then flame us for having ours and for
displaying them here. I value my own opinion most, but I do most definitely
want to hear the opinions of others. Now, admittedly some of the posts
probably were inflamatory (and served no other purpose), but I don't think
this constituted the majority of the discussion. *shrug*
Jamieson Norrish
wh...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
There are two approaches that can be taken to designing MUDS:
1. Players are the only people in the game society - NPCs either perform
only trivial menial tasks (like shopkeeping) or are outside society (like
monsters).
2. Players are only a small minority of people in the game society, and
much of the social structure of the MUD is provided by the NPC, who fill
such important roles as guild masters, kings, village constables, etc.
NPC have to be hardcoded ahead of time (although the body-switching
features of the TMI-2 mudlib may help blur this distinction, and the
theme RPG Mushs and Mucks that exist also blur it).
Much of this flamewar has essentially boiled down to someone taking
approach 2 yelling at someone taking approach 1 that their method is
unrealistic, or vice versa. If people would think before shooting their
mouths off, this kind of unpleasantness would happen less often.
Actually, I don't agree that it is a simple dichotomy like that. It is
possible to code certain elements of a guild into NPCs, rather than
coding the entity of the guild itself. This I find far less
objectionable (although of course it does raise problems), and it does
not restrict the characters to nearly the same extent as do most forms
of coded guilds.
I think that if we were to assign people to your groups, I would be in
camp one, and the rest of the world in camp 2. However, while in the
ideal I am most certainly in group 1, I have been arguing from a
position where NPCs are a vital part of the game - I think my
criticisms still stand from this new viewpoint.
Jamie
Mike Mc Gaughey
>>[guilds won't arise on a mud]
>Oh really? They need a structure to support it? How did they arise in
>RL then? Even on MU*s guilds would happen, giving a suitably realistic
>world.
Yep - they do!
The best (and probably the only) example of this happened on Nomic
world - Geoff's cut down mud which supports a game of Nomic (that's the
game that you play by changing the rules until the rules say you have
won - it's also the basis for the legislature on Shattered world).
Fascinating game. Anyway, after something more than a year of play, a
secret society arose. People would try to recruit other people into
the guild. Everyone would know who recruited them, and the people they
recruited, but noone else. A simple numbering scheme was established
whereby you could send messages to any other member (if your membership
number was 172, the numbers of your recruits would be 1721, 1722, ...;
messages could be forwarded up and down the tree until it reached the
right player).
By the time Geoff was recruited (he was in as a test character), the
guild was sending around (by mail) an FAQ, guild aims, guidelines, etc -
quite a well developed guild. And with no supporting code, no planning
by anyone - in fact, none of the admins even knew about it...
>How about starting up new guilds? Can I get together with one other
>person and declare ourselves a guild?
Oh, yeah. We have them (of course). They're called `cults'. The
leader of the cult has a little bookkeeping object to track who's in
the cult (and to send messages, and a few other things), and there's a
bonus - a spell point bank which members can draw on and contribute
to. The reason for the spell point bank is that mana doesn't
regenerate in Shattered (you have to work to earn it), so it's
advantageous to be able to pool resources with people you trust and be
able to draw on it when you need to; also, members of a cult who want
to go to war with another cult can collectively (and privately) prepare
their offense.
`Like-minded people' generally belong to the same cult; like-minded can
mean anything from being from the same site (living in the same hall,
etc), to just being friends. A good example of what you were
suggesting (except that there is a little code to support it - this
could be considered to be a membership badge).
I don't think we've had any cult wars - yet.
Cheers,
Mike.
ps: Geoff is geoff@bruce. He dreamed up cults as well.
--
Mike McGaughey AARNET: mm...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
"Head stompin', ass kickin', finger licking nastiness"
Scarrow
>NPCs: This is the difficult one, and I'll leave it up to Shawn to
>enlighten me as to how to integrate non-AI NPCs into a MU* without the
>results being hideously restrictive and out-of-place.
*grin* Well, here are a few of the things I've been throwing around in my
head for a while:
a) Code space is less valuable than private data. Basically,
when creating generically smart NPCs, these NPCs can tend to
share the code (so if I devote 10k to making mobiles
specializing as shopkeepers smarter, I've only used just that,
not 10k per mobile). If I allocate private data, each NPC
that needs that data will have to have it's own copy, which
could get expensive fast (imagine trying to attach a
comprehensive neural net to every mobile). The next point
below shows something which can basically be called a pre-
computed neural net (i.e., you simply plug in the numbers and
the result comes out ... the neural patterns never change),
and can be shared amongst mobiles. In fact, a primitive
neural network shared by several NPCs could probably work as
well (or at least, certainly more feasibly than a seperate
net for each mobile). This isn't to say no private data
should be allocated, but remember that a vast amount is
already present in the form of the mobile data (wounds,
fatigue, skills, class, level [depending on your system],
race, etc.).
b) NPCs shouldn't use complex AI routines, it is true. There are,
however, various models that will typically improve the realism
of NPC reactions. One example, which I've tested fairly
succesfully, works well for concepts such as making mobiles
generally smarter (for instance, in a combat based mud). This
is taking the mobile's own information and information about
it's environment and passing it into a state table (sort of a
fuzzy state table, if you will ... the state of the mobile is
determined by weighing several factors). Lets say the mobile
is currently fighting. This might add an imperative of, say,
10 pts to commands which are most effective during fighting
(in a diku, things like attack spells, kicking, bashing, etc.).
If the opposing combatant is, in the judgement of the NPC,
(this should also be fairly simple, something like an int check
of the NPC, etc.) a mage, it might add a 10 pt modifier to
deciding to bash (which in some Dikus is effective against
blocking spells). If it is heavily wounded, heal spells or
fleeing begin to look like good alternatives, etc. This system
is fairly decent and utilizes data that is already present
anyway, but is a bit more expensive than, say, keeping some
state information tucked away when it comes to computation. On
the other hand, you can build in some pretty advanced
reactions (utilizing available equipment with discrimination,
etc.), as well as doing things like biasing the results
randomly a bit, so that the mobile may not always choose the
option that weighs the best (though it should much of the
time ... another area where some sort of int check could make
sense).
c) Small bits of private data (as briefly mentioned above) which
reflect things like the attitude of the mobile (i.e., it the
mobile aggressive, timid, loud, obnoxious, annoying, whining,
etc.?). Also, an actual disposition which reflects the
current state (this being a somewhat generic state) of mind.
For example, the mobile might be a bit irked after it was
nearly killed by a bunch of players. It might, for a time,
become outright hostile. There's also the option of using
extendable tags for memory, but these can possibly become a
burden if you aren't careful. As an example, some time ago I
was working with a modified Diku I'd set up (not the current
one I have set up, which is in a worse stage) where the guards
would pass information about outlaws to each other (by
whispering the information to any other guards in the room
with them which did not have the info). The guards were
already programmed to walk beats (they did this by using a
breadth first search and moving from specific point to specific
point, by the way, reflecting my wish that if the route should
change, they could still walk the beat), and so information
could progress fairly rapidly.
d) Special programs. There are simply times when, no matter what
you've done in the general sense, you'll need mobiles that
perform specific duties (note: protectors of the law, etc.,
have always been made into general creatures [via flags and
going through a global procedure used by all mobiles] ... I
use the term special here to refer mostly to highly specialized
and typically one-of-a-kind NPC reactions/interactions). In
this case, you may need to get down and dirty and actually
program specific responses. Another example of what doesn't
really need to go here would be allowing a mobile to interpret
orders issued to it (for example: "Mordreth, go to the
temple"), which is a more general case. On the other hand, the
evaluation method used by Mordreth to determine if he should
actually go to the temple or not might require such a special.
Well, there's more that could be added to this I suspect, but nothing off
hand. I really should start keeping more detailed notes ...
George Reese
The quote was referring to the fact that there are limitations to the
internal consistency we strive for in muds (in general) and often
refer to as realism. I was responding to a post saying something about
allowing people to form their own social structures, saying something
along the lines that there are limits to this without some backbone
in the actual code because this is not real life it is only a game.
And I certainly hope you were not implying that Nightmare is ad hoc.
If nothing else, it is very much internally consistent
David Bennett
>Would people please read what I wrote. I did not say that guilds are
>unrealistic. I did not say that guilds did not and do not exist. I did
>not say that guilds should be removed from MU*s.
>I did say that coding guilds is completely unrealistic, because guilds
>are an abstract concept which is a construct of the people that they
>affect. In order to learn skills, it is not essential to have a guild.
>Sure, there are examples of not being able to be taught a skill unless
>you are in the right guild, but that doesn't require code either - the
>people who form the guild can simply refuse to teach anyone they don't
>regard as in the guild. Where's the need for code?
You need a base. Guilds provide this. What players do with their skills
and the things they have been taught by their guild is up to them. If
there was no base, where would jonny learn to pick locks in the first
place? On Discworld players can teach other players skills and commands.
Commands being an abstraction of skills, things like sneak and spells.
But, you need somewhere for people to learn the skill to start off
with. You can teach yourself skills. But not commands. Perhaps in
real life by trying to pick enough locks you could learn lock picking.
This is all well and good. But in a mud, how do you simulate this?
>See above - all of this relies exclusively on the people who make up
>the guild, not the guild itself, which doesn't exist except on an
>abstract level. Therefore, it can easily be left to the players, and
>all the busy wizards can be saved the trouble of coding guilds.
What you suggest should be done over and above the guild system. On
Discworld this has an even better background as the dw books have a
very strongly guild orrintated society in it. The player groups
or whatever you wish to call them should exist over and above the
base controlling 'guilds'.
Bimble.
David.
--
David Bennett, gu...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au | University Computer Club
Where Pink fish swim backwards. | c/o Guild of Undergraduates
These words I am singing now mean nothing more than meow to an animal - TMBG
Disclaimer: Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.
David Bennett
>How about starting up new guilds? Can I get together with one other
>person and declare ourselves a guild? Or does this need to be coded,
>or require lots of money, or something? Sure, in order to be viable
>and lasting a guild might require lots of members and money and such
>like things, but that doesn't mean that two people cannot form a guild
>straight out simply by saying they are one. Does you code allow for
>this?
I can stand on the corner and declare myself a chicken. This is all very
nice. I can do this on any mud I can think of at the moment.
You can declare yourself a guild. You could even try and dream up some
great skills for your guild to have. But you still need to find the
skills from somewhere. I have yet to see a mud advance enough where
real physical laws apply so that you can just do some new skill.
Realism is useful. Up to a point.
Mr P V Smith
Yeah, guilds existed in the middle ages, but on a different principle to
guilds we see on muds, there should be a separation, there should be
a difference between 'professions' and 'guilds' since anyone can take
up a 'profession' as a blacksmith, but the local market town blacksmiths
guild will have a monopoly on all blacksmith work undertaken in that town,
so the unguilded blacksmith won't make much of a living, and if he ever
started to, the guild would get upset and start taking action..
That's why guilds started, they were 'clubs' for certain professions in
order to share out trade equally between the members to stop price wars
that usually end up making everyone poor.
~Beebop
Stephen Schmidt
> Yeah, guilds existed in the middle ages, but on a different principle to
>guilds we see on muds, there should be a separation, there should be
>a difference between 'professions' and 'guilds' since anyone can take
>up a 'profession' as a blacksmith, but the local market town blacksmiths
>guild will have a monopoly on all blacksmith work undertaken in that town,
>so the unguilded blacksmith won't make much of a living, and if he ever
>started to, the guild would get upset and start taking action..
In much of medieval Europe, guilds were required to be licensed by the
king or other local authority. Thus, I think the people who are arguing
that any people should be able to start a guild, otherwise the game is
unrealistic may be wrong, at least for some historical situations. In
such a world, two people could go around saying "We are a guild" but
would not have any powers or recognition - remarkably like what would
happen on a MUD with coded guilds. Coding a guild for a set of players
is equivalent to giving the guild social recognition.
Perhaps to complete the circle there ought to be a system where players
can apply for permission to found new guilds - MUD arches would have to
read the applications, decide which ones to grant, and provide the coding
support for those accepted. Anyone doing anything like this? Other than
Shattered Worlds, which implemented it years ago? ;)
John Garnett
>everything else is possible. I disagree almost entirely with your
>proposed building blocks, however.
Hm... that's funny - I don't see any substantive difference between
the building blocks you proposed and the ones I proposed. Anyway,
the point wasn't so much what the actual primitives are (although it
is to some point the point), but rather that we should be looking for
the primitives rather than for a monolithic chunk of code which regulates
all guild activities.
--john
John Garnett
>Give me a break. You took my quote out of context.
>The quote was referring to the fact that there are limitations to the
>internal consistency we strive for in muds (in general) and often
>refer to as realism. I was responding to a post saying something about
>allowing people to form their own social structures, saying something
>along the lines that there are limits to this without some backbone
>in the actual code because this is not real life it is only a game.
That's a problem with my replying to a generic problem with a specific post,
sorry about that. I was actually railing against the widespread use (by
many people) of the term "RL" or "real life" to refer to not-MUD from
inside a MUD. I think its a misnomer and misleading to boot. I ask
what it means to say "this is not real life, it is only a game".
The ancient Mayans played team sports (games) in which the penalty for
losing was death. Was it "only a game"? I don't think saying that
something is "only a game" has much meaning when using "only a game"
to mean the opposite of "real life". Granted MUD doesn't have the
power to kill someone (although it might inspire someone to kill him
or herself), but because MUD does attempt model more aspects of the reality
we live in outside of MUD (so-called "real life") it does have a greater
affect on people than does say scrabble. Calling not-MUD "real life" tends
to make MUD out to be "unreal life". Rather than thinking of MUD as unreal,
perhaps we should think of it as another kind of reality (hopefully) having
lesser importance to those immersed in it than some other more primary
reality ("real life"). However much I don't like the term "real life", I
don't have much hope of people ceasing to use it. Its way too widespread
and pervasive.
I think we would all agree that it isn't realistic to build a MUD
which attempts to use subatomic particles as the building blocks
for larger concepts and structures. We don't have any computers powerful
enough to run such a model (imagine the computer required to run our
universe assuming our universe is a simulation). We are much more likely
to have success if we choose higher level attributes/affordances as
our primitives. However, we may as well choose these primitives so that
they can be combined in ways analagous to subatomic particles otherwise
what we have built is not very extensible.
>And I certainly hope you were not implying that Nightmare is ad hoc.
>If nothing else, it is very much internally consistent
I didn't mean to imply anything of the kind (not having even seen Nightmare's
code). However, I do think that every MUD is a mixture of internal consistency
and adhoc-ness. Ideally I see the core mudlib as the place where
internal consistency migrates as adhoc structures become understood and
codified. How many times have you as a creator built something adhoc-ly because
the core mudlib didn't directly support it and then said "aha! I could
generalize my code and move it into the core mudlib for everyone to use
(perhaps in ways other than what I originally envisioned). Well, here
"generalize" is a shorthand for "finding the primitives and rules of
combination".
--john garnett
Jamieson Norrish
Bennett) writes:
But, you need somewhere for people to learn the skill to start off
with. You can teach yourself skills. But not commands. Perhaps in
real life by trying to pick enough locks you could learn lock picking.
This is all well and good. But in a mud, how do you simulate this?
There are various solutions to this - NPCs who have skills, and can
train characters; characters who start the game with some skills
(after all, most characters are not children, and can be assumed to
have some skills); allowing characters to use skills even if they have
a 0% chance of success (with modifiers, this could become positive).
There, that's three methods off the top of my head.
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
gar...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (John Garnett) writes:
Hm... that's funny - I don't see any substantive difference between
the building blocks you proposed and the ones I proposed. Anyway,
the point wasn't so much what the actual primitives are (although it
is to some point the point), but rather that we should be looking for
the primitives rather than for a monolithic chunk of code which regulates
all guild activities.
The difference was one of specialisation - rather than designing
building blocks which are specifically for building guilds, it can be
taken a step or two lower - hence just building instead of creating
guild badges (and of course, there would be nothing whatsoever that
was special about such badges - they would merely be objects like
everything else, with no special properties), and a system of writing
rather than code specifically for voting. Why can't the players just
vote, saying "Yes" or "No" as they choose? Sure, you get problems with
not everyone logged on etc, and using NPCs, but if someone disagrees
with the way a vote went, they can always try to do something about
it.
My building blocks were, I hope, at a level which simulates the
physics of the world, rather than being specifically designed for the
implementation of guilds. I think that is an important difference.
Jamie
John Garnett
None of the building blocks I chose were specific to guilds. Providing
a mechanism for voting is not something only useful to guilds. The
mechanism I had in mind was a general purpose thing to be used in proposing
and deciding a question according to votes. This could be used in
any number of ways.
And the badges I had in mind weren't anything special to guilds either.
They were merely devices that could affect the description of the player.
They could be used for other things as well (e.g. graffiti or curses
or whatever).
My whole point was to take the concept of the guild and break it down
into more primitive subcomponents that could be used for other things as well.
--john
George Reese
>Perhaps to complete the circle there ought to be a system where players
>can apply for permission to found new guilds - MUD arches would have to
>read the applications, decide which ones to grant, and provide the coding
>support for those accepted. Anyone doing anything like this? Other than
>Shattered Worlds, which implemented it years ago? ;)
*sigh* Moby must have me in his kill file :(
Yeah, guilds come into existence on Nightmare in one of 2 ways:
1) A wizard codes a basic guild and opens it up to bidding among high mortals
once its complete. The high mortal who buys it may purchase more powers
or features for it. That high mortal is in charge of all aspects
of the guild.
2) A high mortal may commission a wizard to code a guild specified
to his or her tastes with the approval of the balance and qc arches.
Same functionality for after the purchase applies.
-Descartes
Stephen White
>> Have to be negative about the Easter bunny too.
>> Do you have anything at all positive to say about anything other
>> than yourself?
> I didn't realise I'd said anything positive about myself. However,
> again I was not being negative; simply questioning the idea of having
> an Easter bunny in a game which also supports realistic limb-based
> combat.
i dunno about the easter bunny, but it strikes me that a mud which
supports realistic limb-based combat and the *energizer* bunny
would be *thoroughly* satisfying.
-- sfw
--
Stephen F. White
sfw...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca
"I don't even know what reality is." - David Lynch
Stephen White
> Would people please read what I wrote. I did not say that guilds are
> unrealistic. I did not say that guilds did not and do not exist. I did
> not say that guilds should be removed from MU*s.
> I did say that coding guilds is completely unrealistic, because guilds
> are an abstract concept which is a construct of the people that they
> affect. [...] Where's the need for code?
you're missing one important point: on a lot of LP's, the wizards
are ex-players. so in some sense, they are part of the "society" of
the mud. they understand players' needs and wants, to some degree,
having been there. and they want to add something to the flavour of
the MUD. whether you count them as "out of the loop" because they
cannot be active players on the MUD is up to you, i suppose.
i do agree that attempting to dictate the social structure of the
MUD through software isn't always the best way. on role-playing
MUSHes, for instance, the social fabric is supposed to align itself
along In-Character interactions, but often is influenced by the
OOC politics, admin, and coding decisions (this is partly
speculation; i've never played on a RP MUSH for an extended period).
Lars Syrstad
: [Entire post about allowing more freedom in the structure of "guilds"
: and other fancy words deleted.]
: Social classes are created by the people in the society. Guilds are
: institutions created by the people in the society. Laws are created by
: the people in the society. Restrictions on only belonging to one guild
: are created by the guild members.
: I think that everyone agrees on this.
: So why is it being coded, rather than left up to the players to
: create?!
There are two different approaches to this:
1. I am creating a world in which players may develop their own society.
I will give the players the basics that they need, but all decisions
concerning the society is left to the players. I should not code
anything that doesn't HAVE to be coded, since that will limit the
players' creativity.
This seems to be your way.
2. I am creating a world. A complete world. I am reluctant to let too
many others have too big an impact on it, because that would increase
the danger of me losing control. I do not want control because I am
a power-hungry maniac, but because this is my creation, and I want
everything to fit into my plans. I am creating the society, drawing
upon the feedback from the players to get ideas on ways to improve it.
This is my way.
Actually, this looks alot like certain MUSH vs Lp vs Diku wars of the past...
Lars Syrstad.
--
"I can't breathe!"
"That's because I'm choking you, moron!"
- Throw momma off the train.
Gnort, God of Chaos
>My point about guilds is simply that they
>can be better handled by leaving the players to it, rather than coding
>it and forcing something upon them.
It's an opinion. No code -> anarchy. At least in a combat based mud.
People just don't roleplay the way we want 'em to, Jamie. Might as well
accept it.
>It's two different ways of looking at it, rather than anything to do with
>imagination.
Right! So why are you constantly saying they're wrong, when they're just
looking at it in a different way than you??
[In another article Jamie writes:]
>Social classes are created by the people in the society.
Beggars don't choose to be beggars, do they?
If we have an oligarchy, most people won't be able to pick their own place.
Said oligarchy may or may not have players in it, but if so, it would be
very hard to "join up".
>Guilds are institutions created by the people in the society.
Created by the TOP of the society, yes. Unless it's the guild of beggars,
which would hardly grow very powerful on its own.
>Laws are created by the people in the society.
Heheh. I don't think there are _that_ many democratic muds out there.
Oligarchy or despotism seems to be the order of the day in muds, so where's
your point?
>Restrictions on only belonging to one guild are created by the guild members.
By the guild-top. Guild members pay their dues, get some benefits, and do
what they're told. (Add pseudo-democracy and you have a present-day union. ;-)
>Jamie
/Lars
--
Gnort @ { DikuII | Unicorn | Discworld } gn...@daimi.aau.dk
Lars Balker Rasmussen
>I can stand on the corner and declare myself a chicken. This is all very
>nice. I can do this on any mud I can think of at the moment.
And he does. Really ;)
>You can declare yourself a guild. You could even try and dream up some
>great skills for your guild to have. But you still need to find the
>skills from somewhere. I have yet to see a mud advance enough where
>real physical laws apply so that you can just do some new skill.
Yes. And I doubt we'll see any in the near future.
However, what I think Jamie (or someone else. My memory isn't selective ;)
is getting at, is that _everyone_ has access to all defined skills.
As someone (probably someone entirely different) posted, we must distinguish
between "class" (what you do), and "guild" (who you do it with (no, not that
kind of guild! ;) )).
Of course the set of skills available must be near exhaustive, this being
in the hands of the implementors. But I can't see why they should think of
skills like "beetle-classification", as this (gross exagerated ;) example
is way out of context.
It's a fantasy world. It's probably a feudal system. We can probably allow
ourselves to limit the "do-able" things.
>Realism is useful. Up to a point.
Amen. Then unnecessary complexity sets in, and we get bored reading man-pages.
>David.
Jamieson Norrish
drev...@colargol.edb.tih.no (Lars Syrstad) writes:
2. I am creating a world. A complete world. I am reluctant to let too
many others have too big an impact on it, because that would increase
the danger of me losing control. I do not want control because I am
a power-hungry maniac, but because this is my creation, and I want
everything to fit into my plans. I am creating the society, drawing
upon the feedback from the players to get ideas on ways to improve it.
I think actually that the problem is more basic, and it rests with the
players. Ideally players could be trusted to roleplay to a sufficient
degree that they act to maintain the world you've created, rather than
destroy it through anachronistic foolishness. If the players can be
trusted to act in a reasonable fashion *as people of the world you
have created*, then I think that the division you made above becomes
an empty one.
Perhaps this is something a little different to the way most MU*s work
(except for social ones, which don't really apply); that is, trusting
the players and working together, almost, to create and maintain
something that is enjoyable for all, without restricting the freedom
and inventiveness of the players. I suppose this is something along
the lines of TinyPlots, only without all the artificiality of that.
So, how many admins trust their players?
:)
Jamie
Brian D. Leet
>drev...@colargol.edb.tih.no (Lars Syrstad) writes:
>
> 2. I am creating a world. A complete world. I am reluctant to let too
> many others have too big an impact on it, because that would increase
>I think actually that the problem is more basic, and it rests with the
>players. Ideally players could be trusted to roleplay to a sufficient
>degree that they act to maintain the world you've created, rather than
>destroy it through anachronistic foolishness. If the players can be
>trusted to act in a reasonable fashion *as people of the world you
>have created*, then I think that the division you made above becomes
>an empty one.
>
>Perhaps this is something a little different to the way most MU*s work
>(except for social ones, which don't really apply); that is, trusting
>the players and working together, almost, to create and maintain
>something that is enjoyable for all, without restricting the freedom
>and inventiveness of the players. I suppose this is something along
>the lines of TinyPlots, only without all the artificiality of that.
There is one potential problem with that which is that no player, no matter
how good can actually maintain the atmosphere the admin intended. The best
they can do is to maintain what they understand that atmosphere to be. I'm
not really interested in taking sides in all of this. I just think it is
important to point out that structure is needed and beyond that there will
most likely be a need for intervention as well. All this is assuming that
the game needs to remain something the admin are happy with. In any system,
no matter how democratic, there needs to be someone who has the final
authority. If those people feel that a system should work in a certain way
it is probably better to set things up that way from the start rather than
risking major misunderstandings and hurt feelings later.
Brian
Geoff A. Cohen
>
>1) ability to create and wear some identifying "badge" of membership.
>(This badge could be anything and need not look like a policeman's badge
>or whatever mental image popped up when you saw the word "badge").
>
Bob enters the room.
> shake Bob mason
You give Bob the secret Masonic handshake. Bob returns the sign.
> shake Bill mason
You give Bill the secret Masonic handshake. Bill looks confused.
> shake Bill illuminati
Illuminati handshake? Must be a myth.
Geoff Cohen
Congressional Budget Office
Jamieson Norrish
(Gnort, God of Chaos) writes:
It's an opinion. No code -> anarchy. At least in a combat based mud.
People just don't roleplay the way we want 'em to, Jamie. Might as well
accept it.
*sigh* Maybe you're right on this one - but that's the players' fault,
not the lack of code.
Right! So why are you constantly saying they're wrong, when they're just
looking at it in a different way than you??
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think I was saying other
people were wrong - I merely stated (a large number of times, agreed)
that there was no need for coding lots of stuff, particularly in
guilds. Maybe that amounts to the same thing.
>Social classes are created by the people in the society.
Beggars don't choose to be beggars, do they?
To a large extent being a beggar is the result of economic conditions,
not just social ones. Besides, other people decide who are beggars.
If we have an oligarchy, most people won't be able to pick their
own place. Said oligarchy may or may not have players in it, but if
so, it would be very hard to "join up".
That is what force is for.
>Guilds are institutions created by the people in the society.
Created by the TOP of the society, yes. Unless it's the guild of
beggars, which would hardly grow very powerful on its own.
I beg to differ; guilds formed for a number of reasons, one of those
being protection - safety in numbers, with resources pooled, etc.
>Laws are created by the people in the society.
Heheh. I don't think there are _that_ many democratic muds out
there.
But then, there aren't many MU*s out there which have the sort of
system I'm advocating, are there? :)
Oligarchy or despotism seems to be the order of the day in muds, so
where's your point?
That institutions and laws and everything else which is of a
social/political nature like that, are not imposed by god, or
whatever, but are created by the people of the society - not
necessarily the current ones, but certainly of the people.
>Restrictions on only belonging to one guild are created by the
>guild members.
By the guild-top. Guild members pay their dues, get some benefits,
and do what they're told. (Add pseudo-democracy and you have a
present-day union. ;-)
Quite; if enough people, of whatever rank inside the guild, dislike
the current situation, they can act to change it, and might succeed.
Coups are rife in history; why not in MU*s?
Jamie
James Waldrop
>So all of this begs the question "what are the primitive building
>blocks necessary to let players create interesting guilds?".
>
>Here are some suggestions:
>
>0) ability of players to pay a creator to create a guild hall. Perhaps
>1) ability to create and wear some identifying "badge" of membership.
>3) ability to pay money to NPCs to guard the entrance to the guild hall
>4) ability to create documents that describe the charter of the guild.
>5) ability to choose the set of skills characteristic of the guild (perhaps
>6) need to include some ways for guilds to compete against each other.
I think this list is still a bit adhoc. Perhaps purposefully.
You can really sum all of these up in one attribute: "let players
have the ability to affect the world around them."
This may seem really hard to implement successfully, but if we're
going to attempt to do something I think this is more useful
than detailing all the abilities necessary to form a guild.
Sulam
James Waldrop
>you're missing one important point: on a lot of LP's, the wizards
>are ex-players. so in some sense, they are part of the "society" of
>the mud. they understand players' needs and wants, to some degree,
>having been there. and they want to add something to the flavour of
>the MUD. whether you count them as "out of the loop" because they
>cannot be active players on the MUD is up to you, i suppose.
Yes, I think this is very important. Imagine an LP, if you will,
where the amount that you were able to create was directly
related to some measure of "status." This is, in a way, similar
to the structure of current LP's, except that in most current
LP's the process is disjoint. If the process was continual
I think more interesting things would occur.
Sulam
John Garnett
Yes, the list is a bit adhoc. But rather than throwing it away, why
not take each item in the list and break it down further until you get as
primitive as it needs to be before you decide it isn't adhoc. Sure,
it would be nice to design it bottom up and just hope that you come up
with the primitives necessary to form the kinds of guilds you are interested
in seeing form. However, doing it that way is a bit like setting the
1,000 monkies to typing in an attempt to produce Hamlet (not to say this
couldn't be interesting).
Assuming one comes up with the right set of primitives to allow interesting
guilds to be formed, there still isn't any guarantee that players will
actually form guilds. The challenge then is to design the world in such
a way that players are motivated to form guilds as a result of "natural"
incentives.
--john
David Bennett
Having an npc which teaches you means they are probably doing it for
a reason. Which means they are probably in a guild. By giving players
skills when they first log on you are forcing their profession as soon
as they log on. Personaly, I would rather choose in some way. Sure
you could say they could choose when they log on. Well, I personaly
rather that you get a chance to wander around in a mud for a while
before deciding which way I wish to take my character.
(This is of course ignoreing the fact that guilds on Discworld have
a very strong background. You ever read the books?)
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
Gnort, God of Chaos
>In article [tree] gn...@daimi.aau.dk> (Gnort, God of Chaos) writes:
> It's an opinion. No code -> anarchy. At least in a combat based mud.
> People just don't roleplay the way we want 'em to, Jamie. Might as well
> accept it.
>*sigh* Maybe you're right on this one - but that's the players' fault,
>not the lack of code.
Not necessarily.
If we code something that forces people into a certain setting we might get
better results. E.g. if you're a member of an Assassins Guild, and to
'graduate' you have to break into a heavily guarded enemy compound to knock
off the leader. That'd force you to use your assassin abilities, that is, act
like an assassin. What else defines an assassin? Almost all guilds will
allow whatever personality the player can come up with, probably even the
players own. (Of course weird religious thingys may be different.)
> Right! So why are you constantly saying they're wrong, when they're just
> looking at it in a different way than you??
>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think I was saying other
>people were wrong - I merely stated (a large number of times, agreed)
>that there was no need for coding lots of stuff, particularly in
>guilds. Maybe that amounts to the same thing.
Kinda ;)
Code may be the only way to get players with you. You simply _cannot_ expect
the current net-populace to act these things out on their own. Where'd we
be if we got intelligent players all of a sudden? ;-)
> >Social classes are created by the people in the society.
> Beggars don't choose to be beggars, do they?
>To a large extent being a beggar is the result of economic conditions,
>not just social ones. Besides, other people decide who are beggars.
Yes, but those other people might not be players, right?
> If we have an oligarchy, most people won't be able to pick their
> own place. Said oligarchy may or may not have players in it, but if
> so, it would be very hard to "join up".
>That is what force is for.
*grin*
> >Guilds are institutions created by the people in the society.
> Created by the TOP of the society, yes. Unless it's the guild of
> beggars, which would hardly grow very powerful on its own.
>I beg to differ; guilds formed for a number of reasons, one of those
>being protection - safety in numbers, with resources pooled, etc.
Yeah, but as someone else noted, a guild need to be "accepted" by the
brass of society to be worth its salt. If I was the leader of a despotism,
and I heard of someone starting to cooperate in ways I didn't like, I'd
probably send in my crack-troopers and give the citizens of the city a
view of some head-on-a-stick's. It's a cruel world ;)
> >Laws are created by the people in the society.
> Heheh. I don't think there are _that_ many democratic muds out
> there.
>But then, there aren't many MU*s out there which have the sort of
>system I'm advocating, are there? :)
No. But your system relies too much on the willigness of people to roleplay.
Fantasy-muds can't be exclusively RPG-based, I think.
> Oligarchy or despotism seems to be the order of the day in muds, so
> where's your point?
>That institutions and laws and everything else which is of a
>social/political nature like that, are not imposed by god, or
>whatever, but are created by the people of the society - not
>necessarily the current ones, but certainly of the people.
God? What's he got to do with it? The admin might be watched as a God, yes,
but all the social/political stuff will come from the leaders of the society
which may be admin-controlled mobiles/pseudo-mobiles(heard of, but never
seen) or the people we call wizards/immortals in the current systems. The
_players_ are just peons with an option.
> >Restrictions on only belonging to one guild are created by the
> >guild members.
> By the guild-top. Guild members pay their dues, get some benefits,
> and do what they're told. (Add pseudo-democracy and you have a
> present-day union. ;-)
>Quite; if enough people, of whatever rank inside the guild, dislike
>the current situation, they can act to change it, and might succeed.
>Coups are rife in history; why not in MU*s?
Hell, I don't want a mud where I can be removed with force by the players! ;)
But, ok. When you have an _accepted_ guild, fighting over guild-politics
should be possible for the players. But it won't be trivial to become an
accepted member of a guild. And the guild must be accepted by the
ruler/god/whatever. The ruler would continue to have the head-on-a-stick
option, of course. ;)
>Jamie
Craig Andrew Tollifson
writes:
>gar...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (John Garnett) writes:
>>2) some mechanism for allowing players to propose and vote on issues
>>3) ability to pay money to NPCs to guard the entrance to the guild hall
>>4) ability to create documents that describe the charter of the guild.
>>5) ability to choose the set of skills characteristic of the guild (perhaps
>>6) need to include some ways for guilds to compete against each other.
>
>I think this list is still a bit adhoc. Perhaps purposefully.
>You can really sum all of these up in one attribute: "let players
>have the ability to affect the world around them."
I must say I full heartedly agree with this comment. We have already done
most of that and you'd be VERY supprised at what actually becomes EASY
to do when you have an engine that mimics reality. Then again we've also
found some simple things that just seem impossible to do. :)
James
Jamieson Norrish
Bennett) writes:
Having an npc which teaches you means they are probably doing it
for a reason. Which means they are probably in a guild.
I don't see that this follows at all. Guilds are not the only
institutions through which skills are passed on.
By giving players skills when they first log on you are forcing
their profession as soon as they log on. Personaly, I would rather
choose in some way. Sure you could say they could choose when they
log on. Well, I personaly rather that you get a chance to wander
around in a mud for a while before deciding which way I wish to
take my character.
There's nothing to stop someone looking around for a while, and then
asking a wizard to give her some skills that would be appropriate for
the type of character she wishes to play. Also, this isn't a problem
on games which have registration, and in which new players create
their character over some period of time, in consultation with both
wizards and other players.
(This is of course ignoreing the fact that guilds on Discworld have
a very strong background. You ever read the books?)
Some of them, yes.
Jamie