Permanency in LPs.. does it work?
Ken K. Lee
One of my main gripes with combat orientated Mu*'s is that there is no
sense of, for lack of a better word, 'permanency'. For example, nothing you
do really effects any permanent change. You kill the orc, he's back at the
next reset - making it hard to really develop any ongoing story, if you will.
What I'm wondering is, were it possible to continually save the state of a
mud - and allow the actual players to build and expand the world, as opposed to
relying on wizards to do this - would it be worth it? It is not my intent to
raise discussion on whether or not it could be possible, but rather to find out
what other people think of the idea of allowing players to be able to make
changes in the history of a mud.
As for the actual implementation of this idea, I'd love to sit down and
talk to people about the various ways that it may or may not be possible.
Brian Green
I'm no expert on this, but I do know that a MUD that is doing something like
this. It's a MUD called Styx, and it's heavily D&D based. I dunno the
address right off hand, but it should be listed in the MUD list. Anyway, they
haven't implemented it yet, but they have plans to let certain players build
mini-realms and protect them. They have a bankroll to protect the castle and
will be able to raid other people's treasuries. As I said, they haven't made
it part of the game, but it sounds interesting. You might want to log on
and talk to Angus, the god there. Disclaimer: I am merely a player there,
you will not get very useful information from me.
Anyway, hope that helps.
Brian Green, bgr...@iastate.edu aka Psychochild most places,
Myradur and Tyrion on Styx.
PS A friend just looked up the number to Styx, it's 128.123.1.14 3000
Erik H. Kleinfelder
> What I'm wondering is, were it possible to continually save the state of a
>mud- and allow the actual players to build and expand the world, as opposed to
>relying on wizards to do this - would it be worth it? It is not my intent to
>raise discussion on whether or not it could be possible, but rather to find out
>what other people think of the idea of allowing players to be able to make
>changes in the history of a mud.
>
> As for the actual implementation of this idea, I'd love to sit down and
>talk to people about the various ways that it may or may not be possible.
Ok, I will start the ball rolling. From an admins point of view, this
concept, though reasonable, is not feasable. For instance, when you play
an AD&D game by SSI or a real Role Playing adventure on a saturday night,
you have campaigns that have that permanency you are looking for. But,
how much fun would it be to play the campaign after you have finished it if
you keep the 'permanency' you are looking for? A key argument against this
would be an SSI computer game. Suppose you play the game, and everything
stays DEAD after you kill it, permanently, with little or now way to reset
the game to start over. This would be a wasted investment, and as far
as an AD&D campaign, it would be little or no fun.
I agree with you however, even though I am against you in this article.
But, the easiest way to decide on whether this concept is conceivable, is
to decide on how to implement it. On LP's, this would be fairly simple to
do, but think about this. You or a wizard code an area. Some player decides
he wants to beat that whole area. One player goes through and wipes out this
whole area, now, what is the point of having this area anymore? There is
no need for it and it will simply eat up disk space & memory. In the
simplest of terms, there is no real way that wizards could keep up with the
speed at which players would conquer the mud. Sure, the admins and wizards
could code & code & code & code & code, etc., but sooner or later there
will be a burnout point or a point where they just want to give up (I would
bet it would be sooner more than later too).
My only suggestion to you and anyone else that wants to play something like
this is find an extremely large mud which has the ability to not have any
resets, and instead reboots once a day, or once every other day (if they have
the memory). This will offer you the type of permanency that exist in
those SSI games. You can play for 2 days, then you kinda restart the game.
I would not mind doing or seeing something like this, but from where current
muds stand today, I cannot agree that this concept is implementable at this
time.
Open for comments.
Erik
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gunther GOD@Dragons_Den | Erik Kleinfelder uekl...@mcs.drexel.edu
God of Destruction | Undergraduate Computer Science
(Record : 43 Crashes in 2 mins) | Drexel University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Nothing cures insomnia like the realization that it's time to get up."
Savaughn
many ways of handling it. Off the top of my head from when this thread
last came around:
1) Develop theme areas. For example, if you set up an Orc village,
then make some sections so difficult to beat that no player will. Have
these sections spawn monster groups that wander off (sort of monster
parties vs. the players). This provides both "permanency" and continued
generation
2) Develop numerous quest areas. This sets up the campaign feel of
such an adventure and if there are lots of them (i.e. on a large enough
mud) then the adventures FEEL "permanent" due to the fact that one never
encounters them again. (This is similar to many role playing games, in
which rarely do characters visit their older campaign environs with the
exception of one central main set)
3) Allow many monsters uniqueness (I.e. only one "Duern the High Mage"
per reboot) and allow resets of the non-unique hoards. (It's not
necessarily the same orc, it just has the same base desc.etc)
Basic problems that came up were:
1. Most of these ideas depend on moving monsters which ups cpu
intensive heart beat counts to rediculous levels.
2. The word permanent (as opposed to the sense of "permanent" used in
the ideas above) implies a disk based system where the objects and
monsters maintain location through crashes and reboots. As of yet, no
one has made an LP disk based and many question the reasons for doing
so.
It was this last on which the thread diverged and I can't remember much
more. Some food for thought.
- Jeremy
-------------(Oh God... that line... must be a sig file....)------------
Jeremy C. Jack - When all others say you can't
k08...@hobbes.kzoo.edu - And you're sick and tired of trying.
Smurfslayer Supreme ;} - When life makes you hang your head and sigh
------------------------- And you can hardly keep from crying
O O ( Yo, man, - When the hazards are all chasing you
< can't mess - And you're sick and tired of running...
\____/ with an - Remember: Life is not in the being
optimist!) - But in the becoming.
Michael O'Reilly
: gu...@livy.ccs.itd.umich.edu (Ken K. Lee) writes:
: Ok, I will start the ball rolling. From an admins point of view, this
: concept, though reasonable, is not feasable. For instance, when you play
: an AD&D game by SSI or a real Role Playing adventure on a saturday night,
: you have campaigns that have that permanency you are looking for. But,
: how much fun would it be to play the campaign after you have finished it if
: you keep the 'permanency' you are looking for? A key argument against this
: would be an SSI computer game. Suppose you play the game, and everything
: stays DEAD after you kill it, permanently, with little or now way to reset
: the game to start over. This would be a wasted investment, and as far
: as an AD&D campaign, it would be little or no fun.
A small point. Those games are designed for a non-persistent
environment. Codeing for a persistent environment requires different
techniqes. In particular, monsters should breed...
: I agree with you however, even though I am against you in this article.
: But, the easiest way to decide on whether this concept is conceivable, is
: to decide on how to implement it. On LP's, this would be fairly simple to
: do, ...
It IS!??? Writing a mudlib from scratch design for this, maybe,
converting a mudlib over, next to impossible.
: ....
: but think about this. You or a wizard code an area. Some player decides
: he wants to beat that whole area. One player goes through and wipes out this
: whole area, now, what is the point of having this area anymore? There is
: no need for it and it will simply eat up disk space & memory.
thats because most wizards code static areas, which are only usefull
in NON-persistent environments. What if the monster breed? What is the
monsters wander. What if there are monster generators etc etc. And not
just monsters. Writing 'caretaker' things that go around repairing
damage, and things that evolve over time. This is difficult, or
very time consumeing to do in LPmud.
: My only suggestion to you and anyone else that wants to play something like
: this is find an extremely large mud which has the ability to not have any
: resets, and instead reboots once a day, or once every other day (if they have
: the memory). This will offer you the type of permanency that exist in
: those SSI games. You can play for 2 days, then you kinda restart the game.
*shakes head*. You are thinking from your lpmud viewpoint. Assume that
it IS persistent, THEN write your world.
: I would not mind doing or seeing something like this, but from where current
: muds stand today, I cannot agree that this concept is implementable at this
: time.
Not true. I have a prototype interpreter that is fully OO,
multi-threaded, and (almost) perfectly persistent. (No, I can't save
socket connections. *sigh*).
: Open for comments. Erik
Michael.
John McNulty
+ One of my main gripes with combat orientated Mu*'s is that there is no
+ sense of, for lack of a better word, 'permanency'. For example, nothing you
+ do really effects any permanent change. You kill the orc, he's back at the
+ next reset - making it hard to really develop any ongoing story, if you will.
There are mud drivers around, disk database based drivers that could provide
this sort of thing, UberMUD, Tiny*, etc. But what would be the point???
If the Orc in your example guarded something important, or perhaps possessed
a key crutial to a quest. If he were killed and the key removed permenantly,
the quest would be useless for anyone else. Eventually any world like this
would degenerate to a state where everything was smashed, broken, killed, or
locked away in the coffers of various players. Who's job would it be to
restore everything? And how would you attract new players when there is
nothing left that works?
John McNulty
Digital Equipment Corporation
CSC/UK Unix Group,
"It's not a good omen when Gold fish commit suicide"
Andrew Smith
best of ideas to give people who make no agreement (Ie...wizzing) to
standards, ethics, and taste, the power to make their ideas become
hardcoded into the mud. As far as permanancy...how can you do that?
Make a quest that can be done once and then write a book about it?
I think that the thing to do is to not worry too much about every
players right to build...thats what wizzing is for...and concentrate
on making the mud different each reboot. Make monster generators for
an area rather than hardcoding them in...even if you don't want mobiles,
unless you have a specific name...make the short and long descriptions
(as well as adjs, stats, skills, weapons, and armour) be somewhat random
so that a player isn't always bored to death of the absolute dullness of
an area after the 30th time through it.
Andrew Smith
[this sig is an official protest of sigs]
The Shadowjack
(John McNulty) writes:
[ Stuff deleted ]
>If the Orc in your example guarded something important, or perhaps possessed
>a key crutial to a quest. If he were killed and the key removed permenantly,
>the quest would be useless for anyone else.
That is assuming that: An LPmud must have quests and every player
must do all the quests in order to become a "wizard", since becoming a
"wizard" is the object of the game. To create a persistent MU* of any
sort, the basic premise of the mud-building cannot be the same as for
a non-persistent mud.
>Eventually any world like this
>would degenerate to a state where everything was smashed, broken, killed, or
>locked away in the coffers of various players. Who's job would it be to
>restore everything? And how would you attract new players when there is
>nothing left that works?
As someone pointed out in an earlier article, this thinking is again
assuming a non-persistent mud. In a persistent mud environment, the
very base mudlib would have to take that into account.
Repairmen may repair damaged property, the town guards or king's men
may hunt down especially destructive players, etc. Players who get
apprehended could be locked away for some period of time. And
likewise, new, persistent areas could be added onto the world
continuously by both coders and players who are able to build.
The idea of a persistent LPmud is certainly do-able. The problem is
discarding the stereotypical conceptions people cling to regarding
LPmud. And more than a few players would scream, "This isn't an
LPmud!", which, in the stereotypical sense, would be true. But
persistent LPmud would need to go beyond the stereotypes, and couldn't
be coded with the stereotypical player's expectations in mind.
Regardless of whether an LPmud is persistent or not, people have to
realize that LPmud's do *not* have to be combat-based; LPmuds do not
have to have "levels" and required "quests" to "wiz"; and that
"wizzing" does not have to be the goal of an LPmud. (*gasp*)
That sort of mentality puts LPmud in a box and hinders progress.
(Yes, I realize there are a few LPmuds out there which go beyond the
stereotypes; hats off to them, and to Marches of Antan and Shattered
Worlds in particular.)
A persistent LPmud? Yes, it's do-able. Would players buy into it?
Maybe, maybe not. It certainly wouldn't be a mud for everyone one,
and likely not for the stereotypical LPmud player. Is it feasible?
I think with enough time and effort, it could be coded.
In my opinion, the problem isn't "can it/should it be done?", the
problem is doing it _right_.
KPE...@miamiu.bitnet
monsters must reset or there would be nothing to kill. My suggestion:
Less frequent resets, to begin with, along with more monsters.
Additionally, a limit to the number of 'lives' a monster gets before
it is gone forever (perhaps around 100, considering that wizards can only code
so much)-- but you would know that if you and others killed a monster
often enough you could rid the 'world' of it. Also, there should be
a few areas where player actions define the nature of the area:
Elves could be warring with orcs, both sides reproducing (much faster
than people actually reproduce), and the orcs will destroy the elves
unless enough PCs intervene on the elves' behalf... that would determine
which race would dominate that area. In other words, the frustration
of seeing one's efforts as futile must be balanced against the need to
have monsters for future players, in my opinion anyway.
You are right, however, that there is currently no such balance,
as monsters have infinite resets, and MUD wizards and Gods would do
well to balance the two concepts.
John McNulty
+ Ok, I will start the ball rolling. From an admins point of view, this
+ concept, though reasonable, is not feasable. For instance, when you play
+ an AD&D game by SSI or a real Role Playing adventure on a saturday night,
+ you have campaigns that have that permanency you are looking for. But,
+ how much fun would it be to play the campaign after you have finished it if
+ you keep the 'permanency' you are looking for? A key argument against this
+ would be an SSI computer game. Suppose you play the game, and everything
+ stays DEAD after you kill it, permanently, with little or now way to reset
+ the game to start over. This would be a wasted investment, and as far
+ as an AD&D campaign, it would be little or no fun.
Agreed! It would be like buying a new adventure game from a shop, and
unwrapping it, only to find that all the monsters were dead and half the
treasure was missing. If that were me, I'd take it back and complain.
--
David G. Thaler
>That is assuming that: An LPmud must have quests and every player
>must do all the quests in order to become a "wizard", since becoming a
>"wizard" is the object of the game. To create a persistent MU* of any
>sort, the basic premise of the mud-building cannot be the same as for
>a non-persistent mud.
By golly there are other people out there who agree with us CyberWorld
weirdos. (Hi SJ! ;) I agree that a persistent mud is viable and could
work if that is the basic premise that everything else is built on.
The feel would be much different from your standard mud today.
>>Eventually any world like this
>>would degenerate to a state where everything was smashed, broken, killed, or
>>locked away in the coffers of various players. Who's job would it be to
>>restore everything? And how would you attract new players when there is
>>nothing left that works?
>
>Repairmen may repair damaged property, the town guards or king's men
>may hunt down especially destructive players, etc. Players who get
>apprehended could be locked away for some period of time. And
>likewise, new, persistent areas could be added onto the world
>continuously by both coders and players who are able to build.
Darn right. This is what we've been working on for a long time now.
The key (for us anyway) is to get away from the players vs. wiz-coded
monsters idea, which seems to be the de facto standard. This must be
replaced with a player vs. player scheme, where the players keep each
other busy with competition. If building (by players) is realistic
[a basic tenet of CyberWorld], then the wizzes don't have to keep up,
the players will provide their own quests. Wizzes can concentrate on
more detail and fancy objects than making old kill monster/get treasure
stuff.
>Regardless of whether an LPmud is persistent or not, people have to
>realize that LPmud's do *not* have to be combat-based; LPmuds do not
>have to have "levels" and required "quests" to "wiz"; and that
>"wizzing" does not have to be the goal of an LPmud. (*gasp*)
Ok, CyberWorld is not a hack'n'slash place. CW does not have levels.
The goal is players is not to become wiz. CW is made for political
interaction between players, who work for and run corporations. Players
may build buildings (using materials & skills). Golly, maybe we're not
a LPmud...
True permanency (almost disk-based) was proposed at a Lords' Meeting
back in March, but the proposals didn't pass. There have been a number
of steps since then to get closer to true permanency, but the current
situation seems to be a nice compromise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armidale@CyberWorld "You're just one step away from reality."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niilo Neuvo
> Anyway, they haven't implemented it yet, but they have plans to let
> certain players build mini-realms and protect them. They have a
> bankroll to protect the castle and will be able to raid other people's
> treasuries. As I said, they haven't made it part of the game, but it
> sounds interesting.
See BatMUD.
kes...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Joseph P. Andrieu) writes:
> If anyone out there knows of any MUD casinos, I'd like to hear about
> them and check them out. If any creators would like to start a
> dialogue about the awesome coolness of MUD gambling, drop me a line.
See BatMUD.
++Anipa
--
NN NN NN NN NNNNNNNN
NNNN N NN N NNNNNN
NNNNNN N NN N NNNN
NNNNNNNN NN NN NN NN
David Veal
>
>I agree with you however, even though I am against you in this article.
>But, the easiest way to decide on whether this concept is conceivable, is
>to decide on how to implement it. On LP's, this would be fairly simple to
>do, but think about this. You or a wizard code an area. Some player decides
>he wants to beat that whole area. One player goes through and wipes out this
>whole area, now, what is the point of having this area anymore? There is
>no need for it and it will simply eat up disk space & memory. In the
>simplest of terms, there is no real way that wizards could keep up with the
>speed at which players would conquer the mud. Sure, the admins and wizards
>could code & code & code & code & code, etc., but sooner or later there
>will be a burnout point or a point where they just want to give up (I would
>bet it would be sooner more than later too).
Nah, just give the monsters the ability to make more monsters.
(Within reason, of course.) After all. If players can magic up new
characters at of thin air, giving the monsters the ability breed seems
only fair. :-)
>My only suggestion to you and anyone else that wants to play something like
>this is find an extremely large mud which has the ability to not have any
>resets, and instead reboots once a day, or once every other day (if they have
>the memory). This will offer you the type of permanency that exist in
>those SSI games. You can play for 2 days, then you kinda restart the game.
>
>I would not mind doing or seeing something like this, but from where current
>muds stand today, I cannot agree that this concept is implementable at this
>time.
>
>Open for comments.
I've been impressed by a couple of muds which apparently are working
on a means by which the primary conflicts are player related rather than
player/automaton. (And not playerkilling muds.) That would seem to have a
good chance of providing the permanency, especially if death was a fairly
important event, perhaps even having an absolute limit to the times a
character can die (maybe even one :-)).
Of course, things can get real ugly when you snuff a player's
favorite character.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VE...@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce)
Signature Impounded For Failure To Pay Sig Tax
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darin Johnson
Heck, just have some ghosts pop up in the church now and then,
turn back into monsters, and leave again :-)
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
- I'm not a well adjusted person, but I play one on the net.
Ken K. Lee
>unwrapping it, only to find that all the monsters were dead and half the
>treasure was missing. If that were me, I'd take it back and complain.
>
One of the interesting facets of the game was that when you did something,
often it had permanent effects. While this didn't carry over into the entire
game - in some places monsters did "reset" (like in the wilderness, but that
is justifiable) - it was rather interesting and made "quests" all the more
difficult, especially if you kill first, then ask questions later.
I think it would be rather interesting to build a mud around the idea
that a player's actions can make a difference in how the history of a mud
develops. This would be accomplished by giving them the ability to build as
they choose, as long as they can afford it. I do not mean to imply that
players would code, but rather that they could build to the world, permenantly
adding rooms, items, perhaps even monsters anywhere on the world. Hopefully,
players may eventually get into the 'role', perhaps playing out the part of
the evil, human-hating lich who builds an underground fortress with armies of
undead warriors, all filled with the hell-bent desire to kill humans for
their master?
Were players eventually to replace wizard created puzzles and monsters
with their own, who would need wizards? It goes without saying that a mud like
this would command enormous amounts of diskspace, but it would be interesting
to see if the mud goes down in flames of anarchy, or actually stabilizes into
something memorable?
>
>--
>John McNulty
>Digital Equipment Corporation
>CSC/UK Unix Group,
>
>"It's not a good omen when Gold fish commit suicide"
>
Guile@Muds
Michael McAleese
here (up to the point I'm posting from, anyway). It seems to me that the
original poster wasn't so much looking for areas not to be reset as for
his or her actions to have an effect on the game world. What's the point
of trashing the orcs umpteen times only to have them eternally reset? Maybe
a count of the times they have been defeated could be kept and then new
areas opened based on that. For example, one area is the orc camp. After
players trash it fifty times, it is replaced by a destroyed/abandoned camp
and the entrance to a cave complex where the orcs retreated to. The example
is simplistic, but the idea should be clear.
The main question with this sort of change in the mud is whether it is a
coded change or just relys on an admin to continually adjust the mud to
reflect the actions of the players. Ideally there would be a bit of both,
but both would be a challenge to do. Perhaps initially there just needs to
be the information available to the owner of the area as to what level of
activity is going on in areas they control. I'm not totally up on my lpmud
code :-) so I'm not sure if stats like that are kept or not. I'd suspect not.
If you had a good idea of what players were doing (what monsters got killed,
traps set off, puzzles solved) then you could either whip up some changes
to reflect them or start coding some automated reactions to their actions.
Adam Deishu Beeman
Just so y'all know, TMI-2 has shifted IP numbers, but has kept the
same IP name. So some of you might have not even noticed, while
those of you who rely on IP numbers might have lost us.
The new IP is 129.10.11.53, hostname is still tmi.ccs.neu.edu, or
better yet tmi.lp.mud.org, and the port's 5555, as always. If you
can help it, use the ip name and not the number, because we might be
moving around a little within the neu.edu network a little from time
to time, and the name will follow us.
-Adam, also known as Buddha@Tmi-2
--
+=-=+=-=+=-+=-=+=-=+=-+=-=+=-=+=-+=-=+=-=+=-+=-=+=-=+=-+=-=+=-=+=-+=-=+=-=
+=-=+
+=-=+=-=+=- You can reach this idle caricature of a wizard at
-=+=-=+=-=+
+=-=+=-=+=- bee...@cats.ucsc.edu, for most purposes, or via NeXT
-=+=-=+=-=+
+=-=+=-=+=- Mail to ad...@samsara.santa-cruz.ca.us. Flames will be
-=+=-=+=-=+
+=-=+=-=+=- cheerfully deleted, and employment offers considered.
-=+=-=+=-=+
+=-=+=-=+=-=+=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=+=-=+=-=+=-+=+=-=+=-=+=-+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=+=-=
+=-=+
Savaughn
appropriate channel. Those of us who play LP's because of what is
uniquely LP prefer them over such systems. With random monsters, all of
life turns pathetically generic. "An orc" "An elf", what have you.
With player spawned areas, you have sprawling complexes of generally bad
code, usually full of typos. (If you think LP's are bad for this try a
MUSH or MUCK sometime). It is POSSIBLE to put permanency into the
games. It is simply Not Fun[tm] 90% of the time. All of the ideas
brought up under this thread have been tried. They aren't interesting
to play under. Simple fact.
Brian Green
[ideas about permancy in LP's deleted]
>Gentlemen, you are describing TinyMU*'s. Please take this to the
>appropriate channel. Those of us who play LP's because of what is
>uniquely LP prefer them over such systems. With random monsters, all of
>life turns pathetically generic. "An orc" "An elf", what have you.
>With player spawned areas, you have sprawling complexes of generally bad
>code, usually full of typos. (If you think LP's are bad for this try a
>MUSH or MUCK sometime). It is POSSIBLE to put permanency into the
>games. It is simply Not Fun[tm] 90% of the time. All of the ideas
>brought up under this thread have been tried. They aren't interesting
>to play under. Simple fact.
>- Jeremy
>-------------(Oh God... that line... must be a sig file....)------------
>Jeremy C. Jack - When all others say you can't
>k08...@hobbes.kzoo.edu - And you're sick and tired of trying.
>Smurfslayer Supreme ;} - When life makes you hang your head and sigh
>------------------------- And you can hardly keep from crying
> O O ( Yo, man, - When the hazards are all chasing you
> < can't mess - And you're sick and tired of running...
> \____/ with an - Remember: Life is not in the being
> optimist!) - But in the becoming.
I SEVERLY disagree with you. I really love the structure of combat and
such on the LPmuds. I would also like to see some VARIETY in the game!
I strongly agree with some people in this thread that it would be very
interesting to make a more 'random' area. I was one of the people to first
suggest random monsters (and, no, they aren't going to be called just 'an elf'
or 'an orc', that's what the monsters in the main areas are for ;) I am
really going to create some meaningful, random monsters. I think that this
would be better so people HAVE to look in an area (making exploration more
frequent, and perhaps more fun) in order to find the 'kick-ass sword of
everything slaying +100000' if it appears on different monsters every time.
Also, as to players creating rooms, I think it's generally accepted that
players would have VERY limited building abilities, probably subject to an
immortal's approval. On most other types of MU*'s where players build, they
have unlimited and/or unsupervised building. Say, if a high level character
could build a 20 room stronghold, it might work. A strong reason supporting
this is the Metaprat houses found on some LP's. Farside and Kerovnia have
these, and VERY few times have I ever found people's houses to be poor quality
or have lots of spelling mistakes, if they really put an interest in their
houses, as a place to show off, not just to dump equipment to save for later.
Hell, sometimes those 20 room houses kick the sh*t out of some wizard's 200
room area. I think you were a bit too quick to judge.
Well, I've rambled enough,
Brian Green, bgr...@iastate.edu aka Psychochild@Kerovnia and most places.
Anonymous user
>> How many of you remembered the game, "Wastelands", for the PC/Apple/Amiga?
>>One of the interesting facets of the game was that when you did something,
>>often it had permanent effects. While this didn't carry over into the entire
>>game - in some places monsters did "reset" (like in the wilderness, but that
>>is justifiable) - it was rather interesting and made "quests" all the more
>>difficult, especially if you kill first, then ask questions later.
>>
>> I think it would be rather interesting to build a mud around the idea
>>that a player's actions can make a difference in how the history of a mud
>>develops. This would be accomplished by giving them the ability to build as
>>they choose, as long as they can afford it. I do not mean to imply that
>>players would code, but rather that they could build to the world, permenantly
>>adding rooms, items, perhaps even monsters anywhere on the world. Hopefully,
>>players may eventually get into the 'role', perhaps playing out the part of
>>the evil, human-hating lich who builds an underground fortress with armies of
>>undead warriors, all filled with the hell-bent desire to kill humans for
>>their master?
>>
>> Were players eventually to replace wizard created puzzles and monsters
>>with their own, who would need wizards? It goes without saying that a mud like
>>
>>Guile@Muds
Exactly. Very good point, something I intend to do. But there still would
be wizards coding stuff. I don't agree with the last sentence. Players
can expand the world sure, but I can't see them replacing wizard building.
>Gentlemen, you are describing TinyMU*'s. Please take this to the
>appropriate channel. Those of us who play LP's because of what is
>uniquely LP prefer them over such systems. With random monsters, all of
>life turns pathetically generic. "An orc" "An elf", what have you.
>With player spawned areas, you have sprawling complexes of generally bad
>code, usually full of typos. (If you think LP's are bad for this try a
>MUSH or MUCK sometime). It is POSSIBLE to put permanency into the
>games. It is simply Not Fun[tm] 90% of the time. All of the ideas
>brought up under this thread have been tried. They aren't interesting
Sav, he is not describing TinyMU*'s. He is describing a new twist to your
average LP. Sure, it is radically different, but who says it won't still
be interesting to play? There's also no need to do it as boring as the
picture you paint. If you have the skill, it can be made unique and
interesting to play. Don't tell me that splayer spawned areas are bad
areas. Those same players become wizards. Are you saying that all of a sudden
when they made wizard they become brilliant at area making? I think your
scope is limited. You need to think beyond what the standard LP is and
use your imagination, as to what it could become. Broaden your thoughts.
Mr M J Cleaton
>that a player's actions can make a difference in how the history of a mud
>develops. This would be accomplished by giving them the ability to build as
>they choose, as long as they can afford it. I do not mean to imply that
>players would code, but rather that they could build to the world, permenantly
>adding rooms, items, perhaps even monsters anywhere on the world. Hopefully,
>players may eventually get into the 'role', perhaps playing out the part of
>the evil, human-hating lich who builds an underground fortress with armies of
>undead warriors, all filled with the hell-bent desire to kill humans for
>their master?
>
> Were players eventually to replace wizard created puzzles and monsters
>with their own, who would need wizards?
I think you'd still need wizards to keep an eye on things. I can't think of
a way of formalising _everything_ you'd want players to be able to build
without letting in some of the things you wouldn't want them to. It wouldn't
be so bad if they had to talk to an admin and get a price quoted for their
new castle (or whatever) though - you don't expect castles to be built in
days.
~Cookie
Savaughn
>In <1993Aug28....@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k08...@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Savaughn) writes:
>
> [ideas about permancy in LP's deleted]
>
For the audience who missed this article, it was mentioned as a last
idea that player created areas could be handled so as to replace wizards
entirely. As this line was deleted, my comments could have been
misunderstood.
>>Gentlemen, you are describing TinyMU*'s. Please take this to the
>>appropriate channel. Those of us who play LP's because of what is
>>uniquely LP prefer them over such systems. With random monsters, all of
>>life turns pathetically generic. "An orc" "An elf", what have you.
Point 1: If your mud areas are random and permanent they are generic.
>>With player spawned areas, you have sprawling complexes of generally bad
>>code, usually full of typos. (If you think LP's are bad for this try a
>>MUSH or MUCK sometime).
Point 2: If your mud is completely built by players (as opposed to a
separate coding populace) it is no longer much of an LP.
>>It is POSSIBLE to put permanency into the
>>games. It is simply Not Fun[tm] 90% of the time. All of the ideas
>>brought up under this thread have been tried. They aren't interesting
>>to play under. Simple fact.
>
>>- Jeremy
>
>I SEVERLY disagree with you. I really love the structure of combat and
>such on the LPmuds. I would also like to see some VARIETY in the game!
>I strongly agree with some people in this thread that it would be very
>interesting to make a more 'random' area. I was one of the people to first
>suggest random monsters (and, no, they aren't going to be called just 'an elf'
>or 'an orc', that's what the monsters in the main areas are for ;) I am
>really going to create some meaningful, random monsters. I think that this
>would be better so people HAVE to look in an area (making exploration more
>frequent, and perhaps more fun) in order to find the 'kick-ass sword of
>everything slaying +100000' if it appears on different monsters every time.
To have an area both permanent and random (which is what this thread has
been dealing with) you have to either have the computer generate a
complex description for the monster or draw from standard "stock" names.
(If someone has a different method of doing this, please let me know)
If you have very creative and complex stock names (the more probable of
the two choices) then you no longer have permanence. "Hanse the valiant
thief of Johntransburg Townne" can come back again and again and be
killed rather often. In addition, you have no "feel" for monsters.
Every time, a monster is an unknown. As a result, they have no
character. The monsters on muds that become renoun gain this because
they are either coded well or have a penchant for killing players off.
In addition, your NPC's will all be blank and boring or again have to
pull from a limited stock of action. You have lost both permanency and
uniqueness in trade for limited creation. If you code them brilliantly,
then they may become full fledged NPC to inhabit your areas. However,
to make an entire mud permanent (which was the issue of the thread) will
by your (and every other method I have heard) make it bland to the point
of driving your players away.
>Also, as to players creating rooms, I think it's generally accepted that
>players would have VERY limited building abilities, probably subject to an
>immortal's approval. On most other types of MU*'s where players build, they
>have unlimited and/or unsupervised building. Say, if a high level character
>could build a 20 room stronghold, it might work. A strong reason supporting
>this is the Metaprat houses found on some LP's. Farside and Kerovnia have
>these, and VERY few times have I ever found people's houses to be poor quality
>or have lots of spelling mistakes, if they really put an interest in their
>houses, as a place to show off, not just to dump equipment to save for later.
>Hell, sometimes those 20 room houses kick the sh*t out of some wizard's 200
>room area. I think you were a bit too quick to judge.
As are you. I did not say players couldn't create good areas. Most
wizards are former players, so this is a logical impossibility.
However, if your entire MUD is created by players, see criticism Point
2. Only since you cut out the material to which I was replying does
your criticism make sense. If you choose to judge, next time criticize
the actual point made, not something you choose at random to criticize.
>Well, I've rambled enough,
>
>Brian Green, bgr...@iastate.edu aka Psychochild@Kerovnia and most places.
- Jeremy
Lars Jostein Syrstad
:
: Point 2: If your mud is completely built by players (as opposed to a
: separate coding populace) it is no longer much of an LP.
If the driver is an LPmud driver, then what else than an LP can it
possibly be? I see no reason why I in my LP should not allow players
to do all the building.
[Mucho text deleted]
- Lars Syrstad.
Savaughn
I'm speaking of a theoretical difference here of course. As has been
pointed out countless times, you can of course program any of the
various MU* drivers to simulate the use to which any other MU* has been
put. However, LP's have a general line along which they tend to flow,
good or bad. And the change, IMHO, doesn't use the driver as an LP, but
as a TinyMU* is commonly used. That was what I meant, sorry if my
phrasing was unclear.
- Jeremy
Jeremy C. Jack::Don't sleep 'til sunrise. Listen to the falling rain.
k080755@::::::::Don't worry about tomorrow. Don't worry about your pain.
hobbes.kzoo.edu:Don't cry unless you're happy. Don't smile unless you're blue.
::::0 .. 0::::::There's those out there who try so hard to take control of you.
::::\____/::::::Be glad that you are free.
Anonymous user
>In article <1993Aug30.1...@ugle.unit.no> la...@nova.pvv.unit.no (Lars Jostein Syrstad) writes:
>>Savaughn (k08...@hobbes.kzoo.edu) wrote:
>>:
>>: Point 2: If your mud is completely built by players (as opposed to a
>>: separate coding populace) it is no longer much of an LP.
>>
>>If the driver is an LPmud driver, then what else than an LP can it
>>possibly be? I see no reason why I in my LP should not allow players
>>to do all the building.
>>
>>[Mucho text deleted]
>>
>> - Lars Syrstad.
>
>I'm speaking of a theoretical difference here of course. As has been
>pointed out countless times, you can of course program any of the
>various MU* drivers to simulate the use to which any other MU* has been
>put. However, LP's have a general line along which they tend to flow,
>good or bad. And the change, IMHO, doesn't use the driver as an LP, but
>as a TinyMU* is commonly used. That was what I meant, sorry if my
>phrasing was unclear.
>
>- Jeremy
Stereotype! Just because you're used to LP muds going a certain direction,
doesn't mean they must continue in that direction. I think you need to
broaden your scope of thought some. There is no need to narrow the focus
of an LPmud to "What Jeremy thinks is best for LPmud". Some people would
like to expand it and make it the best elements of both the Tiny* feel
and the current LP feel. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Jacob Hallen
>pointed out countless times, you can of course program any of the
>various MU* drivers to simulate the use to which any other MU* has been
>put.
As has been pointed out countless times, this is not true. A Muck, Mush etc
is not Turing complete. A Diku is not dynamically programmable.
They can not simulate all the various uses of an LPMud. I'm not sure about
MOO's, but I believe they have functionality equal with LP.
>However, LP's have a general line along which they tend to flow,
>good or bad. And the change, IMHO, doesn't use the driver as an LP, but
>as a TinyMU* is commonly used. That was what I meant, sorry if my
>phrasing was unclear.
Your way of reasoning would make Genesis into something that isn't an
LPMud. I find the thought rather preposterous.
Jacob Hallen