The Player in One Sentance
LucFrench
styles of PC:
1. The player is only just beyond/below the characterization in ADVENT.
(Enlightenment, or Fifteen, for example.)
2. The Player can be summed up in one sentance. "[Player] is a detective hired
to search a house." "[Player] is a drug induced halicination." "[Player] is
both a cinimatic hero, and a viewer of the game as if it were a film."
"[Player] is a Bad Child." etc.
And then I thought about other games:
"[Player] is a spy." "[Player] is a millenial party goer." "[Player] is a
chicken." "[Player] is an American Tourist." "[Player] is a member of the
<spoier> family, and is looking for a map." "Player is a text adventurer."
"[Player] is <spoiler>."
[Can you guess which ones I'm refering to? One is a stinger, in that it doesn't
exist yet.]
What I wanted to rant about, anyway, is the lack of complete player
characterizations in games.
I mean, even a raw GURPS character sheet give more characterization then most
works of IF.
[Further digression: I'd sorta like to see a game based upon the premise of the
player (or the major NPC) being a "Weirdness Magnet".]
What I'd like to know, is this this a bad thing?
Thanks
Luc "Annoyed" French
Andrew Plotkin
> And then I thought about other games:
>
> "[Player] is a spy." "[Player] is a millenial party goer." "[Player] is a
> chicken." "[Player] is an American Tourist." "[Player] is a member of the
> <spoier> family, and is looking for a map." "Player is a text adventurer."
> "[Player] is <spoiler>."
I think you're both overgeneralizing and asking the wrong question in the
first place, but I'll make one comment:
Not everyone agrees on who the protagonist of _Spider And Web_ is.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Magnus Olsson
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>LucFrench (lucf...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> And then I thought about other games:
>>
>> "[Player] is a spy." "[Player] is a millenial party goer." "[Player] is a
>> chicken." "[Player] is an American Tourist." "[Player] is a member of the
>> <spoier> family, and is looking for a map." "Player is a text adventurer."
>> "[Player] is <spoiler>."
>
>I think you're both overgeneralizing and asking the wrong question in the
>first place
I agree with Zarf here. And where I think Luc goes wrong is when going
from the interesting observation that in many games the PC can be
summarized in one sentence, to the conclusion that a character that
can be summarized in one sentence necessarily has no more depth than
that.
Besides, Luc seems to be emulating Procrustes here, stretching or
chopping up his victims to make them the right size for his
theory. For example, saying that the protagonist of "Curses" is a
"member of the Meldrew family, looking for a map" is true, but does it
really convey all the information about the PC that's contained in the
game? It's a bit like saying that Hamlet is an indecisive prince whose
father has been murdered.
But maybe *we*, in criticizing Luc, are asking the wrong question.
Luc, do you mean that you'd like to see IF games where the PC is
defined by a character sheet (with a long list of various attributes
and abilities)?
The problem with this is that I can't see how this would fit into
the standard IF paradigm. It works in CRPG's, but those games work
in a totally different way.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Matthew T. Russotto
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
}LucFrench (lucf...@aol.com) wrote:
}
}> And then I thought about other games:
}>
}> "[Player] is a spy." "[Player] is a millenial party goer." "[Player] is a
}> chicken." "[Player] is an American Tourist." "[Player] is a member of the
}> <spoier> family, and is looking for a map." "Player is a text adventurer."
}> "[Player] is <spoiler>."
}
}I think you're both overgeneralizing and asking the wrong question in the
}
}Not everyone agrees on who the protagonist of _Spider And Web_ is.
The Union of Game Players Against Ambiguity does, and no one else is
talking.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Aris Katsaris
LucFrench wrote in message <19981109233037...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
>What I wanted to rant about, anyway, is the lack of complete player
>characterizations in games.
>
>I mean, even a raw GURPS character sheet give more characterization then
most
>works of IF.
'Most'. At least one game in this year's competition has an excellently
defined character, and very good supporting ones. Another revolves around
another excellent character which however isn't the PC.
And if I ever finish the game I've just started writing, it will have a
fully defined character as well.
>What I'd like to know, is this this a bad thing?
In part. Fiction's quality is often judged through the depth of its
characters. Shallow characters almost always means bad fiction. If you want
interactive fiction rather than an adventure game, well defined characters
are a definite plus.
The problem is that characterisations are built through the way one responds
to circumstances. Since the player is in control, often the game either has
to continuously limit the possible courses of action or limit the
characterisation. There are ways around this of course, but since I'm
experimenting on them myself I won't say more.
Mary K. Kuhner
Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>In part. Fiction's quality is often judged through the depth of its
>characters. Shallow characters almost always means bad fiction. If you want
>interactive fiction rather than an adventure game, well defined characters
>are a definite plus.
Alternatively, you might hold that in interactive media (IF,
roleplaying) the process of developing the character is a collaboration
between player and game, and the part that you see when you examine
the game text may not be the most important part. This was certainly
my experience of _Spider and Web_. The protagonist's personality was
developed by his actions, provided in large part by me, as well as
by the text describing his reactions in the game. (For example, at one
point my PC stopped to check if a wounded foe was still breathing,
rather than leaving at once: this is not encoded into the game, but
it's certainly characterization.)
Looking at the games which *do* have strongly characterized PCs
(Christminster, Madame L'Estrange, The Lost Spellmaker, Muse, among
others) I personally find myself torn between thinking "neat, a more
fully described character" and "gosh, this feels kind of cold and
distant compared to the other games."
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Kyle Pierce
>
>... Fiction's quality is often judged through the depth of its
>characters. Shallow characters almost always means bad fiction. If you want
>interactive fiction rather than an adventure game, well defined characters
>are a definite plus.
>
recently with the state of things in interactive fiction. My quick take on
this is that adventure gaming devotes more attention to the action (like,
what can it throw at you, the player), while IF focuses more on plot and/or
character. But even in IF, as it stands today, the action component tends
to be the most highly developed. Is it not what we know how to do best, and
basically what IF has evolved from -- that is, our heritage? (Is this BS or
no? I'm actually trying to be insightful, believe it or not :-)
>The problem is that characterisations are built through the way one
responds
>to circumstances. Since the player is in control, often the game either has
>to continuously limit the possible courses of action or limit the
>characterisation.
It is true that characterisations must communicated to the player through
It seems to me that another problem is also important: It is true
>There are ways around this of course, but since I'm
>experimenting on them myself I won't say more.
How intriguing!
Aris Katsaris
Kyle Pierce wrote in message <51122.1961$b47....@news.cwix.com>...
>recently with the state of things in interactive fiction. My quick take on
>this is that adventure gaming devotes more attention to the action (like,
>what can it throw at you, the player), while IF focuses more on plot and/or
>character. But even in IF, as it stands today, the action component tends
>to be the most highly developed. Is it not what we know how to do best,
and
>basically what IF has evolved from -- that is, our heritage? (Is this BS
or
>no? I'm actually trying to be insightful, believe it or not :-)
Puzzles have been developing for many years. Characterisation and story in
IF, only
the last few.
I was glad to see in this year's competition many good IF stories that focus
on the plot
and the characters, rather than the puzzles.
And one single magnificent game that though almost puzzleless managed to
drive a dagger through my heart.
>>The problem is that characterisations are built through the way one
>responds
>>to circumstances. Since the player is in control, often the game either
has
>>to continuously limit the possible courses of action or limit the
>>characterisation.
>
>It is true that characterisations must communicated to the player through
>It seems to me that another problem is also important: It is true
>
Your message didn't get through. Could you repeat this part, perhaps?
>>There are ways around this of course, but since I'm
>>experimenting on them myself I won't say more.
>
>How intriguing!
Eh... This is embarrassing. I didn't mean it to be intriguing, I meant to
say that I don't
know what works or not, and since I'm still trying to find things out, I
don't want to say
anything that may be simplistic or incorrect.
Kyle Pierce
>I was glad to see in this year's competition many good IF stories that
focus
>on the plot
>and the characters, rather than the puzzles.
>
>And one single magnificent game that though almost puzzleless managed to
>drive a dagger through my heart.
>
I would be interested to know what game that might be.
I didn't mean to embarrass. Perhaps you are doing something that will turn
out to be intriguing after all :-)
Kyle
Kyle Pierce
TenthStone
collective minds on Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:36:01 -0700:
Incidently, I'm certainly glad you reposted this to get in the extra two
blank lines.
I think Detective qualifies as puzzleless IF, and it certainly caused many
a stake to pierce a heart.
-----------
The imperturbable TenthStone
tenth...@hotmail.com mcc...@erols.com mcc...@gsgis.k12.va.us
Roger Carbol
> 2. The Player can be summed up in one sentance. "[Player] is a detective hired
> to search a house." "[Player] is a drug induced halicination." "[Player] is
> both a cinimatic hero, and a viewer of the game as if it were a film."
> "[Player] is a Bad Child." etc.
> What I wanted to rant about, anyway, is the lack of complete player
> characterizations in games.
This is different from "real" literature how?
"[Player] is a melancholy Dane who is paralyzed by indecision."
"[Player] is a sea captain obsessed with a particular whale."
"[Player] is the Son of God, come to save humanity."
.. Roger Carbol .. r...@shaw.wave.ca .. in summary
Doeadeer3
In article <72a0tc$1dq2$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@kingman.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>Looking at the games which *do* have strongly characterized PCs
>(Christminster, Madame L'Estrange, The Lost Spellmaker, Muse, among
>others) I personally find myself torn between thinking "neat, a more
>fully described character" and "gosh, this feels kind of cold and
>distant compared to the other games."
Agreed. I like it and don't like it.
When the character of the PC is more defined, it is automatically less *ME*, so
I end up standing outside of the PC looking at it more than BEING it.
>Alternatively, you might hold that in interactive media (IF,
>roleplaying) the process of developing the character is a collaboration
>between player and game,
Very well put. A good protagonist...
>From: m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson)
>Date: 10 Nov 1998 15:14:14 +0100
>For example, saying that the protagonist of "Curses" is a
>"member of the Meldrew family, looking for a map" is true, but does it
>really convey all the information about the PC that's contained in the
>game? It's a bit like saying that Hamlet is an indecisive prince whose
>father has been murdered.
like the one in Curses, is developed over the course of the game, partly based
on the real-life player's choices and actions. Just like in novels, the
protagonist EVOLVES as the plot does.
I especially like that when the PC is me (or could possibly be me), because I
like evolving. It's the emotional score (v.s. the point score), which is more
rewarding.
Doe :-)
Doe doea...@aol.com (formerly known as FemaleDeer)
****************************************************************************
"In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane." Mark Twain
edr...@concentric.net
Andrew Plotkin wrote in message ...
>LucFrench (lucf...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> And then I thought about other games:
>>
>> "[Player] is a spy." "[Player] is a millenial party goer." "[Player] is a
>> chicken." "[Player] is an American Tourist." "[Player] is a member of the
>> <spoier> family, and is looking for a map." "Player is a text
adventurer."
>> "[Player] is <spoiler>."
>
>I think you're both overgeneralizing and asking the wrong question in the
>first place, but I'll make one comment:
>
>Not everyone agrees on who the protagonist of _Spider And Web_ is.
>
If Plotkin gets to plug his game, I get to plug mine:
I can easily stretch the characterization of Anchorhead's protagonist out to
more than one sentence, and I don't even have to reference her husband to do
it.
--M
================================================
"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"
Stacy the Procrastinating
>
> Alternatively, you might hold that in interactive media (IF,
> roleplaying) the process of developing the character is a collaboration
> between player and game, and the part that you see when you examine
> the game text may not be the most important part. This was certainly
> my experience of _Spider and Web_. The protagonist's personality was
> developed by his actions, provided in large part by me, as well as
> by the text describing his reactions in the game.
I agree on this one - part of the fun of IF is in imagining yourself as
the PC (for me, at least, and I suspect that's true for the majority of
players). In most cases, I woudn't want an extremely
fleshed-out PC. Well-developed NPCs, on the other hand, generally help
things, but are not a trivial thing to design and code. I suspect its the
technical barriers to implementation, rather than the authors' creativity,
that create the current scarcity (though not absence) of elaborate NPCs.
Stacy the Procrastinating
> Not everyone agrees on who the protagonist of _Spider And Web_ is.
Arrrugh! See, it's comments like these that drive me back to my IF
collection and prevent my ever getting any homework accomplished...I
sincerely hope that, if nothing else, Zarf leaves us a deathbed
explanation of all his "deliberate" loose ends ;)
-stacy (who still wants to know why magnets hang on the damned wooden wall
in S&W)
Weird Beard
two
>styles of PC:
>
>1. The player is only just beyond/below the characterization in ADVENT.
>(Enlightenment, or Fifteen, for example.)
>
hired
>to search a house." "[Player] is a drug induced halicination." "[Player] is
>both a cinimatic hero, and a viewer of the game as if it were a film."
>"[Player] is a Bad Child." etc.
You forgot one. Player is a troll.
Aris Katsaris
TenthStone wrote in message <3648b51e...@news.erols.com>...
>"Kyle Pierce" <kyle....@mci.com> caused this to appear in our
>collective minds on Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:36:01 -0700:
>>>
>>>drive a dagger through my heart.
>>
>>I would be interested to know what game that might be.
I'll reply by email, so as not to influence the judges.
>I think Detective qualifies as puzzleless IF, and it certainly caused many
>a stake to pierce a heart.
Agreed. Oh, so agreed.
LucFrench
>You forgot one. Player is a troll.
Oh, come now, WB. If I were trolling, I'd rant about how I like PC who are
cleanly established and developed. Zhfr, for example. And how much I dislike
poorly thought out or minimalist characters (Rivy, for example, or Qvyyl;
although I must admit Svsgrra had an interesting twist on the Nqirg/Pbzvat Ubzr
tradition of minimalist player characterization.)
And I'd spoil everybody in the newsgroup by explaining the plot of compition
games, as well as the games I've discussed with Doe, and the game I'm alpha
testing. (J, I'm still waiting...) I'd also make predictions about how the
results would come out, based upon my viewing of the games.
I suppose it boils down to names. I like to be able to place a name on the
character I'm playing. Not nessisarily a gender; I don't mind if the character
is largely undifined; I do like PCs who are named. (Although, again, I admit
Rqvsvpr had a nice twist on this.) It makes figuring out the character, and hir
relation to the world, much easier.
My main defence against the charge of trolling is that I try to post in the
vein of creating discussion. Not flames; talk to Kibo about trolling for
flames. He can talk at length about the matter (and I think that the Turkey guy
or Archy Plutonium would be a nice net.legends discussion, and that the
net.legends FAQ in general is a great place to dig for ideas, but I digress).
Well, the voices in my head are snoring now, so I suppose I should go to bed.
Thanks
Luc "Rantish" French
[PS. All games are ROT13ed (done manually, so forgive me if I missed a letter
or six) to prevent spoilage. A simple table to help you figure out what the
games are follows:
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
What can I say? "I'm nuts"?]
Magnus Olsson
LucFrench <lucf...@aol.com> wrote:
>Weird Beard wrote:
>>You forgot one. Player is a troll.
>
>Oh, come now, WB. If I were trolling, I'd rant about how I like PC who are
>cleanly established and developed.
I'm not sure, but Weird Beard may be referring to the game where the
player character actually *is* a troll: "Zork - a Troll's Eye's View".
>My main defence against the charge of trolling is that I try to post in the
>vein of creating discussion.
Well, there's trolling and trolling. Trolling for flames is a
despicable practice by psycho sickos who thrive on hurting other
people. Trolling by throwing out a controversial statement to
stimulate discussion is a different thing. (For the record, I don't
like the practice of claiming a controversial view that you don't
really hold, just to provoke people into reacting, but that's just me,
I know several people who like to do that in face-to-face
conversations and they're nice people anyway).
Weird Beard
Magnus Olsson wrote in message <72bi3u$1bs$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>...
>In article <19981111030653...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
>LucFrench <lucf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Weird Beard wrote:
>>>You forgot one. Player is a troll.
>>
>>Oh, come now, WB. If I were trolling, I'd rant about how I like PC who are
>>cleanly established and developed.
>
>I'm not sure, but Weird Beard may be referring to the game where the
>player character actually *is* a troll: "Zork - a Troll's Eye's View".
>
L. Ross Raszewski
doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:
>
> Agreed. I like it and don't like it.
>
> When the character of the PC is more defined, it is automatically less *ME*,
so
> I end up standing outside of the PC looking at it more than BEING it.
>
Which is something I do like. Whenever a game tries to tell me that I "am"
the protagonist, I tend to think "oh no I'm not", because I know that (1)
stuff like this has never happened to me and (2) probably won't, and it's
practically a cert that (3) to finish this game, I'll have to do things that
I personally wouldn't do, not to mention (4) This game is just a game -- text
on a screen. It's not real, and the reality it simultates is still always
going to be less real than the reality of me sitting at my keyboard in my
room (especiallt as my roommate walking in and striking up a conversation
with me will NEVER alter the state of the game world.) Finally, (5) I don't
really go around saying TEACHER, HELLO and moving in only cardinal directions
So, since I know that the character ISN'T me, the best thing is to have a
character there I can empathize with
(Your mimesis may vary)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark J. Tilford
Well, I've seen magnets stick to concrete (there are steel bars in the
concrete, though); maybe there's some metal backing.
--
-----------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@cco.caltech.edu
Doeadeer3
In article <72cap4$pa1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, L. Ross Raszewski
<rras...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Which is something I do like. Whenever a game tries to tell me that I "am"
>the protagonist, I tend to think "oh no I'm not", because I know that (1)
>stuff like this has never happened to me and (2) probably won't, and it's
>practically a cert that (3) to finish this game, I'll have to do things that
>I personally wouldn't do, not to mention (4) This game is just a game -- text
>on a screen.
(1), (2) Which is exactly why I like to imagine myself as the PC, really "put
myself" into the character, to have adventures I would never have otherwise.
(3) Bothers me a little, I don't like to have to commit violence, because I
normally wouldn't, so I like to have other options or have the violence be
minimal. But it is also why I can't play games with male-oriented sex, I feel
sorry for the females in the game (being just sexual objects, I sympathize with
them, not the male PC).
(4) Well, literature is just literature and film is just film, but with a good
book or movie, I can really get "into" their characters as well (books easier
than movies, of course.).
>(Your mimesis may vary)
It certainly does.
Matthew T. Russotto
Stacy the Procrastinating <sc...@barnard.columbia.edu> wrote:
}On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Andrew Plotkin wrote:
}
}> Not everyone agrees on who the protagonist of _Spider And Web_ is.
}
}Arrrugh! See, it's comments like these that drive me back to my IF
}collection and prevent my ever getting any homework accomplished...I
}sincerely hope that, if nothing else, Zarf leaves us a deathbed
}explanation of all his "deliberate" loose ends ;)
}
}-stacy (who still wants to know why magnets hang on the damned wooden wall
}in S&W)
Metal wall, wood paneling.
Stacy the Procrastinating
> }-stacy (who still wants to know why magnets hang on the damned wooden wall
> }in S&W)
>
> Metal wall, wood paneling.
I did grasp that part ;) I meant I want to know what the significance is.
- Stacy
Matthew T. Russotto
Ahh. Well when you're reading Zarf's mind, try and get the meaning of
"So Far" out of him.
Personally I suspect he did the magnets with metal walls, then changed
the walls to wood and forgot about them, so there's no significance.
(unfortunately he's far too subtle to fall for such obvious provocation)
Then there's the other explanation -- as a spy, you weren't there for
the obvious technology. That was just a bonus. You were actually in
INDUSTRIAL espionage, looking for the new wood-adhering magnets.
Andrew Plotkin
> Ahh. Well when you're reading Zarf's mind, try and get the meaning of
> "So Far" out of him.
> Personally I suspect he did the magnets with metal walls, then changed
> the walls to wood and forgot about them, so there's no significance.
Nope -- it was, if I may be forgiven for repeating myself, deliberate.
> (unfortunately he's far too subtle to fall for such obvious provocation)
Yup.
> Then there's the other explanation -- as a spy, you weren't there for
> the obvious technology. That was just a bonus. You were actually in
> INDUSTRIAL espionage, looking for the new wood-adhering magnets.
Wasn't there a wood magnet in some Scooby-Doo episode? Used to steal the
Mona Lisa? Or was that the Superfriends?
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Adam J. Thornton
L. Ross Raszewski <rras...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>(Your mimesis may vary)
Especially if it's variegated.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"There's a border to somewhere waiting, and a tank full of time." - J. Steinman
Ben
doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:
> minimal. But it is also why I can't play games with male-oriented sex, I feel
> sorry for the females in the game (being just sexual objects, I
sympathize with
> them, not the male PC).
The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me - are they? It would seem a
good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
without objectifying women? I disagree. You are generalizing too much
here.
All it needs is a good writer. :)
-Ben
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> My main defence against the charge of trolling is that I try to post in the
> vein of creating discussion. Not flames; talk to Kibo about trolling for
> flames. He can talk at length about the matter (and I think that the Turkey guy
> or Archy Plutonium would be a nice net.legends discussion, and that the
> net.legends FAQ in general is a great place to dig for ideas, but I digress).
Heh. Personally I'd like to incarcerate everybody who reposts
unabashed web-page plugs every two weeks in
alt.binaries.sounds.midi.classical, as well as the idiot who
crossposts to the wine and kool-aid and AA groups about
political scandals.
- jonadab
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> >I'm not sure, but Weird Beard may be referring to the game where the
> >player character actually *is* a troll: "Zork - a Troll's Eye's View".
> >
> Well, of course I was.
And I'm sure you weren't even remotely aware of the obvious way
your statement could be mistaken until you read the reply?
Right.
Have any swampland in Arizona to sell me?
- jonadab
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> Well, there's trolling and trolling. Trolling for flames is a
> despicable practice by psycho sickos who thrive on hurting other
> people.
Against it, are you?
I'm not sure if they thrive so much on hurting other people as on
the attention that hurting other people generates -- not that it's
any less selfish, because the effects are there, but anyway I'm
not sure whether I have a point here so I'll go on now.
> Trolling by throwing out a controversial statement to
> stimulate discussion is a different thing.
The only question is, *how* different?
[The waters grow muddier.]
> (For the record, I don't
> like the practice of claiming a controversial view that you don't
> really hold, just to provoke people into reacting, but that's just me,
I generally only do that with people who know me fairly well --
at least well enough to be unsure whether I'm playing DA or not.
I also generally don't *have* to do it, because so many of my
views are so antithetical to other people's views that...
well, let's just say all I have to do is broach certain subjects,
and an immature audience will flame me to death, or a
more mature one will produce a lot of debate to the
contrary of my view.
Like over in alt.dreams.lucid where I accidentally
mentioned my views on the age of the Earth...
I'm sure there's a way to steer this back to topic.
What about a game where the player character
must troll usenet for flames...
Nevermind. Off-topic was better.
"OW! OW! QUIT KICKING! SEE, THAT'S WHY YOUR
DUMB FOOT HURTS! STOP IT!"
-- Calvin & Hobbes
L. Ross Raszewski
> book or movie, I can really get "into" their characters as well (books easier
> than movies, of course.).
Yes, of course. But in neither books nor movies is it the norm for the
narrative to claim that you _are_ the protagonist -- you're almost invariably
getting "into" a defined protagonist. Personally, I find that the better the
protagonist of a book, film, or game is characterized, the easier it is for
me to get "into" the character.
LucFrench
>> stimulate discussion is a different thing.
>
>The only question is, *how* different?
>
>[The waters grow muddier.]
Well, one could always view this in the simple way, by judging intent.
Simply, crossposting between an AA newsgroup and a rec.beer.brewing <namespace>
would be defined as Trolling for Flames. [A]
Saying that you don't like the way [the newsgroup/Usenet] is going is usually
not Trolling for Flames; it's merely grouching. [B]
Stating that you're planning on taking up maintaining Inform because Graham is
Dead (Hey, it's in the library, if you play it backwords! (Forgive me; obscure
joke)) might be considered Trolling for Discussion. [C] (And possably Trolling
for Prof. Nelson, but that's another (on-topic) discussion.)
A is an intentionally bad action.
B is usually not of bad intent.
C is pretty clean, in as far as intent goes. It's flame bait, but no bad intent
is involved, merely an attempt to get discussion started.
[Be warned: The next paragraph is a long personal story that goes nowhere.
(Just call me 'Rambling Man'. (Scott Adams refrence. Sorry.)) I wanted to
mention ssuk in the interests of full personal disclosure; if you want to know
about my personal contribution to a possible future draft of the net.legends
FAQ, read on.]
If I ever had a want for A, I got it satified by the proposal for
soc.subculture.usenet.kooks; a flamewar between various news.groups regulars
was set off. (There's a varient of Godwin's Law which states that Anarchy vs.
Despotism is The central discussion of netnews; other conversation is possible
for a time, but all material must eventually go back to the main fuel; I think
the ssuk flamewar would be a good proof of that.) I didn't participate. I was
mainly interested in improving the proposal; you see, I wanted a version of
alt.usenet.kooks that didn't have quite so much Crossposts from Hell (or, in
the case of Bill Palmer, crossposts from The Land of Nod). I gave up about the
time it became clear that I couldn't continue the proposal without further
heating up the flamewar; besides the Crossposters from Hell left
alt.usenet.kooks (mostly) behind, so my main motivation for even getting
involved in ssuk was gone.
>"OW! OW! QUIT KICKING! SEE, THAT'S WHY YOUR
> DUMB FOOT HURTS! STOP IT!"
> -- Calvin & Hobbes
That's what usually happens to people who engage in A, BTW.
Thanks
Luc "Help! I'm turning into Palmjob![1]" French
[1] Well, actually, if I were turning into Palmjob, I'd be claiming I was
kicking all your @$$es and calling myself Flame Monster. Like I say, the main
reason I'm not a kook is that I recognize that I have kook-like tendancies.
stuart...@my-dejanews.com
bhi...@san.rr.com (Ben) wrote:
> In article <19981111131814...@ngol07.aol.com>,
> doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:
feel
> > sorry for the females in the game (being just sexual objects, I
> sympathize with
> > them, not the male PC).
>
> The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me - are they? It would seem a
> good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
> as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
> without objectifying women? I disagree. You are generalizing too much
> here.
>
> All it needs is a good writer. :)
Why reply to a sexist?
Bye,
--
Stuart Moore.
Roger Carbol
> The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me - are they? It would seem a
> good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
> as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
> without objectifying women? I disagree. You are generalizing too much
> here.
Indeed. It's quite possible to have (very) male-oriented sex IF
without any female characters whatsoever.
.. Roger Carbol .. r...@shaw.wave.ca .. sex object oriented
Wildman, the Cuberstalker
>Ben wrote:
>
>> The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me - are they? It would seem a
>> good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
>> as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
>> without objectifying women? I disagree. You are generalizing too much
>> here.
>
>Indeed. It's quite possible to have (very) male-oriented sex IF
>without any female characters whatsoever.
Or even without any NPCs.
--
Wildman, the Cuberstalker
You know the Klingon proverb that tells whose revenge is a dish that is best
served cold? It is very cold....in Cuberspace.
Fight spam - http://www.cauce.org/
DO NOT SPAM THIS ADDRESS
Doeadeer3
In article <bhines-1111...@lax-ts4-h1-45-165.ispmodems.net>,
bhi...@san.rr.com (Ben) writes:
>The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me - are they? It would seem a
>good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
>as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
>without objectifying women? I disagree. You are generalizing too much
>here.
Possible. Haven't seen it yet. Frankly, not likely to either. IF has its
limits, for that matter so do writers. If the goal (points or not) is to get
into "her pants" it will be objectifying women. If someone writes sex within
the context of a relationship or within the context of a more involved plot
where sex is pertinent to that plot development, okay, then not. But I think
when most gamers are eagerly looking for "adult" IF they are not really
looking for anything like that.
Take that how you will. BTW, my attitude is not uncommon for women. And despite
the fact you jumped onto my statement, I really don't want to argue about this.
It takes courage to say any thing about it at all, where the group is 95% (or
more) men. You do know, don't you, that men and women DO tend to see sex and
relationships and love differently, don't you?
Doeadeer3
Okay, I haven't even tried to do this yet, hoping to get some pointers before I
waste a lot of time trying the wrong thing(s).
I am writing a trilogy. Is there anyway I can create a save file for game I
(not the normal data file) that can be read in by game II?
At the end of Part I, I would like to be able to save the contents of the
player's last location (small) and their inventory, so when Part II starts I
can read in that file and start the next section with the objects the player
acquired in the first section (i.e. I would code for all the objects the player
could have acquired, but it is likely the player would only have acquired some
of them.)
So game play can resume with it looking like the player is progressing from
where they left off (not where someone else left off, or a mystical someone
left off).
WouId I use @ stream_output (I may have spelled that wrong, or reversed it, but
you know what I mean)? Can it be done at all? (If not, I will work around it.)
Yes, it has to be a trilogy. And it will be awhile before I write Part II.
TIA.
Roger Carbol
> If the goal (points or not) is to get
> into "her pants" it will be objectifying women.
On the other hand, most IF reduces all NPC's to "objects" in this
sense. The goal is to get the sherbet from Mz. Whatshername, or
the potion for the hawker, or a coin from the dwarf, or whatnot.
.. Roger Carbol .. r...@shaw.wave.ca .. what do you want to sex?
Andrew Plotkin
> Okay, I haven't even tried to do this yet, hoping to get some pointers before I
> waste a lot of time trying the wrong thing(s).
> I am writing a trilogy. Is there anyway I can create a save file for game I
> (not the normal data file) that can be read in by game II?
Yes, if the interpreter supports the extended save opcode. (I think the
major ones all do right now.)
You can't stream out data; you build a chunk of memory and write it all at
once. The memory can contain any data you want. I guess you'd want an
inventory list and some arbitrary flags.
Remember that Inform object numbers vary from game to game and even
between different compiles of a single game. Don't try to store those in
your file. Instead, define constants to refer to particular objects.
When you write game II, be sure to put in a way to start the game without
a "save" file. Someone may have lost his, or be playing on a different
machine, or use an interpreter that doesn't supported extended save.
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <19981111131814...@ngol07.aol.com>,
> doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:
> > minimal. But it is also why I can't play games with male-oriented sex, I feel
> > sorry for the females in the game (being just sexual objects, I
> > sympathize with them, not the male PC).
> The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me - are they? It would seem a
> good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
> as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
> without objectifying women?
I'm sorry, I came in late.
What *is* "male-oriented sex IF"?
I would have assumed you meant IF about sex between men, but the context
implies otherwise.
Stephen Granade
> Doeadeer3 (doea...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > Okay, I haven't even tried to do this yet, hoping to get some pointers before I
> > waste a lot of time trying the wrong thing(s).
>
> > I am writing a trilogy. Is there anyway I can create a save file for game I
> > (not the normal data file) that can be read in by game II?
>
> Yes, if the interpreter supports the extended save opcode. (I think the
> major ones all do right now.)
With the notable exception of WinFrotz, I believe.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Visit Mining Co.'s IF Page
Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.miningco.com
Matthew T. Russotto
Doeadeer3 <doea...@aol.com> wrote:
}
}Okay, I haven't even tried to do this yet, hoping to get some pointers before I
}waste a lot of time trying the wrong thing(s).
}
}I am writing a trilogy. Is there anyway I can create a save file for game I
}(not the normal data file) that can be read in by game II?
Look at the "extended save" opcodes. But be aware that certain
interpreters require that the region saved be re-loaded to the same
area of the Z-machine. (This holds for Infocom's own mac interpreters and
ZIP Infinity)
green_g...@my-dejanews.com
> > In article <19981111131814...@ngol07.aol.com>,
> > doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:
> > > minimal. But it is also why I can't play games with male-oriented sex, I
> feel
> > > sorry for the females in the game (being just sexual objects, I
> > sympathize with
> > > them, not the male PC).
> >
> > The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me - are they? It would seem a
> > good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
> > as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
> > here.
> >
>
> Why reply to a sexist?
>
Men and Women don't necessarily enjoy the same kind of erotic media. I read
somewhere that men are more visual and explicit - women more literary and
emotional. Hence the respective popularity of PlayBoy and Romance novals.
YMMV - I have no clue if the statement is correct or not
Kathleen
--
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
Adam J. Thornton
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto (russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com) wrote:
>> Ahh. Well when you're reading Zarf's mind, try and get the meaning of
>> "So Far" out of him.
>> Personally I suspect he did the magnets with metal walls, then changed
>> the walls to wood and forgot about them, so there's no significance.
>Nope -- it was, if I may be forgiven for repeating myself, deliberate.
>> (unfortunately he's far too subtle to fall for such obvious provocation)
>Yup.
>> Then there's the other explanation -- as a spy, you weren't there for
>> the obvious technology. That was just a bonus. You were actually in
>> INDUSTRIAL espionage, looking for the new wood-adhering magnets.
>Wasn't there a wood magnet in some Scooby-Doo episode? Used to steal the
>Mona Lisa? Or was that the Superfriends?
You dolts.
You bunch of morons.
You bunch of absolute, blithering, gibbering idiots.
It's *obviously* an homage to the greatest piece of IF of them all.
Let me be plain:
*THIS* is *not* "wooden wood".
Got it?
Adam J. Thornton
>> good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
>> as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
>> without objectifying women?
>What *is* "male-oriented sex IF"?
>I would have assumed you meant IF about sex between men, but the context
>implies otherwise.
I read it as IF about sex, whose intended audience was men.
For rather puerile definitions of "men," this describes pretty much all
erotic/porno IF out there right now, I think.
Doeadeer3
In article <erkyrathF...@netcom.com>, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew
Plotkin) writes:
>Remember that Inform object numbers vary from game to game and even
>between different compiles of a single game. Don't try to store those in
>your file. Instead, define constants to refer to particular objects.
Good point. Thanks.
>When you write game II, be sure to put in a way to start the game without
>a "save" file. Someone may have lost his, or be playing on a different
>machine, or use an interpreter that doesn't supported extended save.
Yes, thought of that already. Will say in Part I that it has created a special
save file the player might want to save for Part II. But it is likely lots will
not or will lose it or... so then I will just randomize anything they might
have acquired in Part I (the optional stuff).
>Yes, if the interpreter supports the extended save opcode. (I think the
>major ones all do right now.)
>From: Stephen Granade <sgra...@bohr.phy.duke.edu>
>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 14:27:23 -0500
>With the notable exception of WinFrotz, I believe.
Oops, is that true? Hmm, tons use that. That problem could nix the whole idea.
>From: russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto)
>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:56:23 GMT
>Look at the "extended save" opcodes. But be aware that certain
>interpreters require that the region saved be re-loaded to the same
>area of the Z-machine. (This holds for Infocom's own mac interpreters and
>ZIP Infinity)
But I have no idea how to do that.
Someone wrote me suggesting I look at Lucian's Comp98 (I guess the source code
has been released) and see how he did it. Sounds like a good idea.
Thanks all, Doe :-)
Doeadeer3
In article <364AC7...@shaw.wave.ca>, Roger Carbol <r...@shaw.wave.ca>
writes:
>On the other hand, most IF reduces all NPC's to "objects" in this
>sense. The goal is to get the sherbet from Mz. Whatshername, or
>the potion for the hawker, or a coin from the dwarf, or whatnot.
Exactly.
Doeadeer3
>What *is* "male-oriented sex IF"?
All the "adult" IF out there now is male-oriented in sexual content. In other
words, written to appeal to men (and won't in 99%+ of most cases appeal to
women).
Doe :-) Clearer? (Not aware of any homosexual IF with explicit sex.)
John Francis
Doeadeer3 <doea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In article <erkyrathF...@netcom.com>, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew
>Plotkin) writes:
>
>>What *is* "male-oriented sex IF"?
>
>All the "adult" IF out there now is male-oriented in sexual content. In other
>words, written to appeal to men (and won't in 99%+ of most cases appeal to
>women).
Or, to be more accurate, written to appeal to adolescent males. The
average customer for "adult" entertainment is, in fact, anything but.
But labelling it "juvenile" wouldn't do much for sales, would it?
--
John "Im typing this completely naked[1]. What are you wearing?" Francis
[1] And I'm getting some _very_ funny looks from my cowoekers.
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <erkyrathF...@netcom.com>, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew
> Plotkin) writes:
> >What *is* "male-oriented sex IF"?
> All the "adult" IF out there now is male-oriented in sexual content. In other
> words, written to appeal to men (and won't in 99%+ of most cases appeal to
> women).
Ah.
All the "adult" IF out there that *I've* seen has been written to appeal
to 14-year-olds, if you ask me. :)
TenthStone
minds on Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:19:12 +0000:
>LucFrench wrote:
>
>> 2. The Player can be summed up in one sentance. "[Player] is a detective hired
>> to search a house." "[Player] is a drug induced halicination." "[Player] is
>> both a cinimatic hero, and a viewer of the game as if it were a film."
>> "[Player] is a Bad Child." etc.
>
>> What I wanted to rant about, anyway, is the lack of complete player
>> characterizations in games.
>
>This is different from "real" literature how?
>
>"[Player] is a melancholy Dane who is paralyzed by indecision."
And that's really a drastic simplification of Hamlet, and erroneous
in some beliefs (including my own). (c.f. Kittredge)
>"[Player] is a sea captain obsessed with a particular whale."
Which is definitely far less than Ahab.
>"[Player] is the Son of God, come to save humanity."
Rather shorn down a bit, yes.
Some IF PCs are well developed, such as White (Jigsaw). Others
are more sparse, even in classic works, such as the PC (who isn't
necessarily the protagonist -- in fact, he really isn't for me) in Spider
and Web; from the PC's perspective, the game is simply an interesting,
well-produced action flick.
Round categorization is not justified on either side.
-----------
The imperturbable TenthStone
tenth...@hotmail.com mcc...@erols.com mcc...@gsgis.k12.va.us
Doeadeer3
>All the "adult" IF out there that *I've* seen has been written to appeal
>to 14-year-olds, if you ask me. :)
Well, that's what I really meant, but in case some male here (or lots of males
here) actually LIKED it I was trying to be polite or at the least, as
inoffensive as I could.
Doe :-)
Hehehe.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> spake:
>Matthew T. Russotto (russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com) wrote:
>> Then there's the other explanation -- as a spy, you weren't there for
>> the obvious technology. That was just a bonus. You were actually in
>> INDUSTRIAL espionage, looking for the new wood-adhering magnets.
>
>Wasn't there a wood magnet in some Scooby-Doo episode? Used to steal the
>Mona Lisa? Or was that the Superfriends?
No, you're thinking of the fish magnet from the Tick vs. the Dolphin.
"Money doesn't put fish on the table, *FISH* puts fish on the table!"
-- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
pmi...@my-dejanews.com
doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:
>
> Okay, I haven't even tried to do this yet, hoping to get some pointers before
I
> waste a lot of time trying the wrong thing(s).
>
> I am writing a trilogy. Is there anyway I can create a save file for game I
> (not the normal data file) that can be read in by game II?
>
> player's last location (small) and their inventory, so when Part II starts I
> can read in that file and start the next section with the objects the player
> acquired in the first section (i.e. I would code for all the objects the
player
> could have acquired, but it is likely the player would only have acquired some
> of them.)
>
> So game play can resume with it looking like the player is progressing from
> where they left off (not where someone else left off, or a mystical someone
> left off).
>
> WouId I use @ stream_output (I may have spelled that wrong, or reversed it,
but
> you know what I mean)? Can it be done at all? (If not, I will work around it.)
>
> Yes, it has to be a trilogy. And it will be awhile before I write Part II.
>
> TIA.
>
> Doe :-)
Objects to be shared between all three parts of a trilogy can be implemented
using the extended @save and @restore opcodes.
After including "Parser" but before including "VerbLib", define a constant
"EPISODE" as 1, 2 or 3. If EPISODE is less than 3, define a string array
"TrilogySaveFile", and if EPISODE is greater than 1, define a string array
"TrilogyLoadFile". These arrays should hold the names of the files to be used
for saving the data. After defining these, include the following code,
modifying the objects common to all parts of the trilogy as needed. Extra
attributes can be handled by defining more COMMON_${ATTRIBUTE} constants and
adding lines to LoadCommon and SaveCommon. Extra locations for common objects
can be handled by extending the COMMON_LOCATION bitmask:
Constant NCommonObjects 3;
Array CommonBuffer --> NCommonObjects;
Object RedCube "red cube"
with name 'red' 'cube',
next_common GreenCylinder
;
Object GreenCylinder "green cylinder"
with name 'green' 'cylinder',
next_common BlueSack
;
Object BlueSack "blue sack"
with name 'sack' 'sack',
next_common 0,
has open container
;
Constant SACK_OBJECT BlueSack;
Constant first_common RedCube;
Constant COMMON_LIGHT $0001;
Constant COMMON_ON $0002;
Constant COMMON_OPEN $0004;
Constant COMMON_LOCKED $0008;
Constant COMMON_MOVED $0010;
Constant COMMON_WORN $0020;
Constant COMMON_LOCATION $C000;
Constant COMMON_NOWHERE $0000;
Constant COMMON_PRESENT $4000;
Constant COMMON_CARRIED $8000;
Constant COMMON_INSACK $C000;
#IFTRUE EPISODE>1;
[ LoadCommonAttr obj i flag attr;
if ((CommonBuffer-->i)&flag)
{
give obj attr;
}
else
{
give obj ~attr;
}
];
[ LoadCommon obj i result;
print "^Do you want to restore saved data from the previous episode? ";
if (YesOrNo())
{
.LoadData;
@restore CommonBuffer NCommonObjects*2 TrilogyLoadFile result;
if (result==0)
{
print "Restore failed. Do you want to attempt to restore again? ";
if (YesOrNo())
{
jump LoadData;
}
else
{
return;
}
}
for (obj=first_common,i=0:obj:obj=obj.next_common,i++)
{
LoadCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_LIGHT,light);
LoadCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_ON,on);
LoadCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_OPEN,open);
LoadCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_LOCKED,locked);
LoadCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_MOVED,moved);
LoadCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_WORN,worn);
switch ((CommonBuffer-->i)&COMMON_LOCATION)
{
COMMON_NOWHERE:
remove obj;
COMMON_PRESENT:
move obj to location;
COMMON_CARRIED:
move obj to player;
COMMON_INSACK:
move obj to SACK_OBJECT;
}
}
}
];
#ENDIF;
#IFTRUE EPISODE<3;
Global trilogy_saved = 0;
[ SaveCommonAttr obj i flag attr;
if (obj has attr)
{
CommonBuffer-->i=(CommonBuffer-->i)|flag;
}
else
{
CommonBuffer-->i=(CommonBuffer-->i)&~flag;
}
];
[ SaveCommon obj i result;
print "Do you want to save data for the next episode? ";
if (YesOrNo())
{
for (obj=first_common,i=0:obj:obj=obj.next_common,i++)
{
SaveCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_LIGHT,light);
SaveCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_ON,on);
SaveCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_OPEN,open);
SaveCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_LOCKED,locked);
SaveCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_MOVED,moved);
SaveCommonAttr(obj,i,COMMON_WORN,worn);
CommonBuffer-->i=(CommonBuffer-->i)&~COMMON_LOCATION;
if (parent(obj)==location)
{
CommonBuffer-->i=(CommonBuffer-->i)|COMMON_PRESENT;
}
else if (parent(obj)==player)
{
CommonBuffer-->i=(CommonBuffer-->i)|COMMON_CARRIED;
}
else if (parent(obj)==SACK_OBJECT)
{
CommonBuffer-->i=(CommonBuffer-->i)|COMMON_INSACK;
}
else
{
CommonBuffer-->i=(CommonBuffer-->i)|COMMON_NOWHERE;
}
}
.SaveData;
@save CommonBuffer NCommonObjects*2 TrilogySaveFile result;
if (result==0)
{
print "Save failed. Do you want to attempt to save again? ";
if (YesOrNo())
{
jump SaveData;
}
}
else
{
trilogy_saved=1;
}
}
];
#ENDIF;
Object LibraryMessages
with before
[;
#IFTRUE EPISODE<3;
Miscellany:
if (lm_n==4)
{
print " You have reached the next part of the trilogy ";
rtrue;
}
rfalse;
Score:
if ((deadflag==2)&&(~~trilogy_saved))
{
SaveCommon();
}
rfalse;
#ENDIF;
]
;
The Initialise routine of the first episode should contain code to move the
common objects to their correct starting locations, and the Initialise
routines of the other episodes should include a call to LoadCommon.
-- If any source code in this post has been mangled beyond all readability,
you can find a correctly formatted version at
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/9563
Lucian Paul Smith
: In article <erkyrathF...@netcom.com>, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew
: Plotkin) writes:
: >Yes, if the interpreter supports the extended save opcode. (I think the
: >major ones all do right now.)
: >From: Stephen Granade <sgra...@bohr.phy.duke.edu>
: >With the notable exception of WinFrotz, I believe.
: Oops, is that true? Hmm, tons use that. That problem could nix the whole idea.
I can vouchsafe that WinFrotz does indeed implement the @save opcode
correctly. I assume @restore works, but I haven't actually tried it.
: Someone wrote me suggesting I look at Lucian's Comp98 (I guess the source code
: has been released) and see how he did it. Sounds like a good idea.
I've never officially released the source code, but it's been sitting on
my home page for a while. Someone else suggested I release it; I think
I'll clean it up, annotate it, and upload it to GMD. In the meantime, if
you want to look at what I have now, you can look at it at:
http://www.bioc.rice.edu/~lpsmith/Comp98.inf
[The @save stuff is in the 'SaveInfo' routine.]
-Lucian
carl.c...@lsil.com
> What I wanted to rant about, anyway, is the lack of complete player
> characterizations in games.
>
> I mean, even a raw GURPS character sheet give more characterization then most
> works of IF.
>
> What I'd like to know, is this this a bad thing?
I think the whole idea was to encourage projection... the character is
the *player* and therefore we can't tell the player much about
him/herself.
Funny thing is, I never identify with the character. I recently
started Jigsaw and I can't get over the feeling that Black is male and
the character is female.
When I played Theater (a really good game, BTW) I *distinctly* felt
that the character was female. In fact, it took me a long time to
realize that nothing in the game specifically pointed out sex, but I
had just assumed it.
But even in games where the character feels very male (Unkulian
Unventures), I never really imagined that *I* was the character. It
doesn't bother me in the slightest to feel this way... in
Christminster, the character is explicitly female and I *like* the
story this way... this is a case where the character *does* have some
depth and ties with the world. (I'm only partway through this one and
enjoying it quite a bit.)
On one hand, I don't want to read screenfuls about the character's
background, but I would like to see the character developed as
*somebody* other than a blank that I'm supposed to overlay my own
personality on. I'm not sure that I'd like to see games go
third-person...
> get key
Christabel picks up the key.
...but I don't have any problem playing a character who's, say,
attracted to another character *I* wouldn't be attracted to.
I have a problem with Jigsaw here... it's gender-inspecific nature
makes it very difficult to find Black attractive, even in an abstract
sense of knowing that the character finds Black attractive. I don't
know the character, so I don't know what the character would find
attractive, and I can't *find out* what the character considers
attractive by examining Black because Black is nondescript. I would
much rather Jigsaw had decided upon genders and presented the story in
a concrete instead of abstract way.
Hum. Did that do anything toward answering your question?
--
Carl D Cravens
carl.c...@lsil.com
NewKid
doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:
>
> Possible. Haven't seen it yet. Frankly, not likely to either. IF has its
> limits, for that matter so do writers.
An interesting point, but it seems to me that there ARE erotic works of
fiction that appeal to both men and women. I guess those of us who want to
write non-putrid IF that has adult elements need to break down what makes
those novels tick. Is it just that it has BOTH elements side by side, or
is there some other element that makes the blend work or one element work
for the other.
> If the goal (points or not) is to get
> into "her pants" it will be objectifying women. If someone writes sex within
> the context of a relationship or within the context of a more involved plot
> where sex is pertinent to that plot development, okay, then not. But I think
> when most gamers are eagerly looking for "adult" IF they are not really
> looking for anything like that.
I for one would truly welcome a well-written adult IF from a female
perspective, or more accurately, that actually appeals to women. I'd love
to see how it works, so I could try to be inspired by the salient elements
(this means steal all the best ideas....)
I realize that what I have written so far in this little genre is quite
unlikely to appeal to women, but that does not make it necessarily
terrible stuff.
Also, here is a question. You stated that if the whole aim of the game is
set up to "get in her pants" then it is ipso facto objectification. And if
the sex is part of a larger puzzle it might not. So you are saying pursuit
of a woman for its own sake is bad, but using her as a tool to advance a
goal is good......?
I mean, James Bond is your idea of a good man? I doubt this *is* what you
mean, but you see my point? If women want something different, they either
need to write it themselves, or make a clearer case in man-thought.....
--
NewKid
OnTheBlock
------- Begin Geek Code Block ----------
GO/BA d++ s: a C++ U--- P+ L W+++ N+ o-- K- w-- M++ PS+ PE+
Y+ PGP t+ 5 X- R+ tv+ b+++ DI+ D---- G e++ h--- r+++ y+++
------- End Geek Code Block ------------
carl.c...@lsil.com
> (1), (2) Which is exactly why I like to imagine myself as the PC, really "put
> myself" into the character, to have adventures I would never have otherwise.
I think this is the reason that I *don't* identify with "PC as me" in
IF. If I really put myself into the character, I find it too
limiting... IF just isn't an immersive experience for me because at
every turn I find things that I reasonably ought to be able to do and
can't. Or as mentioned, I find I am *required* to do things that I
personally wouldn't do.
> (3) Bothers me a little, I don't like to have to commit violence, because I
> normally wouldn't, so I like to have other options or have the violence be
> minimal. But it is also why I can't play games with male-oriented sex, I feel
> sorry for the females in the game (being just sexual objects, I sympathize with
> them, not the male PC).
I have a similar problem, except that it stems from not being "that
kind of guy".
> (4) Well, literature is just literature and film is just film, but with a good
> book or movie, I can really get "into" their characters as well (books easier
> than movies, of course.).
I think this supports the other side of the discussion better than it
does your own... the characters of books and movies are fleshed out
with their own lives and certainly aren't "you". Yet you can "get
into" them. I find it the same with IF... I'd rather empathize with a
fleshed-out character different than myself than try to imagine myself
as the character.
Doeadeer3
>The Initialise routine of the first episode should contain code to move the
>common objects to their correct starting locations, and the Initialise
>routines of the other episodes should include a call to LoadCommon.
>
>-- If any source code in this post has been mangled beyond all readability,
>you can find a correctly formatted version at
>http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/9563
Wow! The whole thing is right there! Wow!
Thanks, truly.
Doe :-) Wow!
Doeadeer3
In article <newkid-1311...@pric7.qn.net>, new...@killingtime.com
(NewKid) writes:
>Also, here is a question. You stated that if the whole aim of the game is
>set up to "get in her pants" then it is ipso facto objectification. And if
>the sex is part of a larger puzzle it might not. So you are saying pursuit
>of a woman for its own sake is bad, but using her as a tool to advance a
>goal is good......?
>I mean, James Bond is your idea of a good man? I doubt this *is* what you
>mean, but you see my point? If women want something different, they either
>need to write it themselves, or make a clearer case in man-thought.....
(No James Bond used to be a rampant sexist, in new versions, he's not,
basically.)
I've thought about writing my own just to show people what I mean. But I really
have no desire to write an erotic game. (Besides I am already working on three
games now and that's enough for anyone.)
This is very hard to explain, but I will try. If the female NPC is viewed as
body parts, i.e., game play emphasizes now her breast are uncovered, now her
this is uncovered, that is very objectified. She is being reduced to body parts
(and I will sympathize with her objectification). If the game is written as
male eager to pursue female then that is heavily male-oriented, anyway,
definitely not female-oriented.
If the sex is like Erica Jung's "zipless fuck" where emotional considerations
do not matter and it is easy and happens readily (Jung deliberately wrote like
a man, btw, I may have mispelled her last name), then it simply isn't life-like
at all and it again usually means the woman (and/or man) has been objectified.
Actually the most interesting part of real-life sex ARE the emotions (like
building anticipation, etc., the mechanics of sex are just that mechanics and
not that interesting in and of themselves, except to a young kid who has not
experienced much sex), so I don't really think IF sex can ever be any good.
Unless one is a very good writer and can communicate the emotions well.
Doubtful.
Why doubtful? Because usually writers try NOT to assign emotions to the PC,
they try not to because it mostly doesn't work. The real-life player may (and
often) does feel the way the author has the PC feel. Muse does a creditable job
in creating a love story and assigning feelings to the PC, but sex would be
much harder.
That's all I want to say on it.
Doe :-)
Stephen Granade
> Doeadeer3 (doea...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : >From: Stephen Granade <sgra...@bohr.phy.duke.edu>
>
> : >With the notable exception of WinFrotz, I believe.
>
> : Oops, is that true? Hmm, tons use that. That problem could nix the whole idea.
>
> I can vouchsafe that WinFrotz does indeed implement the @save opcode
> correctly. I assume @restore works, but I haven't actually tried it.
As I recall, it is the @restore opcode which is broken.
Rotonoto
2. Play JIGSAW.
Adam J. Thornton
Don't be throwing down challenges like that.
I feel _Stiffy Makane: The Undiscovered Country_ coming on.
TenthStone
>
>In article <erkyrathF...@netcom.com>, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew
>Plotkin) writes:
>
>>All the "adult" IF out there that *I've* seen has been written to appeal
>>to 14-year-olds, if you ask me. :)
>
>Well, that's what I really meant, but in case some male here (or lots of males
>here) actually LIKED it I was trying to be polite or at the least, as
>inoffensive as I could.
A woman, alone in her state of silence, types on her computer keyboard.
Tap. Tap. Tap.
A word echoes softly in her mind. Heat. The fan blows, quietly but
uselessly, a thin stream of air tempting her, edging her towards
discomfort as she sits typing.
Tap. Tap. Tap.
Tappatap. A dischordant stream of keys breaks her thoughts from the
message before her. Her mind wanders to fields astray from her hobbies,
her interest held by the gentle swaying of a distracted mind.
Tap. Tap. Clash.
The disarrayed chord of the spacebar tears her thoughts from the words
below her, and a collision of ideas burns through her.
Tap tappa tap.
Harried, rushed, the woman shifts discomforted in the heat. The words
cross her mind as they pass juttingly below her fingers, ripped from her
transient frame as if a star in nova as she glances to read them.
Tap. Tap.
A calm sweeps over the woman; her fever fades. She faces her "mots
danc,ants" with a faint sense: a sense of cool.
"false breeze"
...
There: a minute study in passion. Solitude, imagery, subtle hints at a
greater truth hidden beneath the surface.
Who said Adult Fiction necessarily needed to be pornographic?
LucFrench
>greater truth hidden beneath the surface.
>
>Who said Adult Fiction necessarily needed to be pornographic?
Well, the people who classify stuff do. (Fnord.)
HTH. HAND.
Thanks
Luc "Illuminated" French
Doeadeer3
In article <364cea53...@news.erols.com>, mcc...@erols.com (TenthStone)
writes:
>Who said Adult Fiction necessarily needed to be pornographic?
It does seem to be an oxymoron.
Magnus Olsson
Doeadeer3 <doea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In article <bhines-1111...@lax-ts4-h1-45-165.ispmodems.net>,
>bhi...@san.rr.com (Ben) writes:
>
>>The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me - are they? It would seem a
>>good writer could write male-oriented sex IF which doesn't portray females
>>as "objects". You are saying it is impossible to write male-oriented sex
>>here.
>
>limits, for that matter so do writers.
I'd like to take this argument one step further: it's very hard to write
IF that doesn't objectify NPC's, period.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
TenthStone
>
>In article <364cea53...@news.erols.com>, mcc...@erols.com (TenthStone)
>writes:
>
>>Who said Adult Fiction necessarily needed to be pornographic?
>
>It does seem to be an oxymoron.
When I began to write that last post, I intended to make it somewhat more
"adult", as it were. As it grew on, I had greater trouble imagining a
pure literary way of conveying what I meant to say, especially as it
concerned you, Doe.
But the central point was not that it was possible to write non-explicit
Erotic Fiction, but that it all depended on perspective.
You see, when I read a passage following the gist of (censor warning)
"Your hands fondle Mistress Mayna's gorgeous tits", I find myself thinking
how immature one would need to be to truly enjoy that sort of writing.
Thus in my opinion, a mature person would be repulsed by it.
Now think of the converse; specifically, consider that passage of mine.
I would consider that a scene of a much maturer sort, yet I know many
people -- people whose emotional maturity I cannot question -- who believe
that this type of writing is overdrawn, meritless craap. I almost count
myself among them.
At the same time, many of those who readily accept pornography into
their lives are far more "liberated" and mature on the topic of sex than
those who berate it so heavily; this, as a matter of course, is not a
general statement as perhaps these are merely a minority to the
adolescent.
My point, obfuscated though it may be, is that Erotic Fiction is, in fact,
just another genre among many. There are those who have but distaste
for fantasy and science fiction; there are those who scorn romance
novellas; there are those who detest action/heroic stories.
The thing to remember about "To each his own", of course, is that it is
neither "To each his one" or "To each, all."
JamesG
On styles of PC:
> What I wanted to rant about, anyway, is the lack of complete player
> characterizations in games.
> I mean, even a raw GURPS character sheet give more characterization then most
> works of IF.
True.
> [Further digression: I'd sorta like to see a game based upon the premise of the
> player (or the major NPC) being a "Weirdness Magnet".]
[Oooh *yeah!* For those of you without GURPS A "Weirdness Magnet" is the
person that demons stop and chat with, that the only talking do in 20th
century Earth come sto with problems, that gets invited to tea by
strange entities from other dimensions... It's generally a good idea to
steer clear of Weirdness Magnets.]
> What I'd like to know, is this this a bad thing?
In my humblest of opinions <g> it can be a bad thing.
<ramble mode>
In adventures that offer "You're you" I tend to get stuck very quickly
because I'm not a kleptomaniac psycopath who'll steal whatever's not
nailed down, kill anything that stands in his way, and press buttons at
random without any idea of the consequences. Any game that assumes that
I will have taken an object "just in case" and won't let me instead go
"Ah, a heavy slab - the crowbar I passed three rooms back will fix it!"
annoys me. I don't go around pressing buttons or cutting ropes or
breaking mirrors just to see what will happen, I don't do it IRL, so "I"
won't do it in a game. Present me with the character in detail though,
and I'll do what the character would do - if the character is the sort
who lies, steals and kills, I'll lie steal and kill in character.
Sometimes not knowing enough about the character is a disadvantage here,
for example in "Christminster" I was originally working under the
assumption that Cristabel *wouldn't* resort to acts of vandelism...
Looking through my list of game ideas I a mix - in one extreme I have a
game where the PC could be pretty much anyone from an adventurous
piratical type to a much more careful and cautious character, but it's
not exactly a traditional IF game (and will probably prove tricky to
code).
In another game the PC is very detailed becuase large elements are based
on PC/NPC and NPC/NPC interaction and so knowledge of who the PC is is
needed to judge how the NPCs react to her (this will probably be even
trickier to code, not due to any break from the IF style but because of
the detail of interactions needed. Don't expect to see it anytime soon).
The remaining ideas I have scrawled down tend to lie somewhere in the
middle, near the "One Sentence PC": <Player> is an escaped prisoner,
<player> is a secret agent, <player> is a homicide detective, <player>,
is an eighteenth century nobleman retelling his legendary exploits to a
group of companions, <player> is a dungeon, etc. Some of them may gain
more detail if and when they reach the development stage - in many the
setting is the most detailed element of the initial idea, in others it's
the idea of how far I could twist the expected image of a text adventure
into something totally different (I'm kind of nuts like that but I don't
figure I can do anything nuttier than Freefall...)
</ramble mode>
JamesG,
must find the time to do some coding...
************************************************************************
* Official RASSM Organiser. Will design starships for food. *
* Another original SF short story uploaded *
* (-o-) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2843 <*> *
* "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not *
* be called research, would it?" Albert Einstein *
************************************************************************
JamesG
> On 10 Nov 1998, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> > Alternatively, you might hold that in interactive media (IF,
> > roleplaying) the process of developing the character is a collaboration
> > between player and game, and the part that you see when you examine
> > the game text may not be the most important part. This was certainly
> > my experience of _Spider and Web_. The protagonist's personality was
> > developed by his actions, provided in large part by me, as well as
> > by the text describing his reactions in the game.
> I agree on this one - part of the fun of IF is in imagining yourself as
> the PC (for me, at least, and I suspect that's true for the majority of
> players). In most cases, I woudn't want an extremely
> fleshed-out PC. Well-developed NPCs, on the other hand, generally help
> things, but are not a trivial thing to design and code. I suspect its the
> technical barriers to implementation, rather than the authors' creativity,
> that create the current scarcity (though not absence) of elaborate NPCs.
I agree on the point that immersion as the player character is what I
enjoy about IF, however I feel quite the opposite about fleshing out the
PC - I don't want to get into the character of "JamesG the Adventurous
Cave Delving Explorer" - if I did, I'd join a caving club, JamesG isn't
an adventurous cave delving explorer and I doubt there are any games
that could fool me that he was. I'd much rather play a game where I
could get into the character of "Ferris Tarnel, extravagent gambler" or
"Kalene Reece, SpecForces 'Scrounger'" (both characters I've played in
tabletop RPGs) - I'm not playing to be me, I'm playing to be someone
else, and so I'd like to be told who that someone else is...
When fleshing out NPCs a lot is how they react to the PC - and if the PC
is ambiguous, the NPCs reaction tends to be ambiguous as well. Talkative
NPCs also eat up a lot of code - making NCPs that react realistically to
players actions and conversation is a big job.
JamesG,
thinking a lot about npc reactions
Doeadeer3
In article <364de03...@news.erols.com>, mcc...@erols.com (TenthStone)
writes:
>At the same time, many of those who readily accept pornography into
>their lives are far more "liberated" and mature on the topic of sex than
>those who berate it so heavily; this, as a matter of course, is not a
>general statement as perhaps these are merely a minority to the
>adolescent.
>
>My point, obfuscated though it may be, is that Erotic Fiction is, in fact,
>just another genre among many. There are those who have but distaste
>for fantasy and science fiction; there are those who scorn romance
>novellas; there are those who detest action/heroic stories.
>
>The thing to remember about "To each his own", of course, is that it is
>neither "To each his one" or "To each, all."
First, I have not gone on a rant against pornography. Second, someone ELSE
lifted a comment I made out of context (started this thread with it) and jumped
on it. Third, yes I am a feminist, a proud feminist and I don't like the
objectification of women, period. In any format, medium or whatever. Zip. Nada.
No way.
Other than that I have my own views on pornography, kind of convoluted and
personal to myself. Also "pornography" as a term is highly subjective, what is
pornography to some isn't to others (witness the seemingly never-ending
National Endowment for the Arts flap in the U.S.) I firmly support freedom of
speech.
I only mentioned what I said (what got lifted out of context) because it
related to an earlier thread. Harry's thread about how to rate (give blurbs to)
games at ftp.gmd.de. If we did that, it that were to be done, I would prefer to
have a listing include some mention of those games which have sexual content
and/or an indication of when the sexual content is male-oriented (written to
appeal to males, actually I would prefer the second more). Then I (and other
women) can just skip playing those games (because I simply wouldn't want to,
for all the reasons I have given before).
Okay?
Doe :-) Since I didn't start this thread, I am not bothering with it anymore.
Joe Mason
><player>
>is an eighteenth century nobleman retelling his legendary exploits to a
>group of companions,
I'd just like to mention that this idea really fires my imagination. I'd
like to see this implemented as a framework for a swashbuckling I-F.
(I want more swashbuckling I-F!)
Joe
--
I think OO is great... It's no coincidence that "woohoo" contains "oo" twice.
-- GLYPH
Jason Melancon
>Doeadeer3 thus inscribed this day of 13 Nov 1998 08:21:49 GMT:
>
>>In article <erkyrathF...@netcom.com>, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew
>>Plotkin) writes:
>>
>>>All the "adult" IF out there that *I've* seen has been written to appeal
>>>to 14-year-olds, if you ask me. :)
>>
>>Well, that's what I really meant, but in case some male here (or lots of males
>>here) actually LIKED it I was trying to be polite or at the least, as
>>inoffensive as I could.
>
>[snip interesting passage]
>
>Who said Adult Fiction necessarily needed to be pornographic?
By the way, did anyone else think that Andrew's "The Space Under the
Window" was nicely erotic, in a sort of kind of way?
Jason Melancon
Jason Melancon
Jason Melancon
Joe Mason
>
>By the way, did anyone else think that Andrew's "The Space Under the
>Window" was nicely erotic, in a sort of kind of way?
Yes.
Adam J. Thornton
Jason Melancon <afn5...@afn.org> wrote:
>By the way, did anyone else think that Andrew's "The Space Under the
>Window" was nicely erotic, in a sort of kind of way?
No.
But then, I'd just been through a really, really bad breakup.
And so playing the game made me wobbly and nauseated.
Maybe I should go back to it.
Jason Melancon
wrote:
>Jason Melancon <afn5...@afn.org> wrote (not insribed, ok? wrote):
>>
>>By the way, did anyone else think that Andrew's "The Space Under the
>>Window" was nicely erotic, in a sort of kind of way?
>
>Yes.
Cool. It seems to have some of the same theme as So Far, but it got
closer to the romantic issues. I don't suppose people found So Far
erotic in the same way? I didn't.
Has eroticism at all been a conscious goal in writing any IF, Andrew?
If not, would you agree with Joe and me about SUTWin?
Jason Melancon
(I hope this post goes better than the last. Dupes thereof are Xed.)
Adam J. Thornton
Joe Mason <jcm...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>I'd just like to mention that this idea really fires my imagination. I'd
>like to see this implemented as a framework for a swashbuckling I-F.
>(I want more swashbuckling I-F!)
> BUCKLE SWASH
Your swash is now buckled.
> UNBUCKLE SWASH
That word, the verb, doth elude me.
Stephen Griffiths
>
> JamesG <ja...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote (not insribed, ok? wrote):
> ><player>
> >is an eighteenth century nobleman retelling his legendary exploits to a
> >group of companions,
>
I thought JamesG's other idea " <player> is a dungeon " also sets my
imagination ablaze.
(I hope there wasn't supposed to be an "in" after the "is" in that
idea.)
Andrew Plotkin
> >>By the way, did anyone else think that Andrew's "The Space Under the
> >>Window" was nicely erotic, in a sort of kind of way?
> >
> >Yes.
> Cool. It seems to have some of the same theme as So Far, but it got
> closer to the romantic issues. I don't suppose people found So Far
> erotic in the same way? I didn't.
> Has eroticism at all been a conscious goal in writing any IF, Andrew?
> If not, would you agree with Joe and me about SUTWin?
I shall break my customary silence, because I find this so fascinating.
No, I didn't (consciously) put any erotic threads in either So Far or
SUTWIN. If such an effect came out, it's all from my view of romantic
issues, which I guess tell us something about me.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Geoff Bailey
In article <364DC0C9...@ukc.ac.uk>, JamesG <ja...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> The remaining ideas I have scrawled down tend to lie somewhere in the
That's a new one to me - is this actually what you meant to say? And if
not, will someone please write this anyway? :)
Cheers,
Geoff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Bailey (Fred the Wonder Worm) | Programmer by trade --
ft...@cs.usyd.edu.au | Gameplayer by vocation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nob...@student.anu.edu.au
bite. Yes it may be Sunday somewhere, but fish probably don't read this
newsgroup. And besides if there were fish, they'd be biting too.
[Minor Spoiler Warning]
In article lucf...@aol.com (LucFrench) wrote:
> I was looking over the compition games, and I noticed that many of them had\
> two styles of PC:
>
> 1. The player is only just beyond/below the characterization in ADVENT.
> (Enlightenment, or Fifteen, for example.)
I must admit, that my first reaction when I read this was "hackles up",
since to give my character much more characterization than Zork/Advent
would have been counter to the spirit of the game (Enlightenment, not
Fifteen). On the other hand, the character can be summed up in one
sentence if I chose to do so: "[Player] is an experienced amoral text
adventurer who got careless". Given that you are trolling for discussion
and not for flames, I choose not to look under this particular bridge
before crossing it =) Enlightenment was always about a situation, and I
don't think of it as a work of art, but as a lovingly crafted Chinese Box
(Hey .. you may not like it - and that's fine - but _I_ do ... or at least
I used to before being forced to reread it ad nauseum ... =)
> 2. The Player can be summed up in one sentance. "[Player] is a detective hired
Yyyyyessss ...
> And then I thought about other games:
> "[Player] is a spy." "[Player] is a millenial party goer." "[Player] is a
> chicken." "[Player] is an American Tourist." "[Player] is a member of the
> <spoier> family, and is looking for a map." "Player is a text adventurer."
> "[Player] is <spoiler>."
But one can reduce anything to one line ... lessee
"[Player] is three different high schoolers."
"[Player] is a swashbuckling archaeologist."
"[Player] is a computer simulation of a person."
> What I wanted to rant about, anyway, is the lack of complete player
> characterizations in games.
> I mean, even a raw GURPS character sheet give more characterization then most
> works of IF.
This is for four main reasons:
#1 The nature of IF means that it's very hard to respond to things the way
that a human moderated game can. If you created GURPS on a computer with
pure computer moderation, then you'd see the non-mechanistic skills vanish
very quickly.
#2 Because of the nature of human RPGs, a player can very easily put their
own personal spin on their character within the bounds of the character
sheet. CRPGs find this a lot harder.
#3 Historically, IF has been about puzzles. The libraries are geared
towards puzzles. The mindset of players is by-and-large geared towards
puzzles. Furthermore, it's harder to get useful realistic interaction
between characters. Parry and Eliza don't count =). One of the comp games
this year solved it in an interesting way (It's been round in graphic
CRPGs for a while), and while it worked well for that game, I wouldn't
like to see it in wide usage since it's always struck me as being
obviously mechanistic. Have you any particularly good NPCs in mind? I've
generally found them to fall into two categories - the push a button
recorded message, and the cypher.
#4 Reiterating. NPCs are hard to do well. It's a lot easier to break
mimesis with an NPC than with a "machine". With a machine there are only
so many different permutations you need to catch, and you can default the
rest. With a character, there are often little things that they ought to
know, that the author has forgotten to catch. With time this can be fixed,
but ...
> [Further digression: I'd sorta like to see a game based upon the premise of
> the player (or the major NPC) being a "Weirdness Magnet".]
> What I'd like to know, is this this a bad thing?
No. "Leather Goddesses of Phobos" was a good thing ... But then, the
wierdness magnet in that could be summed up in one sentence too.
<smiles as sweet as saccharine>
--OH.
Magnus Olsson
Jonadab the Unsightly One <jon...@zerospam.com> wrote:
>m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>
>> Well, there's trolling and trolling. Trolling for flames is a
>> despicable practice by psycho sickos who thrive on hurting other
>> people.
>
>Against it, are you?
You didn't really expect me to be *for* it, did you?
>I'm not sure if they thrive so much on hurting other people as on
>the attention that hurting other people generates -- not that it's
>any less selfish, because the effects are there, but anyway I'm
>not sure whether I have a point here so I'll go on now.
There are obviously trolls and trolls. Some thrive on attention, some
on pain, others are simply immature twits who like watching people
getting upset, without realizing that people don't get emotional to
amuse the trolls.
>> Trolling by throwing out a controversial statement to
>> stimulate discussion is a different thing.
>
>The only question is, *how* different?
There's obviously a slippery slope from merely being a bit blunt to
being outright evil - and, no, I don't mean "evil" in any watered-down
hackerspeak sense here.
stuart...@my-dejanews.com
m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
> In article <364a12ca...@news.bright.net>,
> Jonadab the Unsightly One <jon...@zerospam.com> wrote:
> >m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
> >
> >> Well, there's trolling and trolling. Trolling for flames is a
> >> despicable practice by psycho sickos who thrive on hurting other
> >> people.
> >
> >Against it, are you?
>
> You didn't really expect me to be *for* it, did you?
Who is for it? Seeing as I've inadvertently caused one by my foolishly
arrogant posturing, I certainly am not.
> >I'm not sure if they thrive so much on hurting other people as on
> >the attention that hurting other people generates -- not that it's
> >any less selfish, because the effects are there, but anyway I'm
> >not sure whether I have a point here so I'll go on now.
>
> There are obviously trolls and trolls. Some thrive on attention, some
> on pain, others are simply immature twits who like watching people
> getting upset, without realizing that people don't get emotional to
> amuse the trolls.
Is someone who gets into a flame war without meaning to a Troll?
> >> Trolling by throwing out a controversial statement to
> >> stimulate discussion is a different thing.
> >
> >The only question is, *how* different?
Depends on whether stupidity is a factor.
> There's obviously a slippery slope from merely being a bit blunt to
> being outright evil - and, no, I don't mean "evil" in any watered-down
> hackerspeak sense here.
I am merely blunt, perhaps?
Bye,
--
Stuart Moore.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Magnus Olsson
<stuart...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <72p9ag$jdn$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>,
> m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>> >I'm not sure if they thrive so much on hurting other people as on
>> >the attention that hurting other people generates -- not that it's
>> >any less selfish, because the effects are there, but anyway I'm
>> >not sure whether I have a point here so I'll go on now.
>>
>> There are obviously trolls and trolls. Some thrive on attention, some
>> on pain, others are simply immature twits who like watching people
>> getting upset, without realizing that people don't get emotional to
>> amuse the trolls.
>
>Is someone who gets into a flame war without meaning to a Troll?
Only if he or she caused the flame war by deliberately trolling (for
something else than flames). If one just writes something that turns
out to be more inflammatory than it was really meant, and this causes
a flame war, one is certainly not a troll. Trolling for flames - as I
see it - is posting something inflammatory with the hope that people will
be so angry that *they* start a flame war. The successful troll often
only posts once.
>> >> Trolling by throwing out a controversial statement to
>> >> stimulate discussion is a different thing.
>> >
>> >The only question is, *how* different?
>
>Depends on whether stupidity is a factor.
As somebody else pointed out, this should be judged by intent.
>> There's obviously a slippery slope from merely being a bit blunt to
>> being outright evil - and, no, I don't mean "evil" in any watered-down
>> hackerspeak sense here.
>
>I am merely blunt, perhaps?
You seemed very angry and upset to me, and that's far from evil, just
a bit unpleasant.
carl.c...@lsil.com
> But one can reduce anything to one line ... lessee
> "[Player] is three different high schoolers."
> "[Player] is a swashbuckling archaeologist."
> "[Player] is a computer simulation of a person."
I think this misses the orginal poster's point. Yes, we can boil any
character down to one line. But with most IF characters, that one
line is all there is... you really can't elaborate on it beyond that.
You can say much more about Indiana Jones than "is a swashbuckling
archaeologist". But can you say much more about the protagonist of
Zork, or even more modern games like Jigsaw?
> #2 Because of the nature of human RPGs, a player can very easily put their
> own personal spin on their character within the bounds of the character
> sheet. CRPGs find this a lot harder.
Yet the traditional mode of IF is a "blank" character we're supposed
to project ourselves onto. Whether the protagonist is fleshed out or
not won't really impact how much "personal spin" you can put on the
character.
> #3 Historically, IF has been about puzzles. The libraries are geared
> towards puzzles. The mindset of players is by-and-large geared towards
> puzzles. Furthermore, it's harder to get useful realistic interaction
> between characters.
Are you against changing these things? If not, don't bring up the
"this is the way we've always done it" excuse.
Yes, NPC's are difficult to do in IF because we don't have useful AI
technology. But I don't think fleshing out the protagonist will make
it any more difficult to create NPC's... I think it'd actually make it
easier, becasue the NPC doesn't have to respond to a generic,
player-projected-onto-blank-character, but to a pre-defined character
whose traits the *author* knows about. This is what I see as the
primary problem with the "blank protagonist"... the author has to try
to respond to the player's actions in as generic a manner as possible.
--
Carl D Cravens
carl.c...@lsil.com
JamesG
> I thought JamesG's other idea " <player> is a dungeon " also sets my
> imagination ablaze.
>
> (I hope there wasn't supposed to be an "in" after the "is" in that
> idea.)
No, no "in"... I tried to think of some "<player> is in a dungeon"
adventures, but didn't get inspired at all.
The only problem is implementation, due to the dispersed nature of being
a dungeon, it may be a case of having you move your "attention" around
or simply following the invading adventurer, though I'd prefer something
more flexible...
JamesG,
...plotting...
Joe Mason
>a dungeon, it may be a case of having you move your "attention" around
>or simply following the invading adventurer, though I'd prefer something
>more flexible...
The adventurer touches the mirror.
> MOVE MIRROR ROOM TO COLD PASSAGE
You subtly rearrange yourself.
The adventurer leaves the mirror room, and seems surprised when it isn't where
it expected to be. It walks back in and touches the mirror again.
> MOVE MIRROR ROOM TO NARROW PASSAGE
You subtly rearrange yourself.
The adventurer leaves the mirror room again and looks around the narrow
passage with a satisfied expression. After a few moments it walks back through
the mirror room, heading for the cave. As it passes the mirror it looks at it
with a new respect.
> SNICKER
Pleased with yourself, are you?
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> >> Trolling for flames is a despicable practice
> >> by psycho sickos who thrive on hurting other people.
> >
> >Against it, are you?
>
> You didn't really expect me to be *for* it, did you?
Oh, no. Gracious, no. But I was mildly ammused by
your vehemence. Not that I never state anything
vehemently myself, mind...
> There are obviously trolls and trolls. Some thrive on attention, some
> on pain, others are simply immature twits who like watching people
> getting upset, without realizing that people don't get emotional to
> amuse the trolls.
Yes, I suppose.
> >The only question is, *how* different?
>
> There's obviously a slippery slope from merely being a bit blunt to
> being outright evil - and, no, I don't mean "evil" in any watered-down
> hackerspeak sense here.
I'll buy that.
-- jonadab, hoping I can squeeze into the
"little bit blunt" category ;-)
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> Is someone who gets into a flame war without meaning to a Troll?
IMO no. That someone would be like me. Tactless but well-meaning.
> > >> Trolling by throwing out a controversial statement to
> > >> stimulate discussion is a different thing.
> > >
> > >The only question is, *how* different?
>
> Depends on whether stupidity is a factor.
Oh, that's altogether different. There are also people who
deliberately say something controversial, but it's not flames they're
after; it's thought. I had one for a philosophy professor once,
and the techinque was very effective in philosphy class. I'm
not sure if it's *as* effective on usenet, but I suspect there
are those who use it.
- jonadab
TenthStone
>First, I have not gone on a rant against pornography.
My apologies for failing to avoid causing it to seem so.
>Second, someone ELSE lifted a comment I made out of context (started this
>thread with it) and jumped on it.
I don't doubt it.
>Third, yes I am a feminist, a proud feminist and I don't like the
>objectification of women, period. In any format, medium or whatever. Zip. Nada.
>No way.
Very well. I dislike the objectification of women, men, and space aliens
alike. It sickens me when someone knowingly causes any of these to appear
in some way unnatural to how they wish to be seen.
On the other hand, I'd like to note as well that there are laws against
child pornography, and it is fairly clear that nude models pose at their
own discretion.
Lastly, on a general note, everything in pornography tends to be
objectified.
>I only mentioned what I said (what got lifted out of context) because it
>related to an earlier thread. Harry's thread about how to rate (give blurbs to)
>games at ftp.gmd.de. If we did that, it that were to be done, I would prefer to
>have a listing include some mention of those games which have sexual content
>and/or an indication of when the sexual content is male-oriented (written to
>appeal to males, actually I would prefer the second more). Then I (and other
>women) can just skip playing those games (because I simply wouldn't want to,
>for all the reasons I have given before).
The problem being that your definition of male-orientatation can probably
be traced to a wider epidemic of "poor writing," and such a scale is
exactly what we do not need.
Still, remember that I do not believe you fascist, and neither am I
defending pornography or the immaturity of adolescents.
>Doe :-) Since I didn't start this thread, I am not bothering with it anymore.
Hmm.
Doeadeer3
In article <72pp5s$jeb$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus
Olsson) writes:
>Only if he or she caused the flame war by deliberately trolling (for
>something else than flames). If one just writes something that turns
>out to be more inflammatory than it was really meant, and this causes
>a flame war, one is certainly not a troll.
Glad to hear it. Been there, done that. A lot.
Sometimes just having a contrary and/or unique opinion can start a flame war,
even though it is not really meant as a troll.
(*** This is a disclaimer in advance for any of my future foot-in-the-mouth
trolls.***)
Hmmm, maybe I should put a time limit on that, that's too broad. Okay...
(For the coming year, until after the next contest. Renewal options to be
reviewed at that time. Cancellable only by a raif majority.)
That should cover it (and my *ss).
Doe :-)
Den of Iniquity
>Actually the most interesting part of real-life sex ARE the emotions (like
>building anticipation, etc., the mechanics of sex are just that mechanics and
>not that interesting in and of themselves, except to a young kid who has not
>experienced much sex), so I don't really think IF sex can ever be any good.
And that brings us to another huge problem with writing an erotic sex
scene in IF: the parser. Much advanced over the original two word parser
it may be but it's still effectively a VERB NOUN1 [NOUN2] situation. It
object-ifies almost any action you perform. I find it hard to imagine what
commands one would type to advance an erotic scene that wouldn't ruin the
whole thing, that wouldn't inflict a dreadful guess-the-erotic-action
situation on the whole affair. Anyone even care to try to come up with a
useable vocabulary without forcing the whole thing to descend into the
pornographic or the lock/key syndrome? Anything I can think of must resort
to adverbs, and we all know what a bad idea that can be. I suspect that an
erotic sex scene must remain mostly uninteractive in a conventional piece
of i-f.
Unconventional means - like SUTWIN for one example - could present a
'doable' alternative, though.
--
Den LIE BACK. THINK OF ENGLAND.
Jon Petersen
> --
> Den LIE BACK. THINK OF ENGLAND.
This made me laugh. Hard. But where the hell is it from?
(This is gonna bug me ALL DAY unless I find out.)
JOn
rcma...@netcom.com
Hi, I've been lurking off and on for a while. I think understated
would be the best approach. Understated can be applied in many
different ways and actually make a game better. Hope I'm not
stepping on any toes by using a multimedia game as an example.
The mystery adventure game Amber had a very understated sound-
track, and it made it even so much more compelling.
Along those lines...
Rosemarie
Magnus Olsson
>Den of Iniquity wrote:
>
>> --
>> Den LIE BACK. THINK OF ENGLAND.
>
>
>(This is gonna bug me ALL DAY unless I find out.)
It's the (apocryphal) advice from a Victorian British mother to her
daughter on her wedding night.