[MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list
K.L.Lo-94 at student.lut.ac.uk
Wed May 21 13:29:37 New Zealand Standard Time 1997
On Tue, 20 May 1997 clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:
> In <199705190115.DAA06158 at regoc.srce.hr>, on 05/18/97
> at 06:19 PM, silovic at srce.hr (Miroslav Silovic) said:
> >The similar example: causing commands that failed because of typos to
> >have IC consequences (for instance, typing 'west', when there is no
> >exit to west, should produce an error, because while player didn't
> >know that there is no exit, character certainly did know that.
> Again this comes back to the question of distinction I posed a couple
> days ago (which got very little feedback). Are you the human merely a
> background mentor for the character in the MUD, or is the character in
> the MUD merely a proxy for you the human (along with whatever personae
> etc you wish to assume)?
> If you take the former view, then yes, walking into the wall is both
> surprising and probably unacceptable. If you take the later view
> (which I prefer) then walking into the wall is not only preferable,
> but not walking into the wall breaks the logical consistancy of the
Hmm... I think I sit in the former? That's why I was so interested in
Nathan's risk assessment. Say my character (Kate) was piloting a Gear
(little, well, 5 metre tall, mech things). By typing west, Kate should
happily pilot that thing thru a brick wall. She shouldn't try walking
into the same wall if she was undressed though. Or should it prompt me?
Are you sure you want to walk into the wall?
Icky, icky, icky, icky (soz, lost my vocab for a second).
| Ling "Mental slavery,
_O_O_ Freshwater fish since 1976 set my spirit free"
More information about the MUD-Dev