[MUD-Dev] Re:(fwd) Re: Multiple currencies

J C Lawrence claw at under.engr.sgi.com
Thu Jun 18 18:37:17 New Zealand Standard Time 1998


On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 19:10:31 -0700 
T Alexander Popiel<popiel at beldin.snugharbor.com> wrote:

> In message: <199806092109.OAA05605 at under.engr.sgi.com> J C Lawrence
> <claw at under.engr.sgi.com> writes:

>> On Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:39:15 -0500 Michael
>> Willey<Michael.Willey at abnamro.com> wrote:

>>> Our goal never has been to simulate a complete and closed world in
>>> any aspect, but to run a game.

>> Are the two necessarily different?

> Not necessarily, but I find that it's a very useful distinction.
> The purpose of a game is for the players to have fun.  The purpose
> of a complete and closed world simulation is internal consistency.
> Personally, I think that consistency (of any sort, not just
> internal) reduces the likelyhood of frustrating surprise, but it
> does not contribute directly to fun.  

Agreed.  It does however also encourage depth and low-level
interactions in the world design which can be exploited by players in
amusing manners, as versus the "You can only do what we give you"
style so common elsewhere.

> (It can contribute directly to intellectual appreciation, but that's
> an entirely different beast altogether.)

I'd argue that it can also act as a second order source of play-depth
as above, which in turn can be both imersive (well, captivating) and
"fun".

> I find it somewhat disturbing that some of the most lauded ideas on
> this list are ones where the common reaction is "That's really cool.
> If I ever have to actually play in it, though, I'll just hide in my
> box.".  It seems that we're not interested in designing games we'd
> want to play on this list, but instead ones that we'd only want to
> look at from godlike perspective.

I'd be very hesitant to ascribe such a sweeping philosophy to the
list.  I'd also be very hesitant to define the list as of a single
character (mostly because it not).  Some members are more voluble and
articulate than others.  

Some ideas rarely get heard for the lack of publicly stated agreement
or support they engender on the list, but are yet held by many
members.  Simple example: Level-based games.  The easy assumption is
that the list's assumed orthodoxy is that level based games are both
passe and necessarily flawed.  The truth is that the list has a
noticable contingent who think level based games are just fine and
dandy.

The list is however extremely heavy in spades, which is a byproduct of
my own biases and their impact on the list.  Given the nature of
development, especially the tinkering aspect, its also not surprising.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                               Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------(*)                     Internet: claw at under.engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list