[MUD-Dev] Re: PermaDeath

Sayeed yu219121 at YorkU.CA
Fri Feb 19 17:18:22 New Zealand Daylight Time 1999

Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
>Sayeed wrote:

>I wasn't strictly talking about immersion as a roleplayer, but being
>immersed into the environment. That is, feeling present, being in control
>of your own body (my character's body is my body, and it is the real me
>you are offending) etc.

I was focusing on the immersion of people who role-play a character=20
in-context with the established history, environment, etc. of the mud,=20
but I think (agree?) that immersion is largely independent of style of play.

>There are a wide variety of roleplaying types. You have those that
>roll-play (stat/strategy driven), those that go for in-context simulation
>(based on history or fiction), those that go for creating a dramatic
>context, those that go for mindgames etc. I am personally of the
>dramatic/create-your-own-story/mindgames type, not of the simulation type
>that are willing to work in the fields. I don't think immersion depends
>on "realism" (newbies being an exception).  I don't think roleplaying
>depends upon the environment either, although the environment can provide
>a good stage, with nice props and tools.

Realism doesn't necessarily mean working in the fields or permanent=20
death from the lowest orc.  I tend to believe in a world if it has a=20
relatively convincing cause/effect environment.  Again, not necessarily=20
'realistic,' in an Einsteinium (since he's such a topic these days :->)=20
physics sort of way, but in a belief that the effect is worthy of the=20
cause sort of way (with muds being able to justifiably warp classic=20
cause/effect beliefs).  An aspect of this would be risk/reward situations. =
This has a great affect on immersion.  If I play a stock market game,=20
it's just a game to me, enjoyable depending on how much ego/time/etc=20
I risk, but if I put real money into it, then I'm much more 'immersed.'=20
(I'll tell you the real truth of this in about a week or two :-<) =20
Similarly, if a player risks his character when fighting a monster,=20
it will be more immersive/real for him.

>> Though all games cross over into our real lives in some ways,=
>> want muds to do solely this.  They want muds to, as much as possible, BE
>> our real worlds.  This is a role-player's immersion.
>Hmm... If somebody harass in-character it is more easily accepted,
>probably because it is not seen as being motivated by an objective
>judgement about the person being harassed... MUDs are real (IRC is real
>too), perhaps more real for non-roleplayers than for the roleplayers?
>Roleplayers actually believe that the MUD-world IS different from the
>physical world, that it is and should be entirely disconnected and
>preserved as a valid "unreality". In the roleplaying paradigm no
>character or moral has more intrinsic value than another which indeed is
>extremely unreal compared to how we otherwise reason... Evil is not
>really evil, jerks are not really jerks. If they happen to be real jerks
>it doesn't matter because it is still perceived as valid as long as all
>out-of-context references are avoided. (It is a paradox that being a jerk
>is ok as long as we don't know that you really are a jerk :-) Perhaps I
>misinterpret you here.

Misinterpretation because of my mistake.  I should have said that this=20
is IMMERSION, not solely a role-player's immersion.  I'd say there's=20
a difference between affecting our real lives and affecting our mud=20
lives.  Complete immersion is impossible right now,(I'm waiting for=20
retinal laser painting + Turing level AI) , and so when someone insults=20
us in-character, it is hard for us to be truly insulted.  We still=20
consider it only a game and if it's a fantasy game, we may not truly=20
understand or feel the effect of his words.
(http://alabanza.com/kabacoff/Inter-Links/cgi/bard.cgi for amusement)

If someone said "Thou dankish beef-witted haggard." (extreme) to you,=20
would you really identify?  However, if someone said 'F--- You' in a=20
cyberpunk mud, you would probably be irritated when not immersed, and=20
so when immersed you would also find it hard to shake off.  If the=20
goal is immersion, it's harder for role-players to get there.

>Hmm... No, what I need is other people.  Not dismissing risk as a tool,
>but it isn't necessary... Rollplayers need risk, because rollplayers
>depend upon their stats to keep them (somewhat) in character. *evil grin*
>(Meaning, I don't fully agree with your "risk makes real" argument.
>Making love to a physical girl is more real than having sex with a
>martian robot, but HIV doesn't make it more real? What makes it real is
>that having sex with a girl is something that I value and are fully
>willing to participate in and believe in as a reality. Freaks that walks
>around having sex with robots from outer space and talking about their
>sexual stats and super bowl is something which doesn't fit into the world
>which I want to believe in, I see them as the physical world snerts they
>are and the immersion is ruined)

Risk makes 'immersion.'  My definition of a 'real world' for someone=20
is a world where he/she is immersed. =20

Example:  From the hundreds women I've made love to, the time I was=20
most 'immersed' (not necessarily in a good way & no pun intended) was=20
when I couldn't resist that HIV+ girl.  An exciting, dangerous, immersive=20
experience which I can remember.  The risk helped in making it, amid=20
many similar experiences, more 'immersive,' but perhaps 'real' is too=20
vague a term. (This example is theoretical by the way)

>You don't need risk, but you need focus and engagement. Managing risk can
>be something to focus on. When you focus on managing risk, you are less
>aware of other disturbing aspects of the situation.  What you need is to
>"mentally remove" the components that contradicts the reality you are
>immersing yourself into. Especially the unfitting ties to the physical

I missed your focus here, though I agree there are a lot of things you=20
should try to 'mentally remove' to be immersed.  Do you mean managing=20
risk detracts from what should purely be a focus on engagement?

>> Using a good 'reward justifies risk' implementation, permadeath could be=
>> very viable option in some muds.

>Yes, but the trouble is that in player versus player, you do not seek
>risk. The risk seeks you! If all you want is to let monsters deal out
>different types of damage, with the most dangerous monsters in the
>deepest dungeons being able to permakill then the concept becomes fairly
>Ola Fosheim Groestad,Norway      http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~olag/

Permadeath really IS an innocent thing, if implemented properly, but=20
it has terrible connotations.  Not that I'm saying PvP permadeath=20
implementation is impossible, but proper measures should be taken to=20
Drastically curb PvP if PvPermaDeath is in place.  (Another discussion
topic I guess)

MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list