[MUD-Dev] Containing automation?
Caliban Tiresias Darklock
caliban at darklock.com
Tue Aug 10 03:12:29 New Zealand Standard Time 1999
On 09:33 PM 8/8/99 +0100, I personally witnessed Ling jumping up to say:
>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
>> >> We've discussed a change in which we would split the available devices
>> >> "hardware" and "software" devices, with some devices needing both
>> >> and software, but I'm holding off on this concept for the moment
>> >> may be too complex for people to understand.
>> >How about all devices are hardware things but can be augmented with the
>> >addition of software. Or maybe have software that uses devices in novel
>> The recalibration idea actually led to this thought, since it seems
>Odd but untrue, I wrote the above paragraphs in reverse order. Maybe my
>mind made the connections before I figured what was happening.
No, no, no. I was talking about where *I* got the idea for splitting
devices into hardware and software. I wouldn't presume to tell you where
*your* ideas come from.
>> While a laser battery or missile platform is obviously hardware, the
>> targeting of such a device is software. While it seems like a good idea in
>> theory, it may just be too much for most players to grasp.
>I wasn't thinking of software as in scripting. Just as another game item
>to be bought, sold and bartered.
So was I. Scripting only entered the picture as an example of why I don't
want to get into defining the SW/HW boundary right now -- because when you
label something "software", people will expect to be able to write it.
Consider for a moment that players can currently choose from over 500
devices. This is a tremendous area of difficulty for most new players, and
I would like to make things easier on them. If I add the further complexity
of some number of software devices which are installed in a different place
and have different effects and are necessary to the proper operation of
these 500 devices in various ways, that doesn't make things any easier. It
makes them harder. A *lot* harder.
>> Likewise, to many players it may seem intuitive that if you can *buy*
>> software, you can *write* software.
>If software means scripting, yep. Otherwise, no.
But it doesn't matter what software means in the game context. Software is
a set of instructions for the computer. When I buy software and put it in
the computer, I'm providing it a set of instructions. I *should* by all
rights be able to give it new instructions, no matter what the mechanism --
whether it's a scripting language, a "custom build" application process
through a GM, or a "Computer Programming" skill coupled with some sort of
I don't want to provide such a mechanism. Of any sort. There must therefore
be a COMPELLING reason *why*. I haven't come up with an effective one yet
(i.e. one that I, as a player, would find more satisfying than "because I
>You can't really do
>much if all software did was give a +1 modifier.
See the computer programming systems in FASA's Shadowrun, in which programs
do pretty much that... and can still be written by player characters. It's
not a question of scripting so much as it is a question of people wanting
to do something because it makes sense that they could do it, when the
requirements of the game dictate that they can't.
| Caliban Tiresias Darklock caliban at darklock.com
| Darklock Communications http://www.darklock.com/
| U L T I M A T E U N I V E R S E I S N O T D E A D
| 774577496C6C6E457645727355626D4974H -=CABAL::3146=-
MUD-Dev maillist - MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev