[MUD-Dev] The Relationship between pkers and monster AI?
gmiller at classic-games.com
Thu Oct 14 14:41:18 New Zealand Daylight Time 1999
"Travis S. Casey" wrote:
> There's a difference between "Player X's piece" in a game and a character.
> In the games which you mention, the ships are no more "characters" than a
> game piece in Monopoly is. Similarly, one doesn't have a "character" in
> Doom -- you have a game piece which is your representative in the game.
OK, from now on, I guess we could just always refer to them as "player
pieces" rather than "player characters" if that makes you happy since it
changes nothing from my perspective.
> "Character" to me implies that there is supposed to be some degree of
> characterization -- i.e., that the "character" is supposed to act
> differently than the "player" might in the same circumstances. Without
> that, a "character" is nothing more than a game piece, and there's no real
> point in distinguishing between the"character" and the player.
Sounds good to me.
> That's the sense in which I meant my comment -- if all socialization is
> directly between players, all you have are game pieces. There's nothing
> intrinsically wrong with that, but why call them "characters" in that
Why not? It sounds better than calling them "shoes" and whatever
terminology we use is fine if we can communicate with it.
> > > In my own experience, most mud players have never *tried* roleplaying.
> > > Thus, they can't know whether it would be fun for them or not.
> > Most have never tried suicide, either, but they have an idea of what
> > it's about.
> Correction: they *think* they know what it's about. Unfortunately, many
> "roleplayers" on muds are very bad examples -- especially some of those
> who are most vocal about it.
Agreed there. Same thing with pkillers, in my experience.
Conspiracy theorists mistakenly assume others think before acting.
*** Please limit .sigs to four lines and avoid HTML mail or posts. ***
MUD-Dev maillist - MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev