[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is suppo

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On Wednesday, September 17, 1997 7:33 PM, Jon A. Lambert 
[SMTP:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com] wrote:

> We also had an earlier thread on this entitled
> Realism vs. Playability, I think?

Which mainly dealt more with codability than playability, as I recall.

> Actually many of my FRPG friends refuse to mud because of the utterly
> simplistic combat.  None of them are programmers.

Why do people constantly misunderstand my statements? I was not saying 
'only programmers want complex combat systems', I was saying 'programmers 
generally design *overly* complex, difficult, and nonintuitive combat 
systems'. Get one of those FRPG friends to design what he considers an 
excellent combat system, and then run it by us. Or at least find out some 
of what he wants in a system, and try to give him some of it in your own 
work.

> The 'kill monster' is a great deal more simple than most p&p rpgs.  I 
don't prefer the
> syntax you cited, but I do prefer the complexity and choices of
> action implied by it.

I have several better suggestions for a more complex fighting system, like 
the idea of 'complex' moves. Rather than having the single high-level 
'kill' or the utterly inane 'stab/slash/hit/cut/bash/trip/gouge' series 
(with associated ridiculous modifiers for weapon, object, target, user, and 
additional verbiage provided by the player like 'cut orc viciously'), 
there's a middle ground where there are multiple types of attack which can 
be selected at any given time -- but which, instead of being a simple 
single-shot attack, would be a combination of associated attacks. (You 
could go farther with this by providing all the low-levels to define your 
own attacks -- but that would be just as bad as the atomic cut/stab/bash 
above.) These could be provided to the warrior types as individual skills 
similar to a wizard's spells, as I mentioned in an earlier post. You could 
become skilled in several different forms of attack, but it would take a 
long time.

Another option would be a series of attack/defense 'modes', which would be 
persistent. For example, if you set yourself to 'full on ferocious charge 
and attack', you would continue to attack in this fashion until you gave 
another order. You could give orders as often, or as rarely, as you liked.

> I haven't noticed anyone here advocating the above.

I have. I've seen people give long complex descriptions of mixing poisons 
and other nifty things, which is really a great idea for the cerebral 
types, but some of us don't want to scratch our heads and go 'Now HOW does 
that work again? Do I stir *before* I add the hemlock, or after?' -- while 
it's a neat academic exercise, it's a terribly bad game.

> You are forgetting the obligatory bathroom functions we have
> discussed in past threads.  ;)

No, I'm deliberately ignoring it. There's a difference.

> > And lots of skills! A thousand, at least!
>
> Yes.  At least a hundred or two really "useful" skills/spells. A
> thousand might be pushing it. *grin*

When you add spells, the number goes WAY up. ;)

> What's a class?  I thought many on this list advocated abandoning
> this concept in favor of skills.  Not that there's anything wrong
> with classes.

I for one find classes a convenient way to represent a starting group of 
skills. If you want to spend an extra half hour in character creation, you 
could always modify a class slightly, or if you're completely insane you 
could go in and design frmo scratch.

> > Eighteen races! Twelve genders! Three hundred and ten languages 
organised
> > into various degrees of ancient, classical, and modern with a related 
parse
> > tree that actually allows you to learn related languages faster!
>
> This is certainly a thematic determination.  Many fantasy novels
> certainly have as many races as well as classes.  I don't see how
> this poses any user interface or playability problems.



> Some
> confusion in regard to gender might result in some very odd and
> uncomfortble sexual situations.  My last p&p campaign had 17 distinct
> languages.  It never added any complexity to playability.  It did add
> to a sense of character identity and historical depth.

P&P is not the same as online. For one thing, it is close to impossible to 
provide appropriate body language, facial expression, and accents online. 
On the other hand, online, you never need to roll huge handfuls of dice and 
lug forty books around in a backpack. Languages in P&P can add a lot to the 
game; languages online add absolutely nothing.

> It's interesting that you attribute the claims to more races,
> classes, etc. to those on this list.  I haven't seen any postings
> here advertising "heavily-modified Circle" muds. ;)

Excuse me. I was saying THESE ARE STUPID THINGS TO DO, not that people here 
do them. What people here actually *do* tend to do a lot of is point at 
game mechanics and server details as though they are discussing a game. 
These are not the game, any more than the player's handbook is AD&D. You do 
not NEED them. They are there strictly in a supporting role.

> What seems to be lost in this is you have described a game with a
> SINGLE overriding goal.  The traditional HnS goal of killing to
> advance, advancing to max level, getting the best equipment.

This is quite patently not true. What I have described is the simple fact 
that when you make a game overly complex, you can not realistically manage 
it and game balance goes straight to hell. It is not difficult to balance a 
penny on a pencil eraser. It is rather difficult to balance a dinner plate 
there, and balancing a stack of twelve dinner plates on it is a fool's 
errand.

> I'm not sure how any of this would apply to my game or many of the
> others I've read about here.

Does it seem more clear now? People are spending a lot of time talking 
about creating an infinite diversity of skills and items and abilities. 
This is like trying to balance a dinner plate of infinite diameter on that 
pencil eraser. Think about it.

Please, no mathematical arguments of how easy it is because infinity 
subdivided is still infinite, so you have an infinite weight on every side 
of the eraser and since an infinite weight is by definition equal to an 
infinite weight you can't help but balance it.

> > But what keeps getting lost is the idea of the players. Someone 
somewhere
> > is going to have to play this game. Let's say you take the teamwork 
issues
> > we've discussed recently to heart, and make a game targeted at the 
standard
> > D&D style group of 4 to 6 people.
>
> I have never lost sight of my target audience *gasp* (Can't believe I
> said that).  It just doesn't mesh with the game above at all.

I am not discussing any specific game or any specific goals.

> > Add onto that all the fantastic new concepts people bandy about here, 
and
> > people log on to find a game with cryptic documentation, seriously 
complex
> > usage guidelines, command sequences that bear far too much resemblance 
to a
> > BASIC program, and an arrogant administrative staff with a basic 
philosophy
> > of "up yours, this is our game and you don't have to play it". The game 
is
> > terribly different from other games, so it's hard to learn. It's 
incredibly
> > versatile, so it needs a lot of time and effort to get familiar with. 
And
> > it's more difficult, too, so you end up frustrated.
>
> Different does not make it hard to learn.

Bad documentation does.

> Different does not require programming in any shape or form.

Atomic low-level commands encourage it, providing significant advantages to 
those who do.

> Different does not entail a difficult to use command set.

Complex does.

> Different DOES entail turning off hundreds of Diku-expectant players.

So your goal, if I hear this properly, is to make a game that a certain 
type of people will DISlike? Does this strike anyone else as a perverse, 
cynical, and ludicrous goal?

> In general, your
> "average" Mush is much closer to these roots spiritually if not
> mechanically.

Which is why I spend most of my time on MUSHes.

> > But here on this list, it seems like that
> > has gone more or less out the window in favor of making the most 
incredibly
> > rich and complicated world we can;
>
> For me, yes. I still don't see how a richly detailed world relates to
> a more complicated user command set or harder to play.

Are you even thinking about it? I mean, if a rope is just an item, well 
hey: get rope, drop rope, no problem. But what if it's a tool? Throw rope. 
Tie rope to <x>. Pull rope. How about adding fabrication into it? A rope 
can be used to make a net, a snare, a tripwire, even a cat o' nine tails. 
Do you expect functionality to just *happen*? How does the user use this 
functionality?

Complexity and difficulty of learning is inherent.

> Please do.  Do you mean mechanically?  Like User-interface?

User interfaces are not mechanical by any means. Yes, I *am* talking about 
the user interface, and have been from the start:

> > Part of this is who you target the game toward. There are groups within 
> > groups within groups here, which can usually be divided up into 
bicameral
> > camps:
>
> I'll give it a try.

Give what a try? These are examples of different groups, not a quiz... what 
the hell do you mean 'yes, no, not important'?

> I'm not really sure what PO is.

Power oriented.

> > along the line, you have to select some group to cater to because you 
can't
> > cater to them all.
>
> Exactly right. Unless you have a huge staff and commercial
> aspirations.

No, exactly right, PERIOD. You can NOT cater to every group. Ever. Under 
any circumstances. Full-stop.

> > It's
> > also occasionally helpful to select groups you do NOT want on the game, 
and
> > specifically hamstring those players in one way or another.
>
> Those irritating and obnoxious idiots.  You know, the ones you find
> on "everymud" ... :)

The reason you find them everywhere is that they ARE everywhere. Hydrogen 
and stupidity.

> How about...

An example is by nature nonspecific and incomplete. You can draw all the 
examples you want. I stopped at one or two because the message was already 
too long.

> I hate artificial restrictions and inconsistencies like
> 'You cannot pick up another player'.

Artificial worlds will impose artificial restrictions.

> I find it disturbing that one's
> sole interface to a mud be limited to a command interface, a concept
> that's been around since the 60's.

Well, automobiles have been around a lot longer, why do we still use those? 
Come to think of it, the QWERTY key layout on your keyboard dates back to 
the 1800's!

Age does not equal obsolescence.

> The success of Macintosh,
> Windows, and WWW interfaces are not solely predicated upon user
> stupidity.

I have a vast number of things to add to this, but they are almost all 
off-topic. Suffice to say that in many places graphic interfaces are not 
actually appropriate, and MUDs are one of those places. Graphic interfaces 
are inherently limiting in expression, which I think we all agree is Bad on 
MUDs.

> Even mainframes have abandoned such archaic interfaces.
> Telnet really does suck and turns off thousands of potential users.

Then let them go to Quake servers and join Ultima Online. Graphic MUDs are 
another topic entirely.

> I see no need for player
> documentation to be printable or downloadable.

If I can't download the documentation and look at it while I'm not on your 
game, it's harder for me to learn my way around. If I can't print it, it's 
harder for me to find information on commands. Hardcopy and local copies 
are important. But as the game's designer, or as one of its primary 
founding players, you won't understand it... it's easy, see, not that much 
at all.

> I like consistent themes.  I wouldn't find it amusing to run into
> Elvis in Babylon.

I would find it vastly amusing, provided he wasn't presented as 'Elvis' but 
as 'An aging and overweight man with long sideburns, wearing a bright white 
gem-studded suit and dark glasses. He jerks his head and gyrates his hips 
at odd times, and seems to have some form of nervous disorder.' Dropping 
Elvis into Babylon is stupid. Dropping someone that *looks* like Elvis into 
Babylon is funny.