<!-- MHonArc v2.4.4 --> <!--X-Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction --> <!--X-From-R13: Xnzrf Ivyfba <wjvyfbaNebpurfgre.ee.pbz> --> <!--X-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 20:41:31 -0700 --> <!--X-Message-Id: 98100323324200.00276@d185d1e96 --> <!--X-Content-Type: text/plain --> <!--X-Reference: 572b3dde.3616d09d#aol,com --> <!--X-Head-End--> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html> <head> <title>MUD-Dev message, [MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious dist</title> <!-- meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" --> <link rev="made" href="mailto:jwilson#rochester,rr.com"> </head> <body background="/backgrounds/paperback.gif" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000" vlink="#006000"> <font size="+4" color="#804040"> <strong><em>MUD-Dev<br>mailing list archive</em></strong> </font> <br> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] <br clear=all><hr> <!--X-Body-Begin--> <!--X-User-Header--> <!--X-User-Header-End--> <!--X-TopPNI--> Date: [ <a href="msg00063.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg00065.html">Next</a> ] Thread: [ <a href="msg00060.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg00065.html">Next</a> ] Index: [ <A HREF="author.html#00064">Author</A> | <A HREF="#00064">Date</A> | <A HREF="thread.html#00064">Thread</A> ] <!--X-TopPNI-End--> <!--X-MsgBody--> <!--X-Subject-Header-Begin--> <H1>[MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</H1> <HR> <!--X-Subject-Header-End--> <!--X-Head-of-Message--> <UL> <LI><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A>,<A HREF="mailto:ApplePiMan#aol,com">ApplePiMan#aol,com</A></LI> <LI><em>Subject</em>: [MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</LI> <LI><em>From</em>: James Wilson <<A HREF="mailto:jwilson#rochester,rr.com">jwilson#rochester,rr.com</A>></LI> <LI><em>Date</em>: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 23:01:34 -0400</LI> <LI><em>Reply-To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A></LI> </UL> <!--X-Head-of-Message-End--> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin--> <HR> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End--> <!--X-Body-of-Message--> <PRE> On Sat, 03 Oct 1998, ApplePiMan#aol,com wrote: >At 10/3/98 11:55 AM James Wilson (jwilson#rochester,rr.com) altered the >fabric of reality by uttering: really. maybe the earth moved for you, but I've been around the block and it was nothing special. ;) >>1. "manipulates-mental-state": to what degree is the player character's >>internal state (emotions, memory, identity) manipulated by the game? >Or how about "nudging" the player into our chosen internal state, as >cinema and literature do, by selectively filtering what text and visuals >we display to induce the "mood" we want players to have at that point in >the narrative? If that qualifies, then the system *I'm* envisioning would >rank high on the scale. I'm not *telling* them how they feel, and I'm not >controlling their actions; but I *am* trying to *cause* players to feel >what I want them to using tried and true artistic techniques. "mood" is on the line. I think the distinction (and it is an important one) is between the mental state of the player and the mental state of the character. If the player is _informed_ that their character is in love, that does not make the player swoon with delight. If manipulation is accomplished through more subtle means such as art, music, et al - "mood" is a concise way to put this - the character (which is incapable of appreciating such things) is unaffected, but the player may be. I am thinking now of the flickering lights in Doom, which were (at the time) quite effective in making me skittish and tense. At the time I didn't notice the manipulation at all - it was all subliminal, which made it all the more effective. As a (stupid) alternative to "mood", the Doom people could have marked sectors as "spooky", and informed me somehow that I (i.e. my character) became especially tense when I entered it. (As if those stoked-up Doom avatars needed to be any more tense, eh?) Further, they could have programmed the engine such that, if my character is marked as "tense", he has a chance of accidentally firing without my hitting the button. (I always thought the berserk box should make you a psycho.) >>3. "all-objects-manipulable": to what degree is every logical object in >>the game amenable to 'realistic' manipulation, where 'realistic' means >>'coherent with the assumed laws of nature'? >Again, sorry, no short answer. nor should there be. [short answer snipped] >> 3(a). "real-world-simulation": to what degree does the game >> (attempt to) model the real world? clearly this is dependent upon #3 >> (but not vice versa). >If by 'real world' you mean *our* real world, I yes. >can't answer that (for >various reasons, but mostly because it's revealing more about my system >than I care to at this point -- I'll answer it later =) ). If you mean >the 'real world' as defined for the purposes of the game (i.e., is the >world self-consistent?), this more general meaning was what I was looking for with #3. > the answer would be to a large degree, but not >if it gets in the way of narrative. Note however, that it's generally >entirely possible to come up with self-consistent "reasons" to explain >away inconsistencies, and do it in a manner that doesn't harm the >narrative. clearly one can simply redefine the target for the sim to be exactly what the sim does ("I don't want to model the real world, I want to model a diku mud"). This is why I asked about individual objects being manipulable in some consistent way, i.e. governed by (a coherent set of) laws of nature - it's a much easier question to answer than "how good is the sim?". > Just look at all the hoops Piers Anthony jumps through to >explain the inconsistencies in Xanth. My point is not that he does it >well or elegantly, but rather that his readers don't seem to mind the >contrivances, as long as there is *some* 'official' explanation of the >inconsistencies. indeed. I doubt that playability and fun-ness have a direct correlation with this particular quality. I'm ignoring the fact that Piers Anthony is a terrible writer. ;) James </PRE> <!--X-Body-of-Message-End--> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <HR> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <UL><LI><STRONG>References</STRONG>: <UL> <LI><STRONG><A NAME="00060" HREF="msg00060.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</A></STRONG> <UL><LI><EM>From:</EM> ApplePiMan#aol,com</LI></UL></LI> </UL></LI></UL> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00063.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Storytelling vs. Simulationist (Was Re: Room descriptions)</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00065.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00060.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00065.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="index.html#00064"><STRONG>Date</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thread.html#00064"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> <ul><li>Thread context: <BLOCKQUOTE><UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00075" HREF="msg00075.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: [DESIGN] To kill or not to kill? (non-violent conflict)</A></strong>, Robert Woods <a href="mailto:rwoods#honors,unr.edu">rwoods#honors,unr.edu</a>, Mon 05 Oct 1998, 05:09 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00076" HREF="msg00076.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: [DESIGN] To kill or not to kill? (non-violent conflict)</A></strong>, Marc Hernandez <a href="mailto:marc#jb,com">marc#jb,com</a>, Mon 05 Oct 1998, 06:42 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00084" HREF="msg00084.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: [DESIGN] To kill or not to kill? (non-violent conflict)</A></strong>, The Wildman <a href="mailto:wildman#microserve,net">wildman#microserve,net</a>, Mon 05 Oct 1998, 18:09 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="00060" HREF="msg00060.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</A></strong>, ApplePiMan <a href="mailto:ApplePiMan#aol,com">ApplePiMan#aol,com</a>, Sun 04 Oct 1998, 01:36 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00064" HREF="msg00064.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</A></strong>, James Wilson <a href="mailto:jwilson#rochester,rr.com">jwilson#rochester,rr.com</a>, Sun 04 Oct 1998, 03:41 GMT </LI> </UL> <UL> <li><Possible follow-up(s)><br> <LI><strong><A NAME="00065" HREF="msg00065.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: simulation vs. storytelling is a fallacious distinction</A></strong>, ApplePiMan <a href="mailto:ApplePiMan#aol,com">ApplePiMan#aol,com</a>, Sun 04 Oct 1998, 05:08 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="00059" HREF="msg00059.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: [Off-Topic] Patents (Was Re: Storytelling vs. Simulationist)</A></strong>, ApplePiMan <a href="mailto:ApplePiMan#aol,com">ApplePiMan#aol,com</a>, Sun 04 Oct 1998, 00:14 GMT <LI><strong><A NAME="00050" HREF="msg00050.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Quest engines</A></strong>, Koster, Raph <a href="mailto:rkoster#origin,ea.com">rkoster#origin,ea.com</a>, Sat 03 Oct 1998, 18:06 GMT <UL> <li><Possible follow-up(s)><br> <LI><strong><A NAME="00061" HREF="msg00061.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Quest engines</A></strong>, ApplePiMan <a href="mailto:ApplePiMan#aol,com">ApplePiMan#aol,com</a>, Sun 04 Oct 1998, 02:23 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL></BLOCKQUOTE> </ul> <hr> <center> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] </center> <hr> </body> </html>