<!-- 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>
