Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list

[Ling <K.L.Lo-94#student,lut.ac.uk>]

On Tue, 20 May 1997 clawrenc#cup,hp.com wrote:

> In <199705190115.DAA06158#regoc,srce.hr>, on 05/18/97 
>    at 06:19 PM, silovic#srce,hr (Miroslav Silovic) said:
> 
> >The similar example: causing commands that failed because of typos to
> >have IC consequences (for instance, typing 'west', when there is no
> >exit to west, should produce an error, because while player didn't
> >know that there is no exit, character certainly did know that. 
> 
> Again this comes back to the question of distinction I posed a couple
> days ago (which got very little feedback).  Are you the human merely a
> background mentor for the character in the MUD, or is the character in
> the MUD merely a proxy for you the human (along with whatever personae
> etc you wish to assume)?
> 
> If you take the former view, then yes, walking into the wall is both
> surprising and probably unacceptable.  If you take the later view
> (which I prefer) then walking into the wall is not only preferable,
> but not walking into the wall breaks the logical consistancy of the
> world.

Hmm...  I think I sit in the former?  That's why I was so interested in
Nathan's risk assessment.  Say my character (Kate) was piloting a Gear
(little, well, 5 metre tall, mech things).  By typing west, Kate should
happily pilot that thing thru a brick wall.  She shouldn't try walking
into the same wall if she was undressed though.  Or should it prompt me?

	> w
	Are you sure you want to walk into the wall?

Icky, icky, icky, icky (soz, lost my vocab for a second).


  |    Ling				"Mental slavery,
_O_O_  Freshwater fish since 1976	 set my spirit free"