Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!rrz.uni-koeln.de!news.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!neilg
From: neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy)
Subject: Re: A bill of players' rights
Message-ID: <neilg.737861523@sfu.ca>
Sender: news@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <1993May18.223852.18303@infodev.cam.ac.uk> <1993May19.195915.20566@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:32:03 GMT
Lines: 30

gdr11@cl.cam.ac.uk (G.D. Rees) writes:

> [...]  But which of these games would you rather play:

>    You are on the south side of a chasm.
>    >north

>    You plunge to your death.
>    *** You have died ***

>or:

>    You are on the south side of a chasm.
>    >north
> 
>    You decide not to throw yourself to your death.

 The former. The latter makes presumptuous assumptions. Maybe I *do*
want to kill myself for some obscure thanatoid reason. Then, if I'm
playing a well-written game that uses an UNDO feature like that built
into TADS, I simply undo the last move. No problem.

>I think Colossal Cave had the right idea: when you died, you were merely 
>docked a few points and sent back to the start location.

 This may be appropriate for fantasies like Colossal Cave, but is
frankly rather daft for games that are set in more (dare I say it?)
realistic worlds. IMHO.

 - Neil K. (n_k_guy@sfu.ca)
