Message-ID: <3D8352BD.8080803@csi.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 11:16:13 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: [CONTENT] Puzzle fairness
References: <Xns927E49EEAB383joaomendesnetcabopt@194.65.14.158> <3D7A1E03.5060706@csi.com> <3d7a26ca$0$3938$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <3D7B4467.3030004@csi.com> <2XKe9.2841$Lp.102851@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1032015985 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (14 Sep 2002 11:06:25 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 52
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net!not-for-mail
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:108638

Jon Ingold wrote:
>>And, as I said, an even better solution is to disallow the action by
>>not providing the temptation.  Guns are used to shoot things.  If
>>you, the author, don't want me, the player, shooting things, then
>>don't provide a gun.  Providing it but not letting me use it gives
>>the image of the author sitting back, waiting for me to jump through
>>his next hoop.  At least, that's the impression it gives me.
> Problem is, you've got to draw the line somewhere. In any game, there will
> always be temptations which aren't covered - you put in a single window,
> people want to smash it; a person, people want to kill it, a dog, people
> want to feed it their entire inventory. Standing on tables, smashing up
> chairs, unscrewing hinges from doors... any and all are there, tempting the
> player into mucking up the game-state good and proper.

In itself, this is true.  There has to be a balance between feeding
the player things to do (so he won't try all these frustration-
reflecting things) and covering the most common bases.

On top of this, though, I don't mind that things are disallowed.  I
understand (and appreciate) that it's part of simulation.  However,
I'd much rather see, "you step up onto the table, but jump away as
it begins to tip over," than, "you're too shy to do something like
that."  The former says, "this won't work, because the world just
isn't structured that way.  The latter says, "this won't work,
because I, the author, won't let you."

> The thing is, in a limited simulation, you are *always* jumping through the
> author's next hoop. * Any other sensation is just smoke and mirrors. A good
> game will fool you very well. (It's called "suspension of disbelief",
> essentially). And there are limits to what the author can do about it. They
> can make a really good story you want to read, really interesting characters
> you want to interview rather than assassinate, maybe provide really
> humourous or insightful responses to why you can't unload your gun
> everywhere you go. But if you're determined to, you can still be
> dissatisfied.

All true.  However, that some weirdo player (which I'm not,
accidentally) will convince himself to be annoyed at any game should
not mean that the author should give up and state that "You would
never even consider such a thing."

> Generally - IF is simulation with story. And story puts limit on simulation.
> If you're going to tell a story you can't have the player throttling the
> heroine in chapter 1. (Or, worse yet, have the player sitting still not
> doing anything for the whole game..)

Why can't you?  End the game with a failure message.  It's the same
amount of work, but the player's ("idiotic," for lack of a better
word) approach still affects the game.

[...]

