nWoD2.0 Support Code?
-
There is a reason why the phone code I banged out for The Reach (and many WoD games since) is called "Dumb Phone Code".
- It's simple. Actually one of the kind of cool things about doing this is that I've created a say() function that gets used in 'places' code, et al., which will convert 'say( <enactor>, :grouses, )' into the correct output style for say and pose. This came about because of the phone code.
- It's silly. Seriously, what's wrong with you people! Next you'll be wanting automated apartment rental code, detailed language code, actual car objects, random emit code, and...oh my god! You've actually asked for this stuff, haven't you!
I'm kidding (half). We coded all of this about ten years ago, and then got tired of it because it didn't add anything to our experience. I mean it; you haven't experienced the dark side of immersion until you've been forced to carry around a phone object and remember the half a dozen commands--yes, really--to do things like hide your voice, block caller ID, mutter in the room that you're in and yet be clearly heard to those on the other end. I couldn't even remember how to answer the phone half the time. And back then, there was a difference between a mobile phone and a land-line phone. And the phone book. We really did this.
It died out because so many of us started using 'page' for phone conversations. Mutter code died because people stopped using it. Language code died because people stopped using it.
--
There is nothing wrong with wanting toys and immersion cues. Part of why I'm here is to tell people about their history, and that history is that immersion code breaks immersion. It can remind you that you're in a game, especially when people criticize it (on games where people are allowed to criticize the game, unsubtle Arx jab), and double especially when it creates a division of people who will use the code and people who won't. The number of people who take their immersion seriously can easily push the cliquish.
Trust me; I'm an Immersion Scientist. Here's my badge:
--
That said, do things that are fun because they're fun. If people use the code, awesome. If not, who cares. The only math to this is how much time you want to put into the project, and if it's your project, it's your time. Use it fun-ly.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain Should have disabled pages and @mail, yo.
-
@Jennkryst said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
@Thenomain Should have disabled pages and @mail, yo.
There are some people who enjoy playing games with no OOC communication channels, but I think if it was a popular choice then at least some MMO would have done it well by now.
Hell, if you want to see a heated debate, start a thread talking about making every person on the game Unfindable.
-
@Thenomain said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
It died out because so many of us started using 'page' for phone conversations. Mutter code died because people stopped using it. Language code died because people stopped using it.
Even though I've often said that we come from different planets in the MU world, I've had the exact same experience - right down to the parse_pose(<enactor>, :joins in the ranting) function I coded for my Dumb Comlink Code, complete with Dumb Comlink Directory (aka phone book) so you could call up a portable link or one in a room - and yes, they worked differently too.
Sure the comlinks were neat for five minutes, but then it just became a hassle and most people switched back to just using pages.
Most, not all. Some people still like it to this day and that's fine. I don't, though, so I've stopped coding things like that.
-
It seems to me like the problem is when these things are made mandatory, rather than by choice, generally.
Also, let's not forget that this, like all things in life, basically, when you live in civilized (for certain definitions thereof) society, is cyclical. What was once popular and then was not will be again.
Maybe people are just into this stuff again and it'll die back out later. That happens with pretty much everything ever.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
-
I know I'm invoking taboo when I say this, but have you guys checked out the MOO called Sindome? It relies on a strict adherence to IC communications only. ooc chatter is to be kept to a minimum, paging players is frowned upon, IC mail (I can't remember what they call it) and commlinks / phones are used extensively for RP purposes.
I forgot where I was going with this. I'm not fully awake yet. Pretend it was something intelligent to add to the conversation.
-
@golgoth There's nothing taboo about this. IC-only MU* have existed, in one form or other, since the hobby's very early days.
-
@golgoth said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
I know I'm invoking taboo when I say this, but have you guys checked out the MOO called Sindome? It relies on a strict adherence to IC communications only. ooc chatter is to be kept to a minimum, paging players is frowned upon, IC mail (I can't remember what they call it) and commlinks / phones are used extensively for RP purposes.
I forgot where I was going with this. I'm not fully awake yet. Pretend it was something intelligent to add to the conversation.
Sounds awful
And @Coin's got the right idea. We can add stuff to the game without going all-in, without forcing it, without it being a bother. Heck, we have +txt code on all the games I'm on. Everyone uses it. And you know what? On some of the games, +txt gets filtered through somewhere that staff can monitor, and they do, for IC reasons. We've given players an incentive to use page over +txt. And sure, maybe some players use page to avoid this, and that's not what we want to see happen, but if it does? That's fine. If you want to avoid techno-vampires spying on your phone calls via OOC means, then I probably don't want you involved in my techno-vampire plot anyways.
-
@golgoth said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
I know I'm invoking taboo when I say this, but have you guys checked out the MOO called Sindome? It relies on a strict adherence to IC communications only. ooc chatter is to be kept to a minimum, paging players is frowned upon, IC mail (I can't remember what they call it) and commlinks / phones are used extensively for RP purposes.
I like RPI type setups, and it does avoid some common headaches while introducing a lot of others, but that's been discussed so often I don't think I need to go into it. Now what I don't see mentioned much and what I do think is relevant is that I feel that organically encouraging RP and making things immersive is way, way more newbie friendly than the mush approach, or the very ooc centric approach you see in rp forums.
Theno made a comment about that if IC only approaches were popular, then MMOs would do it. That's very funny because RP communities in MMOs tend to fall way harder on the scale of something like RPI. There might be a few hundred roleplayers in a zone, most who have never met one another before, and they just randomly approach one another IC and leap right in with no ooc communication at all. OOC communication would just come after people get to know each other. There's no written code of etiquette or even really understood norms, it just develops because it's very intuitive- someone is there on a character, other people are talking IC and throwing out emotes, someone feels they can add something, they jump in.
The bar for entry is vastly lower. Someone is on a character, they see something being said or done IC, they respond. That's pretty much it. Now, take a MUSH- they have to log in, create characters (often using out of game references to do so), then once they have those characters, they either need to be extremely proactive in reaching out to other people, or make sure they sell their concept and hooks in a way other people feel compelled to reach out to them. That's a really high bar to ask of a community that has a whole hell of a lot of people with social anxiety.
That's why immersion tools are important- they can be one of the easiest ways to allow people to get hooked into the game, get initial roleplay, and build the kind of relationships with other characters that lead to compelling stories.
-
When I'm playing on modern type games (so not, right now), if there's not a +text code, I make it myself. Same with +phone. Because it's handy, and because that way my client doesn't treat the communication like a page (which it would, if I were using page to do it). It is always one of those things that I end up spreading around through the people I RP with, because 'hey, how did you do that?' becomes 'here, I'll show you how to do it' and it goes from there. So. For me, the time period it wasn't showing up on games generally just resulted in my friends and I coding it ourselves -- it didn't stop getting made because it wasn't getting used. I don't buy that, not at all.
-
@Sunny said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
For me, the time period it wasn't showing up on games generally just resulted in my friends and I coding it ourselves -- it didn't stop getting made because it wasn't getting used. I don't buy that, not at all.
I think we might be talking apples and oranges here. There's a difference between automating something people are doing anyway in a low-friction, helpful way vs. coding something that gets in peoples' way for the sake of "immersion".
You (I think?) are talking about a simple, easy-to-use
+text <name>command that just highlights the message differently. That sounds handy, sure.What I was talking about (and @Thenomain too I believe) was a lot more elaborate, involving phone/radio objects and a dozen different commands and multi-page help files. And for the coders, it meant duplicating large chunks of code, since the IC TV system worked pretty much identically to a BBS board, and the IC message system worked pretty much the same as mail, and the IC com system worked pretty much the same as a page. So what you had were systems that were a boat-ton of work to create, and a PITA to use. It was hardly surprising that they fell out of favor.
-
Whatevs. I used them. My friends used them. We still do. You didn't find enough value in it, awesome. But people were definitely using them. YOU weren't, OK. I was.
-
@faraday What I'm thinking of is something like this:
- Object-free (because ew).
- Message types: So all the code would go off of one made code object, and hopefully have split out functions that'll be easily called.
- Message database: So a player can review their +Txts, +phonecalls, +emails, etc.
What I'm currently stuck on is how to store the data. Store it on the player? Some central db? etc.
But ...not like having a cellphone object, or anything like that.
-
@Coin said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
It seems to me like the problem is when these things are made mandatory, rather than by choice, generally.
I have lived through eras where things like 'use the phone code' were mandatory by social pressure.
Maybe people are just into this stuff again and it'll die back out later. That happens with pretty much everything ever.
That's cool. I'm way into that. Hell, I love coding toys. I love people loving the things that I code. As long as we remember that the primary reason, above all others, we do this is to enjoy our time.
(Important Caveat: This does not give anyone permission to do anything they want just because it's fun for them. Not even staff. That is all.)
--
@Apos said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
Theno made a comment about that if IC only approaches were popular, then MMOs would do it. That's very funny because RP communities in MMOs tend to fall way harder on the scale of something like RPI. There might be a few hundred roleplayers in a zone, most who have never met one another before, and they just randomly approach one another IC and leap right in with no ooc communication at all. OOC communication would just come after people get to know each other. There's no written code of etiquette or even really understood norms, it just develops because it's very intuitive- someone is there on a character, other people are talking IC and throwing out emotes, someone feels they can add something, they jump in.
c.f. "Not Forced", above. If the community goes that way, great, and the community starts with the game creators. I have yet to see an MMO opt out of OOC systems, so I can't call it a popular game-design decision.
Opting-in to immersion tools is different, and a beautiful thing to behold.
--
@Sunny said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
For me, the time period it wasn't showing up on games generally just resulted in my friends and I coding it ourselves -- it didn't stop getting made because it wasn't getting used. I don't buy that, not at all.
While I mostly agree with my fellow coder, I'm going to note that this era was a decade ago, and by "not being made" I mean as a default. We also started with simple language code that was kind of a different form of mutter, but it became complex formulae that would look at your existing languages and make intelligent guesses about how much should be revealed if you do or don't know that language, or if you even have a chance to know which language that is, and we were basing these on understanding of real world linguistics.
It collapsed on itself because (and I'm going to espouse this as a truism): Any code can always be more immersive.
We eventually hit the wall where we'd have to be scanning words for just how complex each individual word would be to translate, and then we'd have to look at grammar, and so forth. And when the coders stopped installing this code, there was no push-back. Few people cared.
Language code, weather code, spy code, phone code, we hit that wall and we took a breath from it. Ten years ago.
I got in...well, not trouble, but due to something I coded for my Motley on Haunted Memories, a single function, pemit(), was locked away from non-staff. All we wanted was a simple Motely channel to talk and plan. Why? I have no idea. Something about wanting to make sure that nobody talks behind anyone else's back?
I'm actually pretty excited that people are coding for themselves again. As a game coder I'd be worried about some security, but in my coughcough years doing this, I've seen code abuse happen less than ten times.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
Yeah, I know it was a decade ago. I was also, during this time period, actually doing a great deal of coding myself. I helped design and then code one of the most terrible of the involved phone code systems that ever existed. But there is some conflating going on here between the monstrosities that we built in the day and the actual base idea itself. There was discouragement for writing phone code at all because 'we stopped doing that because people didn't use it'. It's not true. 'We stopped doing that because we made it way more complicated than it needed to be and people didn't use the way more complicated thing' is a different statement, and it actually gets to the ACTUAL problem and the thing that people designing code need to pay attention to: ease of use. They stopped using it because we made it too complicated to use, not because it wasn't useful.
-
@Sunny said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
'We stopped doing that because we made it way more complicated than it needed to be and people didn't use the way more complicated thing' is a different statement
Did I imply or did you infer? I dunno; I think we could all be better at trying to clarify instead of assuming.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
@Sunny said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
'We stopped doing that because we made it way more complicated than it needed to be and people didn't use the way more complicated thing' is a different statement
Did I imply or did you infer? I dunno; I think we could all be better at trying to clarify instead of assuming.
Er, no. That's what happened from my perspective. It didn't stop getting used because we didn't want it, it stopped getting used because it got too complicated. It stopped being intuitive, it crossed over the line from immersive to being a PITA. The takeaway shouldn't be that end users didn't want the code, because they did -- they didn't want THAT code, because it was too complicated.
The conversations I had tended to look a little like this:
Me: We need something that does X. Here's the design document.
Lead Coder: Oh, that's really cool. I'd love to do that. You know, since we're doing it anyway, we could make it do Y and Z too and people would really like--
Me: Er, maybe that's a little-
Lead Coder: OR THIS! WE COULD ALSO DO THIS! THERE ARE TWELVE THINGS WE FORGOT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE CODE TO DO!At the time, yes, it was awesome. We saw some really cool stuff. We also saw some really scary stuff (see: taxis on Ashes, or the firelizard egg incident). But progression led where it did. It should not have been a surprise when people just wanted X, got something that did X, but buried it beneath Y, Z, R, V, M, and 12...and didn't use it any more, going back to page or whatnot.
-
Fire lizard egg incident?
Did an egg give birth to a Harper who bonded with a weyr gate?
-
@Sunny said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:
The conversations I had tended to look a little like this:
Me: We need something that does X. Here's the design document.
Lead Coder: Oh, that's really cool. I'd love to do that. You know, since we're doing it anyway, we could make it do Y and Z too and people would really like--
Me: Er, maybe that's a little-
Lead Coder: OR THIS! WE COULD ALSO DO THIS! THERE ARE TWELVE THINGS WE FORGOT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE CODE TO DO!From my end it was:
Staffer: Hey, can we have this?
Me: Okay.
Staffer: Can you also make it do this?
Me: Okay.
Staffer: You know, since we're doing it anyway, we could make it do Y and Z too and people would really like--
Me: Er, okay, that will take longer to--
Staffer: OR THIS! WE COULD ALSO DO THIS! THERE ARE TWELVE THINGS WE FORGOT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE CODE TO DO!From my experience, I could also replace "Staffer" with "Player". Man, the things players ask for!
The thing about observed evidence is that we can only explain what we've observed, and that we should all be aware and understanding when someone else's perceptions are different, take that information into account as it comes up.
-
A system doesn't need to be a monstrosity for people to dislike it. I coded an insanely simple elevator once, but the vast majority of the people on that game were annoyed even by that much code getting in their way. When I rebuilt the grid, I just made an "Elevator" room that connected the floors and there was a collective sigh of relief.
Does that mean everyone hated the elevator? No. Some people thought it was neat. They liked the immersion. On a different game maybe that group would've been the majority. That's okay. People want different things. The trick is to figure out what the people on your game need/want and then give it to them in the most usable way possible.
