[DGD] Codes of conduct on a mud

[Blain]

Great point, Bart.  Reducing the value of information based on popularity
os a great way to handle some things in a game.  Asheron's Call  did this
will the custom magic spells.  Every spell cast reduced the effectiveness
of that spell across the world.

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 11:21 <bart at wotf.org wrote:

> Just some practical questions concerning this:
>
> 1. how do you imagine finding out about such 'OOC metagaming' ?
> 2. how do you expect people can be enthausiastic about a game they play and
> not share that experience with fellow players they also know outside the
> game
> environment?
>
> I understand why it would be nice to limit the exchange of such
> information to
> in-game channels only, but I think it is completely unrealistic and even
> unreasonable to expect players to stick to that because it simply goes
> against
> how humans work.
>
> While I think there are more possibilities than the randomizing that Blain
> mentioned, I do think variation and adaptation to individual players of
> quests
> are the most viable ways to at least reduce the direct usefulness of quest
> information, regardless of how people exchange it.
>
> Another possibility is to create direct in-game reasons that make it
> undesirable to share certain 'secrets', ie by reducing an advantage gained
> from completing a quest based on how many others also solve that quest and
> how
> quickly they do that.
>
> Bart.
>
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 08:53:03 -0800, Raymond Jennings wrote
> > I personally don't mind quest cheating itself.
> >
> > For me the line is between IC gossip, and OOC metagaming.
> >
> > For example, if Ruggles the wolf tells Shiri the cat which stone to
> > shove, that's ok.
> >
> > But their players conspiring out of band and Shiri's player taking
> > advantage of information that was not learned OOCly would not be.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 8:21 AM Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The best way to stop quest cheating is to randomize the quests.
> Otherwise,
> > > don't even try. :o)
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 06:55 <bart at wotf.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:23:40 -0800, Raymond Jennings wrote
> > > > > Ok, so one thing that caught my interest lately, is rules and
> > > > > enforcement on a mud.
> > > >
> > > > Some would say.. it was about time for that.. :-)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some common themes:
> > > > >
> > > > > * a chain of command saying who gets to boss who around.  Plus
> > > > > there's also the infamous "Confessions of an archwizard"
> > > >
> > > > Unless you are running a commercial game...start with the simple fact
> > > > people
> > > > work for a mud in their spare time, so rather than focussing on who
> gets to
> > > > boss whom around, look at who gets which responsibilities (yes, it is
> > > > factually the same thing, but the difference between those ways of
> saying
> > > > and
> > > > approaching it is key if you want any chance of anyone wanting to
> spend
> > > > their
> > > > precious spare time on helping to run your mud)
> > > >
> > > > Chain of command is good, but think carefully about how you present
> that
> > > > and
> > > > how you deal with people.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * Forbidding multi-accounting or multi-charing
> > > >
> > > > Good luck enforcing that. IPs can be had cheaply, so people can have
> their
> > > > multiple chars login from different IPs easily.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, more experienced players often do like to also have a
> lower
> > > > level char around.
> > > >
> > > > Imo, its not a problem if people have multiple chars, but it should
> not be
> > > > allowed to play both at the same time, or to exchange things
> (equipment,
> > > > other
> > > > items, credits etc etc etc) between those.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * Forbidding bots/macros
> > > >
> > > > Near impossible to enforce as a rule, but possible to deal with with
> good
> > > > game
> > > > design. Ensure there is little to gain from bots and macros or
> people will
> > > > use
> > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * Forbidding advertising of other muds
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does that mean people are not allowed to talk about other muds at
> all? or
> > > > not
> > > > on in-game public channels and locations? or?
> > > >
> > > > > * Forbidding the sharing of quest information.
> > > >
> > > > So, a multi-player game where people are not allowed to share
> information
> > > > that
> > > > is important for playing? I know a lot of muds tried this, and I've
> only
> > > > ever
> > > > seen it turn into failure, sometimes small, oftentimes huge.
> > > >
> > > > I understand the reasoning behind it, but I don't understand how it
> can
> > > > work
> > > > in what is a multi-player game, and even less so if team play has
> any role
> > > > in
> > > > that game.
> > > >
> > > > In general, they sound like rules you'd find on many classic muds,
> but
> > > > rules
> > > > that imo all failed to some level because they are neigh impossible
> to
> > > > enforce
> > > > and run counter to the concepts of multi-player games.
> > > >
> > > > Bart.
> > > > --
> > > > https://www.bartsplace.net/
> > > > https://wotf.org/
> > > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
> > > >
> > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > > ____________________________________________
> > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>
>
> --
> https://www.bartsplace.net/
> https://wotf.org/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
>
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd