[DGD] Codes of conduct on a mud

[Tony Demetriou]

I had a secret entrance, that required pressing a specific stone in the
wall.

There was a command, something like "press third loose stone", I can't
remember the specifics, but I was using multiple names and adjectives for
the trigger. So "look at third rock" or "examine stone" or "examine second
stone" "third stone" "fourth stone" etc. all used the same detail. The code
then checked what the player targeted with their command, so we know that
they actually knew the correct action and didn't find some other way to
discover/test all the details in the room. (It also meant we can change the
trigger in code without having to rebuild any details in the room.)

PCs that met a certain criteria logged in to a message telling them about a
dream, which revealed this secret doorway. There were no other clues in the
game.
We then recorded who had been given the dream. And then recorded whenever
another PC witnessed the secret door being opened, and who opened it. We
also recorded who opened the door with the right command despite not having
the dream or witnessing it.

That gave me a pretty decent idea of who was receiving information, either
by using the information from one character to let another open the door,
or who had been told by another player.

I followed that up a while later with a different secret door that just
used the standard "open" command, and gave an emote about their character
opening the secret door. There was no specific command - anyone who knows
how to open it can open it like a normal door (but still needs to know what
detail to open.) Anyone who doesn't know how to open it can still try, and
will be given an emote about them not seeing a way to open it. Anyone who
witnesses someone opening it can then open it themselves.

That gave additional info about which _characters_ were sharing information
with each other. Which could be checked against the earlier information.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of characters that shared information about the
earlier secret also shared information about this secret. Also
unsurprisingly, a lot of characters that "magically" knew how to open the
first door very quickly were shown how to open the second door, often by
one of the player's own characters or by another character that in-fiction
had no reason to share that information.

I never did anything with this information - there are plenty of reasons
why this might give "false positives" where a player or character had a
totally valid, innocent, or creative reason to know the secret. Plus I
don't like punishing players for playing the game in a way they enjoy.

But I did use these data points when thinking about how secrets in the game
are shared, and to consider how characters sharing information builds
in-character relationships, but players sharing information builds
out-of-character community and friendships. And to consider what sorts of
game mechanics should be used to encourage each type. (Our most basic
decision was that we'd "punish" any secrets that were shared openly on the
forum, but not secrets shared directly between players or characters.
Usually by narrating what happens due to the average NPC citizen now
knowing the secret. That allowed "secrets" that pretty much every player
knew, so new players could get the enjoyment of discovery or being told a
secret, and get that relationship strengthener in a way that wouldn't have
happened if they just saw the secret on the forum.)

This wasn't some big "figure out about secrets" project, it was a smaller
part of a larger project to try and identify social relationships, both in
and out of game, via analytics. There are a number of social mechanics in
the game that we use as data points.

Cheers,
Tony

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 4:21 AM <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