[DGD] Codes of conduct on a mud

[bart at wotf.org]

Blain,

You make a very good point regarding the purpose of quests.
- solving puzzles?
- putting in a lot of work?

Obviously 'cheating' by undesired information exchange is mostly an issue for
the puzzle solving element.

But what I struggle with is this:
Trying out all possibilities systematically does not have to be a sign of
cheating, it can simply be a sign of someone first having explored an area,
and after that using her own information to systematically search for
something. I actually know a fairly large number of people who will almost
always follow exact that approach. Yes you can also track if they explored
everything first. You can also track if they look in places where the
randomized items won't ever turn up. Its not that you can't address the issue
itself, but doing so will just change the underlying problem, not actually
solve it. Its moving the goalposts, and not actually scoring that goal.

Obviously, it isn't my thing to tell you what your game should be like, but
I'd like to mention that some 2.5 decades of arching on muds got me the
experience this is a battle you cannot possibly win by means of enforcement
(well, you can if you chase away all players of course but I think we'd agree
that is not a desirable outcome either)

Another point you make is just making 'illegal' information less useful,
'showing cheaters'. That can be more effective because it does not rely on
drawing conclusions from insufficient information, it merely makes 'cheating'
less effective. It also may make the in itself valid systematic search
approach less effective, but I don't think that is a problem, it just means it
becomes more attractive to solve a quest in the way intended by its creators.

But to me the experience I mentioned has to do with the nature of a
multiplayer game. It being multiplayer means there is interaction between
humans, those who play the game. This obviously happens through proxies (the
characters those people play) which is something over which you do have some
control, but it still involves humans, and if 2 of those humans happen to know
eachother or get in contact outside the game, it is extremely likely they will
also be discussing that game, if both are somewhat enthousiastic about playing
it. This all is inherent to us being humans and this being about multiplayer
games. 

The desire to consider OOC information exchange as cheating goes directly
against how humans work, and hence is in itself unreasonable, regardless of
the game related aspects that may make it desirable.

In the past I have seen many cases where the desire to control such OOC
behavior by means of enforcement resulted in collapse of the playerbase
because it killed enthousiasm for the game and the in-game atmosphere.

The only thing you can really achieve is make it undesirable for people to
disclose some information, and the only real way of doing that is by causing a
disadvantage when people share such information. 

You could also accept the multiplayer aspect, encourage team play for quests
and simply stop worrying about people exchanging information. That typically
means less mystery and more effort based quests, but, it also opens up the way
for more variation because you can use the stats of the involved characters to
enable/disable solutions to a quest. The chance of a combination of any 2
players having the same distribution of stats is not zero, and the viability
of this approach quite depends on how your game really works. Ie, if all
players can max out all their stats, and the max for those stats is the same
for all players, this approach will not work well. If there are significant
differences between players, it becomes more viable, and if those differences
are not easilly determined by being in one of a small number of classes, you
can create enough variation between any random combination of 2 players to
make this approach quite viable.

Bottomline, it is a multiplayer game, and that means people will interact, and
any approach you come up with should fit in with that instead of go against it.

Bart.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 08:17:08 -0600, Blain wrote
> I think a short term test is better than a long term one, if one is just
> doing what he stated his intent was.
> 
> Randomizing quests to foil cheaters for the long term can actually still
> let one see if the person is exploring vests following a list (be it 
> their own lost or another's).  If they try everything than might 
> possibly you're progress, they're probably not organically 
> exploring.  But the main point would be to just show down cheaters 
> anyway, not catch them for punishment.
> 
> Warcraft quests aren't usually mysterious, though, so they're system 
> works simply because it takes time to do what they want you to do. 
>  The labor is the quest, not the mystery and problem-solving.  Maybe 
> a mixture of all types is best.
> 
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 05:36 <bart at wotf.org wrote:
> 
> > I like the idea of giving players 'secret' hints they need for doing
> > something.
> >
> > But the entire setup you describe causes one simple question for me:
> >
> > How do you differentiate between someone who obtained the information from
> > another player, and those who know the information because they played
> > another, no longer existing character in the past?
> >
> > Changing it often enough might work to prevent that, but wouldn't that mess
> > with players getting the information legitimately, and only acting on it
> > much
> > later?
> >
> > Bottomline, I do not think this gives a good idea about whom is getting
> > information 'illegally' because there are quite legitimate ways in which
> > the
> > 'detection' can be triggered still.
> >
> > Bart.
> >
> > On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 09:17:33 +1100, Tony Demetriou wrote
> > > 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
> > > ____________________________________________
> > > 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
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd


--
https://www.bartsplace.net/
https://wotf.org/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/