[DGD] Codes of conduct on a mud

Fri Jan 4 05:22:36 CET 2019

This has been a very wide discussion, I'm impressed.

I wasn't even trying to advance my own case, or even get suggestions
particular to my mud.  Just felt like started up a philosophical
discussion in general, seeded with my own observations.

On a personal level, regarding quest info (which unexpectedly became a
focus of this discussion), I have no opinion specific to quest spoils.
In "my book" as it were, it's mostly preempted by the more general
principle of separating IC and OOC information and violations in the
context of spoiling quest info would likely fall under the general
principle of metagaming if it trespasses across the fourth wall.

So for me, if someone was spoiling quest information, I might consider
it unfortunate or a good example of IC cooperation, provided they did
so through IC means.  If they started abusing OOC chatlines or the
like, I'd consider it metagaming if they took advantage of the
information.

My personal two cents is that quest spoiling is either a valid IC
tactic, or already covered by my existing policy of OOC-provoked
metagaming, and that quest spoiling, by itself, is not necessarily an
evil of its own.

What does everyone think about this?

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 10:56 PM Tony Demetriou
<tony.demetriou at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bart: *I like the idea of giving players 'secret' hints they need for doing
> something.*
>
> Me too!
> ... but I never found a good "formula" to procedurally create or randomize
> those puzzles.
>
> I could easily make it the "fifth stone" rather than "third stone" if I
> wanted players to have to figure it out again - but figuring it out is
> still just following the same process as before. There aren't really any
> new clues that need to be put together in a new way.
>
> So it's a lot of work to create engaging mysteries or puzzles, and very
> little work to tell everyone the answer. So some method to create content
> easier, or community social attitudes about pointing players at the puzzles
> but not giving the answer help.
>
> I doubt there's any "right" answers, just various strategies that will
> depend on the individual game, type of puzzles, and community.
>
> *But the entire setup you describe causes one simple question for me:*
>
>
>
> *How do you differentiate between someone who obtained the information
> fromanother player, and those who know the information because they
> playedanother, no longer existing character in the past?*
>
> You can't. Not reliably.
>
> There are various other data points to help you guess more accurately. You
> could check if they had a character in the past that knew the information.
> You could check how long the new character has been active. You could check
> who else the new character has interacted with. You could check if the
> other character's in their social circle also use this secret.
> But even then, most of the time you still won't know for sure.
>
>
>
>
> *Changing it often enough might work to prevent that, but wouldn't that
> messwith players getting the information legitimately, and only acting on
> it muchlater?*
> Absolutely!
> Knowledge continuity is important.
>
> Barring some in-game event that changes the secrets (a weekly password.
> Players taking some action to change the trigger mechanism etc.) then any
> discoveries should stay valid.
>
> Another game that's more about the puzzles than the social interactions
> might be able to randomize the triggers without disrupting gameplay.
>
>
>
> *Bottomline, I do not think this gives a good idea about whom is
> gettinginformation 'illegally' because there are quite legitimate ways in
> which the'detection' can be triggered still.*
>
> I agree you can't be sure!
> That's why I mentioned that this will give false positives. It's only one
> data point.
>
> I disagree when you say that it doesn't give a good idea about who's
> getting the information illegally.
> Although it does give false positives, you should take into account volume,
> how many PCs on the same account get flagged, and other similar data points.
>
> One secret door tells you very little. But information about every skill
> increase, every secret, every item collected that requires some special
> knowledge or activity, every interaction with another PC that gives a
> benefit... and timestamps about when/where/who else was there. Very quickly
> that allows you to build a pretty reliable picture.
>
> What should we do with this information? Do we even care?
>
> I'm not suggesting that those actions are cheating. I'm suggesting that we
> can learn a lot about how different players interact with the game. We can
> identify specific play styles, we can identify specific players that bend
> or break rules, we can check what the players SAY about how they like to
> play and what they actually DO when they play.
>
> That information can help us design better games. With enough data points,
> we can gather this information very reliably, even if each individual data
> point might not tell us much about that specific player.
>
> Blain: *I think a short term test is better than a long term one, if one is
> just*
> *doing what he stated his intent was.*
>
> Yeah, to answer a specific question, short-term tests are best.
>
> I like long-term data collection too - but usually for more general, broad
> information. And to test what effect game changes have.
>
>
> *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
> theirown lost or another's).  If they try everything than might possibly
> you'reprogress, they're probably not organically exploring.  But the main
> pointwould be to just show down cheaters anyway, not catch them for
> punishment.*
> Knowing who the cheaters are is much more useful than punishing them!
> Getting them on-side and helping staff is even better!
>
> Bart: *Obviously 'cheating' by undesired information exchange is mostly an
> issue for*
>
> *the puzzle solving element.*
> In my case, the larger issue was socially competitive situations that make
> use of hidden information.
>
> For example, a city guard character is motivated to find a corpse and begin
> a murder investigation. A criminal is motivated to hide their victim's
> corpse and avoid leaving evidence that can get them arrested.
>
> The best-case scenario in terms of "winning" is for the murderer to hide
> the body successfully, never tell anyone what they did, and leave zero
> clues. And for the guard to burst in and find the murderer still handling
> the body, beat them in a dramatic sword fight, and make an immediate arrest.
>
> But best-case for the game is to have clues spread fairly broadly, for the
> criminal to behave in a suspicious way, for the guard to discover something
> is amiss and have to search for the body, investigate clues, and question
> potential witnesses. Because my code couldn't do all of that, it relied on
> player good will, where they'd be willing to intentionally drop clues or
> help guide their opponents towards the investigation. And for the guard's
> to be cooperative and investigate without trying to smack down the criminal
> (who's cooperatively helping leave clues for them.) - many players are
> willing to play like that, to give clues that help their opponent, behave
> differently so that if other players are socially canny enough they'll put
> it together. And will happily accept being caught if someone puts it all
> together.
>
> ... but only if they feel that things are "fair" - when they feel like
> their opponents are using loopholes or player information to catch them,
> then they're not going to feel generous about intentionally handicapping
> themselves to create fun for the person who's playing unfairly against them.
>
> Since the example was hidden doors, a situation that's come up *at least
> five times that I've dealt with* was a murder where the criminal player
> involved other criminal characters. They'd hide the corpse in a hidden
> area, or maybe they're avoiding an arrest warrant and were hiding out in
> the hidden area, or something. But then a guard character "happens" to be
> exploring, opens the hidden door and "happens" to discover the hiding
> criminal or catch them with the corpse.
> When that constable's player *also* just "happens" to play a criminal
> character who had the information about where the constable character
> should look .... you can see why that might feel unfair.
>
> If the criminal reported to the constables, that'd be fine - that's just
> social gameplay. And you can always retaliate against the snitch.
>
> But when that criminal logs out or goes to another busy room, and the
> constable "coincidentally" goes looking, there's no in-character snitch.
> Just a constable with amazing luck that gets to "win."
>
> Overall, that sort of information-sharing is very damaging to this
> particular game's play. But only because of the specifics of how the social
> competition is set up. Unless staff are actively watching what every
> character in the game is doing, it's really hard to police this, or to even
> know what happened.
>
> In other games this might not be an issue.
>
>
> *Trying out all possibilities systematically does not have to be a sign
> ofcheating*
>
> Of course!
> Some players love discovering new things, and are willing to spend hours
> exploring and testing. That's great, we want to encourage players like that!
>
> And having players like that mean you can hide new secrets and mysteries in
> the game and know that sooner or later someone will discover it.
>
> I'm honestly much less worried about "cheating" and much more interested in
> knowing how players engage with the game. What methods they use to discover
> new information about the game, what methods they use to gain new items,
> abilities, or influence. Whether they use it in a way that makes the game
> more fun or less fun for the other players. And so on.
>
> We should only police cheating when it's possible to make clear, easily
> understood rules, when the rules have a clear benefit to the game, and when
> someone intentionally violates those rules.
>
> It's always better to find a structural solution rather than declaring that
> something is "cheating." If you're really creative or lucky, you can turn
> what used to be a cheat into a new gameplay element that everyone can use.
>
>
> *Its not that you can't address the issue*
>
> *itself, but doing so will just change the underlying problem, not
> actuallysolve it. Its moving the goalposts, and not actually scoring that
> goal.*
>
> Agreed.
>
> It's information about the underlying problem. I'm not claiming it's the
> solution.
>
> 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)
>
> Even if you COULD win it by enforcement, would you want to?
> I personally wouldn't.
>
> There are a few players that I want to enforce against. Those few who are
> malicious towards other players, or unrepentently continue to break rules
> despite repeated requests that they stop. Basically, if someone is being an
> asshole, and trying to get what they want at the expense of creating work
> for staff or making other players unhappy, then I'm happy to kick them out.
>
> For everyone else, I want the game to be a welcoming place. Even if they're
> cheating, I'd rather fix the problem by changing the game, or talking to
> the player and understanding what motivated them to cheat. I want to make a
> game where the players *don't want* to cheat. Punishing the cheaters won't
> get me closer to that goal. Tracking how often they cheat, and using that
> as a measuring stick when testing game changes will help me measure whether
> those changes discourage cheating. And avoid the player feeling punished.
>
>
> *Another point you make is just making 'illegal' information less
> useful,'showing cheaters'.*
>
> Showing cheaters to staff? That's fine.
> Showing cheaters to other players? I hate that. I don't think public
> shaming or peer pressure is a good solution to anything.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *interaction between humans, those who play the game. This obviously
> happens through proxies (thecharacters those people play) which is
> something over which you do have somecontrol, but it still involves humans,
> and if 2 of those humans happen to knoweach other or get in contact outside
> the game, it is extremely likely they willalso be discussing that game, if
> both are somewhat enthousiastic about playingit. This all is inherent to us
> being humans and this being about multiplayergames.*
>
>
>
>
> *The desire to consider OOC information exchange as cheating goes
> directlyagainst how humans work, and hence is in itself unreasonable,
> regardless ofthe game related aspects that may make it desirable.*
> Absolutely!
>
> You can sometimes win when you fight against people's worst behaviour. You
> can sometimes win against their greed, their hate, or their desire to win.
>
> You'll never win when you fight against people's best behaviour. That's why
> the record studios will never stop piracy - because at core, the people
> hosting it feel like they're sharing. They're facing potential jail time
> because *they feel good about giving to strangers!* The same applies to
> information sharing. Those players feel that they're helping another player
> in the community. They're creating friendships, they're being nice to each
> other, they're doing something considerate, something moral, and something
> good. You'll never stop it!
>
> And why would you want to?
>
> My focus was on creating community norms around it. Having frank and open
> discussions with the players about whether they think it's harmful or not,
> letting them provide hypotheticals, and answering questions. Let the
> community decide whether logging in your constable and catching the
> criminal is fair when your friend messages you to tell you where the
> criminal was. Let players share information when they feel they're helping,
> but draw a line between that and using information to profit yourself.
>
> ... or whatever works for your game.
>
> But certainly, I wouldn't want to stop players from talking about the game,
> or sharing exciting things they've discovered, or showing it to each other.
>
> Even if I could stop that, it wouldn't change much. They'd just say "Get
> online" and then give the exact same information via their character. So if
> it's not going to change much, why try to police it? That's just more work
> for you, and more unpleasantness for the players. We want to maximise their
> fun, and minimize unpleasant interruptions from staff.
>
>
>
>
> *In the past I have seen many cases where the desire to control such
> OOCbehavior by means of enforcement resulted in collapse of the
> playerbasebecause it killed enthousiasm for the game and the in-game
> atmosphere.*
> Doesn't surprise me at all!
>
>
>
> *The only thing you can really achieve is make it undesirable for people
> todisclose some information, and the only real way of doing that is by
> causing adisadvantage when people share such information.*
>
> That's not the only thing you can do. But it's probably the most effective!
>
> Of course... we usually want players to share information! So if you don't
> want them to share something, you need some way to signal to the players
> what they shouldn't be sharing, and what disadvantage sharing it will
> create.
>
>
>
> *Bottomline, it is a multiplayer game, and that means people will interact,
> andany approach you come up with should fit in with that instead of go
> against it.*
> Agreed - this is 100% the top consideration, and should be foremost in your
> mind when considering any new rules or method of enforcement.
>
> I'm of the opinion that an ideal game would only have rules that help build
> player trust or comfort.
> Everything else should be allowed, and everything else you might need to
> discourage should be done via game mechanics.
>
> Cheers,
> Az
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 2:03 AM <bart at wotf.org> wrote:
>
> > 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/
> >
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd