[MUD-Dev] Guilds & Politics [was Affecting the World]

[Marian Griffith]

On Fri 05 Dec, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:

> Mike Sellers <mike at online-alchemy.com> wrote:

> >>- more jerks than you can handle
> >>- more jerks than mass market people are willing to handle
> >>- a playerbase that assumes the game will settle their grievances,=20
> >>- the same tiny proportion as usual of people willing to enforce=20
> >>societal mores.

> I've got one question here.  Both UO and M59 was marketed as
> roleplaying games right.  What's wrong about being a jerk then?  Will
> this tendency translate well to non-roleplaying games?

Being a jerk is quite different from roleplaying one. The later is done
with respect for the other players. The first is entirely self-centered
and cares not for the other players,  except  possibly by the amount of
distress that is caused by the actions.
"I am roleplaying an evil character" is the most often heard excuse for
a player behaving obnoxious. Roleplaying an evil characters is extreme-
ly difficult (because so few people actually are evil). Most of them do
manage to be no more than bullies.  My personal explanation for this is
that not many players have access to good examples with respect to good
and evil. They only have seen the hollywood stereotypes. Naturally they
behave accordingly and mistakingly belief they are roleplaying. -IF- it
is their real intention to roleplay. I suspect a significant portion of
those players actually do it to cause distress.  (see also bartle's ar-
ticle on player types in the mud journal?)
But to answer your question. No. There is nothing inherently wrong with
being a jerk on a roleplaying game,  but only if you are actually role-
playing that jerk. There is a great deal wrong with -being- a jerk on a
roleplaying game.

> >local level (and re: long range communication -- you *do* know that ma=
ny UO
> >players use ICQ or Ichat while playing to talk to others at long dista=
nce,
> >don't you?). =20
> I recall M59 users using external programs for chatting as well.=20

I would not know either way but I tend to belief that a certain access
to long range or ooc communication can be  helpfull to roleplaying. It
allows players to coordinate the story. If all players do is talk then
there is a little problem, but they can do that inside the game equal-
ly well without having ooc communication.

> >>So I have an answer to that question of a while ago, "How DO you=20
> >>govern a mud with thousands of players?" Well, you try not to, but in=
=20
> [...]
> >many of the code crutches as we can.  I don't think the solutions we'v=
e
> >seen thus far scale to where the Net and online entertainment spaces a=
re
> >going to be in, say, three to five years.  IMO, we absolutely must sto=
p

I would not recommend on relying on the actions of the players themselves.
There is too much chance of abuse, and one bad player can ruin the fun fo=
r
a very great many others. Getting those players back is going to much har=
-
der than trying to prevent the distress from happening.

> I've got another question.  Does thousands (or rather millions) of
> players add anything vital to the experience at all?  Maybe thousands
> of separate systems with several hundred players each is equally
> rewarding, even more rewarding, because the probability of bumping
> into a friend is higher.

With more players you can more easily have a kind of society in your
game, which might make the game more enjoyable.

Marian
--=20
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey