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

[Felix A. Croes]

Mike Sellers <mike at online-alchemy.com> wrote:
> At 12:09 PM 12/6/97 PST8PDT, Felix A. Croes wrote:
> >> Rather, I believe that we can (and must) make use of that small proportion
> >> of people (the usual 10% or 20% who do 80% or 90% of good things in any
> >> community setting) to create and enforce their own societal mores.  We can
> >> best do this by understanding who these people are, and then giving them
> >> limited, compartmentalized, generally localized power -- but real power
> >> nonetheless to affect the social landscape of the game.  In effect, this
> >> enables "the game" to settle their grievances, only now some of them have
> >> essentially become part of the game from others' point of view -- and as we
> >> know, often the best game play is created by the people in the game, not
> >> the monsters or situations we create externally.  The same goes for
> >> resolving problems.  
> >
> >Unless the power to affect the game is available to everyone, this is
> >still what you called an externally-imposed solution -- there has to
> >be a sheriff to appoint the deputees.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here.  How is having a PC Sheriff appointed by a
> PC Mayor who is elected by the PCs themselves an externally-imposed
> solution?  I'll grant you that the Sheriff's powers are enabled by the
> game, and to that degree it is external -- but we're talking about a
> virtual world where at some level *everything* is externally imposed,
> including basic things like gravity.  (And as discussed, I think you could
> call this "Sheriff" solution a first-generation solution... there are more
> elegant ways to get the same effect, of course.)  

The sheriff was my metaphor for the meddling external administrator, and
the deputees are the right-minded players.  What I meant is that to
seek out certain players and give them special powers -- apart from
my doubts as to whether this will work at all -- is not going to
significantly reduce the workload for administrators.  Rather, it is
going to put them one step away from the power of influencing things.

If you do go about it in the way that you suggest above, letting
players vote for a police to keep order, what you accomplish is
that every troublemaker will consider bringing down this system as
his highest goal.  They will form the group of most dedicated voters.


> >In my experience, the mature, responsible players are even less
> >motivated than the paid staff to deal with the jerks.  Dealing with
> >the jerks is not actually a very enjoyable occupation.
>
> Maybe.  This does not fit my experience, at least when these players are
> given the equivalent of *limited* wiz powers.  They are only unmotivated
> when nothing they do is going to make a difference anyway.  

It depends on their powers, then.  What did you have in mind?


> >Also, I think that you perhaps use the idea of letting the game solve
> >itself too easily.  Any workable solution has to include the troublemakers
> >in the game, too.  
>
> Good heavens, yes.  This is precisely what I meant about creating social
> ecologies.  Briefly, the "troublemakers" take on the role of "decomposers"
> in biological ecologies -- they are important to redistributing power and
> wealth, just as vultures and worms are important to redistributing the
> energy encased in any consumer, so the producers can use it again.  

Isn't this rather a high-flying description for 14 year old brats in search
of 13 year old chicks to bully?

If you want to include them in your mud's social structure, you have to
make them in some measure necessary.  But whatever role you plan for them,
they will not do it.


> >> ... My goal
> >> is to make that pain as small and short as possible, and to eliminate as
> >> many of the code crutches as we can.  I don't think the solutions we've
> >> seen thus far scale to where the Net and online entertainment spaces are
> >> going to be in, say, three to five years.  IMO, we absolutely must stop
> >> looking at this as a problem with a technical solution, and begin
> >> addressing it as a predictable and tractable situation with social
> >> solutions.  
> >
> >Agreed, with one qualification: I want the result to be a mud.
>
> As opposed to what?  What would make something like this _not_ a mud?

As opposed to a place that is completely overrun by those who feel
free to ignore the rules that make up the mud, in particular the rule
that others may be allowed to enjoy the game; as opposed to a game
in which the ability for social expression is so limited as to offer
no distinction between troublemakers and "good" players.  Both of
these could still be muds, but their optimum would be a different
type of game/chat.

I'd love to see a self-regulating solution, but all the ones I've seen
so far lead to different types of games.

Felix Croes