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

[Matt Chatterley]

On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Marian Griffith wrote:
> On Thu 11 Dec, Matt Chatterley wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Marian Griffith wrote:
[Previously, Richard, Matt, Derrick and Vadim]

[Snip]
 
> > While this was just an 'observation' that I made, I'd like to reclarify in
> > slightly more detail - Many people dislike actually being killed by
> > another player. I do! However, I advocate PK under appropriate
> > circumstances as a good thing. The reason for the discrepancy here is that
> > i have never been PKed under said 'appropriate circumstances', by which, I
> > mean a game environment whereby PK is not 'taboo', but rather an accepted
> > and normal part of the game, as much as the wholesale slaughter of NPCs.
> 
> Strangely enough I do not object to pk as such. I do object to it being
> used in such a way  that it is a tool for  (emotionally)  harming other
> players. In general I prefer pk to be handled as a part of roleplaying,

This is the impression I was getting, and I think we are actually getting
onto some vaguely new ground here, the heart of the *issue* surrouding PK.
It is not that you object to my initiative a sequence of actions resulting
in character->die() for you, but rather that my *motivation* in many mud
environments (let us exclude RP environments and pure PK games), was to
injure you, the player, on some level. This may seem silly to those that
have not encountered it, but, it *does* happen. I've not comitted any
personally-offensive angle PKs (for instance, a rogue character
slaughtering several fighters was an in-game set of actions, although made
a little daft by levels and such; I was not after upsetting their players,
merely bashing the fighters who had been making life hard for our guild),
but I do know people have have (albeit subconciously).

Not everyone makes the connection 'If I kill X, will X understand it is
IC, and not OOC?' without some serious consideration on the matter - we're
only just getting to this (again? Or is this fairly new?) now.

> where two  or more  players decide to roleplay a fight  and act out the
> results of that combat. If both sides do not consent there is no effect
> for the killing.  Problems start to happen when combat can be initiated

I've always found the notion of consent-based fighting and death strange,
*BUT* I have also taken it out of context too. I look at it in the context
of a game where your control over your character is restricted, whereas it
is generally used in high-control (control freak! I'm a control freak!)
environments.

> by one player only and the other player is forced to live with the con-
> sequences of it. This is the case on muds,  and on mushes that have not
> disabled the ability to 'kill' somebody else.

This is a game style decision (almost an aesthetic one in some ways),
which has rather large implications. It is a statement on how you wish to
handle players - I personally take a LOT of control away from you, which
some players (notably Tiny players) dislike, although this is often
because they have had bad experiences with such environments.

Basically when I allow other players to affect you and restrict your
control over the situation (you can only influence it by partaking IN it,
you cannot over rule, cancel, or opt out), I am very loudly shouting that
you are *not* in complete control of your character, which can hinder
roleplaying in several contexts. Elendor is a splendid example of a well
handled consentual system, as I think you mentioned - I can name no really
good examples of non-consentual systems, but there are probably some
excellent ones in development by folks here.
 
> > > This is indeed the difference that makes it either something personal
> > > or a signal  that the other person  does not care at all about you or
> > > your feelings. Neither alternative is pleasant.
> 
> > A very valid, and very relevant point of view. Now, if I may postulate an
> > alternate (or at least, different) situation, or environment. If we take a
> > game, whereby PK is not such a taboo situation, and for instance, there is
> > an Assassin guild, which hands out assignments to its members. The members
> > are NPCs and PCs, and the contracts are for NPCs and PCs. Either may be
> > assigned to perform their duties upon either.
> 
> The key difference here  is that the killing of another player is handled
> in an IC setting. The player being targetted should reasonably be able to
> expect being a target  and ought to be able to prepare or defend herself.

Absolutely. This is an environmental issue (not entirely akin to the
greenhouse effect, mind you :P), and an atmospheric one. I wish to stress
to my players that this is how it is (and that the world is not a safe
place). Of course, one large problem with these PKs is that an older, more
experienced player who is a 'higher level' will almost always defeat a
'lower level' player - skill based systems do narrow this gorge down a
little. If someone attacks you and does NOT get the drop under my system,
although they can be more skilled and stronger, they will not be able to
slaughter you within seconds (unless they are trained to do so - see
below). Combat is also very 'laid back' timewise, with a command entry
round of 10s followed by an action round of unspecified length (it lasts
as long as it takes to execute the commands in initiative order from a
synchronised group). An active around typically involves 2-3
swings/parries from roughly equal opponents. Thus assuming it takes 5-6
really good hits from a rapier with a reasonable swordsman to actually
finish you on the spot, you should last at least two rounds (more like
three). This is all relative to the difference in skills of course. :)

Newbies will be encouranged to pick large and buff races, since this gives
you a survival advantage (a Giant PC virtually unskilled, versus a mildly
skilled Human PC with some spells, and roughly matched kit, will massacre
the Human 9/10 times, unless the Human is well prepared), or races with
good escape capacities (eg Pixies, puny, but the only flighted player race
currently).

> This of course assumes that those assassins do not randomly kill  for any
> reason. If there is no contract they are safe.

Absolutely. Assassins have a strict code of honour, and to breach this
code is to upset the higher-ups in the guild. This is generally unhealthy
and can lead to a future involving a very close physical
examination, typically called an autopsy. Although perhaps spelt
correctly.

> Realistically speaking you can not trust players  with this ability.  Not
> even with the ability to offer a contract on another player. Players will
> abuse it sooner or later.

Right. But where things get interesting: The more money offered on a
contract, the more powerful the Assassin depatched will be; good assassins
will not take cheap jobs (consider it pride in their work), and bad
assassins will not be allowed to take good jobs (if they try to, they tend
to vanish, only to turn up hung upside down from trees several days
later). The guild enforces its own rules very strictly, and will eliminate
any members who violate them.

There are other rules, of course (a sort of 'code of honour' pertaining to
victims). If a failed attempt is made on you, the assassin may talk if
captured (PCs may not be cooperative, but this doesn't matter), and the
guild will inform you out of courtesy, of the price on your head, and who
was the last person to pay it. The guild will then raise the price, since
you have either defeated or killed one of its members in their work (the
latter raises the price more).

Strangely, this whole setup gives one current guild, a Shaolin order, a
significant advantage, because even when unarmed and naked, they can
defend themselves more than amicably against lightly armed opponents.
 
> > Now, the PK is not personal, but professional. This however, raises the
> > second point you have above - the assassin does not, or at least seems to
> > not care about your feelings when they kill you. It is the knowledge that
> > they *could* care, but do not, which is offensive, since being killed by
> > an NPC assassin, which is incapable of such emotional response or
> > considerations, is *not* taken on a 'personal' level.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> > The end result is the same - you are just as dead, and you are no worse
> > off in the *actual* sense either way, but on an emotional level, to some
> > degree, are you more injured by the PC-wrought death?
> 
> Depends. I probably would be though.

This is really bringing your point about player-abuse back up; even if
there is no abuse, players will *suspect* it (even if they don't know it),
and will wonder, just wonder 'was that deliberately to hurt me?'
subconciously. I can't really see many ways to 'soften' this down any
more, except to put realistic controls upon killing (it has to be well
organised, or the killer can be in serious trouble).

> > > > > (is it anymore personal an attack than one from an NPC? I say *no*
> > > > > since it is NOT personal against you, or at least, ideally is not).
> 
> > > Ideally perhaps, but many players use pk as a way to hurt other players.
> > > E.g. to settle disagreements
> 
> > Very much so. You are also correct to note that I am speaking somewhat
> > idealistically - this is absolutely true, and I 'fess up to that right off
> > the bat. A Player using his PC to kill another Players PC to cause some
> > hurt to them is guilty of what is coming to be known as 'jerk behaviour'
> > in these circles - but it is not readily preventable, or punishable
> > (unless it is done repeatedly, in which case I drop it into the
> > 'harrassment' category).
> 
> harassment, stalking, obscene or offensive behaviour are quite different
> from pk.  They can have no place on a game,  not even a poor excuse like
> roleplaying an evil character. pk can, possibly, be justified as being a
> part of the game.

Oh yes, but PK can also be harrassment of a form in many environments (eg:
Repeatedly bashing someone who can't really hurt you). Many muds make the
dubious claim that 'excessive PK will not be tolerated' :) IC/OOC forms of
punishment exist for me, but as always, PK is a grey area - you cannot
tell what one might call IC-PK from OOC-PK. I decided to stop fretting
about this one and just see how it turns out.
 
> > > A player can decide to attack you or not to attack. The monster can not
> > > make that decission.  It is the fact that somebody else decided to harm
> > > me that makes pk hard to accept. It is personal or I do take it as such
> 
> > I touched on this above, but to reword what Marian has said - on an
> > emotional level, this is so. The NPC can decide to attack or not very
> > readily, even with a semblance of intelligence, BUT in the end, it is a
> > program, using logic of some fashion to decide if it will attack or not.
> > It is not a reasoned, or emotional decision. However, this raises a
> > counter-riposte, in that the dissociation between Player and PC would
> > suggest that the Player is not making a personal attack, but rather
> > conveying their PC appropriately, by suitable mechanisms.
> 
> No.
> A player must actively decide to attack somebody or something. Even if
> the player does not consider the attack personal  this does not change
> the fact that it is another -person- he attacks.  On the contrary, the
> fact that other players -may- take it personal and -may- identify more
> strongly with their game characters  ought to stop him  from doing so.
> That he does not  suggests that he does not care about the feelings of
> his victim.

Right; we've now waded deeply into some very grey waters. :)
 
> > > I'm seeing evidence of another subject that should not for the moment
> > > be resurrected. But no, you focus on the act of combat and not on the
> > > intentions. 
> 
> > *chuckle* We have several such subjects. :)
> 
> yes, but let's leave this one burried for now.

I think its completely exhausted now. I could set fire to it if you like.

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	ICQ: 5580107
"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." -Einstein