[MUD-Dev] Life

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <3.0.32.19970530231930.008f0bb0 at mail.tenetwork.com>, on 06/01/97 
   at 09:33 AM, Jeff Kesselman <jeffk at tenetwork.com> said:

>[ChrisL:]

>>>You have to do something about those players who don't want to play
>>>even by this minimum of courtesy. Or worse, who enjoy upsetting
>>>others for the power it gives over their emotions. Just saying that
>>>well, you can kill the .... and that's it won't work. At least not
>>>all the way.
>>
>>Agreed, and here we get into the problems of bad game design.  

>You have made this point a few times and here we definately disgaree.
>I find thsi naive.  Unless you restrict tyour game to the point where
>players dont interract at ALL 9and thus dfeat the purpose we all
>agree, yes?), then you WILl have destructive players wh oWILL find
>ways to annoy others...

A counter:  How did MIST, MUD1, SX MUD, MUD2 (British Knights?),
Shades et manage to do so well (and still do so well comparitively)
with free PK?

Note: Shades is up and running as I type.  Try it and see.

>>  I don't have a global naming system.  Thus a PK'er can't do a "who",
>>and then track down the victim.  Instead they must first locate the
>>other player without any implicit way to differentiate them from a
>>mobile (there is no command which will return, "this is a mobile" as
>>vs "this is a player body"). 

>How about talkign to it?

If they answer or don't answer in a way you deem a sign of RL, then
fine.  OTOH they can just hitail it outta there.  Tough to tell then.

>How abotu attacking ANYTHIGN that come through an area where newbies
>frequently walk?

I have no such areas.  Actually I have no real centralised routes or
newbie specific areas.  Starting locations are the next best things to
random and there are (hopefully) fairly decent game advantages to stay
spread out across the land (crowding leads to vulnerability).

>>Then, ocne they have found them they
>>must assign a name to them (body specific, not character specific),
>>and then track them down from there.

>Most Pkillers are psycho-kilers. they dont CARE who the victim is as
>logn as they are weaker then they and can be upset by killign them
>off.  I thin kyouve just solved the worng problem.

You missed the problem.  They finally find someone to kill, so they
assign a name to them.  They can now use tht name to tell if that body
is still alive, however once its out of their site they have
absolutely no way of telling where it is in the land (and
teleportation is easy if expensive (magical auto-following is possible
by more expensive)).

>Again, Im talking about the Pkiller in an RP mud NOT a combat mUD
>where the assuemd social contract is on a par with the one between
>Quake players.

I'm not assuming either.  I have no experience with MP Quake games
(they don't appeal), and am not interested in strict RP games.  The
implicit contract is one of arranged advantage.  Once I get done
player characters and their bodies are intended to be the the prey
species, as versus the players being the top dog predators.

>>  Additionally as bodies are a fairly fluid thing, killing a
>>character's body typically has little permanent effect on the
>>character.  He has other bodies, or can easily get other bodies.  It
>>is an incovenience and a disruption of the current action.

>In other words, you've basicly given them free regen?  No real death?
>Thsi IS one solution ,the one Nevre Winter uses.  It has other bad
>consquences, luike immortal high level characters....

Nope.  A seemingly endless supply of bodies.  Loss of bodies reflects
on the character, weaking the character in various ways, and
decreasing its genreal luck value.  Additionally the player object is
toned down as well.  Loss of all bodies results in character deletion
(cf earlier discussion of partial ownership and prior owners). 
However that's purely physical conflict.  There is also mental
conflict which is purely inter-character (no bodies involved) which
can result in either character deletion or slave status (effectively
the character transfers over to the other player).

Bodies die the million deaths.  With every death the character
stutters and weakens.  Characters may be attacked directly, but
characters have no visible or interegatorable tie to specific bodies
(ie a given body cannot be mapped to a given character or visa versa). 
Body survival and success reflects on the character.  

Much like regimental chess (__great__ game) this is a war of attrition
and assembly with rare decisive simple attaks which kill.

>AS I recall, I started out this thread withan diea We are playign
>qwith, which is to not let players actually kill other players. Yo
>ugo to unconcious but not dead.  Only monsters can kill you.

>Seems to me this meets your design creterion.

No.  I want characters to die, both at other player's hands, and by
the game.  There are no better predators that other players.  I
certainly can't write a mobile script as good as even a mediocre
PK'er.

>>>... My
>>>viewpoint in this may be different from that of the average player
>>>but for me being attacked (or otherwise harassed) by another -player-
>>>is emotionally very upsetting.
>>
>>And here is where the out-of-game values start to apply.  I

>Sorry JC. I disagree entirely. i feel you are missing the point here.

>The point, as I've refrerence before, is implied social contract. 

Conversely I don't wish to have the game involved with a any form of
social engineering, or even an implicit social contract.  If the
players wish to do that sort of thing, they may.  I don't see that as
the game's purvey in the slightest degree.  

Actually, I suspect I'd react pretty violently to any attempt to bind
such a social framework to one of my games. I have no problem with the
players doing that on their own.  I have a real problem with building
that sort of structure into the game.

>In a combat MUD their is ALSO an impliued social contract that is
>similar though a bit different, as the goal is to HURt the other
>time, to decrease their effectiveness by takign away what they've
>gained in levels, items, etc.

You can look at the negative side of the equation, or the positive
side.  I prefer the positive as a concious choice.  I play PK and
combat games to win, to demonstrate and excerise my mastery (or
incompetance) of an area.  It is a challenge of the basic sort, and a
comparitive measure of effectiveness.  

Way back when I was quite proud of my abilities on Shades.  I wasn't a
Wizard -- actually had never even come close.  But I was one of the
more efficient and effective players on the game.  I earned more
points more rapidly than most any other, knew the map better, and
could successfully PK (attack or defense) other players way higher
than mine.  The challenge was excellance within the defines of the
game, nothing else. 

Why didn't I make wiz?  I was always trying to bite off more than I
could chew.  If I bit one off and managed to live, well, obviously I
just didn't pick on something big enough.  The game ended at Wiz.  I
had no interest there.  I was interested in beating the game on my
rules, not their's.

>This is NOT "game system", thsi is basic social engineering and
>socail enbginering is vital if you are buildign a social environment.

Disagreed.  I've seen this more than once (Island is a perfect case in
point, as is Sneezy, Northern Lights, LambdaMOO, and the recent
Habitat posts).  Remove the game and the game system entirely from the
social engineering.  Let the players build their own structures should
they wish to.  don't enforce it.  Don't attempt to structure it. 
They'll do a much better job than you could.  Best case: try and to
channel and guide it.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...