[MUD-Dev] Life

[Adam Wiggins]

[Caliban:]
> [Marian:]
> >What was really wrong of this player's part is that he involved another
> >player in a plot  without in the least attempting to figure out how she
> >felt about the whole situation. This is where a roleplaying game should
> >still be a -game-. All involved must have fun. While it may be in-char-
> >acter it wasn't much fun for the victim. 
> 
> This is completely correct. It's the major impetus for consent policies
> on MU*s, but these carry their own inherent abuses; I recall one game
> where several players decided they didn't like certain of my character's
> fairly gained abilities, and therefore would not consent to my use of
> them in their presence. This is carrying things a little far; it's like
> saying 'I don't think it's fair that you can cast fireballs, so you
> aren't allowed to cast them around me'. 

Yeah; which is why I start to question this sort of thing.  If everyone
is deciding exactly what others can do around them, it's pretty
difficult to have a consistant game world.  The most fundamental
of these being death, but there are plenty of other, less potent
examples like the one above.

> >> Where's the challenge in conking a six-year-old over the head and
> >> killing her?
> >
> >This is an unfair comparison. I'm sure that Adam hadn't something like
> >this in mind when he mentioned  challenge and conflict.  Besides he is
> >right that even a totally non-combat rp game still revolves round con-
> >flicts. Even if the conflict is planned ahead by the parties involved.
> 
> The problem I have with it is that Adam's entire notion of conflict
> seemed to be fighting to the death,

I'm trying to figure out how people got this idea.  I thought I explained
in the same post that the combat system on my mud hasn't been working
for over a year, and I've hardly noticed.  So actually I'm breaking my
own rules, since it's impossible to die or even hurt anyone via combat
right now. :)  Seriously, though, my entire point was that the game is
about challange, conflict, and adversity.  But there are *plenty* of other
ways for this to occur other than the most obvious and primal, that is,
simple survival, but I rarely see these modeled with any sort of
accuracy or player interest.

> and no matter how it happens it's
> just part of the game and shouldn't upset anyone.

You can be upset or not if you like.  I don't like being upset, myself.
I don't find it very fun.  As long as:

1) The scope, purpose, and limitations of the game are made clear from the
outset
2) All character behave within this scope

Then there's no reason anyone should ever be 'upset'.  (I'm considering
'upset' to be really disturbed, as opposed to just disapointed or slightly
perturbed.)

We are very clear in the help files that our world is dangerous; there
are a lot of racial hatreds, religious conflicts, magical conflicts,
dangerous creatures roaming the lands, strange magical forces at work
beneath the surface, etc etc etc.  We've made money hard to come by
for the express purpose of causing people to steal or con others out of
what they may have.  And so on.  This is the kind of game we want;
we make this clear at the outset; if you don't want to play a game like
this (I can understand why you wouldn't), then don't.  It's made clear
at the start that certain races don't like each other, so you shouldn't
be mad when a certain player refuses to interact with you.  Other
races have a blood hatred of each other, so if a player of that race attacks
you on sight, you also shouldn't take it personally.  We've tried to balance
it so that there are 'easier' races to play (pretty much everyone likes
hobbits, for example) and more challanging races (everyone hates issathi,
but they are one of the most interesting races to play).

So I still don't understand why you should ever be seriously upset as long
as everyone is keeping everything in the context of the game.  (Ie, not
coming up to you and saying, 'I hate you, Adam Wiggins, therefore I will
now kill you for no reason.')

> My point is that there
> are a LOT of types of conflict, and death is not the only possible
> result. There is a lot more enjoyment to be gained from starting a
> long-term grudge and enmity than there is to be gained from 'Ugh! You
> die now!' *THUMP*

Yup, that's what I've been saying.  We've found that it's easy enough to
make enemies that you tend to be a little careful about what you say, and
around who.  This is as opposed to a no-PK whatever where people can
stand around in town all day long bragging about this or that item they
have, talking shit to various players, and so on, without every worrying.
Bragging about an item is a sure way to get it stolen; talking shit is a 
sure way to make yourself enemies.  Even if they don't necessarily beat you
up right away, you may find yourself in trouble one day with everyone
refusing to help you.  Friends are a good thing to have within the game;
certainly worth more than any item.  This is how we like it, and how we
set it up.  Not everyone will like it, and that's fine - I just don't
see why anyone should be 'upset' over it.  It's a game, and I don't
see why it shouldn't be fun pretty much 100% of the time.  I don't really
have enough time to play a game that's only fun sometimes, myself.