[MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??

[Adam Wiggins]

[JK:]
> Its often assumed that combat is a logical problem solver ina MUD
> environment. I'ld lvoe to hear any genuine historians on thsi lsit address
> this, but from my understanding there has NEVER been a human societhy that
> remained a society for teribly long where the answer to every problem or
> offense  9or even the majority of them) was mortal combat.

Absolutely.  In particular, you mentioned a key word - 'mortal'.  This
is a failing of hitpoint-based systems; it's difficult to rough someone
up a bit without actually killing them, or at least severly incapasitating
them.  This is ridiculous.  People may have gotten into fights constantly
in the more primative ages, but they didn't kill each other all the time.
This was a somewhat rare occurance; probably MORE rare, in fact, than it
is today thanks to guns.

> Its worth noting that this is PRECISELy what quite a few sociologists
> identify as the fundemental problem that has led to the desintegration of
> society in the inner city.  To wit: that very very few people have the
> coping skills to do anything about a disagreement except respond with
> violence.
> While PvP migth make an engaging tactical game (ala Doom, Duke, Diku or
> whatever) I'ld argue that if you are trying to model a society you need to
> put STRICT "legal" controls on where and when it is allowed with
> devistationg consequences to the rbeaking of the rules.

While I agree with your premises, I have to disagree with your conclusions.
I don't think you need to *put* controls on anything.  What you need to
do is craft a world which works a certain way.  If you've crafted it correctly,
the system will work.

Stepping back for a moment, we have:

A) Humans take a long time and a lot of effort to be created and then grow up.
B) Death instantly destroys a human.
C) If a society's members are constantly killing its members, it's only
a matter of time before it runs out.  Death is instantaneous, life takes
a long time to gestate.

The inner-city gangs you mention continue to exist because they draw members
from a different sect of society.  That is, the gangs aren't a closed
society - they could never exist if they were.

As it worked out, people quickly realized (luckily, or else our race
would not be around today) that they couldn't just kill each other all
the time.  Thus basic society arose, one which had general tabboos about
what should be done to your fellow society members, and what shouldn't.
In modern times this has become very formalized - we have laws about what
you can and can't do, laws which arise from the belief of the people about
what is best for the whole.  (Or at least, that's the idea anyhow.)
It has nothing to do with 'morals', much as anyone might like to believe.
It is simple survival.  Psycotic killers who run around hacking people up
with axes are put in jail - not because we're necessarily passing any
sort of a moral judgement on what they are doing, or their right to live
as they choose, but because it's bad for the 'common good' for them
to be running around doing what they do.

In the case of my mud, to choose a specific example, the world is very
dangerous.  People do often resolve problems via violence.  There are a few
cavets to this, though.  For starters, most combat is not mortal.  Fistfights
outside of bars are common; people hacking at each other with axes are not.
Secondly, the very fragility of life makes you think twice about such things.
If someone comes at you with an axe, you don't just think "No problem -
I've got 100 hitpoints and that axe only does 2d8.  I can take a few hits,
at least, before deciding to flee."  You know full well that, even if
you are a better fighter than the person you face, there's a pretty could
chance that you could slip up somehow - and a single good blow with that
thing is going to put you in rough shape, no matter how tough you are.
Secondly, there is (of course) no reward for combat.  You don't get
experience either from fighting someone or from killing them.  Thus
you have to have a pretty specific reason to fight someone, and even then,
you're probably going to exercise caution.
Finally, we do have law and order, but it varries from place to place.
One town is highly lawful.  There are high, well-guarded walls circling
the town.  Weapons must be surrendered at the gate.  Guardsmen patrol
the town closely at all times.  Most towns are less organized about it,
but most will not allow much nonsense within their boundries.  One is
specifically un-lawful, the trading post town far to the northeast.
It is specifically modeled after the western gunslinger-style towns
you see in Clint Eastwood movies.  The 'law' is defined by whomever
decides to define it.

Now, this is certainly not the only way to implement a world like this,
but the point is that you don't just hardcode certain things that people
can and cannot do to each other.  This has the result of making the world
both restrictive and not very believable.  What you should do, however, is
create a world the way it would actually evolve.  This is no small feat, which
is why most worlds are modeled after something from our own, 'real' world;
be it medieval times, the old west, shogun-era Japan, or whatever.