[MUD-Dev] Life

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <3.0.32.19970603121202.009dd228 at mail.tenetwork.com>, on 06/03/97 
   at 07:17 PM, Jeff Kesselman <jeffk at tenetwork.com> said:

>Marian's summation is something i agree with strongly and why I keep
>harping on "define your game".  But in the above exampel you HAVENT
>defined your game. You've only defined your agme world.  The game a
>bunch of adult roleplayers will PLAY in that world is totally
>different and has totally different ASSUMED RULES (important concept,
>the "social contract") then the one a bunch of serious Pkillers wil
>play.  You need to define not what the players can expect of your
>world setting (though that is helpful for Roleplayers to undertsnad
>what kinds of characters fit) but what your GAME EXPECTS OF THE
>PLAYERS.

I take a minor view of this.  I expect to define the game world.  I
don't intend to define what the game expects of the players.  It is up
to them to take what advantage they wish of the game world, and to
define what goals they wish within the game world.  That's not my job. 
I give them a system to play with, not a set of behavioural
expectations.

The players do have a minor expectation to construct an environment
within the game that I as owner find enjoyable.  Should they not, they
can expect the game to be removed.  Should they come up with something
unexpectedly enjoyable, its more likely for the game to persist.

>Without this you have the problems and hurt feelings Marian
>referenced.

Players will generate certain internal and often tacit expectations of
the community of players in a game, will attempt to engender those
same expectations in new players, and will attempt to enforce them on
those that don't conform.  Equally often they are not aware of the
assumptions they have made in this area, but instead operate on some
form of automatic and unexamined equation of "what is right and/or
proper" or "that's the way it is."  They also tend to become upset
when a player without that matrix comes along and deliberately flaunts
their expectations or bull-baits them by deliberately manipulating
their expectations (frothing frenzy).

I'll go out on a limb here: In the general case I not only consider
that perfectly acceptable behaviour, but in the minor case desirable
behaviour.  I may not like the irritating player, or even the upsets
he is creating.  Most of the time I really dislike him and his
actions.  However I value him as a social predator whose actions force
the mock society he is preying upon to react and adapt itself to
suit.(*)  Predators are incredibly valuable to any organism, and the
societies in MUD are no exceptions there.

(*) From this you may garner why Herbert's "God Emporor of Dune" was
my far out favourite of the series.

>If you expect it to be a player-kills-player world, you need that
>upfront. if you exptec it to be a cooperative roleplay envrionment,
>you need to say THAT.

If I expect the players to comport themselves using a minor set of the
full functionality offered by the game, and to thereby willingly
restrict themselves to that more narrow (if deeper) realm, then that
needs to be stated, restated, and spelled out in unequivicable terms. 
If conversely I do not place any of those restrictions or
expectations, but instead leave it to their own determination or
anarchy its a different matter.

One side requires the players to abide within pre-drawn fences.  Quite
obviously the fences need to be drawn.  The other side has no fences. 
You can state that there are no fences if you wish, or let the players
find that out for themselves.

>Because roleplayers play with respect for each others characters and
>stories and do not intentionally impinge on them or take control
>away. Pkilling as a regular thing does take control away.  Neither is
>right or wrong, btu they are imcompatable game models.

>We've gone over this so many times I'm having trouble figuring out
>what we are doing wrong in explaining this. Can someone maybe assist?

I think what you are missing here is that there is not full agreement
on what RP consists of among the list members.  You take close to a
story-telling definition if not quite.  Jaime goes much further than
you taking an almost pure story approach (cf commen on the cliif
success dice roll handling).  Caliban seems to take a looser
definition than you where characters are actors and the plot is not
pre-set and the story evolves accidentally (eg silly non-heroic deaths
are both possible and expected).  Adam and Nathan appear to take an
even looser definition where RP defines means and motive for a
character, but there are few to no pre-requisities for cooperative
action among the players, its much more of an organic happenstance. 
Its even been argued here that my character manipulations where I
deliberately con and manipulate other players into thinking I (the
character's player) am someone other than me, or of a different
character than I have, is a low order form of RP.

There is a spectrum of RP from Jaime's deep end on out.  (I actually
really doubt that its a single-dimensioned range)  You are attempting
to set a single definition and apply that to the entire range of RP. 
Its not going to work.  One size does not fit all, and thus you are
not getting agreement.

--
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...