[MUD-Dev] Integrating PK

[Adam Wiggins]

[Matt C:]
> [Marian:]
> > for players to treat death from the hands of another player  similar to
> > death by an monster. I think the answer to that is yes too. For many of
> > the players. Others, like me, won't feel it is the same. As long as you
> > provide meaningfull reasons to fights  (and thereby ways to avoid those
> > fights!) it is not so bad.  What particularly rankles is being attacked
> > for no apparent (or valid) reason.
> 
> Yeah. The inherent problem here of course, is many players attack NPCs for
> no reason at all, and the same to other players. I suppose what is worth
> note is that you are to be equally reprimanded for killing an NPC or
> player in a town, and not at all outside (unless they or their guild come
> after retribution). Guild behaviour will be encouraged (ie: Fred killed
> John, are we gonna let him get away with that?!).

Yes.  Well, of course, they aren't attacking characters (PC or NPC) for
"no reason", they are attacking them in order to get money, experience,
and equipment.  Take away this motivation, make combat extremely chancey,
and suddenly there's much less reason to attack other people.  On top of
this, make the characters be more interested in the world around them by
giving them actual political and/or social tie-ins.  One of the main things
that bothers me is that racial hometowns are usually so simple.  Normally
it's things like the guards defending you if you're the same race and
that's about it.  Make it so that the hometown for the player's race really
*is* a home to them - someplace they can always go for food, healing,
repairs, safety among their fellows, etc etc.  If you attack members of
your own race, you're branded an outcast and tossed out into the big bad
world with no more help from that quarter.  Moreover, this gives the players
actual motivation to defend NPCs from PCs, instead of the dwarven PC rooting
on the troll PC as he takes out the dwarven elite guards.
Other things along this lines: allow players to own shops and taverns in
town.  If someone knocks over the shop, then they have an actual player
to reckon with.  If someone aids the shopkeeper when someone else is attacking
it, have the shopkeeper remember their name and relay it to the PC when she
returns.  Now there's a real motivation to help out NPCs who *aren't* even
of your same race or have any special relation to you - sort of proving
yourself a hero, as it were.  Ditto goes for guildmasters or government
officials.

> > Most towns would have a law to forbid carrying weapons openly. Unless you
> > are a guard or a -very- noble visitor or inhabitant. The amount of damage
> > you can do  with a simple eating knife is far less.  And those fights are
> > easier to break up for the guards.
> 
> Absolutely. Weapons are to be sheathed (possibly simply represented by
> unwielded), or put away upon entry, and being caught with a weapon openly

The trick is to be careful with this.  I've seen this implemented plenty
of times but never well.  The main problem is that you often end up
doing this:

> kill gatekeeper
You start thumping on the gatekeeper with your fists.
> draw sword
You draw your sword.
You slash the gatekeeper, who dies from the blow.
> open gate
But your hands are full with your sword!
> growl
You growl.
> sheathe sword
You sheathe your sword.
> open gate
You open the gate.

Or my personal favorite, when things get automated...

> eat dinner
You begin eating your dinner.
>
Imadork has arrived from outside.
Imadork attacks you!
You draw your sword to defend yourself!
The cityguard standing nearby says, 'Hey, no drawn weapons allowed in town!'
The cityguard slashes you in half, and you die from the blow.

Yes, I have seen this exact scenario before.

> in view is a punishable offence. Dodgy characters (if you've been in
> trouble here before) may well be asked to surrender weapons at the gates.

We have a number of different towns, which range from completely lawless
outposts where you can do what you please to highly fortified cities which
allow no weapons whatsoever within their gates.  The later is more hassle,
but if you want to go about your business without fearing that some ruffian
is going to cut you down in hopes that you have a few coppers in your
purse, it's kind of nice.  Other ideas: only citizens can carry weapons,
and then only those that are registered.  Restrictions on types of
weapons (for instance, no blades) or areas of the town where you can go
with them.  And so forth - there's no reason at all that it should be
the same in every town.

> In responding to an armed conflict, guards will not worry about applying
> lethal force (read: Freeze! This crossbow is *loaded*.. 1.. 2.. 3..
> *twang*thunk*gurgle*). In an unarmed conflict, they'll be friendlier, and
> join in to break it up. Or relatively unarmed, anyway.

Yeah.  I've always wanted to be able to get into fistfights in bars or
other less intense combat situations, but general there is no particular
distinction between lethal and non-lethal combat.

> Your response is definitely valid, and most welcome - the fact that you
> don't play "PK ok" games means you have a reason for it. I have no
> objection with (and would like to think its possible to have) pk being
> allowed (not necessarily encouraged), and treated the same as NPC killng.

Yes.  As I've stated before, we treat NPCs and PCs as 100% identical in
all respects.  The only difference is that the mobiles get their commands
from a script (or an immort who has possessed their body) and PCs get theirs
from a descriptor.  This solves a whole slew of problems straight off the
bat.