[MUD-Dev] Integrating PK

[Matt Chatterley]

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Adam Wiggins wrote:
> [Matt C:]

[Snip Marian] :)

> > 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.

All of this is good (quoted so I can do an AOL and say "Me too!"). I'm
pondering player owned stores (etc) and see absolutely no reason why not
to do it - I've seen it done well in the past and have a few ideas how to
tackle it.

Basically making the environment more that - an environment, rather than a
game, if you chop something up, it'll have subtle consequences as well as
the immediate.
 
> > > 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:

Yeah, I've seen it badly done too..
 
> > 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.

Theres nothing more infuriating than kludge like the above. I toyed
briefly with the idea of restricting actions based on what you're carrying
etc.. then decided that since all players would do is get frustrated,
simple actions (momentarily putting a sword down to open a door) could be
assumed to make it easier to play. :)
 
> 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.

<g> You need some sort of intelligence in automation, yes - storing the
iniator of combat being perfectly acceptable when there are witnesses. I'd
also like to avoid 'instant reactions' from guards - if they're present,
they may not want to get involved (fairly unlikely), or may take time to
turn up. Even then, they'll give some sort of warning before opening fire
(and will probably use missiles rather than engage in hand-to-hand - far
safer for them).
 
> > 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.

Quite right, something to give thought to. Towns exist as "objects" in the
wilderness, so it's trivial (from a technical pov) to make things vary
from town to 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.

Yup. Of course, unarmed combat can be quite lethal (particularly if you
upset a "monk", based on the Shaolin histories in this case), but in
general, a blow from a fist is going to do a lot less harm than one from a
mace. Also, it's easier to aim to NOT kill something when unarmed, which
should be possible.
 
> > 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.

Yup. :) 


Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"He can't stop us, we're on a mission from Glod!" - Soul Music (Pratchett)