[MUD-Dev] Integrating PK

[Marian Griffith]

On Tue 24 Jun, Adam Wiggins wrote:
> [Marian:]

> The main problem with muds that are hardcoded
> to not allow PK is that they forget all the devious little methods that
> players can find to basically fuck around with the others online.  The
> Law of Jerks says that no matter what you do, you will have to deal with
> jerks at some point or another, so saying "I just won't let that kind
> of person into my game" is pretty moot if you plan to allow more than 10
> people online at a time.

There's this lovely proverb:
Don't mess with the wishes of the Gods for they have more ways of
punishment than you have to escape.

In the end it's only the Imms/implementors of a game that can deal
with true jerks. The minor ones might be deterred by the fact that
it is very difficult to make life miserable to others within scope
and rules of the game.
But this is an old discussion  that does not need to be unearthed.
Let it be sufficient to agree we don't all agree on this subject.

[examples how to make life difficult for other playes without kil-
ling them snipped]

> And so forth.  I've seen all this and more in my time on no-PK muds.
> Some of it I consider perfectly valid - it's just very frustrating to then
> be restricted as to the recourse you can take.

Attacking and killing is a bit drastic I'd say.  But that does not
mean I think I'm right and everybody else is wrong. We just prefer
different types of games.

> For example, I *love* the scenario of a slimy little conman pawning a
> valuable-looking ring off on the big bad ogre barbarian.  When the ogre
> finds out, she's gonna be PISSED, and would naturally give the conman a
> sound thrashing (well, assuming she could catch him)...except, wait, the
> game won't allow it!  I've mentioned this one time and time again and no
> anti-PK person seems willing or able to answer it.

It all really depends on what game you're playing. There's big happy
don't do unto others type of games. And there's if you are not para-
noid yet we'll make you. And everything in between.  Different rules
and game mechanics will be needed for each of them.
To answer your question: yes there are non-violent ways to deal with
the situation. Including refusing to deal with the player who ripped
you off.  Sooner or later  everybody is going to need help on a mud.
And if you made too many enemies you may find your dishonest rewards
gone because nobody is willing to help you out.  Informal clans help
a great deal too here, they'll stick together so a player can make a
lot of enemies with one action. And it can work the other way around
as well. Emote to pay the player...

> Unfortunately this doesn't always work real well in systems with massively
> out-of-whack 'power' levels, poorly created justice systems, or other
> such glitches.  I've seen both PK and non-PK work well and poorly.

So have I. I never meant to claim that it is inherently wrong to allow
players to fight each other. There is a significant risk of abuse when
you do because there is no real check on players that is in my opinion
greater than the problems that arise when players hide their obnoxious
behaviour behind a no-PK policy.  But that is my opinion  and I made a
personal choice not to play pk games anymore. I won't ask anybody else
to make a similar decision.  I won't even say  my decision is wrong or
right for anybody else.

Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey