[MUD-Dev] Marion's Tailor Problem

[s001gmu at nova.wright.edu]

On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

[...]

> There is a single troubling aspect to this scenario.  There seems to 
> be an insistence here that the tailor still be subject to a 
> non-consentual PKill and/or PSteal, yet to have it occur as rarely as 
> in RL, but not as frequently as in most MUDs.

[...] 
 
> Why is disallowing PKill or PSteal an unsatisfactory solution to this
> scenario?   Why is only allowing "consential" PKill or PSteal an 
> unsatisfactory solution to this scenario?  

The problem with disallowing PKill/PSteal is that a lot of people on here
are advocates of a more 'pure' simulation type game.  They attempt to
model reality first, and then build a game into that.  As JC has
pointed out in the past, when you have a model that is (nearly) as
infinitely flexible as reality, how do you prevent PKill/PSteal?  The more
variables you add, the more situations you won't think of.  Or, the more
moving parts, the more likely it is that something will break.  Lets say
you attempt to build a 'no-combat' zone.  Define combat.  Two opponents
engaged in an attempt to harm the other... ok.  What if I drop a rock on
someone from a cliff 100' above?  Am I attempting to harm them?  How does
the computer know?  Any attempt to go back and remove combat and harming
an individual after the fact appears kludgy, and is prone to not cover
every way possible to do harm.

Dr. Cat has pointed out that you can avoid that problem by not building
such features in, but that is not satisfactory.  Aye, not building
mechanisms like dropping rocks into the game is certainly a valid
solution, but not within the problem space of a simulation game.  Marian's
Tailor Problem becomes a non-issue when you choose to design the game with
it in mind from the get-go, but what about those people who choose to
design their games with other issues in mind?  Is it possible to design a
'realism-game' and yet allow for tailors to lead peacfull lives?  As Dr.
Cat has pointed out as well, the list has focused primarliy on solutions
to this problem, and not others (like disallowing damage to players, etc),
and I think this happened because a lot of people either didn't think
about it, or noted that the solution provided by not building damage in
didn't address the problem they were trying to solve (back to the
ostriches and kangaroos, my what a lovely pouch you have sir... do you
carry your eggs in it?).

For an actual solution to the problem, well, I can't really comment.
Until recently, I've been in the realism-game camp, but of late I don't
know that I really want to design such a game anymore.  I've been doing a
lot of game-design-soul-searching of late, and have come to a few tenative
solutions that differ considerably from previous oppinions I've held.
Mayhaps this enforced month of no net access will allow me to formalize my
thoughts enough to write a post or two about it.

Oh well.  Just thought I'd throw in my $0.02.

-Greg