[MUD-Dev] Re: Marian's Tailor Problem

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

Brandon Cline wrote:
> I'm not totally sure (feel free to correct me Marian), but I think one of
> Marian's problems with the current online games is that there is no way to
> advance in the game without being involved in some type of combat...  I know
> this is true of most muds/diku/circle/etc, not sure about M59, or UOL
> though.

Judging from reg.games.computer.ultima.online this seems to be the case :^)

> Some of the design goals I see relevant to making a world that supports this
> kinda of activity [tailoring] are:
> 
>   All advancement is done through skills, social standing, and economy hence
> allowing but not "forcing" advancement with or without combat.

Actually I would say that all advancement in all systems are mainly done
through the subjectively perceived advancement of social standing.  The
basic question should thus be, who/what does the player (subconsciously)
want to be affiliated with.  The ability to affect (technically or socially)
is in this framework merely means which are more or less suitable to the
task, depending on what kind of affiliation you are looking for. 
Unfortunately most designs are really doing well at supporting quake type of
affiliation: "I am able to send you back to ground zero". Once the
Quake-ladder is set up there is only one way for the users to control it,
that is to climb it yourself (or whine about it). Basically, those who want
a quake affiliation are in a win-win situation, the game will as UO shows,
inevitably move in that direction.  But there are of course ways to limit
the pace with which users climb the quake-ladder.

Most systems are sadly enough hung up on the consistency idea: killing users
should roughly be rewarded the same way as killing monsters.  They are also
overly eager to support what their designers think of as realism (although
no system in which you can kill more than one troll per month is anywhere
near realism in the first place). You'll see lots of this stuff on rgma. (Hi
Woolcock :) Now, what play styles are utterly unpleasant?  It is not
necessarily player killing itself.  No, I would argue that the most utterly
unpleasant experience a human can have is to be defined as non-existing. 
That is typically what massive random player killing amounts to.  You are
not killed because someone wants to affect your feelings, you are simply
killed because you are not entitled to exist.  Or rather, whether you exist
or not, is of no concern to the killer.  If I am killed for a reason, I do
at least matter, I exist. It might be very upsetting, but I am at least in a
community.

Assume that you want monster slaying as an activity, and that you want
player killing as spice and for political games. What should you do? I
believe that one should make the rewards for player killing more or less the
opposite of those for monster slaying. That means, the more players you
kill, the less capable you are of killing more.  Combine that with a long
reconstitution cycle, say one week or more. 
The net result might be:
* you don't want to kill random newbies, you want to save your player
killing capability for those players you really would like to affect.
* old time pacifist are really powerful, you better not upset them too much!
* a quasi democratic system, upset too many players and prepare to reroll
* you get a player kill economy, subject to trade and negotiation
* the average user will at most be killed once a week.
* belonging to a non killer group gives you massive protection
* Quake players leave :-/

I do of course assume that you implement mechanisms that makes scripted
accumulation of player killing capability through multiple characters
impossible.

> While either making it easy to escape or defend yourself, at the same time
> making it hard to determine someone elses stregth.

Some players love roulette. Besides, those who are stronger than you are
known to you through fame. (In a Quake-ladder game) Note also that you don't
have to resort to random player killing to define other players as
non-existing.

In my opinion, these are things to think about if you want integration:

* view the group as the basic unit, not the individual.

* do not try to support totally incompatible play styles. Quake players (you
do not exist) do not go with social players (you exist), political/strategy
players (I want the most solid powerbase I can get) may get along with both.

* avoid honour systems and designs that associate action (tailoring) with
affiliation and groupidentity(good/evil/wild/polite/nazi/female/etc). This
is an area where muds are sorely lacking. In a face-to-face rpg you could
easily become a much "loved" tailor who use human skin for clan fashion
designs. That affords rogue/tailor integration!  The basic mud design is
essentially way too hard coded and static to support this type of
integration which relies on differentiation.

--
Ola Fosheim Groestad,Norway      http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~olag/worlds/