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

[Adam Wiggins]

On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 s001gmu at nova.wright.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> > 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

And as I always mention whenever this discussion pops up, we're talking
about a *whole* lot more than just "PKill/PSteal".  With a label like
this, of course someone is always going to suggest some sort of mechanism
for simply disabling these two specific actions.

No, when you're doing a full simulation, what we're talking about is the
ability for one player to interfere with another player's game.  Attacking
and killing someone is only the most obvious of these.  I will refer again
to the Beartrap Example (now mentioned enough times that it is worthy of
upper case):

Buffy digs a hole in the forest.  She takes ten very sharp swords and
buries their hilts in the dirt at the bottom of the hole.  Then she takes
loose brush and leaves and covers the hole, concealing it.

Three days later, Bubba is strolling along peacefully through the forest.
He steps over the concealed pit, unaware of its existence.  The brush
cannot support his weight, so he falls and is impaled on the swords.  He
dies.

Was this PKill?  Did Buffy set the trap in hopes to catch herself a meal,
or did she do it just to disrupt other players?  Maybe she knew
specifically that Bubba would be coming that way and that he wouldn't
notice the pit?

You can easily think of more convulted examples - Buffy didn't dig the pit
to catch anyone or anything, but rather because she was trying to find
buried treasure.  After retrieving the treasure she leaves.  Months later
Bubba is walking along and doesn't notice the pit which is now overgrown
by light foliage.  He falls in, breaks his leg, and starves to death in
the bottom of the pit.  Is this PK?

Yes, it's complicated, and subtle.  The ethics of these situations are
just as complex in the real world as they are for a simulation-style mud.
These sorts of situations are also the reason that there are some many
lawsuits (and incedentaly, lawyers) here in the US.  Who is at blame for
any given situation where one or more parties are harmed, physically or
otherwise?

These same ethics apply to a simulation mud.  The problem, of course, is
that the simulation is not yet complete enough to include all the devices
(most imposed by society) which we have the real world.  Thus, we are
forced to seek out quick "fixes" to these dillemas.

> 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

Bad phrasing, I think.  Looking at the examples above, I don't think that
there's anything "broken", just subtleties not easily defined.

> 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

As I said before, you can take away death and damage quite easily.  The
point is not that one's character takes virtual damage; the point is that
if you can gain something inside the simulated world, at some point
someone is going to feel bad when that thing is taken away from them by
someone with ill intentions.

It is true that reducing the interactions between characters, and the
interaction between characters and the game world, reduces the chances of
this sort of thing happening.  It also limits your audience in a
beneficial way - likely someone who is interested in purposely causing
harm to other players will be put off by a game world where characters
don't take damage or die.

The crux of the problem is that Marian and other players like her *don't*
want this.  She wants to play a tailor in a world that isn't necessarily
100% safe; where there are many other character types including fighters
and thieves.  What she doesn't want is her play regularly disrupted in a
massive way by one of these character types with ill intent, usually
someone seeking an easy target and a cheap thrill.  I think she *does*
enjoy the idea that occasionally someone might try to shoplift, or that a
dragon might attack the town (to be challanged by the town's defenders, of
course).  This is the depth of play and game world that I think all of us
here are interested in, whether or not we want to play violet character
types.

Adam