[MUD-Dev] Wild west (was Guilds & Politics)

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 31 Dec 97 at 11:37, Marian Griffith wrote:
> On Wed 31 Dec, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> > Marian Griffith <gryphon at iaehv.nl> wrote:
> > >> Social interaction, should not be an admin issue.
> 
> > >Actually this should very much be an admin issue.  Players who take
> > >their RL conflict into the game must be dealt with before they ruin
> > >the fun for other players.
> 
> > Hmmm.  How would this ruin the fun for other players (those not
> > involved) ?
> 
> By ruining the atmosphere. In games where cooperation is important by
> splitting up the player base.  Because most players don't want to get
> involved in the fight between other players, not even passively.
> 
> > Doesn't RL conflicts give MUDs a certain interesting edge?
> 
> Not for me.
>

Me neither.  It's highly disruptive and irritating to all.  The FTF groups 
I have played with will boot out one or both of the people who have RL 
conflicts with each other.  Usually this is done by the GM.  Sometimes 
these exiles take friends with them and they set up their own games (muds). 
Hmm, I think the break-up of muds due to RL conflicts occurs very similary
to the break-up of FRP gaming groups.  

It's especially dramatic when the conflict is between administrators.  (cf. 
Sojourn --> Toril and Duris... and countless others).  I gather also from
the postings of Greg Munt, he has experienced the _illusions_ (delusions) 
of administrative democracy first hand.  I don't know the particulars of 
how arrangements work on commercial muds.  

> > I'm all against administration/support as the main course of
> > balancing a mud.  To me, that is a sign of a somewhat flawed
> > design. At least in large scale systems.

_Balance_ can apply to many aspects of the system and I do agree that, in 
general, it is a design flaw.  I don't think you can't completely shut out 
those who refuse to play the game.  You can provide obstacles (E-Mail 
reg, character approval), hints (rules, web page descriptions), etc. 
For instance, I'm sure that JC Lawrence would not want to play my game 
(RP).  Yet he could easily surmount all the obstacles to entry, ignore all 
the rules, and effectively disrupt "the game".  Sadly I would have to 
intervene and siteban him.  :P

> Personally I think it is inevitable, but it should not be the first
> recourse. Some children can't play nicely in the sandbox and require
> somebody to watch over them.
>

Hehe.  I wonder if they will play nicely if they _think_ they are being
watched (logged) rather than it actually being done. 

--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato