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

[Matt Chatterley]

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
> Marian Griffith <gryphon at iaehv.nl> wrote:
> >On Wed 31 Dec, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad 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.
>=20
> Ok, I admit that someone roaming about shouting that he is going to
> kill himself might be a problem.  But I think this is less of a
> problem in an environment that does not provide global communication
> features (shout, channels).

I wonder.. is this a purely social construct or a partially artificial
one? Does the 'separation' of NPCs from PCs (fairly drastic in games such
as Diku, and very small in role-acting games) or rather level of
separation, affect this ('this' being the reluctance of players to
interfere in conflict between players, where player is taken as 'PC')?
=20
> I wonder, if the majority of users are behaving as if they were
> insane... Maybe that would be fun?  You would simply assume that
> everyone is joking, lying etc.

Acting an insane character (even temporarily so - I recall that the
character I have in mind suffered a mental breakdown of sorts and was
killed shortly after) can be great fun.. the concept of a game where
everyone is nuts (or is given to believe they are!) could be very
interesting. Of course there are large differences between in-game
role-acted madness, and streams of abusive messages sent out of fits of
anger (the latter insinuated a way above?)
=20
> >> 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.
> >
> >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.
>=20
> Yeah, well, that is the part that I don't like.  The children/user
> analogy.  I think teens and adults should be allowed to play not so
> nicely and work out their own problems. (provided the system is
> designed for this).  IRC is an example of a very popular system with
> autonomous "zones".  Pointers to muds that are providing this type of
> self-controlled zones are appreciated!

Ah, this is a matter of personal taste. IRC enforces 'nice play' in that
operators can remove persons from channels (operators being sanctioned
admins as far as their channels are concerned).

Enforcing out of character regulations is something purely at the admins
discretion (personally I enforce a small set of standardish ones - against
harrassment, and a few other things).

Some muds attempt to have OOC bodies enforce IC regulations (admin
enforcing the IC law as far as PK goes, which gets absurd in many cases) -
myself I have a system of IC legalities constructed for this purpose. The
system is very far from fair, but it is consistant with the rest of the
game. Example:

A peasant begs a passing Nobleman (say.. a knight, or something of similar
station) for money. The Nobleman takes offence and slaps the peasant. The
peasant is likely to be arrested for (and charged with) breaching the
peace, something along the lines of harrassment or even assault should the
Noble in question have enough swing. Even if begging is legalised.

Regards,
=09-Matt Chatterley
=09ICQ: 5580107
"We can recode it; we have the technology."