[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun

[Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Marian Griffith [SMTP:gryphon at iaehv.nl]
> Sent:	Monday, June 29, 1998 2:43 PM
> To:	'mud-dev at kanga.nu'
> Subject:	[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun
> 
> In <URL:/archives/meow?group+local.muddev> on Mon 29 Jun, Koster, Raph wrote:
> 
> > If you are coding a system whereby nobody can strike another person
> > *even in justifiable circumstances*, what sort of society have you
> made,
> > and what sort of ruler are you?
> 
> Here we have a point worth of very serious discussion. And one where I
> very much have to disagree with you. I do not belief that there can be
> justifiable circumstances to strike at somebody else.  At least not in
> a game that attempts to provide a safe environment.
> 
What about "keeping it safe"?

>  And I'm willing to
> argue  that the same is true in games like uol  that do not attempt to
> create a safe environment.  However this is indicative on your view on
> violence in games (a view that is shared by many current players).
> 
I do want to make it clear that I am not a particularly huge fan of it
as a player. As a player, I am a hardcore roleplayer who doesn't usually
fight even NPCs and monsters--I spend most all my time interacting with
other players in roleplay. I merely feel that we can't ignore the factor
violence is. :(

>  Those who do not enjoy the
> anarchistic principles of current muds  could accept the limitation of
> their personal freedom  to prevent such events/crimes from occuring in
> the first place. I know I would not mind.
> 
Many people probably do not mind; certainly that is the classic
trade-off: less freedoms for greater security. There is also the classic
drawback: the people who take your freedoms and provide your security
can then do quite a lot to you and you have surrendered enough freedom
that you can't do anything about it. Of course, in a virtual context
this problem is much less of an issue than in the real world.

> > To get back to what you said, I think that a pure roleplay game of
> large
> > size will have to be a Stalinist setup, yes. And I don't LIKE it.
> Then
> > again, I think that MANY muds currently use such a restrictive
> setup.
> 
> Restrictive does not make it stalinist. Nor fascist. The game prevents
> certain actions that would,  if unchecked one way or the other, become
> harmfull to the majority of the players. Player's freedom is not taken
> away. Only certain actions that would otherwise be prevented in diffe-
> rent ways (e.g. by player vigilante activities).
> 
I think Mike S. explained pretty well what I meant here...

> This is partly a problem because of the way power works in muds. The
> only
> power there is -is- that of the sword.
> 
Not at all! As Dr Cat rightly points out, solutions such as ostracism
are very powerful. Of course, given the fluidity of identity, ostracism
is hard to implement. :(

-Raph