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

[Joel Kelso]

Mike Sellers wrote:

> At 08:42 PM 6/29/98 +0100, Marian Griffith wrote:
> >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?

Perhaps we should distinguish between "creators" and "rulers" here.  As
acreator, provided no-one is forced to dwell in your particular universe,
what's
wrong with creating any damn universe you feel like ?  A universe where no
one can strike another person is a perfectly legitimate one to try out.  It
might
be rather boring, and its not very much like the real world, but some people
are dissatisfied with this one anyway.

> >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. 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).
> >Where violence and conflict is not a part of the game all rules change
>
> This is an interesting point.  While you may disapprove of violence, you
> must admit that it is part of how humans have resolved their problems for
> millennia. You may find it distasteful and inappropriate today, but that
> does not mean it's not there.  Prohibiting violent behavior in an online
> world is kind of like prohibiting the color green -- sure you can do it if
> you don't like it, but is your world diminished for doing so?

It depends on, and for some reason I don't see this mentioned much inthis
discussion, _the purpose of the world_.  What are we creating online
worlds for ?  If its experimentation into society and human nature, I guess
we should try a variety of things and see what happens.  If it is "a place to
live" ie a place for socialization, art and make-believe, then leaving out
violence seems a good thing to do: I mean, what would it add ?  If the
purpose of the world is to provide a realm of heroic fantasy, violence and
conflict are absolutely essential.

> Rather than creating an online world (which, as part of *my* assumptions,
> is intended to some degree to act as an immersive, familiar, comprehensible
> quasi-simulation supporting a wide range of interactions) that simply
> excludes violence, why not instead create a world within which the
> inhabitants (that is, the players) have the realistic ability to create
> areas in which violence is also deemed inappropriate?

Good idea.  I think the problem has been that creators have underestimatedthe
differences between their created worlds and the real world.  The low
populations and population densities, existence of teleportation, the kind of
transient part-time exsistence characters have create a world that is different

in profound ways from the real world, and the kinds of tools required to
allow, for instance, effective law enforcement don't exist.  The thing people
resent about playerkillers are not just that someone walks up and hits them
with a sword; its also the massive differences in ability and power, the
ability
to teleport beyond the reach of retribution, the ability to rob houses
when everyone else is logged out etc that piss people off.
<snip>

> >> A system where it is not even possible
> >> to rebel against the thoroughly oppressive government, for that matter.

> >> In the virtual setting, we have as designers and admins, the power of
> >> gods. And yes, there are plenty of people willing to live under the rule
> >> of jerks, plenty of people who would prefer to live their virtual lives
> >> in a game where bullets can't fly by the laws of physics, where you can
> >> wave a hand, but are programmed not to swing a fist.

Except of course on-line worlds have a form of revolution that works againseven
the supremely powerful: stop playing.  In this case the "jerk
admins",presumably powerful and unjust admins, are big losers in what I've seen

called the "competition for attention".

> But I find it
> >> unpalatable persnally--and also find it limiting to the development of
> >> our code in that it reduces the problem set past the point of reason. If
> >> you, as I know you do, Mike, feel that the work we do here is working
> >> towards greater things in the colonization of the Internet, in the
> >> development of virtual societies and virtual realities, then you must
> >> also concede that we are not going to solve the issues that those
> >> environments will create by coding in piles of restrictions that curtail
> >> freedoms.

Since we can't produce a completely realistic immersive world, we have to
come up with a something that is _like_ the real world, but somehow
deals with the abuses that are possible due to the artificial nature of the
world.  I'm sure that there's a middle ground there somewhere that can
include some nice violence (a promenent feature of the real world).

<snip>

> So here's my hypothesis: the more persistence a game/world tries to have;
> the longer it is set up to last; the greater number (and broader variety)
> of people it tries to attract; and in general the more immersive a
> game/world sets out to be -- then the more breadth and depth of human
> experience it needs to support to be successful for more than, say, 12-24
> months.  If you try to create a deeply immersive, broadly appealing,
> long-lasting world that does not adequtely provide for human tendencies
> such as violence, acquisition, justice, family, community, exploration,
> etc. (and I would contend we are nowhere close to doing this), you will see
> two results: first, individuals in the population will begin to display a
> wide range of fairly predictable socially pathological behaviors (including
> general malaise, complaining, excessive bullying and/or PKing, harassment,
> territoriality, inappropriate aggression, and open rebellion against those
> who run the game), and second, people will eventually vote with their feet
> -- but only after having passionately cast "a pox on both your houses."

Well said.  I think, though, that there is a way of producing a fun
virtualworld that has long-term interest, without producing an extremely
realistic and immersive simulation.  Its the reason people will tune into
soap operas for a small dose every week year after year, and it would
be prohibitively expensive for current online worlds: a team of writers.
With this solution we throw the idea of providing a level playing field
world where societies form naturally out the window, and replace it
with a world full of threats, promises, intreuge, plots, counter-plots,
blackmail, violence etc.  The problem is of course that no-one can
afford to provide a team of full-time writers (at a ratio of, say, one
writer per 100 characters).  However, with a powerful set of snooping
and world creation and manipulation tools, and if we allow higher
level players to get in on the action in a kind of heirarchical fashion ...

<snip>

> I suspect that yours is a strongly European cultural bias; I know that many
> (most?) USAmericans would not feel the same.
>
> >> 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.
>
> That is at least centralized and paternalistic -- it presumes that those
> running the game know better what actions are harmful and what restrictions
> are valid better than do those in the game, which may or may not be the
> case.  It thus removes even the *possibility* that members of the
> population may in fact be able to do a better job of this regulation
> (anathema to many Americans :-) ).

Sure, you don't want that kind of power in your statesmen, but in yourgame
administrator, whoes job is to create a world that is fun for the
players, surely the more powerful he is the better.  If he doesn't listen
to the complaints of his players and try to balance their (conflicting, no
doubt) concerns, then he doesn't deserve to have players.

<snip>

Joel Kelso

-- joel at ee.uwa.edu.au -----------------------------------------------
"Wasn't it a four-year-old this time ? It makes me feel like standing
 in the middle of the Atlantic with a megaphone and shouting:
 'America!  We know you're in there!  Put the guns DOWN!'"
    - Overheard Conversations
-- http://ciips.ee.uwa.edu.au/~joel ---------------------------------