[MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method (Was: Re: Wired Magazine...)

[Marian Griffith]

On Mon 06 Jul, Till Eulenspiegel wrote:

> From: Marian Griffith <gryphon at iaehv.nl>

> >If I understand you correctly then I have to disagree still.  Combat can
> >not be a justification to allow combat in a game. There may be other and
> >valid reasons to include combat, but conflict solving can not be one for
> >the same reason it is not allowed outside games either.

> I presume you mean conflict is not justification for combat.
> My observations on this subject are that the venue of the fantasy worlds
> that I create are medieval, heroic and violent.  I expect players to be
> able to settle their affairs with words, gestures and violence if need be.
> Now, there is a broad line between violence and brutality.  This is where
> the argument should revolve in my opinion
>   ... how to prevent brutality, not violence.

Actually no. I meant exactly what I wrote. You can not justify the inclusion
of violence in a game  by stating that this way players can handle their own
conflicts (e.g. player killing or stealing). You can have other (valid) rea-
sons to include violence (or combat) in a game,  but justice can not be one,
as it leads to a circular argument.

> >I know and agree that it can not be ignored, but it does not need to be
> >justified either. Combat, and especially players fighting others is the
> >problem, not part of the solution. The discussion is how to separate it
> >from the in-game role combat can play.

> Violence does not need to hinder the enjoyment of other players.

It frequently does. Now my idea of fun may differ from yours,  but somehow I
do not think many players enjoy having their new characters slaughtered by a
player in a bad mood. Or their low level characters harassed in some ways by
high level characters.  Paranoia is not my idea of a fun game  and I find no
thrill in constant danger.  I am fully aware that there are many players who
do like such atmosphere in a game but I think it is wrong to consider it the
natural state of a mud. And as Dr.Cat frequently tries to explain, there are
other ways to handle conflicts that do not involve combat, and games without
any combat at all can still be fun.

> It's my opinion that opposing players can provide a more interesting
> threat than I can with AI monsters.  My challenge is to tune the balances
> so that the antisocial behaviour isn't the most rewarding behaviour.
> This as we all know is one of the greatest challenges.

Actually, if I were able to program a game, I would attempt to achieve enti-
rely different goals.  But that does not make your interests  any less valid
of course.

> >The strange thing then is that so few people, on this list only Dr.Cat
> >that I know of, attempt to create a safer game environment, at the ex-
> >pense of some freedom of the players. Or am I being overly pessimistic
> >now?

> Dr. Cat does the extreme.  The rest of us probably have our head in our
> hands when it comes to this issue if they have had the same success/
> lack of success we have had in controlling 'problem' behaviour.

I think that his remark to think about why everybody talks about 'leaving
out combat' rather than 'including combat'. Combat in a game is not nece-
sarily the natural state,  it is just a matter of legacy from the days of
Diku and before that all games focus on combat.

> The perservering abusive player always seems to find a new and
> annoying way to disrupt the game for other players through cheating,
> 'pkilling', abusive interpersonal behaviour etc.

I know, but like I said,  it is a circular argument to include combat just
so players can strike back.  My personal gripe is that this way you are in
fact confirming the abusive players that 'yes, the game focusses on combat
and it is perfectly all right to attack, harass or otherwise mistreate the
other players as long as you can get away with it'. Even if it is not what
you want it is still the unconscious signal you are sending. Or like some-
body else said (sorry but I forgot who) Buffy the Tailor should not *have*
to become a berserking killing-machine  just to protect her shop from ram-
paging warbands and thiefs.

> In our statistics a remarkably small percentage of players accounts for
> a gross majority of problems.  We've seen more success from banning
> problem people.  This option works for us however because we are not
> a pay-for system and have no implied service level guarantee.
> Not a scalable solution, IMO.

It is my firm belief that sooner or later  the staff of a game must step in
to control problems.  On a free for all game that probably is much later of
course  but there too some player will find ways to become so disruptive to
the game that strong actions must be taken.  If a player decides to repeat-
edly crash a game because of some perceived gripe that will cause staff ac-
tion very quickly.  And of course in a way the new pk-control system of uol
is also a staff intervention to a rampaging pk problem on that game.
Empowering players will not prevent such things from happening, it can only
postpone them.

> >I dearly would like to discuss this topic as well,  preferably under an-
> >other subject and concentrating on possible solutions rather than on the
> >problem which has over the time been beaten to death  (if you forgive me
> >the very poor pun).

> I strongly believe that the antisocial behaviour is the symptom.  The cause
> is the game system that has the affordances for this behaviour.
> Yes please lets talk about game systems and controlling antisocial
> behaviour through balance and integrated restraints.
> This is something I am keenly interested in.

I actually have no idea why some people feel they have to spoil the fun for
others. It's probably something psychological and should be treated as such
rather than providing game mechanisms to stoop to their level.
What I think is the biggest problem  is that there is virtually  no control
on behaviour at all.  The two most common solutions proposed to anti social
behaviour on games are 'ignore' and 'kill'. Neither is particularly effect-
ive and can frequently encourage the opponent to increase their attempts to
ruin the game for others.  A determined campaign  can be a very frightening
thing to witness,  let alone being the victim of one.  Further this type of
solutions puts the burden of enforcement on the victim.  Which I believe is
wrong. Victims should feel protected by the game, not being further victim-
ised. This is in a (much less severe way) the same as blaming the victim of
rape that it was her own fault  because she was ... (fill in your favourite
excuse e.g. 'wearing miniskirts' or 'alone on the street at nights').  Even
if players can defend themselves this does not mean they should -have- to.

> Who here is familiar with the solution that "Legends of Kesmai" adopted?
> I'd like to see some commentary on that.

Afraid I am not familiar :(

> >What mechanisms in reality control the rampaging warbands? I don't think
> >fear of punishment is an effective deterrent  as (would be) criminals do
> >not rationaly compare risks and rewards.

> I think we would agree after analyzing the behaviour of most online
> hooligans that they are doing whatever behaviour causes them 
> an adrenal flood.
> This definitely precludes weighing any larger or longer considerations.

We have to accept for a fact that there will be players who do not want to
play nice. I do not think it is productive to debate either the why or the
how of that behaviour.  Instead we could concentrate on what mechanisms in
a game allow them to do this. Then we can think how to give the society of
players control over such resources that prohibit unwanted behaviour. Only
if the players as a group  can control the resources that affect behaviour
on the game can they effectively shape a real society.

What I think is one of the key issues here is the difference in attachment
to characters. Mr.Bartle pointed out that one of the important reasons why
killers (clubs?) attack socialisers (hearts) is because the later is vocal
in their distress.  Players who are attached to their characters are upset
when attacked and this seems something the attackers find enjoyable. Also,
a player who does not care much about his character  does not care much if
attacked, so he has a much lower treshold to attack others. The punishment
of being killed does not stop them.  In the ultimate case they just create
a new character and continue their game in relative anonymity. The players
who are attached to their characters often invest a lot of time and effort
in social networks and are (justifiably) upset when that is threatened. To
them starting anew is not an option as anonymity threatens their gameplay.
Perhaps this is why 'ignore and exclude'  are moderately effective tactics
against killers.  Without recognition of their behaviour  there apparently
is less enjoyment for them.  However, this relies on fact that killers can
not unilaterally force their victims into action, as they can easily do on
a game that allows them to attack other players.

The question is if this difference can be resolved, or if something can be
found that equally threatens the gameplay of the killers but that is under
control of the society of players and does not require combat  (as that is
essentially the game the killers are playing). And we also have to keep in
mind that killers and socialisers are in symbiosis  and need to maintain a
careful balance to keep the game lively.

> >Instead the simply believe they
> >will not get caught. So what social, ethical, economical and other mech-
> >anisms keep the vast majority of people from taking what they please and
> >eliminate all who oppose them.
> > And can similar mechanism be brought over
> >to the mud environment with its unique characteristics?

> It's all in the social mechanism, in my opinion.

That is a bit of an easy way out. By saying it is social you imply that it
is outside the scope of the game to affect. However a society is partially
shaped by its means  to enforce its members to conform to acceptable beha-
viour.  So yes,  while it is a social mechanism this does not exclude game
designers and staff  from responsibility  if they want to aim at something
other than AnarchyMud or FreeForAllMud.

> I've got examples of working and nonworking systems, but I won'd belabor
> the point unless someone else picks it up.

Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey