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

[Till Eulenspiegel]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon A. Lambert <jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com>
To: mud-dev at kanga.nu <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Date: Wednesday, 08 July 1998 21:59
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun


On  7 Jul 98, S. Patrick Gallaty wrote:
> > From: Jon A. Lambert <jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com>
> > 
> > > How do you both define self-governance on muds?
> > > The absence of administration interference?  Or something else?
> > > 
> > I think he means governance in the classic sense -
> > Not 'government' so much as 'governance' which implies that the system
> > is designed to throttle undesirable behaviour and events through
> > affordances rather than intervention.
> > 
> > Intervention is not a scalable solution.
> > 

> I think there are three distinct categories of mud governance.
[ excellent commentary deleted ]

I'd respond and say that in my opinion the single most 
effective curtailment of antisocial behaviour (governing)
is community. 
"How to build community in an online environment?" would be a
great topic and one I think (perhaps prematurely) I have 
an answer to.

It's my firm belief that player classes, high specialization
and resource-driven economies are the answer.  I want any 
given character to have to rely on the help of other people
to really succeed. Magic should be the domain of mages, and
be split into highly distinct but potent categories.  A 
blacksmith with alchemy breaks this wheel, as does an 
archer/mage/thief/bowyer/warrior in plate mail.

(I had a massive brainstorm rant about an imaginary
heirarchical class sytem here but I'll put it in a seperate
post.)

Systems with generic classless skill systems find they must 
curtail the effectiveness of skills in general since their
players will min/max each skill and be overwhelmingly 
effective in combat.  Obviously if you put an overwhelmingly
powerful character in the hands of an adolescent male they
are going to run amok with it online (read: kill your
kindler, gentler players.)

I'd suggest that the real solution is to have narrow 
specialties of highly effective skills.  I wouldn't give 
*anyone* healing except the 'healer' and healing mages. 
The sorcerer could bring down fire and destruction unequalled, 
but can't wear armor... the blacksmith can make and repair 
armor, but his fighting skills are limited to the basic.

The knight (warrior/knight) can learn advanced combat skills but 
that's it.


The result?  Characters who must rely on one another to succeed.
The lone problem player is much less effective than the group, 
and once the lone problem-causer is a known peril he/she will
find himself unable to work within the online community.

The second curtailment is of course non-anonymity and 'newbie gantlet'
which both lead to the building of community.  'Newbie gantlet'
is the effort that it takes to bring a newbie to average 
playing effectiveness.  This should be large and long enough to
discourage making trashcharacters.  The restriction on making 
new characters should be also curtailed by a review process or
time delay.  

The goal here is that the player should feel the cost of 
exclusion from the _player community_.