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

[S. Patrick Gallaty]

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Willey at abnamro.com <Michael.Willey at abnamro.com>
To: mud-dev at kanga.nu <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Date: Thursday, 09 July 1998 13:55
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun


>
>
>     ____________________Reply Separator____________________
>     Subject:  [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Killers have more fun
>     Author:   mud-dev at kanga.nu ("S. Patrick Gallaty" <choke at sirius.com>)
>     Date:          7/9/98 7:55 PM
>
>>Multi-classes and classless games are the biggest contributor IMO
>>to lack of online community and thus antisocial behaviour along
>>with anonymity and rapid character advancement.
>
>Really?  Do you attribute that to problems with the basic premise
>of a classless game, or to poor implementation?  A poor
>implementation would easily lead to overly rapid character
>advancement, but on a different axis:  Expanding the scope of

I think there's a time and a place for it - but within the 
confines of the discussion we are having it's my opinion that
allowing characters to have magery/swordsmanship/archery/alchemy/etc.
caters to the solo min/max player who is destined usually to end 
up being a general aggressor.  
There are game contexts where this is acceptable, but for the 
sake of building community we don't want a char running around in
full plate armor using thief skills while casting heal on himself...
for obvious reasons.
The hidden tragedy in 'open skill' systems is that noone gets 
really differentiating skills like the thieve's backstab and 
hidden movement, or the high hand to hand damage skills of 
dedicated warriors.  
I believe too that ambiguous character roles interfere with
roleplaying (though this seems counterintuitive even to me)
I would hope that players could make up their own personas
but as it happens I don't see it panning out in-game.

>abilities too fast could lead to the same problems as expanding
>power of abilities to quickly, that being to put too much control
>over the game into the hands of those who have not yet been
>indoctrinated into your mini-society -

Precisely!
That's the 'newbie gantlet' paradigm.  You want people to start
out basically powerless.  Desperate and helpless, and to learn
to manipulate the interface and be the scum on the bottom
of the food chain for a while.  They should really learn to
appreciate their gain in power...

> they can challenge the
>rules of the game before they have even entirely learned them.
>With no appreciation for why the rules exist as they do, they
>strike out randomly, damaging the entire structure like some
>out-of-control teenager.  Is it coincidence that almost every
>problem player I've ever dealt with has been male and under 20?

Ditto.  The really obnoxious ones are anywhere from 13-18 
(verbal abuse etc.) the combat oriented ones are 16+ it seems.

>
>I will say that my game is skill-based and classless, and we
>have very few of these kinds of problems.  I've always found
>that our community was rather strong, but it's strength comes as
>much from a stable and interactive administration than from a
>group of players.
>

But is it so small that the presence of your admins is a factor?
I am thinking about games with populations so large that the 
admin staff presence isn't a consideration.

>On your second point:  Anonymity is both a blessing and a curse
>throughout the online world:  People feel free to say and do
>things they would never do without the blanket of anonymity,
>whether that be to speak out for a radical idea or to harass
>people at random.  Do you take the bad with the good, or do you
>throw the baby out with the bathwater?
>

I don't mean anonymity outside the game, yes absolutely I want 
my players real names etc. never to be revealed.  I mean that 
their in-game identity should be worth something to them.  I 
want them to *work hard* to get up from newbie to 'middling'.

In other words, they should be concerned that they have a bad
reputation...

>
>
>-- 
>MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.
>
>