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

[Adam Wiggins]

On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Chris Gray wrote:
> I'm not really following up here, but more following on. The above
> interchanged triggered the following question in my mind: How dependent
> are the combat freaks and the combat critics on the actual words and
> forms used during "combat"? That's pretty unclear, so I'll describe a
> bit of an alternative (I would guess that some RP system has tried this
> at some time). Get rid of all of the truly nasty words in the system,
> and replace them with more humorous ones. Remember the bladders-on-sticks
> that the Lilliputians used on each other? Could combat work if done in
> a system like that? There would be "weapons", complete with statistics;
> there could be "armour" (how about layers and layers of frilly shirts,
> funny hats, etc.), there could be "magical protections" (you are now
> immune from skillfull boppers being able to bop off one of your silly
> hats), etc. Replace death with "so completely embarassed that you have
> to retreat to your room for a day". Make insulting be a major skill,
> along with the witty reply, the double-bop and the insane laugh.
> 
> Critics would have to stretch things a bit to call this violence. Would
> the action be enough for the combat folks? Even all the numbers could be
> setup to work the same. All that has really changed is the words.
> Someone could do this to a Diku without having to change much code - just
> change a lot of strings and object descriptions.

I once suggested - I believe it was rec.games.mud.something, although I
don't recall now as it's been so long - a simple coms file to turn any mud
into LoveMUD.  My point, of course, was the same as yours above - that the
'violence' taking place on the screen is just the trappings of a
competative environment, and in fact could be changed to something else
without even having access to the server on the other end.

The example I gave included a bunch of substitution strings which would
work on a standard diku mud, like so:

%1 massacres %2 with %3 deadly slash.
(becomes)
%1 gives %2 a big, wet kiss.

%1 is dead! R.I.P.
(becomes)
%1 becomes completely overwhelemed with love!

You receive your share of %1 experience for killing %2.
(becomes)
Overwhelemed with your love, %2 will now do anything you ask.

You get %1 from the corpse of %2.
(becomes)
%2, as your love slave, is more than happy to give you %1.

etc etc etc.

> My guess on this is that the combat folks wouldn't touch the game with
> a ten foot pole, unless they were coerced and enticed in some way, but
> having gotten into it, might find it more fun, since what they are
> doing is now somehow acceptible. If not, then I'd have to conclude that
> one of the reasons they wouldn't like this but do like regular combat
> is that they *want* to be doing socially unacceptible things, and
> they *want* all of the physical damage and agony that they cause (at
> least virtually). If so, is that inherent, or are we stuck in a vicious
> circle, where they combat freaks want blood and gore, so they get it
> from the new games, and hence they want more of it?

I suppose it depends *why* a given player likes combat oriented muds.  I
for one would love to play a game like you describe - what's fun for me is
the resource management, not the combat.  A good example of this would be
comparing Starcraft or X-Com with Theme Park or Afterlife.  They are all
strategy games that involve balancing your resources; just the first two
are oriented around combat (killing your opponent), while the third is
oriented around running the best theme park you can, and the last around
managing departed souls in a heaven (or hell) of your own creation.
A nice example of the mix of these two is Master of Orion, incedentally
one of my favorite single player computer games.  Although most folks
followed an expand-an-conquer style strategy, the best player I ever knew
always used diplomacy to win the game, and fought as few battles as
possible.

So I don't think you're exactly right.  What I *do* think is that these
sorts of things tend towards more intense conflicts, simply because it
makes the events more exciting and memorable (not to mention a good place
to insert some really impressive effects).  That is to say, most people
probably remember the disasters from SimCity more than they do most of the
day-to-day running of the city, even though disasters were a pretty small
part of the game.

> [I played "Unreal" for the first time yesterday, and must admit to
> some visceral satisfaction from seeing my opponent (a friend in another
> city) fly apart into hunks of bloody meat. Later, three of us played
> "Monkey Island" (first time for all of us), and were quite entertained
> by its non-violence and quirky humor.]

Different kinds of fun, yes.  Monkey Island cannot be compared with what
we are discussing, because it is completely non-competative in nature.

Adam