[MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method

[Jon A. Lambert]

On  9 Jul 98, Marian Griffith wrote:
> On Wed 08 Jul, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> > On  3 Jul 98, Marian Griffith wrote:
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> > Perhaps.  However assuming the answers to these problems lay in 
> > "coding" solutions may well turn off potential posters.  I would 
> > imagine that many implementors of "safe" environments feel no 
> > compunction to "code" against abuse, they handle it through social
> > interaction and written standards of conduct.  Ignore, silence and 
> > banish are tools enough.
> 
> Not really I think, but this entire subject is being moved into another
> thread (affordances and social method).

But in the games under discussion, violence is fully automated.  And 
there's a builtin result, death.  And most of these games do not 
allow players to stage combat.  Why is all this so?  Is this an 
affordance to avoid?

> However to summarise the problem.  Suppose I want to play a tailor, and
> on the game this is a valid skill and feasible profession. So I set out
> to learn the necessary skills with needle, cloth and dye and eventually
> I set up a shop where players can purchase designer clothing.  It earns
> me enough to make a living and I get to talk to many players and get to
> create new fashions which is what I wanted to do all along. So far this
> is fine,  but now comes along some player  who decides that he wants my
> money, or he does not like tailors or whatever. In short he attacks and
> kills, steals my money and equipment. Obviously ignoring this player is
> not going to do me much good.  He may eventually get bored  but by that
> time my enjoyment in the game is thoroughly ruined. Fighting also isn't
> an option  as I am a tailor and do not know how to handle anything more
> dangerous than a needle.  Further, being a tailor I have no interest at
> all  in learning to fight. Assuming there are many players  in the same
> situation on that game what can we do? The only thing the current games
> offer is attacking and killing the offending player,  simply because to
> fight is the only way the game provides to affect other players.  Under
> those circumstances you can not expect much of a society to develop. At
> least not one that must resemble anything but a getto disrupted by gang
> wars.
 
Does Buffy wish to play in a world where her character can be 
terminated without her consent?  If not, then she should either be 
playing a different game or a game that allows violence but has a 
mechanism to mark her as a non-combatant.  That is, she is immune 
from attack and from attacking.  And quite possibly her property is 
also marked as inviolable.  IF I ran such a game, I would also mark 
such characters as unable to attack or be attacked by NPCs also. 
<sigh>

> > > 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?
> 
> > Banishment == Death
> > Suspension == Imprisonment
> 
> As JC Lawrence pointed out in the thread about dangerous lands  and how
> players dealt with that. Players who die will simply reincarnate, or if
> that is too much of a hassle they will create a new character.  Or they
> will leave the game.  PK players in generally are not attached to their
> character beyond recognition. The only punishment 'killing' them has is
> that they must bring a new character up to level to continue their game
> and perhaps the hassle of explaining that KillerTWO  is really the same
> character as Killer.
>

Actually I was trying to equate virtual world effects on the left to 
real world effects on the right.   Being banned from a mud is the
equivalent of capital punishment.  While not attached to their 
characters, they are however attached to the mud.  Whether it is 
reliably enforceable is something to consider and would depend on 
your character registration mechanisms and the availability of 
flexible and dynamic IP screening mechanisms.  Characters who are 
suspended from use for a period of time are pretty much equivalent 
to real world imprisonment.  Is it scalable?  I see that word bandied 
about with no numbers.   Scalable to what?  a userbase of 50?, 100? 
200?, 90,000? 

> > Taking my "MUD-dev list as mud" analogy to extrems, it seems to work 
> > here.  There is significantly less "violence" on this mud than in the
> > r.g.m.a. one.   ;)
> 
> So, what is keeping it that way?
> 

I have some ideas.  But I don't know whether providing an in-game  
analysis while the "game" is still developing and in-progress would 
be productive.  :P

However, what if one started a mud that was invitation only?  That is 
establish the desired playerbase culture first through targetting 
those with desirable behavior characteristics, and integrate and 
absorb new users at a pace that is sustainable.  Trust players with 
the responsiblilty of inviting players who would fit in with the 
mud's culture.

Control scalability until you are ready.  You makes your choices.  
Which is more important,  largest playerbase or most enjoyable 
societal interaction?  

--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD     Internet:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\   "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato   /*\--