[MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method

[Marian Griffith]

On Fri 10 Jul, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> On  9 Jul 98, Marian Griffith wrote:

> > On Wed 08 Jul, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> 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?

This is a difficult question that I rather not attempt to discuss. Not be-
cause it is not interesting but because it likely to end up as a pk or not
pk discussion.

> > 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.

[I am leaving the entire example in even if it is a bit long]

> 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>

What I meant was that in most games somebody who wants to play a role that
is not violent can not do that. Because the only affect in the game is the
attacking and killing of other players.  I am leaving the issue of harass-
ment in relation to affecting others rest for the moment. In current games
unless they have no combat at all,  the tailor must learn to fight to pro-
tect her shop. This is no argument that I should be immune to violence. It
is an argument that there should be other mechanisms  to control behaviour
that is socially disruptive (or meant as such).
In reality people have so many ties to society that they can not do just as
they please without serious consequences.  Ostracism  and denial of service
are effective means  to keep most people within bounds  of reasonable beha-
viour.  And for those that are not deterred there is the whole mechansim of
the law enforcement  to keep them in check.  On muds none of the former and
preciously little of the later exists. This means there is no real check on
the behaviour of players other than more of the disruptive playing style. I
wonder if and how much rl mechanisms can be brought over to a mud. What can
not be done and why not. How is the mud world different from the real world
and what other mechanisms of social control can be thought of  that do work
in the mud world.

> > 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? 

> 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.

Now that is a thought. I wonder if anybody ever tried to do this.

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

I know what it is for me, but I expect there are others on this list
who have different priorities. Like making a living :)

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