[MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 12 Jul 98, Marian Griffith wrote:
> 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.
>

Actually, that's not the avenue I was keen on exploring.  Dr. Cat's 
Furcadia does not implement combat.  This is fine.  I'm not 
advocating PK nor am I advocating non-PK.  OTOH, your example 
assumes that PK is present and you seem to be looking for mechanisms 
"in-game" to either prevent this violence or to provide enough 
discouragement where its occurance is rare.   

One such mechanism for allowing PvP actions in a mud is to make 
it be by mutual player consent.  Thus, your tailor's survival is 
assured.  The player behind Buffy may even wish to stage a robbery
and beating with a potential perpertrator, all in the interest of 
advancing a interesting plot. 

> > > 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.

True.  Then again most games I play DO allow the role.  Once violence 
of players towards players are allowable actions there is no way to 
Prevent those actions from occuring.  

>  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).

All such mechanisms, short of the nokill/nosteal flags and the 
automated or manual mutual consent policy, would be post-preventive.

> 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.

You can provide hundreds of in-game deterents, physical, social, 
legal and yet there is nothing at all that will prevent your tailor 
from being robbed or killed.  

You seem to making the argument that Buffy's chances of getting 
robbed or killed should be maybe 1 in 1000 instead of 1 in 10.  No? 
Or that somehow intent to harass or intent to screw up someone's 
game plan should be taken into consideration?   

My position is that if you wish a complete "player-safe" environment 
scrap all the pretensions about coding social mechanisms, and do it 
like Dr. Cat or the hundreds of other muds that currently do it.

--
--/*\ 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   /*\--