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

[Maddy]

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).
> 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.

Ok, so you want a game that firstly makes it harder for people to start
combat unless both parties are interested.  This doesn't require performing
any kind of restriction on the game, but it could involve the notion that if
you see someone walking towards you armed with a sword, you run away.  If
the local "city" also enforced this by making a "no drawn weapons" law, then
as soon as a player wields a weapon he's leapt on by several guards.

        The guards don't even have to kill the offending character, he could
just be arrested and locked away for a certain period of time.  Capturing
people should be fairly easy, even magic users require time to cast
teleportation spells.

> > >I don't think
> > > fear of punishment is an effective deterrent  as (would be) criminals
do
> > > not rationaly compare risks and rewards. Instead the simply believe
they
> > > will not get caught.
> 
> > Well there are many different classes of criminals IRL.  I think a 
> > taxonomy of mud "criminals" is also in order.  To think that this
> > anti-social behavior is solely a feature of the "clubs" suit of 
> > players is rather narrow.  Do socializers perform violence? 
> 
> Yes, or rather they use other ways to control each other. Which was if I
> remember correctly what  mr. Bartle really was talking about,  clubs are
> the players who want to control -other players- where spades (I believe)
> are  the players who want to control the game.  The other two suits were
> the players  who wanted to interact with other players (hearts)  or with
> the game (diamonds). Killers and socialisers only come into existence in
> games that focus around combat and where the primary means to control or
> affect others is by attacking and killing them. On a non combat mush you
> can see similar mechanisms revolving around influence and social circles

Social violence is a lot more roleplay orientated than combat.  If Bubba
started up a rival tailors shop to Buffy and then went around spreading lies
about Buffy to increase his reputation, although it's a bad thing for Buffy,
it's still a legitimate way of playing.

> > 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?

Probably because we are all, although maybe not aiming exactly in the same
direction, trying to aim for the same thing - better, more fun to play muds.

Maddy