[MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method

[Marian Griffith]

On Tue 14 Jul, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> On 12 Jul 98, Marian Griffith wrote:

> 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.   

Basically yes.  I am not so naive to believe that you can entirely pre-
vent violence or harassment by other players. It is just that I feel it
is somehow wrong  to put the burden of preventing this  entirely on the
shoulders of the victims.

> 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. 

This is the route that most Mushes follow and it seems to work reasonably
well.  But it would not work on a mud-like game where adventuring plays a
role. If there is a possibility for players to harm each other  then some
will do this and it is my firm belief that the way the game is set up has
to be the first step in preventing this.

[long tailor example snipped, finally]

> > 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.  

Even if you do not expect such actions from ever occuring you can still try
to minimise such things. And most importantly remove the burden of enforce-
ment from the players who do not want to be involved in it.

> 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 can not make the game more safe than reality. Lets at least try to make
it equally safe as reality. Currently muds rarely are. Anarchy and war-zone
are terms that better fit the majority of games.

> 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?

That too, but also that a tailor, or anybody else with a peacefull profes-
sion,  should not be involved in security issues.  At least not beyond the
ordinary things  like locking the door if you leave  and keeping things of
value out of easy reach.  Preventing armed robberies, both specific and in
general, are definitely not part of the job for most players.

> Or that somehow intent to harass or intent to screw up someone's 
> game plan should be taken into consideration?

I see no way of how this could be achieved.

> 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.

Muds of course provide a different type of entertainment that is harder to
find on roleplaying oriented games.  On such games  there are these safety
and social issues.

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