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

[Mike Sellers]

At 06:11 PM 6/22/98 -0500, Koster, Raph wrote:
>> From:	Dan Shiovitz [SMTP:dbs at cs.wisc.edu]
>> I think this is the wrong way to go about things. Saying, essentially,
>> "the world is a chaotic and lawless place and any order must be
>> imposed by the players" is putting a major burden on people.
>>=20
>You're quite correct.

The unfortunate part about this being, of course, that UO (like every other
MUD of which I'm aware) gives players ample tools and incentive to be
chaotic and evil, but virtually no incentives or tools to use to be
orderly.  Using the various tools and mechanisms designed deep into the
game, *anyone* can be a PKer, and gain immediate social distinction.  No
real analogue or reward for being lawful or investing in a larger community
exists.  I know some long-time UO players who finally gave up in disgust
just recently, as all their effort to build their own small community was
easily thwarted by a few "destroyer-players" whom they were powerless to
stop (e.g., building a forge right in front of one of their houses,
blocking entrance to it). =20

No one in UO can be a real sheriff, invested with powers similar to and
inimical to those of a PKer's, and (just as importantly) derived from the
will of the people, not the deigning of the designers.  Unless things have
changed recently (Raph?), this simply isn't part of the game.  I've talked
for years (literally) about the populace->mayor->judge/sheriff triangle and
have even demonstrated it on a small scale.  This is the sort of _social_
engineering (and this is just one fairly trivial example) that is necessary
for encouraging more than a few tireless souls to be "lawful" and "orderly."=
 =20

In other words, people do what we reward them for doing -- and in our games
today, we _clearly_ reward them for being aggressive, anti-social, and
bloodthirsty.  In the last ten years or so of mudding, we've really moved
just about a step and a half from pure h&s gaming.  That may not be our
intent, but it is definitely what we encourage them to do.  This lack of
ability and incentive to be anything *but* anti-social, chaotic, and evil
is, I believe, the single biggest impediment to building *real* communities
in online games. =20

>> I think the correct model to create
>> a lawful system is one where the world starts out lawful, at least in
>> some places: there's a city or state or country that's large and
>> *safe*, where players can have the expectation that justice is
>> done.
>>=20
>The article doesn't mention it, but UO's cities are indeed safe.=20

Quite so.  They are entirely safe, if artificially so, thanks to the
deus-ex-machina of teleporting guards.  As another Wired article on UO
said, it's fascism in the cities and anarchy outside them.  Not bad for a
bloody game, perhaps --even a magnum opus like UO-- but this sort of
top-down, centralized, designed-in foundation will not sustain the growth
of a real, stable, vibrant community.  Until that happens, all such online
games are really just humongous Ponzi schemes, relying on there always
being more new people to replace those who have gotten tired or disgusted
and left.  Diablo essentially flamed out this way, as have countless
hobbyist muds (as for Meridian, it's at a questionable point of
equilibrium, I believe).  Self-sustaining (and long-term paying)
communities will not arise until we give people the incentives and tools to
create them.

End of rant.  For now. =20




--

Mike Sellers=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Chief Creative Officer=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The=
 Big Network
mike at bignetwork.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
<http://www.bignetwork.com/>http://www.bignetwork.com

             =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Fun=A0=A0 Is=A0=A0 Good =20