[MUD-Dev] Balancing Addicts -> soft vs. hard enforcement

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 16 Mar 98 at 12:52, cimri wrote:
> Ling <K.L.Lo-94 at student.lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> <snippage>
> > Alternatively, instead of using an artificial 'hard' enforcement.  The
> > exp/coinage/equip worth from creatures could be lowered according to some
> > formula (even down to zero).  This 'soft' enforcement would prompt 
> 
> <snippage>
> I am so glad to see someone mentioning this question for which I've
> never had a name, but which I've often though of over the years.
> 
> [Begging the question briefly of whether I've committed some sort of
> mud-dev group faux pas by culling out only one subtopic from this
> thread and following on, I'll just jump right in.]
> 
> Summary--I've often thought that if you don't want your players able
> to do something, then make it impossible, or highly unpleasant, or
> boring, or unprofitable: but don't use out-of-game-system sanctions
> (pfile wipe, freezing, etc) with reasonable exceptions for
> functional defects or real-world illegal activity.

I heartily concur.  I don't like artificial restrictions placed upon a
mud reality.  This would depend on one's desired environment
(PK/non-PK, etc.), game type (HnS, RP, Social, Adventure) and theme.

> I've seen no end of muds where some behavior was undesired by the
> admins, and so they put up a message on a noteboard and/or in the
> text you see at login/connect time, and threaten dire consequences.
>
> "No more killing of shopkeepers!"  "No teleporting of aggressive
> monsters to areas frequented by newbies!" are two examples that come
> to mind.

Nod.  I think this should be coded around and then justified in 
theme.  For instance the shopkeeper problem can be approached many
ways and here's my brief list from least to most desireable.

1) Make shopkeepers immune to attack.  Attacking character receives
message "You can't do that here." or "You can't kill the baker."

2) Make shopkeepers much more powerful than any player or group of 
players.

3) Make shopkeepers normal citizens who scream for help when attacked 
or robbed, or otherwise attempt to defend themselves with local 
allies or flee.  Have city guards respond to calls for help.  Allow 
a chance for unobserved witnesses to report the crime.  Posses, 
bounties, wanted posters are possible.  And finally implement a 
in-game legal system (or a laughably unjust and merciless one).  

The latter seems to most desirable as it provides a social deterent 
and enhances the believability factor.  One should also remember, it 
does make this "discouraged" activity more attractive to many seeking 
anarchistic and destructive thrills, yet harder to benefit from in
the long run.  Careful attention to loopholes is required.

> It always ends up with sore feelings, misunderstandings, and pain on
> the part of players and admins alike.  "But I didn't know!" "You did
> too!  You're site-banned!" etc.
> 
> I think if you _can_ do it in a mud, then you should be allowed to
> do it (with the possible temporary exceptions for functional
> defects). And admins should discourage or prevent undesired behavior
> by making it boring, or unprofitable, or unpleasant, or even
> impossible to do by putting special cases in the code to handle it.
> 
> Seems like it would make mud-living a lot more pleasant.
> 

Outside of in-game mechanics, there are wide areas of communication 
activities that are open to abuse that I don't believe can be coded
against, such as 'gossip', 'tell', 'emote', etc.  

Unless you willing to go the distance and parse speech for spelling 
and grammatical errors, or lists of offensive words and phrases like 
'spice girls', 'players rights', 'titanic', etc. and provide suitable 
punishment for such criminal use of speech. ;) 

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