[MUD-Dev] Re: Marion's Tailor Problem

[J C Lawrence]

On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:20:23 -0700 (PDT) 
Adam Wiggins<adam at angel.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 s001gmu at nova.wright.edu wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote: 

>>> Why is disallowing PKill or PSteal an unsatisfactory solution to
>>> this scenario?  Why is only allowing "consential" PKill or PSteal
>>> an unsatisfactory solution to this scenario?
>> 
>> The problem with disallowing PKill/PSteal is that a lot of people
>> on here are advocates of a more 'pure' simulation type game.  

> And as I always mention whenever this discussion pops up, we're
> talking about a *whole* lot more than just "PKill/PSteal".  
...deletia...
> Buffy digs a hole in the forest.  She takes ten very sharp swords
> and buries their hilts in the dirt at the bottom of the hole.  Then
> she takes loose brush and leaves and covers the hole, concealing it.

Some idle thoughts which don't really resolve the Tailor Scenario, but walk
about the outskirts:

One of the things that Shades did was to distibuish between death
types (in order of decreasing severity):

  1) You attacked something and died
  2) Another player attacked you, and you died.
  3) The game attacked you, and you died (ie NPC attack).
  4) The game world killed you (eg walked off a cliff).

The penalties imposed for each death form varied, ranging from (rough
memory) 15% stat loss for #1 to merely having your character reset
back to the starting position and all EQ dropped for #4 with no other
loss (note that Shades was reset based, so there were no persistent
effects other than stat changes).

Overlaying such a model on a persistent world simulation type MUD
could change the forms to:

  A) You attacked a player character and died
  B) You attacked an NPC and died
  C) Another player attacked you, and you died.
  D) An NPC attacked you, and you died.
  E) An NPC guided/controlled/charmed by a player attacked you, and you died.
  F) The game attacked you, and you died (ie NPC attack).
  G) The game world killed you (eg walked off a cliff).

The above quoted example of the pit trap set by Buffy falls could then
be described as a variant on either #3 or #7 with the choice of which
being design stylistic.  Suitable background stories and logica can be
arranged to support either case.  

What's the real impact?

  We have changed the balance of how characters can affect each other,
not by limiting their actions, not by introducing the hidden hand of
god ("You can't attack a (newbie) player."), but by changing the
impact on the subject player of the action.

  This is interesting because the normal approach is either the hand
of god, or to alter tha rewards/penalties afforded the winning
attacker.  By instead concentrating on the losing victim, we can
narrow the problem field significantly.

Consider the following variation for #C:

  If another player attacked your character and it died, and you
offered (in the game's view) no defense of your character, then your
loss (other than the fact of having died) will be XXX.

  If another player attacked your character and it died, and (in the
game's view) you actively attempted to defend yourself and win the
battle, then your loss (other than the fact of having died) will be
YYY.

Now vary the values for XXX and YYY:

  How about having XXX be near-zero?  Pacifist players who are
slaughtered by other players lose nothing, merely having their
characters reset to a new location and their EQ handled (however).

This doesn't change the ability of players to kill other players. It
changes the depth of the effect that players can cause on each other
thru mortal attacks.

One can even change the depth effect.  Say, for the above XXX/YYY case
adding the following fillip:

  If killed by another player after having offered no defense of your
character, then your character will be rendered a "ghost" which can
then move about the land with <whatever> movement restrictions,
<whatever> visibility, and <whatever> ability to be affected by other
ghosts or living players for <whatever> period of time before
re-materialising in the new location with or without all EQ.

A possible specific:

  Slaughtered undefending characters become ghosts, retaining all
their EQ in ghost form (ie the EQ is also "ghosted), but unable to use
any of that EQ in any way, or two be affected by it.  Ghosts are for a
very short period utterly invisible, but then gradually start becoming
increasingly visible; initially to magic spells or characters of
specific types/sensitivities etc.  Perfectly invisible ghosts can walk
thru objects/walls/doors unless they are magic or otherwise protected
(massive effect on game design here, but also allows victims to escape
killer traps).  Partially invisible ghosts can be affected by the game
world to the degree that they are visible.  

Now consider the changes this offers to your GoP players.  Of a sudden
death and being dead has become a potentially useful game tool as well
as offering the tailors of the world an ability to limit the depth of
incursion that the more aggressive players can make on their
comparitively docile world.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
----------(*)                              Internet: coder at ibm.net
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...