[MUD-Dev] UO rants

[John Buehler]

> Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 12:59 PM

> Mostly, I agree with what you are saying regarding common crime scenarios.
> However, I'm not sure that "competitive" is even the best way to
> describe these
> scenarios.  I see "criminal" and "competitive" as vastly different
> things.  Is
> it always criminal to actively oppose the gameplay of another
> player?  Or can it
> be merely competitive without being criminal?

Criminal is a point on the competitive scale.  Consider the current legal
proceedings involving Microsoft.  Microsoft competes vigorously, and has been
labelled criminal in the extent of their competition.  Consider the Bored of
the Rings monologue from Saruman while in his tower.  He attempts to present a
war as a competitive business situation.  Crimes are essentially normal
behavior taken to some undesireable extreme.

> Why should 'we' ensure that the folks interested in peacetime pursuits are
> insulated?  Why should we not give them the means and incentive to
> ensure this
> themselves, by paying taxes, gaining access to resources, and using these
> resources to expand their empire's territory and security?  This is what
> competition is all about.  I agree that there should be
> consequences for immoral
> gameplay, but this doesn't mean that there should not be
> consequences for poor
> gameplay.  To me, this is the distinction between criminal and competitive.

We should ensure that folks interested in peacetime pursuits get to play the
game their way because that's their form of entertainment.  Just as a solo
player likes to be around other players, players interested in peaceful
pursuits for their character like to hear news of what's going on out on the
front lines, etc.  If they're interested in joining the war, they go find the
war.  The war shouldn't find them.  These games need not be predicated on
killing everything that moves and taking anything not nailed down.

> Again, it seems to me that you are equating competitive and criminal.  I'm
> having a difficult time conceiving of any form of competitive
> gameplay in which
> one's actions never negatively impact the ability of an opponent to
> do the stuff
> that they are interested in doing.  But this is far from criminal.

As I've said a number of times, player consent is the issue here.  All players
are entitled to enjoy their game experience, yet different players are looking
for different things.  And they may want different things at different times.
Competition has a negative impact for the loser.  But the loser chose to enter
into that competitive situation.  As I also said, crimes are an extreme form
of competition.  When the odds that a competitive action are extremely
negative for the loser, it can be considered a crime.  That's when I pop in
machinery to permit players to actually get recompense or 'justice' for the
fact that they lost in a competition.  That can include competitions that they
didn't want to get into in the first place.  Player consent.

If you don't want to compete, don't get into the game.  That's a fairly
reasonable attitude, don't you think?  Well, who said that there's only one
game to a persistent virtual world?  I want a variety of games living side by
side.  Perhaps geography is the only way to keep the game separate (e.g.
separate land masses).  But it is my hope that an effective NPC justice system
is a way of feathering one game into another.  The separation is still largely
geographic, but it's not as strict as a line in the ground.

Why do I bother pursuing all this?  So that I can attract a variety of gamers.
People who want war can find war.  People who want to build a farm can build a
farm.  People who want to get into stamp collecting can get into stamp
collecting.  When the stamp collector decides that he's had enough of that, he
can move onto something a bit more dangerous: ferret farming.  The individual
games that the player involves his character in must be relatively stable.
The idea that the game world is predicated on surviving a bunch of nuts in
armor with big knives is blatantly silly.

Note that there's nothing saying that people can't pursue stamp collecting in
a war zone.  If that's what they want, that's fine.  But if a stamp collecting
enthusiast has been attracted to the game with the promise that they'll find a
community in which they can seek out misprints, sheets, first day covers and
other philatelic pursuits, is it reasonable to expect that they also have to
run from wars constantly?  That they could have their entire collection wiped
out by arson?

> JB, in reading your posts, both personal and MUD-dev, I see that
> you are similar
> to me in your firm beliefs regarding a designer's responsibilities
> when creating
> a virtual world.  As I see it, however, this responsibility can
> take a couple of
> different forms.  On the one hand, it seems admirable to attempt to
> create a
> Utopian virtual world.  When creating a world, shouldn't we make
> right all the
> wrong things in real life?  Shouldn't we set things straight?  I
> think I see you
> shading in this direction.

I do not know why this label descends on me regardless of how I post or what
words I use.  I am not after a Utopian virtual world.  I'm after an
entertaining one.  How much would the people in Disneyland enjoy the place if
we had drive-by shootings and poisoning of popcorn and soda on a regular
basis?  That's not a very enjoyable experience - but it's currently the
reality in certain metropolitan areas.  I'm trying to provide a series of
options for players.  We already have anarchy.  Perhaps that's why everyone
seems to see my posts as seeking Utopia.  I'm representing the missing camp.

> On the other hand, I think that a different approach can be just as
> admirable
> and moral.  That is the approach that says, since I'm creating what will be
> called a virtual world, it should reflect the truth of the real
> world in certain
> ways.  Realistic crimes should be possible, but realistic
> consequences should
> ensure that crimes are not expedient.  I think that I tend to move
> more in this
> direction.

And I'm trying to acknowledge the fact that player characters have no
conscience.  They don't feel pain or remorse, and so on.  The behavior of a
player character is not human.   They will run until they collapse in
exhaustion.  And when they've recovered, they'll do it all over again.  They
can engage in bloody combat day after day.  This is all superhuman, and is
done in the name of entertainment.  I understand that.  But we also have to
factor that into the way the world works.  These conscienceless superhumans
have to be kept in line by unrealistic measures.

JB





_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev