[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[John Buehler]

gmiller at classic-games.com writes:

> "John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:

>> I was hoping to avoid getting into this particular discussion, but
>> I guess it's a necessary postscript to the original topic.

> Yep, the libertarian vs. authoritarian argument is pretty
> fundamental to the design of any system which attempts to regulate
> player vs. player hostility.

*chuckle* I love it when people speak about libertarian concepts as
applied to children.  Libertarian principles assume so much about
personal responsibility, yet children have an unformed notion of that.
And on top of that, we throw in supernatural powers in the virtual
world.  Anyone who believes that libertarian philosophies work in game
worlds where a significant percentage of the population are under 18
is simply fooling themselves.

>> The reason that people play these games is for entertainment.  A
>> single player game provides a certain form of entertainment for
>> each player, and that entertainment is completely controlled by the
>> game publisher and the player.  Nobody else has a say in what
>> happens in the game.  In contrast, a multiplayer game has the
>> characteristic that the entertainment of any one player is derived
>> not only from the game and the one player's actions, but also from
>> the actions of other players.  This is all obvious, but it's
>> important to keep it in mind when considering PvP.

> Indeed, but not all of us find being powerless to protect ourselves
> more entertaining than being required to do so. Much of the problem
> with UO in the early days was that it lacked sufficient tools to
> deal with excessive PK. That doesn't imply that the problem is
> inherent to all conceivable player-run systems.

> With any luck, we've summarized this well enough to avert any
> further hashing out of the same tired arguments :)

I'll agree that there are distinct types of players out there.  Some
enjoy the challenge of taking on the whole world.  But I'll say that
that group is only a bit larger than the group of roleplayers out
there.  Further, combat and confrontation are only a small piece of
the overall notion of what people find personally entertaining.  If a
single virtual world is going to be built that brings people like you
and people like me together, the game must regulate their
interactions.  I want to hunt smart animals and occasionally defend
against bad guy incursions, and the rest of the time go sailing the
high seas, and learn blacksmithing and coopering.  Get good with a
bow.  And all the while socialize and explore.

You want me in your world because I add to its ambiance.  You have
someone to swagger in front of to show off your accomplishments, your
victories and such.  You have someone who will ask you questions about
what's going on in the wars and maybe even ask you to deliver a
message to a far off town.  I want you in my world because you add
spice to it.  You come back from the wars all grimy and battered.  You
bring me business as a blacksmith, repairing armor and arms.  You
bring me stories and rumors for the people in town to gossip about.
You bring me safety because when you and your brothers are in town, I
know that we are safer from the orcish incursion that we have been
hearing rumors about.  You arrive and it becomes fact, not rumor.

But I don't want to be in your world if, when you and your buddies
arrive in town, you start taking whatever you like, killing people who
don't behave the way you want them to, etc.  YOU may be capable of
maintaining a libertarian responsibility and stay in the genre of the
world, but those 12 to 18 year olds are less able.  I would actually
claim much older than that, but that would be getting off the topic.

JB

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