[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, John Buehler wrote:

> Matt Mihaly writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, John Buehler wrote:
 
<clipped stuff from John about how he totally disregards the 'insult'
scenario as a reason to kill another player>

>> That may be well and good in monster bashing games like Everquest,
>> where all players are assumed to be basically 'equal' but in a game
>> with a stronger social structure, where there are superiors and
>> inferiors, I think it's a bit poor to let the newbie peasant run
>> his mouth off at the king without any consequences
>> whatsoever. Given the relatively limited rewards available to
>> in-game leaders (ie, they aren't going to get driven to work
>> everyday or get to stay in swank hotels while on trips, etc),
>> respect of other players becomes one of the most important rewards,
>> and allowing open belittling of the leaders tends to undermine that
>> respect and make the leader look incompetent and weak. This isn't
>> true in a society lead by leaders it doesn't know (such as the
>> modern nation-state), but in a smaller community where there are
>> more personal ties and personal respect at stake, such a thing is
>> counter-productive to effective leadership, not to mention
>> counter-productive to ensuring that player-leaders get what they
>> are most after: respect and some power over their fellow players.

> What can I say except that I disagree with you.  If I'm following a
> leader, and the leader is insulted by someone and that leader
> decides to pound on the insulter, I'm not going to be very inclined
> to follow that leader any longer.  Frankly, I consider the idea of
> pounding on hecklers a really screwy idea.

You might consider it screwy but players generally do not, and I feel
very secure in saying that. Our playerbases read a lot of pulp
fantasy/sci-fi/horror/whatever, and in many of those books, there are
many examples of those with power killing or severely punishing those
who insult them.

> You make mention of newbie peasants and kings.  I'm assuming from
> your statements that the king is a player.  In a game of my
> construction, no player becomes king.  I don't believe in the
> desireability or viability of having players assume significant
> roles in the world order.  It promotes excessive gaming and gives
> too much power to players.  I'm of the opinion that gamemasters are
> the ones with the vast majority of the power in the game world.
> That must be so in order to ensure that some coherent form of
> entertainment is available to the overall playerbase.

Yes, the king is a player. I wonder, have you ever played a game with
a real political system? Some of what you say makes me think you
haven't. They _do_ promote excessive gaming, it's true, but to claim
they don't add entertainment to the world if down right is a bit
ludicrous from my point of view. I've spent the last 6 years heavily
involved in playing, administering, and creating virtual worlds like
that, and no MUD that doesn't involve those has so far been able to
entertain me for any significant length of time.

> I imagine Disneyworld with the park attendees deciding which rides
> will be open, what new rides will be put in and where, etc.  Only
> the really hardcore attendees will figure out how to do such things,
> while the occasional attendees are left to deal with the
> consequences of their actions.  I'd rather leave the park in the
> hands of Disney employees, whose job is to ensure that park
> attendees enjoy themselves.

That's not a good analogy. A political system doesn't allow the park
attendees to decide what is built in the park. That's up to the
administration. Meta-issues such as new areas, new systems etc are
inherently outside the scope of players as players (ignoring players
as administrators).

Check out an article I wrote last year on the value of political
systems in games at
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20000309/mihaly_01.htm

None of what I write in that article is speculative or
theoretical. It's all based entirely on tested experience in Achaea
and other MUDs.

The point of a political system IS to ensure the park attendees enjoy
themselves. If set up properly, in fact, it encourages players to help
other players enjoy your world.

> As you suggest, I want a game where all players are basically
> 'equal' - not unlike the world we live in (that ought to stir up
> some pointless discussion).  I'n not after a game world that
> apportions power.  I'm after a game world that presents entertaining
> things to do.  Those entertaining things cannot include having
> significant control over other players - specifically when those
> other players are not interested in being controlled.  This is the
> fundamental tenet of the PvP switch system that I proposed.

Equal eh? You think you are the equal of GW Bush? Perhaps if you met
alone on some deserted planet you would be. But as it stands, he
commands the military might of the most powerful nation in the history
of the planet. So while you might be equal in some vague biological
sense, you are not, in fact, equal at all. Whether you respect him as
a person is an entirely different question, but his power is
relatively unquestionable.

As far as significant control over other players, a properly developed
political system allows players to move to other legal jurisdictions,
at a cost. It also rewards the jurisdiction itself for the number and
dedication of its citizenry, in order to create incentives for the
jurisdictional rulers to rule well. Of course, the jurisdictional
rulers must then receive some benefit from ruling well, to create the
incentive.

The benefits of an in-game political system are simply too numerous to
ignore, and I have little doubt that the most successful graphical
MUDs are eventally going to incorporate sophisticated political
systems.

> I can imagine players being barons of their own land and such - but
> being a baron moves you into a different sphere of influence that
> doesn't include your controlling players who are not barons.  You
> manage your lands, you enter into court intrigues with other barons
> and such.  It's a political form of combat, and the entertainment of
> running a barony, possibly permitting other players to go hunting on
> your lands, etc.  At no time should a baron be able to rally his NPC
> peasants and attack the town containing player characters.
> Especially when it has been stated that that town is a peaceful
> town.  Players not interested in conflict hang out there and do
> peacetime activities.  Having the baron invade is counter to the
> entertainment structure that the gamemasters have put in place.

My major problem with your PK switch system is that you assume players
know what they want. They don't, or at least, they aren't entirely
sure what they want. If you are really serious about protecting
players from things they're not interested, why not just let them
eliminate any risk of death at all? Let them go out and bash orcs or
dragons while being invulnerable.

The above suggestion is ridiculous of course, because it is the risk
that makes bashing exciting. It is no different with
player-killing. Total consenuality is boring.

--matt

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