[MUD-Dev] Mass customization in MM***s

[John Robert Arras]

On Sun, Jul 14 Ron Gabbard <rgabbard at swbell.net> wrote:

> I would agree with you on the Massive simulation part... but
> disagree in that the players can do it better than the designers.

> Anyhow, a lot of things have changed from my original EQ
> experience back in 1999.  I had a necromancer character pay me 5
> pp for 20 bone chips I had looted from level 1 skeletons.  I could
> have sold them to a vendor for 1/25th that amount.

> Build an entire world around systems with these types of
> player-driven transactions and you have a world where everybody
> has the potential to make a difference to some extent while making
> the game experience more enjoyable for all involved.

> What is the material difference between a quest where NPC_Bob says
> 'Go kill skeletons and bring me their bones for a reward' and
> PC_Jim >saying 'Go kill skeletons and bring me their bones for a
> reward'?

I am definitely not arguing against these kinds of interactions.  I
expect players to form their own guilds and cliques, and I expect
economies of some kind to appear in the game. But, I want something
else. Something much bigger than the players so that it isn't only
about players making their own fun. I want to do more than make a
world where players can make their own fun with each other. I want
to see something where the world also tries to make fun for the
players.

> Lum's quoted truism "players are broken" is just wrong.  Players
> are flexible where game systems are rigid.  The players are
> actually the ones 'working as intended'... it's the systems that
> are breaking.  If there is a flaw in the system that can be
> exploited, it will be exploited.  If advanced characters are
> allowed to PK younger players, it will happen.  If a game system
> requires players to exhibit the same modes of behavior and
> civility that they would use in work, church, and school in order
> to provide an enjoyable game experience for everyone, that system
> is broken.

> players are not broken...  game systems just don't have the
> sufficient checks, balances, and flexibility to deter
> 'anti-social' behavior.  Is it absolutely necessary to draw the
> box of possible player actions so small that players are left with
> very few ways in which to interact with each other in order to
> prevent 'anti-social' behavior or can tools for checks and
> balances be included in the system such that there is a
> player-driven penalty for anti-social behavior?  Can players be
> given the responsibility for adhering to social norms if they are
> also given the means to be held accountable for their actions?

I think I need to explain my objections more. I want games where
players have lots of freedom. I want to let players do what they
want. If they want to have a side where they pkill all the
newbies. Fine.  If some people on that side want to spam kill the
newbie killers, fine. I might even have different rules for
different sets of players (since I am assuming interaction between
these different sets will only be using the pointy end of a sword).

My problem is giving players institutionalized positions of power.
For example, making a player the "mayor" of a city is a bad idea
IMO. I don't trust players who are given that kind of institutional
power for whatever reason. If players want to earn points and then
use those points to influence the direction of the city, that's
fine. It's just that singling out players for special treatment and
giving them official titles that they can use to lord over other
playesr is bad.

John


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