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

[Matt Mihaly]

On 24 Jul 2002, Sasha Hart wrote:
> [Matt Mihaly on players in positions of in-game power]
 
>> Bad why? It works in gameplay (see Achaea/Aetolia for instance),
>> so is the objection a moral/ethical one?

> In light of Matt's extreme sensitivity and delicacy, I won't give
> details, but I had an incredibly annoying time on Achaea the last
> time I logged on for exactly this reason - some dopey player had
> declared that an activity which used to be actively encouraged at
> the city level was now subject to harsh punishments, but had
> neglected to make this obvious anywhere. I didn't stick around
> very long when I figured it out, because the player run
> governments in Achaea can make in-game life lose a lot of its
> savor when they've a mind to. Not that I was particularly
> dedicated to the game at that point anyway.

Well, that's fair enough, though I'd appreciate it if you'd drop the
slander, as neither you nor I should be the subject of anything
discussed here, but rather the ideas we're speaking about. In any
case, yes, this happens. You break some eggs to make an omlette. I'm
not claiming that nobody is made unhappy by our political systems,
because they CAN make your life miserable, but they are one thing
that most of our long-time players love, and they're something that
lets us sit in our little profitable niche relatively safe from
Everquest and company.

My annoyance, by the way, isn't born out of delicacy, but
frustration, because I so often see things speculated on here when
they've already been done, usually in multiple places (I see it more
often from people who didn't start playing MUDs until the big
graphical ones came out. You should check out text MUDs even if for
the sake of just understanding where the graphical MUDs evolved
from. That's the generic 'you' not actually you, Sasha.)

> That said, I have been spending every hour of my spare time lately
> hacking a game with a core premise of players having actual power
> over the world. I think it's a GREAT idea. But really, it's quite
> clear that players CAN wreck each other's fun left and right IF
> they get the wrong kind of tools. Appeal to "democracy" doesn't
> help if the elected official is a putz, or if the majority is
> actually made up of neo-nazis, or if people get bored and use the
> enforcement of harsh laws as a kind of sanctioned griefing. If
> giving players the tools to enact a totally annoying tyranny of
> the majority is the tenor of "democracy" -- sign up me as a
> monarchist.

Sure, and this also happens. I'll use details as you're familiar
with the game to some extent. Look at Hashan. That city's government
has been completely dominated by Twilight (God of Darkness) or his
minions for real-life years. Even when his worshippers were kicked
out of the other city governments during a period of McCarthy-like
paranoia, they maintained their hold on Hashan. If you don't like
Twilight, or agree with the tenets of his Order, then Hashan can be
a pretty miserable place to be a citizen, as I understand it, and if
you're an apprentice in one of their guilds, and thus can't quit the
guild without penalty, it can be somewhat worse than miserable. If
you speak out against Twilight, you'll be punished and most of the
city will support it.

Now, I admit, I like this because I just think it's really really
cool that the political life in each city has evolved so
differently, which I know doesn't help the player who wants to live
his life without interference by other players, or the player who
was abused by some functionary.
 
> Are people having fun on Achaea? Yes, all over the place. Is
> Achaea still a good and interesting game? Substantially.  Is it
> about ethics or morals? Not necessarily, but if I had invested
> $1000+ in the game like some people... I might have seen it
> differently.  As soon as pay enters in, you ride a fine line - if
> not of obligation, then of player-perceived implicit contracts
> with regard to service. Which you are (sort of) free to
> disregard...

You know, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's not about ethics or
morals. I think it's an excellent example of the subjectivity of
ethics and morality, in fact. Each city government has a distinct
ethical outlook and often, within the city, competing variations on
that outlook. Take the conflicts Ashtan has had with its self-given
label, "City of Freedom" and some of its actions, such as regularly
killing orphaned children for their pineal glands, or the strife
surrounding the placement of Sartan's shrines in the city. There was
legitimately interesting and passionate argument/discussion within
the city over freedom of religion vs. the safety of
citizens. Shallam and the Church have similar discussions about the
nature of Good vs. Evil, and their obligations thereby.

Of course, the high-minded discussions don't always translate
directly into policy, and without the decades or centuries of
institution-building to lend a stable culture that all the
participants can draw from, policies fluctuate far more, and the
implementation of those policies may be erratic, a lot like a new
government in a third world country.

--matt

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