[MUD-Dev] PVP and perma-death

[HRose]

Derek Licciardi:

> I think that is a pretty narrow view of griefing.  As JC alluded
> to, griefing can happen in many ways that are completely unrelated
> to the game play mechanics of the game.  I can chase you around
> and say things about your family for hours on end and that is
> considered griefing.  I didn't attack you; I didn't harm your
> character; I violated no game mechanic; what I did do was destroy
> your session by being a constant nag.  I griefed you.  Perhaps
> next time someone will virtually rape someone or be racist towards
> someone else.  All of that is griefing and game design alone is
> not going to get rid of it.

Yes, I see your point and the key issue is that all you write here
happens beside the gameplay. It's obvious that this form of griefing
cannot be stopped in any way. This is why there are systems that
allow you to report this and get the player banned. It's something
"out of game" and must be solved "out of game". Obviously I simply
considered griefing that is based on the gameplay because I think
this other case shouldn't even be discussed here.

I did the mistake about supposing that we were talking strictly
about "in game" griefing. That's why I quoted DAoC as an example of
grief-free game.

> Our dilemma is that we want exciting conflict.  Conflict brews
> strong emotions and emotional people can act out in ways that are
> mostly irrational.  Irrational behavior is largely considered
> griefing so we strive to add safety nets and protections around
> the online societies.  The key is that the griefing act is
> unacceptable to the victim and it's our job to remove it through
> game design changes or provide the right tools to allow it to be
> dealt with by the players.  Most games forget the latter for a
> variety of reasons or have game mechanics that prevent an ideal
> implementation.

Here I agree. In this case the conflict is a design issue. But my
choice is still to isolate completely the griefing out of the
game. It's simply a personal choice because I know that most of the
players like to not deal with griefers at all instead of having them
as part of their gameplay.

> IMHO, it's futile for a developer to think they can be all knowing
> with respect to what safety nets are needed where.  Time and time
> again we are shown that players are more efficient at finding the
> holes in those nets and are better at managing those holes than we
> are.

....

> Many of these controls in EQ were built to stop forms of grief
> better than the developers could ever do it.  If game-play can be
> built to properly motivate players to form these controls on their
> environments then how come we can't use game-play to illicit
> behaviors aimed at setting anti-griefing societal norms/patterns?

Okay, but how all this is pertinent to perma-death? Perma-death
isn't a tool in the hand of the players, it's a structure of the
design. Just to go back a second to Ola's idea: it doesn't work
because *that* form of grief has in its meaning the fact that the
players behave *outside* the rules. Ola just suggested to apply a
stat loss or perma-death to those players and it's obvious that this
won't work because a griefer acts outside the gameplay, not inside
it. So it doesn't matter if you create specific rules for them
because they'll learn how to dodge them.

He tried to suggest a rule that makes pointless to grief (because
the penalty is too high). And he still supposes that those players
will follow strictly what he cooked for them. But, as I said,
firstly you create the game, then the players and griefers choose
their path. Their behaviour will change if you change the
gameplay. They'll choose different paths.

Instead, about what you write I still simply see a lack of design:
since the players notice a flaw in the game, they have to organize
themselves so that they are able to defend their gameplay. In your
opinion the players do this so well that you could build a
completely "open" game because the players already are able to do
this way better than any designer.

This is surely interesting but from my point of view it's still
about a designer that renounces to design the game. Your example of
EQ is simply what I meant with flawed design. Because that type of
grief happens because of flaws.

But let me conclude: even if you follow what you propose here you'll
simply notice that the scenario will change. Because "out of game"
griefing will become part of the gameplay itself. So it will happen
as part of the roleplay, integrated with the game world. What
happens is that griefing isn't griefing anymore but just a way to
play.

In this case you can surely build something interesting but you'll
have to design that. It's not anymore griefing, it's simply another
mechanic you use in the game. And at the end the players will choose
if the game is fun or not and if to play it or not. I still need to
see a single proof about how the perma-death can add to the fun.

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