[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system]

[John Buehler]

Hideto Koudanshi writes:

> Most importantly, if I don't want to be constantly murdered, so I go off
> to play by myself as most of the playerbase has got me believing they
> just want to murder me indescriminately even though I don't have enough
> "PH4T L3WT" to be a profitable harvest, why should I be punished for
> this?

The core of this looks to be placing players into environments where they
can pursue conflicting agendas.  Game designers seem to want to create
flexible environments, but they end up so flexible that players just do
whatever they feel like doing.  "Caliban" is pointing out that conflicting
agendas can cause problems.

Conflicting agendas do cause problems by definition.  The agendas conflict.
If I want to walk through a city and get a sense of it being an actual
fantasy setting, then having some joker dancing naked in public is going to
be disruptive to the experience that I'm seeking.  The game permits me to
follow my agenda.  But it also permits the joker to follow his.  They
conflict, and it may produce a confrontation.  We've all seen them.

Conflicting agendas.

> Want to know what was the funnest time I think I've ever had on an MMO?
> Going onto a Japanese shard in UO, getting to know a few Japanese
> players there, and watching them all dance in unison in the middle of
> Britain near the bank, half of them morphed into chickens, the other
> half as people. We spent the day generally being silly, talking,
> laughing, and DIDN'T fight or KILL a THING. If we're enjoying ourselves,
> making friends, and still paying you for the privilege to do it while
> dressed medievallly (or as chickens), why do you care that we're not
> killing, farming, making potions, or otherwise using game mechanics in a
> thematic way?

Per the above eexample, your antics could be damaging to the experience of
other players who are seeking some kind of immersion in that medieval
setting.  It's all about the agendas that people are pursuing.  They can be
completely arbitrary.

> Had players asked us to take our tomfoolery somewhere
> else, we would have. However, considering the majority of the players
> who were THERE were ALREADY dancing and being chickens and whatnot WHEN
> I GOT THERE, I was not helping to further disrupt the game. If I keep my
> silliness or solo playing to myself and am not being complained about by
> the majority of players, why is it any of your business what I'm doing
> if I'm not breaking the ToS?

Given that most people subscribe to contextual ethics, seeing the majority
of people acting silly is going to inhibit any thought of protest by someone
who doesn't think silly is a good thing at that moment.  I wouldn't expect
many people to confront a large group of people acting in concert.

That said, if the individuals coming by saw your antics, they might find
them very entertaining.  But some may not.  What the percentages are depends
completely on the players and their agendas.

"Massive" worlds are a great idea, but they work about as well as
anarchistic societies.  Unless they're populated by altruists, the result is
chaos.  Either strict rules have to be put in place to establish the exact
ethic that players are permitted to follow with their characters (e.g. a
coarse example: no player killing), or the ethic has to be agreed upon by
the players themselves.  In-depth agreement is usually something that comes
only with small groups, suggesting that small game instances are the way to
go.  They let people with the same agenda play in an environment that isn't
polluted with people of differing or conflicting agendas.  No Sad Sacks
glumly telling me to stop being silly in town.  No silliness for the
roleplaying group doing a serious quest in town.

JB