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

[Hideto Koudanshi]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, John Buehler wrote:

> 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.

What game designers need to decide and need to IMPLEMENT are FIRM RULES
onwhat is acceptable play behaviour. Believe me. I started UO with
theintent of being a medieval merchant with a little shop, making and
sellingmy poorly-made junk on my way to master craftsman as I chatted
whith "yoncustomers whot be upon my establishment forthwith." It was
made evidentlyclear with all the convenient NPC vendors and the fact
that spending amoment talking to me was keeping SuperDudeKiller from
getting out thereand KILLING THINGS!!1!1!ELEVENTYONE! that very few
people really caredabout RP. Due to so many people being like SuperDude,
the RPers who didn'tgive up their subscriptions closed ranks and circled
the wagons. Youcouldn't get in to their guilds without making some kind
of timecommitment that I just had no time or patience to do. Because I
was acasual player, I couldn't get into the private RP guilds. Even if I
couldjoin an RP guild, my hours of work meant that I wasn't likely able
to bumpinto any of my fellow guildmates. Unless I was willing to tell my
bossthat I'll work whenever I like and screw him, I missed most of the
RP runby a typical guild. I know I'm not the only person with an evening
shiftjob. Are we odd-hours people just SOL? What about people from
countries onopposite sides from the game's server locations?

One of the other problems, as has been said, is the MASSIVEly in
MMO.Unless a game company is willing to have more game moderators
stopping thesilliness and enforcing more thematic actions and play by
constantlymonitoring and following groups of players to keep an eye on
that, withthousands of players, you'll get hundreds of
theme/consensus-breakers.That's a large number.

> Per the above example, 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.

> 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.

So are MMOs "minority wins"? If over 50% of the players in attendance
atany one game location decide to hold a roleplayed wedding, and Old
ManCurmudgeonly thinks it's a stupid idea because it's only a GAME, he
shouldfeel assured he can stop it? UO was not built with weddings in
mind, touse it as an example, so it's "un-thematic" to get married when
everyoneis REALLY supposed to be out there KILLING THINGS, MAKING
THINGS,GATHERING MATERIALS/REAGENTS/WHATEVER!!11!1! Those people
ultimately infinal control of the game once it's released need to decide
how far into apolice state do they want to go. Do they want a scripted
play, do theywant a shared thematic experience, do they want guided
freeform, or dothey want a chaotic free-for-all?

> "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.

Again, you need to decide not what the THEME is. You need to decide
howmuch CONTROL you wish to force on players if you choose a
giant-sizedplayerbase. THEN you worry about your theme. The fewer
players you have,the easier it is to police the theme. Look at private
NeverWinterNights/UO shards run under a theme. The good games have game
mods who keepan eye on the relatively moderate-to-small-sized playerbase
to make surethey're playing in-theme. If you can't afford enough mods to
keep playersin line, then you deserve whatever you get. You can't ASK
players to "playnice". Look at griefer guilds for proof of that. It's
all or nothing,IMNHO.