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

[Sean Howard]

"Dave Scheffer" <dubiousadvocate at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is the gameworld not recognizing aberrant behavior and
> providing a compensatory game mechanic.

Interesting! Certainly true. If the simulation stepped up and recognized
more behaviors (aberrant or otherwise), certainly the designers would have
a greater control over player activities.

Perhaps, and I'm not sure where I'm going with this, the problem is that
the game recognizes behavior in the first place? Maybe it is the fact that
games recognize combat as a "good thing" in the first place the barrier
that prevents community standards from ever truly taking hold? The
designers trump the players, and much like the Bible, we are expected to
live within a set of vague rules about specific things, with nothing said
or done about everything else.

Would it be better if the games never made a claim of right or wrong,
better or worse, smarter or dumber at all? Since we certainly can't
improve the simulation to the point where designers can answer every moral
or physical question that could potentially come up, maybe it would be
better to abstain altogether?

-- 
Sean Howard