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

[Dave Scheffer]

"John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:

> Dave Scheffer writes:
>
>> Why can't the town overlord agent detect when Pl4teD3wd's "Garb
>> Sum" falls below a certain "accepted" threshold, that player's
>> reputation is accordingly affected/persisted by the town
>> overlord agent, and the NPC's/player share a common
>> "mark of cain" indicator so that Pl4teD3wd is openly mocked in
>> the square by NPCs who can refuse service or even bumrush
>> him out of town with threats of violence/perma-death if he
>> returns?  Why is it Bonehead and Pl4teD2wd can repeatedly crash
>> the Tavern with no real justice that follows them around the
>> world other than shades of glowy red stuff when it's pretty
>> clear justice needs a mechanic that can kick in even
>> when those "aberrant" players log off.
>
> Feel free to pursue those mechanics of in-context penalties.  I think
> you'llfind that it's very much like any form of security.  Counter and
> response.Counter and response.  You will continue to try to herd the
> players into amainstream behavior and they will continue to try to work
> around anyrestrictions you place on them.  The whole process is
> complicated by wantingto provide entertainment to your mainstream
> players.  When you play thesecurity game, you may end up compromising
> that mainstream entertainment.

I'm not outlining a monolithic rulebase applied universally across
thegamescape.  Just the opposite.  I'm identifying very basic game
mechanicsthat can be used differently by different rulebase effect area
agents.

Nor am I focused on punishing players who insist on flouting a
specificapplication of a rulebase.  This relates to the "framing"
tactics firstraised by Raph:  when I have players that think it is great
fun to organizea flamedance of naked Rubber Chicken-gripping characters
they'll gravitateto the regional/contextual rulebase agent that makes
that sort of thing fun.Appreciative NPCs might gather, applaud or even
throw perishable flowers.When I have players that want to disrupt other
players with the sameflamedance behavior they'll be in scope of rulebase
agents that discourageit, where eventually those disruptive players
would not even be allowed backinto the effect area.

Of course we can't completely eliminate disruptive players.  We can't
callall customer behavior a nail that can only be sunk with a Technology
hammer.All we need are basic mechanics that accumulate negatively to
thepotentially unwanted customer to the point that service
providerintervention is demanded.

Your concern for devs getting stuck in a adversarial "arms race" with
adisruptive demographic is certainly well taken.  I agree that they
shouldnot either.  As the old George Carlin joke goes, "hey you didn't
say Icouldn't sing STANDING NEXT to the dinner table".  The idea is not
to getsidetracked adding more explicit constraining rules.  The rulebase
effectarea simply needs to respond to any form of singing during
dinnertime withinhearing of the family.  A particularly constrictive
effect area means NPCsopenly react adversely to the players both
immediately and into somedeterminate future, to the point where that
player simply cannot movethrough that area unmolested or even enter that
area anymore.

There are always players who look for the cracks in the rules and
workaround it.  There has always been and will always be one approach to
that,and relying solely on technology does not enter into it.  Companies
thesedays are much more willing to use Customer Service reps to observe
andintervene with liberal freedom to swing the ban stick.

Simple game mechanics that can be leveraged by effect area rulebase
agentsadd texture and depth and help developers achieve overarching
design/productgoals without undue cost of ownership chasing down the
latest form ofvandalism.