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

[John Buehler]

Sean Howard writes:

> "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?

That's where I am.  Let the players decide their own ethics of gameplay and
then let the like-minded players get together.  All the game designer needs
to do is present a context that permits the players to find each other and
then some privacy so they can experience the game's entertainment in groups
of their own choosing.  Hopefully, they'll slowly learn which ethics work
and which ones don't.  Kinda like not following the Bible.

JB