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

[cruise]

Thus spake Hideto Koudanshi...
> An example, if you will, again from UO (my obvious area/game of
> greatestknowledge/play). Players cried long and loudly enough to get UO
> designersto make a PK-free zone called Trammel. The "original game"
> rules, as thegame used to be played, became Felucca. Immediately, the
> griefers calledit "CareBearLand" and other sorts of disparaging
> monikers. They thenfollowed the non-griefing players' methods and cried
> that because Trammelwas so complete and an exact copy of the original
> game, Felucca, "TrammieNoobs" had no more reason to go into Felucca to
> become "sheep for theslaughter" (or as many of us termed it, "sheeple").
> How can a killer killin MurderLand if no victims ever need to go there?
> UO heeded their calland put higher-level dungeons or other plots/NPCs in
> Felucca to encouragethose players looking for a little more excitement,
> to go there. These newplots/whatever literally gave more
> powerful/valuable rewards. They wererewarding people for suicidal play.
> 
> To use someone else's words here, though, they were PENALIZING
> thoseplayers who didn't WANT a risk of griefing. "Life is all about
> risks!Rewards should go to those willing to take the biggest risks! You
> don'treward the lazy or cowardly!" Games need to decide what is more
> important;player comfort or player discomfort? Risk is not comfortable,
> especiallyrisks we didn't ask for or plan for. I don't plan for the
> dragon to killme, but I do plan for the fact that he MIGHT. That's a
> risk I'm willing toaccept. I'm not willing to accept that while I'm out
> picking daisies,someone comes along and chops off my head so they can
> steal my socks forthe sheer joy of knowing I'll have to go back and get
> more socks; sockswhich have a game value of 2 cookies, and you'd need
> 1,000 socks to beable to sell them back to afford a felt hat with no
> protective or melee  value unless you count "being ugly" as an offensive
> value that lowersan opponent's ability to concentrate or otherwise
> function in a meleecapacity.

The actual problem here is not that the developers "penalised" a certain 
group of players, but that couldn't decide who to penalise.

> Designers need to decide what is valued play and what isn't, and they
> needto enforce it. If they don't wish to enforce it, they need to accept
> thatplayers will be disruptive, however simply, like all those
> Japanesedancing as chickens, and have the playerbase accept it. The
> minute ANYdesigner or moderator tells ANY ONE PLAYER that his style of
> play isundesired and he needs to stop or he will be removed, you've made
> a valuejudgement on playstyle. The minute the players find out you've
> done so,you will have a riot on your hands. "Make these other guys
> stop!" "Tellthose guys we have a right to play as we wish and they
> should stopcomplaining about us and just deal with our actions!"

So in your above example, the UO developers decided that PvE play in a 
PvP environment was valued play. That PvP was valued play. They did 
exactly what you wanted them to do, but they just decided to not include 
/your/ style of play.

I've never had the opportunity to play UO, but from your description it 
sounds the only problem the developers had was not being wholehearted 
enough in their decision.