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

[Dave Scheffer]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com>
To: <mud-dev2 at lists.mud-dev.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:19 AM
Subject: [MUD-Dev2] What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on 
Vanguard's diplomacy system]

> Dave Scheffer write:
>
>> "John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 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 catering to players who are primarily focused on destroying the 
quality of my service. The mechanics are not in place to prevent behavior 
but instead reward the customers I want to keep.  You are stating something 
we already agree on: technology to enforce won't work and the approach is a 
rabbit hole for resources.  This is a point I observed very early on.

>> 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.
>
> I'm not sure how this is different from a monolithic rulebase.  It's
> finer-grained, but it still relies on being able to penalize players
> throughtheir characters.  That produces an arms race from the players
> who insist ondoing the chicken dance in the non-chicken dance part of
> town.  The gamewants to discourage them from doing it and the players
> want to do it.  Aconflict of agendas exists.

Well John at some point granularity defines the difference between 
monolithic and... not monolithic. ;-)  A framework to approach a problem can 
and probably should be consistent.  The trigger points variably applied by 
framework yields multiple rulebase spheres of effect.  It's what makes the 
approach... not monolithic.

> What about players who enjoy the fact that they can elicit that reaction
> from the NPCs by singing?  It's just a different way of playing the
> game. As many players like to say, "If you didn't want me doing it, why
> did you put it into the game?"

If they can do it without getting banned more power to them.  I certainly 
would not want to affect someone who can creatively play the town beggar or 
madman.  Just the opposite - I want to encourage that sort of variety.

To restate, the goal is not to use technology to do customer support's job. 
The goal is to have mechanics in place that reward constructive customers. 
Someone who can walk up to the line and create an unusual character is 
rewarded.  Someone who goes over the line consistently will find their 
credit card is no longer welcome.  Technology applies reward, customer 
service provides enforcement.

The original context was another poster raising the issue that current game 
worlds lack mechanics to recognize any sort of immersive player behavior 
beyond "hitting the pinata".  The context is NOT how do I use technology to 
ENFORCE the quality of service.  Customer support (GMs, etc) enforce quality 
and at least in any shop I'm part of the ban stick is very much in the top 
drawer of their toolbox.  Technology is applied simply to REWARD quality 
contributors.

Sorry to be redundant but I want to be clear.

Dave Scheffer