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

[John Buehler]

Dave Scheffer writes:

> 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:

[snip]

> >> 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.

My point was that whether the approach is monolithic or granular, if it
suffers from the same fundamental problem, then there's no real difference
(on that axis of comparison).  The problem that I'm looking at is how to
avoid the game of cat and mouse that designers and griefers play.  As I
understand the granular approach described, it will help to discourage a
some degree of context-breaking activity on the part of players, whether
grief-inspired or simply through misunderstanding and so on.  That said,
there exists the following point...

> > 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.

So how is grief differentiated from variety?

As players, my variety may be your grief.  That is categorically a problem.

> 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.

Yes, I understand the positive side of the mechanism.  I'm underscoring the
negative side as a means to observing that there is another way tackle this
particular ogre.  Just let the players self-organize into like-minded
groups.  That's the mechanism that I'm advocating until I can come up with
something better.

The use of mechanisms that encourage adherence to a social context are
absolutely wonderful and I'm an avid supporter of them.  They just don't
happen to do anything about the problem of griefing.  And that's true no
matter the source of the griefing.  Even if a player is just bored, they'll
try to break the game context because it's a way out of the boredom.
They're finding the game context itself boring, apparently.

> 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".

Given that, I've clearly wandered off-topic.

> 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.

It can certainly be done through human intervention as well.  That seems
rather more costly to me than having a mechanism that inherently dodges the
bullet from the get-go.

> Sorry to be redundant but I want to be clear.

Understood.

JB