[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacysystem

[Michael Sellers]

Cruise wrote:
> > But when all you have is a hammer...
> 
> I agree we need more in games than combat, I really do. But games are
> inherently about competition in some form, in that they present a series
> of challenges which you must overcome.

See, this is what I'm talking about.  Games are not inherently competitive.
That is one kind of game ("agon" in Caillois' terminology), but by no means
the only kind.  But when you design to competition from the get-go, you
drastically limit the breadth of possible design.

Others have said that games are inherently a series of contingencies, which
I think is a better way of putting it: they enable and require decisions
that change some meaningful state in the game-world; your state in the world
is contingent on your decisions.  These decisions may or may not be
challenges, much less competitions.  

Adding diplomacy and other forms of social gameplay in MMOGs is terrific.
But adding a new kind of combat and calling it diplomacy is just kind of
tired, IMO.  When the play of a "diplomacy" system relies on choosing a
particular "move" (card, pie-slice, etc.) so that you can "defeat" your
"opponent" -- well, that's pretty much combat in slightly different clothes.


> Have you read the comments that accompanied Tim's Vanguard comics (he
> did three)? He's actually very favourably inclined towards the diplomacy
> system, and counts it as a big reason as to why he's playing.

Nope, I haven't.  But I'm disinclined to take the opinion of a hardcore MMOG
player (if that fits Tim) on how well diplomacy works as a non-combat game
system.

Mike Sellers