<!-- MHonArc v2.4.4 --> <!--X-Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat?? --> <!--X-From-R13: Xrss Yrffryzna <wrssxNgrargjbex.pbz> --> <!--X-Date: from babe.globecomm.net [207.51.48.8] by in11.ibm.net id 865627167.28356-1 Fri Jun 6 19:59:27 1997 CUT --> <!--X-Message-Id: 3.0.32.19970606130149.009196fc#mail,tenetwork.com --> <!--X-Content-Type: text/plain --> <!--X-Head-End--> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html> <head> <title>MUD-Dev message, Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</title> <!-- meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" --> <link rev="made" href="mailto:jeffk#tenetwork,com"> </head> <body background="/backgrounds/paperback.gif" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000" vlink="#006000"> <font size="+4" color="#804040"> <strong><em>MUD-Dev<br>mailing list archive</em></strong> </font> <br> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] <br clear=all><hr> <!--X-Body-Begin--> <!--X-User-Header--> <!--X-User-Header-End--> <!--X-TopPNI--> Date: [ <a href="msg01236.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg01327.html">Next</a> ] Thread: [ <a href="msg01226.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg01077.html">Next</a> ] Index: [ <A HREF="author.html#01238">Author</A> | <A HREF="#01238">Date</A> | <A HREF="thread.html#01238">Thread</A> ] <!--X-TopPNI-End--> <!--X-MsgBody--> <!--X-Subject-Header-Begin--> <H1>Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</H1> <HR> <!--X-Subject-Header-End--> <!--X-Head-of-Message--> <UL> <LI><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#null,net">mud-dev#null,net</A></LI> <LI><em>Subject</em>: Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</LI> <LI><em>From</em>: Jeff Kesselman <<A HREF="mailto:jeffk#tenetwork,com">jeffk#tenetwork,com</A>></LI> <LI><em>Date</em>: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 13:01:51 -0700</LI> </UL> <!--X-Head-of-Message-End--> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin--> <HR> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End--> <!--X-Body-of-Message--> <PRE> At 08:21 AM 6/6/97 PST8PDT, Jon Lambert wrote: >Mud players form groups with alarming frequency. This is so natural >and so human. It does work. Maybe commercial mud systems just made >mistakes in the area of player control. I see a wolrd of difference between formation of 'groups" and any serious social structure forming. yes peopel naturally group, but wehat I've seen oin the commerical world is that it forms the lowest possible level of social order.... small groups fighting each other for space-dominance. To me this doesn't really count as a social structure. At best, its a cro-magnon social structure. >First you argue that only (A) physical violence is the only way players >resolve conflicts. Now you add (B) appeal to a higher power. Should we (B) as man yare wont to poitn out, is outside the game boundries generally which is why i discount it. Whining to the sysop I dont see as at alla desireable problem sovling mechanism, but yes it DOES happen alot. >add (C) mutual agreement. I see all these on just about every mud I And I virtually never see it in environments liek DSO. This suggests the abiltiy to discuss the conflict and arrive at a solution in a reasonable fashion. These are the coping skills that IMO msort common americans appear to lack... >have played. What other ways are there to resolve conflict? >What is your definition of conflict? By conflict Im talking a serious inceidnert of being at cross purposes. This does not oinclude "where shallw e go today guys?" thre is no conflict here, the disucssion is already on uncflicted friendly terms. this DOES include "that $^#@!! killed me out for no reason"... the most common one I see. > >B encompasses the skills of arbitration by a third party. This ain't >necessarily a whining mama's boy. An can always be done in-game. Again, thats not how Ive seen it. Yes, if you have a an agree dupo nauthority arboitating a decison thats different. But I NEVEr have ANYONE come to me or any other sysop I know of and say "be king solomon and decide this for us". Sure it can happen but I have never seen the common american come close to this level of social organization on their own. Instead, they form groups and beat on each other, tryign to solve it by force, or if that fails, whine to the op. >Hang on. I will have heavy role-playing on my mud. Players who want >another game will NOT like mine and will play another mud. My role-players >are no more "sophisticated" than those who prefer Quake. The just like We aren't talkign abotu roleplay here. We are talkign abotu the ability to restrain ones base meotions and reactions and build reasonably compelx social structures. This is the action of a sophisticated social intellect. ANIMALS form groups and beat on each other (packs) to solve disputes. That appears to be the level of socail competance I have to deal with in my world. > >I am considering a character approval process similar to many mushes. >I haven't decided whether this is really necessary or not. It will definately give you a straining mechanism. IMO you can usually tell EVRYTHIGN abotu how someone will play absed on how they wroite up their character. I wish this was an optio nfor us but it won't scale and is probably too subjective a criterion for a major online service. >> > >> >I am talking about the underlying structures of the mud theme. It is not >> >a player-only world. There is a significant NPC mud population that >> >that forms the basis of the initial world. Players will play both privately >> >held characters (PCs) and game held characters (NPCs) from time to time. >> >> Hmm? Are these hand pciked players playign NPCs or can anyone play one? >> If anyone can play one how do you keep them from being misused? >> >Players who achieve awards based on role-play will be awarded greater >trust levels. These allow them access to more significant NPCs and >levels of scenario creation. Well, this is an option. I eprsonallyt hin kyou need mroe thena roleplay criterion. We have staff thata ct as traditional sysops and staff the run "events". We have foudn that staff that are GREAT at events may nonetheless NOT be trustable with general sysop access. But its your call. In our new design we have a mroe formal structure with 6 to 8 players playign an overgame that drives the MUD (picture populs with people at both levels.) These indeda re CAREFULLy selected and highly trusted players. The are still imietd and directed though by the game designa nd their goals and power within it. They are ALSO expected to accept the outside guiding hands of the "judge" (the production team) from time to time as I don't honestly expect perfect balance or directio nto always be achievable through indriect means. > >It is my experience that we will deal with the occasional asshole. >Even without a character approval process this person will find it >quite hard to advance. Throw out you AD&D/DIKU models of advancement and >relative player power. These do not apply. And rthat will help,a s i mentioedn before. But I've seen palyers who have lost every other way of beign disruptive sit around and attempt to be disruptive thorugh chat. Yo ucna throw them out if you have a way of truely identifying them-- this isn't an easy problem on the internet unelss yo uare going to call every user and verify their id. > >10 in 100. I see no reason why this can't be handled through a character >creation process that is geared towards the heavy RPer. See above. > >> >I do not distinguish any >> >differences between player killing and NPC killing. There will be >> >in-game consequences to both situations. >> >> In-game how? Are you saying that you are building into the game system >> negative consequences of negative behavior? Personally, I think this is >> 100% reasonable but i thought that was something you didn't want to do-- >> enforce a morality from the implementors. >> >NO the GAME WORLD NOT the system. It enforces the morality of the NPCs not Okay, Ive already said my peice on that (system v. world). IMO same stuff--different special effect (to steal from hero System.) I find it an arbitrary and ultimately meaningless distinction as I suspect will your players. In re NPCs. If you NPCs control the players actiosn through control of resources and such (as in our DSOII design) then Ild say that first off itm IS built into your system ina very real way, and two your ARE building a morality into teh game. If on the other hand they do NOt control the players actiosn through any reasonable mechanism, then my experiecne is that at elast in the comemrcial world they will have no significant effect on the behavior patterns of the players. >Ultimately your style of role-play reflects what ICE calls heroic >fantasy. Chance of death in such campaigns is non-existent or very >limited. Player cooperation is vital to heroic fantasy. The heroic >fantasy game is geared toward pleasing the player with the idea that >the system may be fudged or overridden at some point in the interest >of character glorification. Okay, thats ICE., I don't play ICE ganmes msyelf. I can quote you from AD&D or Hero or a variety of other games that state outright that GM override and player cooperation are fundemnetal to roleplay. I never liked Simbeda much, anyway.... ;) But, assumign this is really a quote, if you pull up a quote that gives an example of OTEHR kind of Rp play, I'll credit you one quote. BTW.. I dont entirely agree with your formulation. You missed the issue of rpeceibved v. real danger. If you state dieect and outright, 'you'll almost never die'. perceieved danger is lost. Good judging is alot more subtle then this. >Heroic fantasy strongly discourages >player-killing while other styles do not. It has nothing to do with >coping skills or any current social/cultural issues. Its a GAME You are mixing topics here. Roleplay and Pkilling is oen issue., Development of synthetic socieites inside of your game is another issue. They are not the same issue. Tehre are some parts of each issue which reflect vaugely on the other. And "its a game' means nothing. G\Online RPGs are cl;early examples of social dynamics i naction. That it is a game is irrrelevent to the discussion. > >The strong reactions you receive IMO are the result of your strong </PRE> <!--X-Body-of-Message-End--> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <HR> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg01236.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] RP=MUSH/PG=MUD</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg01327.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] RP=MUSH/PG=MUD</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg01226.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg01077.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Reasonable danger [was Alright... IF your gonan do DESIESE...]</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="index.html#01238"><STRONG>Date</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thread.html#01238"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> <ul><li>Thread context: <BLOCKQUOTE><UL> <LI><STRONG>Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</STRONG>, <EM>(continued)</EM> <ul compact> <ul compact> <LI><strong><A NAME="01185" HREF="msg01185.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</A></strong>, Adam Wiggins <a href="mailto:nightfall#user1,inficad.com">nightfall#user1,inficad.com</a>, Thu 05 Jun 1997, 12:31 GMT </LI> </ul> <LI><strong><A NAME="01189" HREF="msg01189.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</A></strong>, Huibai <a href="mailto:ashen#pixi,com">ashen#pixi,com</a>, Thu 05 Jun 1997, 12:48 GMT </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="01214" HREF="msg01214.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</A></strong>, Jeff Kesselman <a href="mailto:jeffk#tenetwork,com">jeffk#tenetwork,com</a>, Fri 06 Jun 1997, 06:11 GMT </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="01226" HREF="msg01226.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</A></strong>, Jon A. Lambert <a href="mailto:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com">jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com</a>, Fri 06 Jun 1997, 12:32 GMT </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="01238" HREF="msg01238.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</A></strong>, Jeff Kesselman <a href="mailto:jeffk#tenetwork,com">jeffk#tenetwork,com</a>, Sat 07 Jun 1997, 02:59 GMT </LI> </ul> </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="01077" HREF="msg01077.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Reasonable danger [was Alright... IF your gonan do DESIESE...]</A></strong>, Jeff Kesselman <a href="mailto:jeffk#tenetwork,com">jeffk#tenetwork,com</a>, Tue 03 Jun 1997, 11:50 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="01091" HREF="msg01091.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Reasonable danger [was Alright... IF your gonan</A></strong>, Adam Wiggins <a href="mailto:nightfall#user1,inficad.com">nightfall#user1,inficad.com</a>, Sun 04 Jan 1970, 21:13 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="01063" HREF="msg01063.html">The reality of constant combat??</A></strong>, Jeff Kesselman <a href="mailto:jeffk#tenetwork,com">jeffk#tenetwork,com</a>, Tue 03 Jun 1997, 02:58 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="01095" HREF="msg01095.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??</A></strong>, Adam Wiggins <a href="mailto:nightfall#inficad,com">nightfall#inficad,com</a>, Tue 03 Jun 1997, 19:10 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL></BLOCKQUOTE> </ul> <hr> <center> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] </center> <hr> </body> </html>