[MUD-Dev] Life

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <3.0.32.19970604222844.00a05808 at mail.tenetwork.com>, on 06/05/97 
   at 08:09 AM, Jeff Kesselman <jeffk at tenetwork.com> said:

>At 08:23 PM 6/4/97 PST8PDT, jc lawrence wrote:

>>The players do have a minor expectation to construct an environment
>>within the game that I as owner find enjoyable.  Should they not, they
>>can expect the game to be removed.  Should they come up with something
>>unexpectedly enjoyable, its more likely for the game to persist.

>heh. So the definitio nof your game is amuse the great god JCL. I
>suppsoe thats as good as any other.

No.  Consider another example:

  I run this list using my own resources, and it consumes a
considerable amount of my time and effort.  Were this list to become
"unamusing", it would be reasonable for me to discontinue it.  Ergo,
your function on this list is to amuse me and to thereby sustain the
list for yourself.

Is that a fair picure?  No.  Does it represent the base mechanics of
the situation?  Yes.  Do I run the list to keep myself amused by the
members antics on the list?  No.

Its a nihilistic viewpoint that is self-defeating.  You might as well
go read GdMP, Satre and the other existentialists.  Ulterior and
exterior motives do exist.

>We have a simialr if mroe negative rule in DSO.  Don't draw the
>attentio nof Don (the producer) or myself.  As long as you don't
>attarct our attention as a problem were not likely to do anything i
>game or out of game to disruopt your play.

Bingo.

>>suit.(*)  Predators are incredibly valuable to any organism, and the
>>societies in MUD are no exceptions there.

>Hmm. theya re as long as they are not too successful.  Predatoirs wh
>oare too succesful kill the prey organism completely.  (MAn is a
>wonderfu lexample, were NOt very productive to the ecosystem.)

Agreed.  Any ecology, especially a society must not be too subject
too, or too resistant to its predators.  There's an implicit feedback
loop in there that I expect will consume a large portion of my time
and attention as an Imp.

>>If conversely I do not place any of those restrictions or
>>expectations, but instead leave it to their own determination or
>>anarchy its a different matter.

>Well i think you need to warn your players up front if its going to
>be an naything goes world because , at least dealign with the public,
>you WILL end up with seriosu predators, and a good segment of the
>poipulation does NOt liek being prey.

Of a surety they don't like being prey -- especially when they feel
they have no opportunity of being an effective predator.  Yet again
its a metter of presentation.  

>>You can state that there are no fences if you wish, or let the players
>>find that out for themselves.

>Well, i think you've defined implicit rules in saying 'anything goes
>and the system in no way penalizes or prevents Pkilling", but
>whatever.

Nope.  I would have no problem if the players decided that PKing was
unacceptable, and therefore formed social enforcement structures (cf
Habitat's Sheriff).  I'd have no problem at all with a MUD society
writing its own laws, setting bounties, forming super-tough mobiles to
hunt down and kill offenders, making jails, or making whatever other
solutions they saw fit etc.  If anything I'd think it bloody wonderous
and far better than I'd expected.  Of course none of it would be
enforced by the game:

  > kill bubba
  You can't attack players.
  > damn!
  You curse.

It would be up to the players to figure out and implement their own
social systems:

  > kill bubba
  Bubba is dead.
  >
  Boffo shouts, "Someone killed Bubba!".
  Bernie shouts, "It was Bernie, I saw him thru my magic glasses!".
  Boffo shouts, "Call the sheriff!  Put him in jail!"
  ...
  > l
  You are in jail.  There is no way out other than a locked door.
  You don't have the key.

>I also think that unless you build no goals into your game for the
>players, you WILL define the game by system.  The players will
>identify the goals and the most espedianet way to attain them and
>that will be the game.

True, however that a question of game design and balance.  I do intend
to have something like the, "You are a descended diety and it is up to
you to regain your godhood," type model, but equally I don't expect
that to be either an easy or short task (say 2,000 hours of solid play
to make diety).  

What I do intend to do is to make many little side roads, dead ends,
and switchbacks in the progression.  By now you should know me well
enough to know that I don't design such simple systems.  It will be a
mess of things -- various areas whih can be profitably developed, but
which if taken past a point seriously disadvantage other areas of
potential development and further distance the player from godhood,
highly in-game profitiable areas which further remove the player from
godhood, in-game damaging reas (actually reduces your character) while
advancing towards godhood, cyclic scales. etc etc etc.

I don't want the actual playing of the game to be about making god.  I
want the concentration to be on smaller, more in-game goals.  This I
will attempt to do without social engineering by making godhood
excessively difficult, and more minor goals much more attractive and
in-game valuable.  

>AND I think taht if you define NO goals, or goals that are easily
>attainable (like "maxxing" in the commerical envrionments) the
>players will define NEW goals after they hit and beat yours, and
>those goals will be imopilicit in the system. If Pkilling is the best
>way to obtain social control, then that will become the game. If it
>has comparatively little effect then OTEHR social control mechanisms
>will become the game.

Agreed.  Partially its a question of measuring the learning curves and
ability curves of say PK'ers against PK defense.  You can't let them
get too far out of step with each other, but you equally can't have
them be too close.

This takes some real fine tuning, and quite often some leading of
players by the nose until they see what is in front of their virtual
face.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...