[MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method (Was: Re: Wire d Magazine...)

[S. Patrick Gallaty]

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Wiggins <adam at angel.com>
To: mud-dev at kanga.nu <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Date: Monday, 13 July 1998 12:08
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method (Was: Re: Wire d
Magazine...)


>On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, Chris Gray wrote:
>> [Adam Wiggins:]
>>
>> [ToonMUD]
>>
>>  >Of course, this would probably be completely unsatisfying to the
>>  >achievers.  I would say that typically this sort of play is rewarding
only
>>  >if the advancement achieved in-game has a chance of being lost, through
>>  >death or more subtle means.  And if it's possible to take something of
>>  >value away from other players, then bullies become a problem again.
>>
>> You could still achieve on such a MUD. Just not by killing people. Status
>> could be based on a lot of things, just like it is in real life. The
>> toons in "Roger Rabbit" had most of the same concerns that the real
>> humans did - just no fears for physical safety (well, other than the
>> spray cans of ink remover).
>
>Agreed, up to a point.  I still think such a thing is a worthwhile
>endevour for someone interested in getting away from traditional
>game violence/gore.
>
>Part of my point, however, was that you don't need death or even violence
>for bullies to cause problems.  As long as there is something worthwhile
>that one character can have, and it is transferable, then another
>character will be able to take it away from them without their consent.
>You could certainly construct a game to minimize this effect, but in the
>end I'm not sure that Marian's desire to have a jerk-free game which still
>contains basic mechanics (so that she can be a tailor) is achievable in
>any way other than being careful who you let play your game.
>
>As someone asked, "How does this list manage to stay violence free?"  The
>answer is that it is invitation-only, and at its core a dictatorship.
>This keeps quality up, but number of players low (have we ever had more
>than about 20 active posters at any given time?).  I think most here would
>agree with me that this is a desirable effect; you could do a mud the very
>same way as long as you didn't mind spending a lot of energy on it and
>after four years only having 20 active players. :)
>
>Adam
>

You know, I've wondered why UO doesn't do something like just that.
(And now that I think of it, the opposite too)
They could make new servers with altered code :

1) Haven
    Players have to apply to create characters here.  Their characters
    are only accepted if the reviewer likes the name and role-play
    character that the biography suggests.  If players complain about
    other players on this shard, the players risk being suspended
    pending review - and role playing is enforced.

And for the conflict seeking set :

2) The Toilet
    A server with no guards or guard zones.  Lots of treasure.   PK
    war hell.


I would play both, for sure.  Heck I'd be surprised if one of these
servers couldn't pay for the manpower it would take to support it.

>
>
>--
>MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.
>
>