[MUD-Dev] Life

Jon A. Lambert jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Sun Jun 1 22:34:48 New Zealand Standard Time 1997

> From: Jeff Kesselman <jeffk at tenetwork.com>
> At 04:26 PM 6/1/97 PST8PDT, someone(?) wrote:
> >
> >
> >But then there are "player-kills" which aren't done out of tacit
> >contract or to abuse.  If enmity exists, it will raise its head in
> >the most decisive form available.  
> Nonsense... how masny people have YOu been amd at?? How many have YOU killed??
> Its is far froma  "normal character response" as yo useem to be suggesting.
Applying modern notions of human nature to fantasy/sci-fi/ or otherwise
alien cultures and worlds is not very useful to what many of us are
attempting to design.  In other words, be prepared to have your views
of what "normal behavior" is challenged.  This is the really exciting
and interesting aspect of immersive role-play.  I'm surprised you would find
this offensive.

> The game should define clearly what it is about.  If it is a cooperative
> role play game (as define BY TSR in the Players Handbook), such behavior
> may well be inapporpriate. If it is defined as innapropriate then some
> shoudl get kicekd off for doing it.  That seems obvious, no?
There are many practical game reasons for a P&P RPGs advice on cooperative
play.  Firstly, an assumption is made that there is one Gamemaster and their
attention is severely strained when attempting to manage two or more groups
of competing characters.  Second, since game sessions are generally limited
in time it is considered not good game play for a character to engender 
conflict within an adventuring group.  Players are encouraged to suppress
their character's natural tendencies to the objectives of the group.  You
see all sorts of unnatural and illogical party combinations.  Is this
really role-play you are talking about or game playing?  TSR also advises
the potential gamemaster to not run evil-based campaigns.  Cyberpunk 2000 
however takes a completely different tact.  This game revolves around
cheap death, image, power, paranoia and alliances compromising principles.
As such I think it offers a richer RPing environment more suitable to Muds
than traditional P&P.

> We all implicitly understood the issues of hwo importnat someones character
> was to someone and tehre was an IMPLICTI rule that seemed so obviosu to use
> we never even dicussed it or fomrulated it AS a rule...
> You could dislike or even hate another character, but we were FREINDS
> playign together.  AS we had no urge to hurt our friends, we had "circuit
> breakers".  Charaters might abus eeahc other i nall kidsn fo ways but we
> ALWAYS foudn an excuse NOT rto kill out each others characters, because
> that took something away from our friend.
> If you WANT to hurt the other guy, then be honest abotu it and go somehwere
> where thaqts appropriate.  If you WANT to play king of the hill, again be
> honest and go somewhere were its aprpecoiated.
> DON'T bring it itn oa serious roleplay (againas  defined by TSR)
> environment and expect people to like you for it.
> > Bad things happen - an RPer could take it in stride when
> >he's killed.  
> NOT when ist the direct result of another player setting out to kill him
> out when this is NOT the game he is playing.  I sure as hell wouldn't
> accept that.  If its an adult roleplay environment then I expect soemthing
> better then random killing 'cause "its cool", "I'm bored", or "I'm evil"...
> the three most commonly heard excuses.
> The story must go on for RPers -
> >if it doesn't, the PKer was right in that whomever owns the largest
> ><race-dependent anatomy part> has the last say.  Optimistically
> So you admit this IS the point of Pkilling?  If so then WHY shoudl I accept
> it as a "legitimate' part of my rolepaly envrionment?  This attempt to
> "win" flies in the face of all the definitiosn of roleplay gaming.
> >I hope I don't sound inflammatory - it's certainly not my goal to
> >start anything.  Just letting you know that, lost cause or not, I'm
> >still searching for the game philosophy that allows powerplayers
> >and RPers run around the same game (almost-harmoniously!).
> Okay, go ahead and try. I will satet that I believe, based o nexperiecne
> you are doomed to failure... let me give you an analogy...
> Suppsoe one person is playign an economic game wher ethe goal is to build
> and rent high rises, deal with the politics of city beauracracy, etc...
> And ANOTEHR guy is playign an insane truck bomber...
> You think they can play in the same game without serious hurt feeings?  I
> don't.  UNLESS theya re really playigns epreate games that dont impinge on
> each other...
> In our current plans we DO have PvPers and Roleplayers in the same
> "world"... btu the only palce theny can PvP without the game abusing them
> is one city which, by design, no roleplayer will EVER have ANY need to go
> to...
> AND if they try to take the gang tactics OUT of that city they wuill got
> sqaushed by built in stronger forces.
> Its really 2 seperate games.
> >The way I hope to accomplish this is to focus on the story and
> >environment, instead of the other players, and then let the players
> >work out how they approach the game - in a role they've defined
> >for themselves or as themselves.  I am hoping that focus on the
> >resolution of the daunting storylines can be the way for power-
> >gamers to be a respected hero, instead of his sword-size as
> >proved over the corpses of those he needs respect from.
> Sorry but i have to do this...
> Have fun.  Ive seen it, I knwo it, the "Im just buuilding a world" approach
> does NOt work for a large general population. MAYEB if you hand pick your
> group... but that handpicked group coudl get along anywhere then.
> JK
"If I'd known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself"
*- Through a Scanner Darkly - PKD -*


More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list