[MUD-Dev] Life

Jeff Kesselman jeffk at tenetwork.com
Wed Jun 4 22:28:45 New Zealand Standard Time 1997


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.

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.

Ugly, but it works.  One of the reasons for DSOII being so muc ha MUD on
the abck end is that we need more subtle control.  I hate having to act
directly in the world, which is all we have available now.  The Ii design
is in part ot let us handle problem-hot-spots by tweakign the world.

>Players will generate certain internal and often tacit expectations of
>the community of players in a game, will attempt to engender those
>same expectations in new players, and will attempt to enforce them on
>those that don't conform.  

Hmm. i DO agree with thsi to a degree. ther are soem problems with it, but
they are mostly in areas you don't have to worry about (marketing and so
forth.  I have to justify the cost of my server by the number of players
its pulling.)



>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.)


>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.

>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.

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.

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.

Anyway, this is my experience.

JK




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list