[MUD-Dev] Death

Jeff Kesselman jeffk at tenetwork.com
Fri Jun 6 13:24:43 New Zealand Standard Time 1997


At 08:28 AM 6/6/97 PST8PDT, Adam W. wrote:
>
>> We all knwo what the "dnagerous" thinsg are, they are the things that have
>> a lasting impact on the other character.  Killing the other character, ina
>> real-death world, would be an obvious BIGGIE.  So big that we basicly don't
>> do it.  We may coem to blows, but the killing blow is never landed.
>
>Yes, we agree on this.  Fundamental difference seems to be that I say
>'Discourage such acts via game mechanics and setting' and you say 'Restrict
>the acts altogether.'

Nope, not at all.  I started this by rthrowing out, i think, the diea we're
toying with in making death directly from PvP impossible in II.  Thsi is
wher we have come after trying many other mechanisms and findign ntohign
that really worked satisfactorily withotu beign a MAJOR burden of player
behavior rules on top of the game.

My point in 'define your game' was merely that 
(1) There are at LEAST 2 distinct sides to this issue (and il ldrop the RP
definitional discussion 'cause I think its run its useful course and not
lable either side) . If you decide you are going to discourage such
behavior, you owe to your players to let them lknow up front.

(2)It helps YOU come up with a cogent set of mechanisms rather then a
willy-nilly after the fact hodgepodge,as  we have had on DSO 1.n


>I find the more subtle things more interesting.  Your description of
>the story-conscious role-player seems to go far beyond just the implications
>of PK, and that's what I'd like to delve into.

Sure. lets call it that, or SCRP for short and end the deabtes. :)


>Why did you ever get the idea I wasn't concerned with story?

I dunno. Mea culpa. Confusing people's messages ai guess. i have heard alot
of "story is irellevent to me" in this discussion in general.



>an emergent system.  The 'cognition' which is the function of your brain

Yep. im quite familair with system theory, so I cut your explaination of it.

>Now map this to RP.  Characters are the neurons - the individual elements
>which are the *medium* for the system, without *being* the system.
>The system being carried, of course, is the story.  Each character has
>no need of any knowledge of the 'story' (which, in itself, doesn't

Okay, I actually agree with this. Story conciousness is somethign that
happens in retro-spect.  At the time youa re just pl;ayign the charaxcter
and reacting to the environemnt.

Aristotle said Chaarcter + Conflict  == story.

But some actions leave the player in retrospect disatisfied with the story.
 Ina ddition, the story of the character is fundementally driven by the IC
descisions of the player of character to yeild a story pleasing to that
player.  let me give you a real, honest ot god example to discuss other
then PK...

I had a character who was strongly invovled witha notehr character for a
time. During thsi time he learned a great dela abotu her background.

The player next brought ina character which he dcided had god-like telepath
yand started using the info he had gotten as the first character to "fake"
mental intrusion.

I got rather angry because first off thsi was too deep and thoughtless an
intrusion into my own character's story as this IS a very private charcater
for many resons.  The player compounded it by NOT taking the obvious Rp
clues that he was intruding wher ehe shouldn't.  Its really jus ta matter
of being thoughtful.

Thoguhtless by definition means not thinkign about others responses to your
actions.
Thoghtful is the opposite, beign aware of the other persons reactions and
modifyign your behavior accordingly.  

Good SCRP players are thoguhtful on a player-to-player level. Thats really
the entire summation in a nutshell.


>of your favorite characters without me having to explain an overall story
>(although certainly knowledge of the surrounding facts etc is pretty handy).

Youv'e mis-nuder stood us, or at least me.  I was never suggesting the
entire story is plotted otu ahead of time.  You have just described how we
(m,y freidns and I) have always played to a  T.  Its just that we respect
eahc other as people and thus do not play thoughtlessly.

>
>Note I've never said that role-playing unequivicoly means that there
>is no story knowledge, or that you wouldn't want to know the story while


heh. And i being an extremist WOULD say that probably, but i promised to
get off the RP definitional horse.

If you already knwo the otucome there is no conflict and thus no story IMO.



>One more story comment.  I love a good story, but generally I don't
>think too hard about what the story is, exactly, until after it's all said
>and done.  Yes, this works - just the same as it works in real life.

Yep and ist exactly what I do.

Our ONLy disagreement here is if PK is a thoughtful or thoughtless action
in thsi environment.  I suspect thsi has to do with thelevel to which youa
re atatched to your character and the story that is developign out of it.
As a method actor i get very attached to it.

Its kind of like having to stop a production half way through.  im left
with all these artificialy created but nonethelss real emotions and no
palce to put them.   This may be even harder to explain... i dunno...

Oh, one last comment.
There are also power-gamers that hate Pkilling.
The msot common complaint abt pkilling Ive heard actually is formulated "I
spent 3 days getting all this (exp in DSO) and soem asshoel came along and
destroyed it for no reason.

JK

>




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list