[MUD-Dev] Re: [DESIGN] To kill or not to kill? (non-violent conflict)

Robert Woods rwoods at honors.unr.edu
Sun Oct 4 22:09:18 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998


Wildman wrote: 
> Well, the difference is that my game avoids the tailor problem. Combat
would
> be sort of like:
> 
> -----
> 
> You are on the beach.
> Bob is here.
> 
> >kill bob
> You slay Bob in cold blood. You suddenly notice that all the statues
appear
> to be watching you.
> 
> >east
> Running away isn't going to help you. Several guards appear, grab your
arms,
> and drag you away.
> 
> >kill guards
> Surprised by your aggression, the guards release your arms.
> 
> >east
> You are on the beach near the mock sailboat.
> A low rumble can be heard to the south.
> 
> >north
> You are swimming in the water.
> The low rumble seems to be getting closer.
> 
> >north
> You are swimming in the water, further out to sea.
> The low rumble seems to be coming from right behind you. You turn your
head
> and see a large sphere bouncing toward you.
> 
> >north
> Too late! The sphere catches up with you and you are somehow drawn
inside.
> You are suffocating.
> 
> >out
> You can't move.
> You are suffocating.
> 
> >kill sphere
> You can't move.
> You are suffocating.
> 
> >yell help
> You can't move.
> You pass out from the lack of air.
> 
> You wake up feeling happy, and unconcerned. Your head hurts a bit.
> >look
> You are in your cabin.
> Bob is here.
> 
> Bob says, "That wasn't very nice, but I suppose you won't do it again."
> >look self
> You have a small scar on your head. Although it hurts a bit, this doesn't
> concern you.
> You are wearing a hospital gown.
> You are wearing a button with the number 13 on it.
> 
> >kill bob
> You really don't want to.
> 
> ----
> 
> Okay, so that was a bit MORE than mere combat. It also included the
> consequences, such as a lobotomy. Also, Bob has been revived, making it
all
> for naught.

I disagree with this scenario, for the following reason:  If you're not
going to allow killing, pkilling, etc., just DON'T allow it.  Then, if
killing/pkilling happens through exploitation of a bug/feature, you can
nuke the offender and regen the defender.

However, if you are going to allow pk or mob killing with the realization
that there will be consequences, then that's also fine.  Within the game,
then consequences are valid.  However, I disagree with the concept of
reviving the victim afterward, because if you're going to allow them to be
killed in the first place, there is no reason why they should be revived
when they do get killed.

Having learned mudding on a mud with open PK with very few consequences, I
notice a few things:
	1) There are some people that will use their characters for the sole
purpose
	    of annoying players.
	2) Whether knowingly or unknowingly, another player/mob will end up
	    interfering with what you were doing (in the case of PK, kill
stealing, 
	    robbing corpses that you killed, setting up barriers/traps, etc.)
	3) Some guilds/classes/clans/specializations/etc. will naturally have
conflicts
	    with each other due to their ethoi.

This naturally generates conflict between players without actively using
attacking, stealing, etc. directly.  If you are going to pursue this
concept, it is then your responsibility to provide a recourse for dealing
with these sources of conflict (esp. 1 and 2).

Focusing on player vs. player conflicts: If you use pkilling with
consequences as a method of resolution, you will find that people will
still pkill, but you won't get your rampant jerk pkillers...you'll get
people who will pkill if somebody else is causing a problem, to teach them
a lesson.  Otherwise, unless there is recourse at the administrative level
for this, players often get frustrated and leave.

This is just my opinion.





More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list