[MUD-Dev] The Relationship between pkers and monster AI?
Jon A. Lambert
jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Sat Sep 11 00:26:01 New Zealand Standard Time 1999
From: Sellers, Michael <MSellers at maxis.com>
>Jon Lambert wrote:
>> Is it theoretically possible that there are many more immature
>> anti-PKers than immature pro-PKers?
>> Is the inability to deal with or handle harassment, violence, or offensive
>> behavior without recourse to authority a sign of immaturity or stunted
>> emotional development?
>Typically, lashing out at others without provocation or merely to get a
>thrill at someone else's expense or misery is seen as self-centered and
>self-absorbed, and thus as immature.
You might be assuming that all harassment, violence and offensive
behavior belong to the category of "senseless". I acknowledge that
there is a subset of players who will commit the above for pleasure
and perhaps some are IRL morally repugnant.
However there are many other possible motivations for performing
a non-consential PvP action against another character.
Violence, harassment and offensive behavior can be justifiable and
sensible in many situations. And not just in an RP context.
> Wanting to be able to get some
>entertainment *without* being harassed by others isn't (who's more likely to
>be seen as obnoxious and immature -- the guy in line at Disneyland who keeps
>smacking another person in the back of the head for kicks, or the person who
>tries to get the smacker tossed out of the park?). So right off the bat,
>PKing behavior puts the PKer at sort of a moral disadvantage, no matter what
>the actual maturity levels involved are.
The person being smacked in the head has chosen one of many possible
options. Appeal to authority. I submit that reflexive appeal to authority is
as emotionally immature as reflexive violence. In fact, I believe it is moreso.
>A lot of this is context-dependant of course. I love a good paintball game
>(arguably the closest you're going to come to consensual PKing in this
>life!), and sometimes even a good game of Quake. But in situations like
>this, everyone going into it knows that the "harassment" of being smacked by
>somebody else *is* the game.
Nod. I just posted on some finer grain distinctions reference Quake of all
>In a MUD, a lot of the appeal for many/most players is the social nature of
>the entertainment. Some MUDs carry this so far as to eliminate PKing as
>part of the game system (but most of those in this discussion seem to have
>discarded that possibility -- I certainly have). Thus, there is some
>expectation of not being used as a punching bag for someone else; where's
>the entertainment in that?
This is important! Note that most often emotionally-charged entertainment-
draining negative mud experiences occur because of non-consential PvP
social actions. Thus my earlier comment about the emotionally immature
non-PKers are perhaps more numerous than PKers. The presence or
absence of game-mechanics which enable PvP game actions might have
no bearing on the enjoyability of the mud. The more emotionally immature
your non-PK audience is, the more frequent "appeals to authority". I suspect
"appeals to authority" are may well be less frequent on games that allow PvP.
>The delicate balance that a lot of mud-designers want to reach is that where
>the entertainment value of the potential danger of being PK'ed exists,
>without allowing PKing to take over the game and swamp any other sources of
>enjoyment or entertainment. PKing should be possible, but not without risk,
>cost, or recourse. And other forms of competitive behavior should be
>possible too. IMHO.
Sure...Bartles clubs/hearts relationships. I posit that weaning one's hearts
from the teat of administrative nannies may be more effective in producing
an enjoyable game than expending energy on the perceived club problem.
A game with weak hearts is far less enjoyable than game with strong hearts.
OK. Enough punning around. :)
MUD-Dev maillist - MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev