From: tclark@carson.u.washington.edu (Tomas Clark)
Subject: Re: Player killing ....
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:03:33 GMT

In article <JAMIE.92Nov19103435@kauri.vuw.ac.nz> jamie@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Jamieson Norrish) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.145911.234@news.unomaha.edu> dburgdor@cwis.unomaha.edu (Darryl Burgdorf) writes:
>
>[Two examples of senseless player killing deleted.]
>
>Well, I don't have a real problem with senseless killing as you
>described, if (and it's a big if) the other players are sufficiently
>perceptive to realise what a threat someone who goes around randomly
>killing for no reason is to *them*. As you pointed out, there aren't
>many people who do that thing in RL; most people who would are
>deterred by the fact that if they do behave that way, they're not
>going to have a very nice life (if one at all) when they get caught.
>And they will get caught. That's the key.
>
>In a MUD, such a person is a threat both to characters, and to the
>enjoyment of the players. Therefore, it seems only logical that the
>players, once they found out about this killer, would decide to all
>lay into him/her.
>
>Another option, but one which could not be done in most MUDs, is to
>have the players ostracise the killer. That is, if the players owned
>shops etc (rare or perhaps even unheard of in MUDs) they could simply
>refuse to serve this character. How long would someone last without
>normal MUD facilities? Especially if food and water were essential,
>and could only be bought at player-owned stores.
>
>The solution, then, is in the hands of the players and their
>characters. If they deem it a sufficient problem, they'll band
>together and do something about it. That's all the law you need.
>
>Jamie





    WEll, noone of the biggest problems I see is that hapless newbies are
being killed for no reason... this destroys the enjoyment of the game, and the
point here is not realism, it's enjoyment.
    Many newbies are probably driven away from muds by these orccurences, and
since there's really no point (no monetary gain, little exp gain) for even Pkers
to kill newbies, this is waht I suggest:
    Newbies should be immune to PKing until theiy have reached a cenrtain
exp amount, elvelevel, or have played for a certain amount of time. This
way PKing will still exist, but newbies won't get killed. PKers will even be
happeier since they won't kill a newbie by mistake (waste of time, no $). Sure it may
not be "realistic" but do you really care that much? Realism is only desirable
als long as it asdds to the enjoyment of the game for all. (Or for most).
Realism should not eraeally be pursured for its onwn sake, and in any
case it should be balanced with fun and playability. Only so much can be 
simulated effectiveley....
    Also I agreee with the alignment idea. If plaueryers are very evil
they should have a harder time getting eservice in stores, etc. where the
oweners are usually average blokes (neutral). Same might be treue for good
players trying to buy stuff ain the black market, etc. There should be a lot
more alignment reaction thatn there is....
    Finally, I thini k that beyond newbies, it is up to players to kill and
handeklele the PK menace. But newbies cannot defend themselves, and w
often don't know anyone on the muds. They are dirriven away without
having a chance.