From: wayne@eng.umd.edu (Wayne C. McCullough)
Subject: Re: player interaction in multiplayer games [was Re: <None>]
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 15:06:01 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <39094@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>>If you want to simulate a "real world", then you have to allow interplayer
>>fighting.
>
>Well, in our mud, it is not prohibited by any code, just by the law.
>This is realistic, right?  So a player can complain that he was killed
>(they don't complain much in real life :-) and the wizards or
>high-level players can mete out punishment.  It is at this point that
>the killers start complaining that it isn't fair, and they're only
>role-playing, so why should they be punished, etc?  A lot of people
>like the "real world" stuff only as long as it benefits them.  If they
>were really role-playing, they would stay in character while trying to
>battle the (benevolent) oligarchy (which would be encouraged) rather
>than threatening to write their congressman to outlaw all muds.

The problem with this system is that wizards are imortal.  If I think
a wizard is wrong, I have to convince God, or a bunch of other wizards
that the one is wrong, and have them punish the wizard.  Any player-
controlled imortal should not interfere with the day to day operation
of the game.

>Some killers complain that only other players should seek revenge, not
>the wizards (as if the wizards aren't players and have no stake in the
>muds survival).  Try this in real life by telling the swat team that
>the victims family should seek revenge rather than the police...  We
>also have a mandate from the players to step in and enforce the laws
>when there are no peers (high-level players) to intervene.  We also
>create devices to help peers in the enforcement (such as a magic mirror
>to detect where a criminal is hiding).

If only high level players are doing the inforcing, this is fine, because
if I get enough people to agree with me, I can kill all the high level
players, and make my OWN rules.  This is reality.  The God, or GM, should
only step in under severe circumstances, and then the GM mode of control
at worst should be creating NPC's or monsters who specifically target
and attempt to kill offending players, but that player should always stand
a chance of escaping or beating the monster.  In short, Gods interfereance
should be able to be mis-construed as plausable mortal intrests.

Another solotion to the problem of evil players taking over the game is
to retire players at a certain level.  Retire them into overlords that
are very powerfull, but still mortal.  Change the rules on them a bit, 
giving them certain powers, such as the ability to build their own domain,
recruit, and give exp.  Pose challenges to them, encouraging inter-overloard
competition.

A lot of tweaking will be required to make this a stable equilibrium, and
at times, like in the game empire, you will to a point in the game where
some players have vast atvantages over everyone, and they absolutely will
not fight each other.  That is when you just want to reset everything, and
tweak things just a bit more to make the equlibrium more stable.

>Of course, there are some prohibitions built into the code - for
>example, you can't kill a player more than x levels below you, etc.
>This is primarily to keep things from falling apart, and to keep new
>players from getting killed (most of whom will never ever return,
>thanks to the bozo).

new player bashing should be common.  It should also be understood that
it is common.  in my hypothetical system, an overlord will want to
recruit as many new players as he/she can, and train them rapidly, so 
that his new recruits can do his work, and not get slaughtered.

W

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games