From: cclark@trentu.ca (J. Chris Clark)
Subject: My opinons on Player killing (LONG POST)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Trent University Computer Services Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:05:00 GMT


Well, after catching up on all the discussions about player-killing and other
interactions, here's my (Not So Humble) Opinions...
First, let me say that I've played on MUDs and have also played more computer
FRPG's than I can remember.  (And, just for the record, I feel the MOST 
important part is character development.  I loved Wizard's Crown, just 
because of their skill system and spend XP's.  I like LPMUDs for the same
reason.)  But, I digress...

Hit Points and Such:
    I agree with those who said a single "Hit Point" stat is too simplistic.
It was okay for D&D, but computers can do so much more.  A system that I 
found was a bit of an improvement was in the Paladium game of Robotech.  They
had "Hit Points" and "Structural Damage".  Basically, you took points off of
the SD and this represented getting fatigued.  (So weapon hits where actaully
misses, but so close you had to expend energy or maybe got grazed.)  When 
these were exhausted, you started into the HP.  SD were quicker to regenerate
than HP.  Now, I'm making up my own aditinos here, but in a computer-based
game, when you start losing HP, then there is a percentage chance based on
your percentage of HP lost, that you'll drop unconcious.  When the HP hit
0 to -(Constitution) you're bleeding to death at 1 pt per turn, or some such.
When they drop below -(Constitution), you're pushing up the daisies.  While
you're unconcious, you're aware of your surroundings, but can't do ANYTHING.
(I was on a MUD that did this.. VERY disconcerting; watching your HP fall
and being able to call for help!)
        Well, that's my feelings on it.  Any comments?

Player-killing (and theiving etc.)
    There seems to be two sides to this:  Realism versus Entertainment.
If it's realism that your game is striving for, then, to quote my brother:
"SHIT HAPPENS!".  There are socially-maladjusted people in the real world,
so why shouldn't they be in a computer world?
    Now, I agree that after just having made it to level 2, it's a real
piss-off to have "Mongar the Magnificently Malevolent" come up and kill you
with two swings of the magical blade "NewbieSlayer".  Still, as much as this
is aggrivating, it happens in most movies (Arnie taking out the village of
would-be-malcontents in Predator, for example.)
    So, if I were to develop an interactive game, here's what I'd do...
A) Have several towns.  The towns would have police forces and laws.  If you
   broke a law in front of a cop (or cityguard, whatever), then they would
   immediately begin attacking you AND call for reinforcements.  (Sejnet Diku
   did this).  If you broke a law and there were no cops, but there were
   witnesses, they could file a complaint against you.  Personally, I'd allow
   a player to collect several complaints (so that they didn't just get 
   framed) and then they would beceom "wanted", which would mark them as 
   "killable by anyone, at any time".  Basically, a bounty is put on their 
   heads.  If nobody stops them and they accumulate more complaints, then 
   they would be sent to jail, which would translate into having their 
   account suspended for a period of time.
B) Have protected roads between towns that follow the same conditions as 
   towns.
C) Have a "country" area surrounding the towns which subscribes to the town
   laws but is not patrolled.  (ie. If you break a law (kill, steal) you 
   won't face immediate execution, but you can go on file, and enough 
   complaints would have you jailed or listed for bounty.
D) Have a wilderness area where it's just that.  Wilderness, no rules.  If 
   you off somebody, they're dead and the law doesn't care.  (The friends of
   the guy you offed might care and come after you though...)
E) You may wish to place a Chrine or Temple in the Wilderness and the city
   which is an absolute haven, allowing no one to fight within it's walls.

I feel that this would allow the most flexibility and fairness.  It would be
realistic and allow for vigilant justice in the wilderness if the group of
players were so inclined.  
This system could be further augmented by having a WIMPY (auto-flee) feature
and by also having the "kill" command in towns force obedience by doing 
something like:

if (attacker_level > victim_level +3)
  print "You decide the consequences of such an action would not be worth
         the potential gain."

Obviously, the wilderness would also have the tougher monsters and so only
the high-level characters would hang out there in the first place.  If a
high level character is attacked, I think they should be able to take care
of themselves or know how to run to safety.  Any high-level character that
dies either should have been up against really bad odds (4 against 1) or
was just plain dumb.

Oh well, these are my opinions and preferences.  I DO think that malicious
player interactions adds some spice to the game.  I recall one time when my
party was ripped off by a thief using invisibility.  It became the night's
"quest" to hunt him down and kill him.  We all had a LOT of fun that night,
and didn't really even mind losing the gold.  The panic which the thief so
obviously experienced when summoned into a locked room was well-worth it.
(So, I like watching scum squirm when the tables are turned!)

Chris C.

sig?  Are you kidding?  This is a damn VAX!


P.S.  PLEASE don't quote this whole thing if anyone deems to follow-up.
Newsgroups: rec.games.programmer