Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player

From: miteke@yahoo.com (Michael Kelly)

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:03:59 +0000

Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me> wrote in message news:<3EE5782B.1E29282D@spam.me>...
> > 2) Make it pointless. Unfortunately, this boils down to having to
> > give startups nothing of any value whatsoever within the game, and
> > this proves difficult to do.
>
> To Boldly Go (http://www.pbm.com/tbg/tbg.html) does a nice job of this -
> starting positions receive a full complement of equipment, which (unlike
> all "real" equipment) cannot be maintained and constantly decays....

Well, actually, multi-play is an abusable part of TBG. Jeremy works
hard to make sure players don't multi-play because of this. In fact a
player just retired that admitted he has been multi-playing honorably
for a long time and some folks are rightfully pissed.

To illustrate, you could start up two ships when you play. 1 year
later you have the second ship follow the first one around and give
all the modules to it. You have just doubled your progress for the
first year. Its not as abusive as being able to start up, transfer
your stuff to your other position, kill the position, and repeat until
bloated, but still an abuse. So TBG is not really a good example of a
game that makes multi-play pointless. It IS a good example of a
dedicated GM and a diligent player base constantly looking for
abusers. The player in question had to repeatedly lie and trick both
player and GM since a number of red flags came up and he was
questioned a number of times. But he was committed to his course and
managed to answer the questions well enough.

References

Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me>
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:18:34 +0000
Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
wavey@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:01:26 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)
Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:37:03 +0000