Re: Player Killers (Was PBM Report)

From: MindShift Design <teammsd@mindshiftdesign.com>

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000

In article <20001017055207.10012.00000002@ng-bk1.aol.com>,
  madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral) wrote:
> >>Steve, can you give any comments on this ? How do you handle this ?
<<
>
> Simple.  We allow PKing (encourage it, even, in certain good-roleplay
> scenarios).  Buy anybody who kills another PC (except in self
defence) becomes
> an Outlaw with a reward on their head.  Its essentially a death
warrant.  Also,
> since it costs money to buy new characters in DW, players dont tend
to sign up
> 'useless' characters just to murder somebody with them.
Consequently, PKing is
> extremely rare in DW, and when it does happen its an exciting and
useful
> scenario tool.

That�s possibly where DW and STSI differ. In STSI you start off with a
part of 6 characters, and each party can grow to up to 26 characters.
The original design also allowed players to have multiple parties, but
that was tied into the payment system, so you would have to pay for
multiple parties, and on a per order basis (with 1-2 orders per
character free per turn as part of the party turn pool, so around 6-12
actions as part of the base turn). Because we�re looking at opening up
the game for free play then this changes things.

Also, the entire party in STSI is affected if one character performs
something deemed �illegal�. There are some situations that can occur
when Party A casts a spell on Party B that causes one member of Party B
to attack Party C. This then results in Party B being seen as
aggressors in the eyes of the populace, although they�re not.

Also, because we�re possibly going to a free to play model the PK issue
goes away unless people end up getting attached to their characters and
party.

Part of the game world that we want to emphasise is the constant
turbulence as the world of Suergan comes out of the darkness of the
Wild Shattering and civilization is rebuilt, so it might not be amiss
for us to actually focus on Pking being something to actively
encourage ?

> >>True, but I still want to protect the players who are playing not to
> kill, crush and destroy, but to adventure.<<
>
> If you protect them with hard and fast rules, *nobody* will thank you
and your
> game will suffer.  But dont take my word for it.  You'll find out the
hard way!
> <grin>  A 'no attack' order, no matter how well intentioned, has no
place in a
> fantasy setting.  It makes no sense.

Any players out there like to comment on this ?

> >> If they’re going to get
> their skulls bashed in during the game, it should be by a rampaging
> Burrowclaw (a black widow-like mammal) or a swarm of Sheaf Bugs
> (poisonous bugs that eat grain).<<
>
> Why?  Are all the people in your world angels then?  Think about it!
I
> understand your motivation, but you're going up the wrong road to
solve it.

Not all of them <g>. I think we�d prefer it that if people wanted to
play and not have their party get squished by other players then it
makes more sense to have that protection layer in if we go with a pay
to play model � it allows people to protect their investment of time,
effort and money. However if we do go to a pay for free model then the
problem of players getting pissed because of the loss of money goes
away and the expectations for play in the game changes.

I welcome your comments btw, and I apologise to everyone else in the
group for not starting or getting involved in flame wars <veg>.

--
Jason Paul McCartan - jasonm@mindshiftdesign.com
CEO/President
MindShift Design LLC
http://www.mindshiftdesign.com

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

References

Re: Player Killers (Was PBM Report)
MindShift Design <mindshift@my-deja.com>
Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Player Killers (Was PBM Report)
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Player Killers (Was PBM Report)
MindShift Design <mindshift@my-deja.com>
Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Player Killers (Was PBM Report)
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000