Mertek wrote:

Usually on decent roleplaying MUDs, they require you to submit some kind of form showing your roleplaying ability. This is a great idea I believe, and will weed out most, if not all of those morons that you do not want.

One possibility would be to make it so that passing the "roleplaying exam" is not REQUIRED to play, but that playing without going through it will severely limit your ability to perform actions significant to roleplaying stories (such as murdering other players, completing major quests, etc.). This could be accomplished within (more or less) reasonable "in-game" measures, by having some random deus ex machina come in and stop the offending player (wandering NPC heroes stumble upon the scene and righteously smack the PK'er around a bit probably being the most obvious, but a game designer could of course get a lot more creative than that). The idea would be to give the "grunts" what they want--meaningless killing--but with restrictions put in place to make sure that their killing doesn't end up interfering with the roleplaying going on.

If you do allow player killing, expect it to be used. Players will find reasons to kill and it is very likely you will not agree with all of them.

For that matter, even if PK is not allowed and it is in fact physically impossible to engage in combat with another player, expect it to be used (assuming a completely public player base).

If you want to roleplay, act it out. If you want details about your looks, write them down but don't expect people to understand all of the symbolism. If you want a story for your background, do something, write it down, and then don't expect people to read it. They are busy actually interacting.

I found that the most crucial example of this is in Morte. People convey looks of dominance and power in their descriptions, yet act cowardly -- that is, cruel to the weak, fleeing and knuckling under to the strong.


That said, I'll answer your topic in general. I've always found that if you want a player to begin to think about how they're roleplaying, just get him/her to fill out a list of philosophical/rhetorical questions that promote an emotional response, and let them bother his/her conscience. For example, "You see a man drowning in a river. You can barely swim, and the undertow in the river is intense -- if you managed to rescue him, there would be no guarantee that you too would make it out safely. Yet, you cannot simply leave the man to die, can you? What would you do?" The game designer doesn't even look at the answers (or, as I would suggest, don't even actually collect them -- just let the player answer them).

That way, you'll reinforce would-be good roleplayers into better ones, and turn a few iffy roleplayers into good ones. The griefers, naturally, would be unaffected, since they'd just answer the questions with pointless answers -- but if you raise the bar on the higher end of the scale, the average becomes better.

Heh, you know I always like to chime in on the matter of PKing!

Anyway, I think it largely comes down to what sort of social dynamic you want to have. DesignerDragon (of UO fame) contends that adversity (in the form of PKers) is a primary uniting factor that helps promote communities. Adversity makes for cooperation, as it were. Of course, even he admits that unrestricted/poorly limited PK options may drive the playerbase down by upwards of 40% (and think of what types stay!). On the other hand, I would point to examples like Everquest who have shown that communities exist *in spite* of rampant PKing, not because of them, and DesignerDragon's "communities" are more strategic alliances than anything. However, again, limiting/banning PK might eliminate up to 20% of the player base (again, think of the type of players that will not play, however). In terms of RP, you might wish to use a seniority system whereby players who have achieved a certain age/quest/etc. can attack one another. The advantage here is that these players would conceivably have much more to lose in death. Of course, if you have a level type scheme, high-level characters will just stomp everyone else, thus ruining the whole purpose.

My concept is to have a skill driven model where luck can play a big role (IE combat is potentially fatal no matter how well trained you are). Urban areas have guards but the wilds are anyone's game, though there are road patrols to encourage travel (and taxes!). Since traders and craftsman can get everything they need near town at a markup, they have little incentive to travel until they are wealthy enough to hire guards, friendly enough to make allies, or desperate for rare materials or cheaper components. Miners and other resource gatherers have the benefit of some guards, but also possess better physical abilities, so are less likely to be attacked ("Your ore or your life!", *smack* "OW! Pickaxes sting!"). Likewise, the relatively low profit margins on most materials would probably discourage such raids.

Of course all of this would probably do little to slow grief killers. Which is where my final concept comes in- account flagging. Anytime a character commits a "felony", (murder, for example), the victim may choose to log a mark on the perpetrator's account. After a number of marks (based on how old the character is; more established characters get more marks), the player is banned. In this way players can still play thieves and brigands if they wish to deal with the ingame legal onsequences, but blatantly antisocial behaviour is curbed. (IE KewlDood creates throwaway characters to grief kill. Since they are all young, it only takes a few such actions before KewlDood is no more.)

-James