Letting Coders have Players
Chad Smith
I'm considering not letting any non-admin level coders have player
characters in my mud. I've played on too many muds where most of the high
level players were also coders. It is just about impossible to not cheat
as a coder, where you can see the code for areas in the game. Any other
pros/cons anyone else can think of?
-cs
=====================================================================
Chad Smith (csm...@sequana.com)
Unix System Administrator
Sequana Therapeutics
La Jolla, CA
=====================================================================
__ _
/ / (_)___ __ ____ __
/ /__ / // _ \/ // /\ \/ / . . . t h e c h o i c e o f a
/____//_//_//_/\___/ /_/\_\ G N U g e n e r a t i o n . . .
=====================================================================
douglas d
Chad Smith (csm...@sequana.com) wrote:
: I'm considering not letting any non-admin level coders have player
: characters in my mud. I've played on too many muds where most of the high
: level players were also coders. It is just about impossible to not cheat
: as a coder, where you can see the code for areas in the game. Any other
: pros/cons anyone else can think of?
[diatribe]
What is cheating? Is cheating making code that reacts to you in a
different way than other players? Is cheating loading items for yourself
that you can't get with your abilities? Is cheating making use of
knowledge you have of the way the world works to make things easier and
safer?
If you feel the third is cheating, then you had better go ahead and ban
characters from coders. But then, a whole lot of that knowledge can be
gained through patience, persistance, observation, and cooperation.
If you feel the third is cheating then, yes, cheating is pretty much
unavoidlable except by _excellent_ role players.
If you feel only the first two are cheating, the absolutely: No cheating
is not unavoidable. Cheating is not impossible to avoid. Cheating is not
even justifiable by it's relative ease. Cheating is for the weak and the
stupid.
If you find a coder cheating you should remove not only his or her
mortal, but his or her immortal / coding position. Someone who will cheat
for themselves will likely cheat for others whom, they know or come to
know.
Cheating is not something you should assume everyone will do given the
chance, because not every one will. Give people a @#@!!*%#$@ chance to be
honest before you peg them as lowlives.
[end diatribe]
Something to consider. A coder / admin with a mortal character will have
a much better feel for the total mud than one without. As code and areas
change the balance changes and all immortals need to keep in touch with
this.
Mortal characters, if kept properly seperated from immortal identities,
can provide very personal and candid information from players about what
players think and feel.
A mortal character gives an immortal incentive and puropose in exploring
new areas of the world, and doing so with the limitations other players
have. An immortal who doesn't know the geography and challenges of the
world isn't much of an immortal.
Lastly, is there a big difference _in the affect on the mud from the
player's perspective_ from a coder who creates subtle advantages and
levels / completes challenges quickly, and a mortal who has been mudding
for years and knows the ins and outs of everything that's been done before?
Probably not, as long as you deal with the first in private and don't
deal with the second at all.
Is that enough to think about?
easy,
douglas d
--
_______________________________________________________________
Douglas D. Conklin | dcon...@netcom.com
"Tiger, tiger burning bright ..." | doug...@sfsu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------
c0...@lehigh.edu
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.960901215001.13472B-100000@couatl>, Chad Smith <csmith
@sequana.com> writes:
>
>I'm considering not letting any non-admin level coders have player
>characters in my mud. I've played on too many muds where most of the high
>level players were also coders. It is just about impossible to not cheat
>as a coder, where you can see the code for areas in the game. Any other
>pros/cons anyone else can think of?
>
>
Well, I think there are 2 ways to address this. One option is to not allow
coders to have player characters.
A second option, which the mud I play uses, is to allow anyone that wants it a
player character, but wizards may not share any information about anything a
player might not know with regular players. Wizard's player characters may
only do group fights and group stuff with other wizard seconds. If any wiz is
found not following their policy, they will not be allowed to use player
characteras after the incident.
Dan
Roy Wilson
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.960901215001.13472B-100000@couatl>, Chad Smith <csm...@sequana.com> writes:
>
> I'm considering not letting any non-admin level coders have player
> characters in my mud. I've played on too many muds where most of the high
> level players were also coders. It is just about impossible to not cheat
> as a coder, where you can see the code for areas in the game. Any other
> pros/cons anyone else can think of?
>
> -cs
This is something I've considered for several years and still
don't believe I have the answer, but since you asked the question,
let me ramble on about it.
When the first Mordor mud became too much of a headache for Brett
and Kevin, the two creators of Oceancrest, I was a player that was
lucky enough to be in a position to take over. A couple of other
players and I continued the game. At first, I tried to abandon my
player character, but the fun of playing called me back. The two
other DM's also continued to play. I remember thinking how much
more fun it would be with a really good weapon, so of course I had
one. When I died and lost a level, I rationalized that it shouldn't
have happened, so I restored my character. (Confessions of a mud
addict with the POWER!) I didn't discuss it with the two others,
but I observed their characters were also advancing pretty fast,
and other players were starting to notice. Their friend's characters
were gaining at an incredible rate and most of the game's 'normal'
players were getting pissed and accusations flew. I wasn't doing
anything for my friends, so of course I was more pure than they.
The game was *not* fun.
My two friends and I had runnning arguments and we eventually stopped
speaking to each other. The final end to that friendship came when I
removed their accounts on the computer and kicked them off the game.
Not that I was right in everything I argued about, (I was often as
guilty as they were.) but I owned the computer.
So. After reflecting on this for a few years, I've decided the
best policy for any mud I administer is that coders should have
characters, but mostly for the purpose of testing. It's almost
impossible to create a really good dungeon unless you experience
first-hand the problems a player is likely to encounter there.
Of course, one of the main problems with having a test character
is that the character often needs to be different levels for a
particular scenario, or needs to have special equipment/powers to
see if a feature is working properly. Easy to adjust, but hard
for the game's regular players to understand. Of course, that
leads to my second consideration.
If an immortal does have a player character, that fact shouldn't be
hidden from the other players. Not that you have to broadcast it,
but don't keep it a secret, either. That way no explanation is
needed when the character suddenly jumps from level 5 to level 15
in one evening session.
On the other side of the coin, now that its been a few years since
I was an avid player and I have mellowed in my zeal to obtain the
highest the game has to offer, I think I could enjoy just playing
again without giving my character any special benefits. If I decided
to do that, I would probably keep it secret from the other players
just so I would not be constantly bothered by requests and could
enjoy my comrades in adventure.
Sigh. Tough question. I don't know the answer. Sorry.
But I did lose two friends over this issue.
-Styx-
I disagree
dcon...@netcom.com (douglas d) writes:
>If you feel only the first two are cheating, the absolutely: No cheating
>is not unavoidable. Cheating is not impossible to avoid. Cheating is not
>even justifiable by it's relative ease. Cheating is for the weak and the
>stupid.
Well i guess that depends on the MUD type, but i tend to disagree.
I very much doubt it is possible to totally avoid cheating.
There are many ways to cheat, some more serious than others, but even simple
cheating is cheating....
I have often heard ppl try to justify cheating on its ease, which i do agree
is a stupid reason, but I do think that an admin that makes cheating
relatively easy, must realise that people will take advantage of that.
As for cheating being for the weak and stupid? most certainly not.
Cheating well is not at all easy. Doing incredibly powerful things without
being detected, is by no means a simple task. From my experience, i would
prefer those immortals that cheat, and cheat "well", on my mud, as they have
a very good idea of what is going on. A coder that can get their activities
past admin for a long time, obviously know their code well, and is of more
use than an honest area coder who just turns out the same old stuff
[ speaking from an lp viewpoint here ], as long as they can be kept under
control.
There are (to generalise greatly) two types of cheating wizs. Those that cheat
purely to get ahead, and have the best players / friends on the mud. These
ppl will pretty much always get caught.
And there are those who cheat because they can. They are much like the pkillers
of the immortal world. They cheat for the thrill of getting past admin. They
cheat with style (usually) and while their actions are no more justified
than the first group, their intention is usually not to degrade the MUD, but
to have some fun, and test themselves. They want to step past the boring
code, and see what they can come up with that is new and exciting ( and
bascially illegal). It is usually (though not always) hard to catch such
cheats, although they may try something a bit too adventurous and drop
themselves in it one day. But they are good coders, and if you can keep them
from cheating then they are an asset to any MUD.
The question is, of course, how to stop them cheating. Banning them from
having a player character will probably not work, as they will create one
without telling you. My suggestion is to pick out those who you think might
be such coders, and [a] watch them closely, and [b] give them interesting
jobs to do.
That of course won't totally stop them, and while I don't think wizs having
player chars is a good idea for the MUD, I don't think banning them stops
a "good" cheat.
Mr. Anonymous
I admit that I had a player on my mud for the sole purpose of
killing asshole players who gave me too much shit. Almost everyone knew
that I had a player, but almost everyone EXCEPT mine was accused of being
me.
On pro side was I got to learn how the players cheated, exploited
bugs, ect..
On the down side, I got to hear how the players really felt about
the staff (I wouldnt bend the rules/policy for friend or foe and fired
several for doing so).
I did however make it a rule to never adjust my player (I did
when I first opened, but who hasnt?) and to take the same risks as
everyone else. I also died alot, but since I was leveling like everyone
else (actually a bit slower) nobody knew.
If you can seperate the two, admin and player, there shouldnt be
a problem (I will admit to a very timely 'restore' now and again.....)
The Bonegnasher
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr Anonymous" mor...@skypoint.com
"This country, with it's institutions, belongs to the people who
inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their
revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861.
Eric Holt
In <50glh1$r...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au> I disagree <tp...@uow.edu.au>
writes:
had never even seen the area before.... find a wizi that does that, and
youll know that he actually is seriously interested in the mud.
Jonathan Clemens
When I first became a wiz, it was through selection, NOT levelling. Part
of the deal was that I give up playing a PC. To be honest, I actually
kind of liked the arangement. No longer did I have to keep up in a rat
race with my fellow mages to see who would be the best or near the top.
Rather, I became one of those extending the known world. Fact is, I'm a
bad roleplayer; my characters all tend to reflect me. But I'm a good
coder. Once I'd made the switch, I never really felt the desire to switch
back, even when I reached the admin level and I could do what I pleased.
However, I'm an exception, not the rule. When I became head admin of this
same mud, Dartmud, I had the obligation to both police and motivate the
other creators as well.
The trick to running a good team of immortals is to make sure they keep
having fun. That's not to put down players' rights, but players do come
and go. Creators, on the other hand, who a) Can code, b) have an
imagination, and c) work well as part of a team are worth keeping at most
costs. Now, how can we give these creators the self-actualization to keep
them interested? I've found that 85% of creators in general, if given the
option, will want to also play. I've known wonderful players who wouldn't
accept an invitation to create, because they liked playing the game so
much.
I've had to erase creators, even a former admin, because of cheating. I
haven't run across anything else in my mudding experience that brought me
closer to quitting. The betrayal I felt made the game not fun anymore.
When you're trying to run a team on mutual respect and common vision,
one such incident is devastating, and multiple instances are worse!
I have struggled with the question, and found no satisfactory answers.
The ideal solution would be to never allow anyone to create on your mud
whom you did not trust completely. However, we're dealing in cyberspace
here, and I've only physically met perhaps one twentieth of the coders on
either of the muds on which I create.
A good mud admin, and I tried, has to be a programmer, project manager, PR
expert, systems administrator, psychologist, pastor, judge, diplomat, and
a few other things. The only more challenging job I know of is
motherhood.
Jonathan Clemens
Donald Bell
In <1996Sep2...@vax.cerritos.edu> rwi...@cerritos.edu (Roy
Wilson) writes:
>
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.960901215001.13472B-100000@couatl>, Chad
Smith <csm...@sequana.com> writes:
>>
>> I'm considering not letting any non-admin level coders have player
>> characters in my mud. I've played on too many muds where most of
the high
----SNIP----
> So. After reflecting on this for a few years, I've decided the
> best policy for any mud I administer is that coders should have
> characters, but mostly for the purpose of testing. It's almost
> impossible to create a really good dungeon unless you experience
> first-hand the problems a player is likely to encounter there.
> Of course, one of the main problems with having a test character
> is that the character often needs to be different levels for a
> particular scenario, or needs to have special equipment/powers to
> see if a feature is working properly. Easy to adjust, but hard
> for the game's regular players to understand. Of course, that
> leads to my second consideration.
I allow the Wizards and other Staff (Immortals on my system are not
staff, and have few "special" powers, mainly the ablity not to die, and
the ability to hide easier) to have mortals, but if I catch them
cheating they loose both characters. I have a firm and fast rule that
a Staff member will NO help his own characters or ANY character
"advance" or "improve" themselves in ANY way.
ShatRat
This has always been an issue, and after explaining the various part of
the type of Administration I like to run, would like to show you the
various problems involved.
Site Administration and Coders- "hard" code and a person to hit the reset
Builders and Player Assistance- "soft" code and running the OOC aspect
Theme, Judges, and Tiny Plot- All of the IC stuff
Site Administrators and Coders, if responsible, usually can get away with
having an IC player character. This is best done if they receive no
special powers, and treated like players. This is even better done even
better if the players stay anonymous and NOT associated with their
Administration and Coding characters.
Builders and Player Assistance should not have characters, IMHO, but some
can get away with it. Player Assistance can be done BY the IC character,
but NOT the Builders. Again, IF this is allowed, it should be anonymous,
and any leak of association with the Admin person should result in
immediate @nuke, with the chance of restarting a NEW and ANONYMOUS character.
Theme, Judges, and Tiny Plot (most of my Admin experience) should NEVER,
NEVER, NEVER have IC characters. Their Administration responsibilities
lay DIRECTLY over the realm of their IC characters. Any judgement done by
any Admin that has an IC character will always be questioned by players
and Administration alike, and will only result in resentment with these
Admin by the players.
ShatRat
sha...@eden.com
Wyatt Earp
Then along comes the complaint
"the imps dont have any idea what its like to run a mortal"
--
Im probably mudding at lo.millcomm.com 4000