Re: Violence in games


8 Nov 1995 11:08:58 GMT

jools@arnod.demon.co.uk (Julian Arnold) writes:

>In "Christminster" you are given a fairly specific character (i.e., she has a
>name, she's not just a computer simulation of a generic player). Therefore,
>as I think the business with smashing the window would be a ridiculous and
>highly unlikely action for this person to take on a Sunday morning in a
>peaceful English university town (unless she was a student too of course 8)),
>I'd argue that killing the porter and then hightailing it over the wall would
>be a squillion times more unlikely -- utterly daft in fact.

Fair enough. It wasn't a very good example anyway. I just grabbed it out of
the blue.

>Therefore, not
>allowing Christabel to murder the porter is entirely in keeping with my
>perception of Christabel's character, and is therefore, IMO, a good thing.

Entirely. If people who play the game have trouble acting IC, the game
should help them.

>There is no particular reason why White, who
>would have to shoot someone that day, couldn't shoot Black. Apart, that is,
>from ruining the game. (White could always have conked Black on the head,
>rendering him unconcious but not killing her.) In such circumstances, it
>would seem logical to allow player violence.

In fact, if I was in that situation (and I'm supposed to pretend I am), I'd
much prefer the latter solution, where I wouldn't have to kill ANYONE.

>All this being said, I think the best reason for not allowing arbitrary
>killing of NPCs is to preserve the plot.

It certainly is a good reason, but one must find a more plausible excuse in
order to suspend disbelief.

Slyrk,
Kvan.

-- 
 kvan@diku.dk (Casper Kvan Clausen) | Yes. Thank you, naive human. Now I can  
                                    | finish taking over the world! 
                                    | 
 http://www.diku.dk/students/kvan/  |   - Purple Tentacle