Raph Koster's Home Page

This interview was given to the CRPGTavern in August of 1998. I believe the website is now defunct, which is a shame, as it is easily one of the most specific and in-depth interviews I've ever had the pleasure of doing!

Malleus: DD, what MUDs did you participate in before becoming Lead Designer at OSI? And what were your early experiences with MMORPGs?

DesignerD: I first started mudding in 1992. I tried a lot of different MUDs of various types, but eventually settled down to playing regularly on Worlds of Carnage. After that I became a builder on eXileMUD, which never opened, and after that was one of the founders of LegendMUD, which is still active. I'd guess I had been playing MUDs for maybe four months when I moved over to the design side. LegendMUD (http://www.legendmud.org) was one of the first classless MUDs on the Internet, and it won a bunch of awards and attracted quite a lot of notice in the MUD community. It has a very literary feel to it, and is heavily quest-oriented. After a while, I basically took the role of chief creative force behind the MUD. And then around '95, companies looking to get into graphical MUDs started checking the place out... One of the people who logged on was Richard Garriott. He had been pointed towards Legend by a programmer who worked on a fledgling project called Ultima Online. Said programmer also happened to be Legend's head coder. So he recommended me for the job of designer on UO.

Malleus: Ahh, interesting. So your non-graphical MUD work led directly intoyour involvement with the first wave of truly massive, graphical internet RPGs.Having some experience with these beasts, you have written many papers aboutthe future of MMORPGs; what would you say the largest difference between theold-style text-based MUDs and these new graphical, commercial undertakings is?

DesignerD: I think the biggest difference we're facing now is actually scale. Games likeUO, EverQuest, and Asheron's Call are trying to deal with many more players in theenvironment than previous games did. This causes a lot of problems, because traditional administrative models tend to breakdown. The best tool a small free mud had in administrating the game was a quick tongueand a conciliating manner. You handled problems through persuasion and a little politics, andyou handled real problems with arbitrary banning. Given the small playerbase, it was easy to identify repeat problems, and given the smalladmin hierarchy, people didn't tend to slip through the cracks. Since the games were free,there was no real appeal process--and no real reason to appeal, really, since most of theMUDs were carbon copies of one another, so it was easy to find another game that wasvirtually the same, but with administrators who didn�t know you. The small group of people in the playerbase meant that players formed very tight socialbonds very quickly. A savvy mud admin could actively shape the mud's society throughproselytization and participation. All of this changes when you get into the massively multiplayer games. And new solutionsend up being required. So that's scale. :) There are also other differences in terms of feature set, of course.Graphical games have, well, graphics, and that changes the dynamics a lot. For one thing, itintroduces spatiality, which is a fairly novel thing for MUDs, which have traditionally beenroom-based like text adventure games. There was very little sense of space in a text mudbecause you could travel instantly from one side of the world to another by just typing "w" abunch of times.

Malleus: Aye, so you believe the larger scale of these MMORPGs render the"Wizard" support architecture ineffective? Meaning a new paradigm is required tohandle the users' issues? What do you think of the vastly different approachestaken by two of the next games, 989's EverQuest and Turbine's Asheron's Call?One hopes to make their worlds smaller, by limiting users per server, one intendsto have one world for all players, that can grow with the playerbase.

DesignerD: Well, I can't comment really on either game, since I haven't seen either ofthem recently. I am looking forward to it though, always nice to see more games in thegenre! They are taking different approaches to the problem of administration, and I don't thinkthere's any one group that has all the answers at this point. The problems of administratingmassively multiplayer worlds are pretty new--nobody has had to deal with things on thisscale before. The chief philosophical differences are about whether the game should be doing thepolicing (via hardcoded mechanisms) or whether the administrators do it. And there's a lot ofgray area between those two points, of course. In practice, all three games fall into that grayarea.
    It's a matter of how close to one end or the other you fall. :) Personally, I want to helponline societies evolve, and to that end, I want to see the game support player policing asmuch as possible.My feeling is that if the game imposes too much structure, then the players of the world willnever be able to actually form a government/society that actually fits exactly what they want.
    But to support player policing, you have to have code support for things that assist theplayers in doing the traditional policing that admins have done in the past on text MUDs. Liketracking of player histories with violations, etc.
    So that's the direction we took with UO; but that's not to say that the solutions being tried by EQ or AC are invalid! Quite the contrary. They are not my personal design direction,but they are solutions of long standing in the mud world. We'll have to see how they workout at this scale.

Malleus: As for hardcoded mechanisms, my Ben Franklin Multi-Disciplinary Studies project is on adaptive systems and the nature of intelligence. Hardcodedsystems are necessary to take the load off the (paid) support GMs. What's yourview on player empowerment? Allowing players in a paid game to ascend to thesame level of power as a free-MUD Wizard, in order to reduce the number of paidGMs required and yet still allow the players flexibility? The abuse problem hasbeen brought up a lot, as in a pay-for-play game the consequences of abuse ofpower are more serious. Your thoughts? Will our MMORPG "Utopia" utilizeempowered players in force or is that not feasible?

DesignerD: That's a really good question!

Malleus: heh, thanks :)
Tough'un, that :)

DesignerD: From a commercial side, liability is a very thorny issue, of course. So there'ssort of a ceiling on how much trust you can grant players. Wish it weren't so, but afterwatching players do mean things to each other with the normal character abilities, you growcynical about the things they might do to each other with godlike powers. :)
    But on the other hand, if you can provide tools within the game that are not godlike, thatplayers can make use of to form administrative structures, then I think you are taking a reallyimportant step forward in the evolution of virtual environments.
    I think empowering players is vital; it's a matter of how exactly you are empoweringthem. If you are doing in-game police forces, in-game governments, etc, then you are doingsomething really important for the overall admin of the game.
    The scale problem is one common to all governments, you see (even back in Athens,people argued how big an effective democracy should be)
    The classic solution is to provide more tiers of government as the society grows. So youend up with local governments and overarching ones. That way the local government can tryto apply the solutions that we know work for governing small groups, the same solutionsthat work on MUDs.
    Will it be Utopia? Of course not. It will have the same problems that government does inany setting.
    One of the problems with player empowerment on the policing side is how few peoplewant to police. But this isn't that different from the few people who want to vote in localgovernment in the real world...

Malleus: Ok

As for empowerment--

In a game as sizable as these evolving MMORPGs are, might not asmall cadre of "Wizards" be sufficiently controlled as to prevent abuse? Detailedlogs of their activities and a DETAILED, more invasive check of their qualificationscould greatly reduce the chances of abuse -- so long as the numbers of suchpeople are kept to an acceptable ratio with their supervisors.
Being a veteran of many ORPGs (most nowhere near so massive as these latestgames) I have seen a variety of approaches to the problem. It is possible foremployees to abuse their powers, yet I see very little abuse among the ranks ofCounselor-like game-question-answering apparati. Your take on that?

DesignerD: Well, there's several issues there, of course.In terms of what I was just discussing, that IS of course a multilayered administrativestructure, just like a local government versus a single overarching one, in a way.You could make it more effective by tying those people to specific areas of the game or theworld.
    However, the granting of special powers to specific people doesn't get past one of the keyissues with online administrative models: the difficulty of building trust between whoever isadministering the space, and the players.
    The fact is that players as a rule greatly distrust anyone who has power over them. Theperson in question may be of the utmost probity, and it won't matter; they are still going tobe suspect.
    The thing that makes authority tolerable is that it has a human face; when it appearsdistanced and inhuman, it is very frightening. This is the same in the virtual space as in thereal world.
    Creating a superior class of godlike beings who inhabit the same virtual space you do andhave power over you is going to create resentment no matter what. And the more peoplethere are in the space, the less personal contact this class of players can have with an averageplayer.
    The result is a deep skepticism of their motives and their integrity.
    This is why I prefer models that empower players, rather than creating more tiers ofwizards.
    There's also another factor, which is what I call the paternalism factor.
    If you have godlike beings around to whom you take your problems, what incentive isthere to solve them on your own?
    Now, this is not to say there are not some problems which will always require that level ofpower; but many of the classic administrative problems in virtual spaces DON'T need thatsort of power.
    If you don't need a godlike being to form, say, a player government, then why have onefor that purpose?
    All you are accomplishing is making the administrators of the game impose a government,rather than letting the players form one.Governments and social structures form in order to impose order on chaos, in final analysis.
    If we want to see the development of virtual societies that have meaning, that actuallyrun governments that matter, then there has to be a certain degree of chaos present, andthe government will need to struggle with it using the normal powers inherent to theaverage player.
    There's no social development, no "virtual reality" developing, if "god" steps in andstomps the problem for you.

Malleus: Aye, I have seen this effect in multiple games, especially ones in whichtheir exact powers are shrouded by a certain mystique. The balance betweenprotecting player's rights to enjoy themselves, to enforce punishments on therude, and reducing support-player resentment (not to mention the administrativecosts of a weighty support apparatus) is something that no company yet hassuccessfully struck, though some have come close. It is a thorny issue, indeed,and one that must be addressed in the future.
    After those wise words from DD, I'd like to shift the topic to somethingmentioned in one of the previous UOHoC chats..
    "Elder Games"
    For those not familiar with the concept, "Elder Games" are what keep playersinterested in a game after achieving their maximum potential with theircharacter.
    The issue at hand is this:
    In normal, one-player CRPGs, your player starts as a lowly peon, justbeginning some earth-shattering adventure. After solving numerous quests andslaying many fell beasts, the plot builds to a climax, which the player overcomes.Queue victory music, game over.
    When the genre moved online, this formula suddenly failed to work.
    The game never ends! Thus, a new formula had to be found.It appears that what gaming companies now strive to create is a world in which you may never "max out" a character, yet instead reach a kind of equilibrium.
    This shifts the focus from character development to social interaction, roleplaying, and other "elder games", while still rewarding more skilled playerswith greater powers and higher levels. The problem inherent in this is that theremust be loss to offset gain--or else, everyone eventually will achieve a maximumstate, completely killing the urge to better their character.
    Unfortunately, players dislike loss.
    There cannot be equilibrium without it, though; meaning the genre mustmature so that the players might understand what these games are truly about.
    What is your take on the complex issue of "equilibrium," DD? Your companyhas tried several things to impose equilibrium, but all have fallen before massiveplayer outcries. Do you think it essential to promoting Roleplaying and othermore sophisticated "elder games", as the main thrust of MMORPGs?

DesignerD: It's a thorny issue. As far as I know, UO was actually the first big stab at a"levelless" environment that was for a gaming environment. Most MUDs actually ignore theproblem.
    What they usually do is allow a player to continue accruing power as they advance.
    Then they keep extending the game on the "top end," meaning adding tougher andtougher creatures, and deadlier magic items, and so on.Pretty soon, 9/10ths of the game is devoted to the top level.Then they playerwipe. :)
    Alternatively, a MUD administration that refuses to buckle to this arms race problem willhold fast and not extend the game in that way. Often they try artificial ways of concealingthat they are doing basically the same thing.
    You see a lot of "remorting" systems and the like in MUDs; that's where you max out, sothey find a way to basically start you over.
    The idea behind UO's design was to have a system where you maxxed out in what youchose to be, but you could CHANGE what you chose to be, thus opening up new areas toexplore, without actually increasing the overall ability of your character.
    And as you point out, that involves losing abilities in an area in which you no longer wishto focus.
    I think this method of extending character (and thus player) longevity is pretty successful,though there are always more things you can do to extend its viability.In terms of elder games, those are things you have in the game that add a new way ofseeing the game. This is where a game that was about killing monsters becomes instead agame about running a shop, or a game about owning and maintaining a house, or a gameabout warring with other guilds.
    These are crucial, but they are still basically "different scales" by which you can measureyour success at the game.
    They too, will eventually "peak" either because they do not offer anything new, orbecause the player simply grows bored and seeks new challenges.
    In the final analysis, what keeps people isn't a constant supply of new gaming material,but really it's each other.
    And it is worth noting that on most MUDs, even that only holds people for two years orso.
    Usually much less--average longevity of a player on a text MUD is maybe three months.
    Since social bonds (friendships, etc) tend to migrate out of the game as the bonds growstronger, eventually the game becomes superfluous.
    The friendship remains, but you're out a few players.

Malleus: Many believe the classless system is flawed inherently; I tend to thinkit simply makes games utilizing it harder to balance due to the vastly larger set ofskill combinations. I agree that the main thrust of any MMORPG project shouldbe to encourage Roleplaying, social interaction, and in-context conflict. Thesethings cause players to develop relationships with one another, which indeedstretch over games. Balance is important only because it ensures the game doesnot stray from those ideals by making character development less important andless easy to min/max; When the player does not have hard numbers to workwith, and loses some experience upon every death, it becomes harder to judgewhat the optimal character-development strategy is, turning the focus onto thedesired goals of RP/social interaction.
I believe that games are capable of retaining players for much longer than the present wave of them do, but I feel the industry is still in it's infancy, and manydesign issues have not been adequately explored. Have you any thoughts onbalance, especially in this genre of games, competing with latency and supportingvastly different connections?

DesignerD: These are pretty heavy-duty questions. :)

Postman77: Aye, well, we thought you'd enjoy them, mine are lighter.

Malleus is really into this stuff.

DesignerD: So I see :)

Malleus: heh, aye, I love analyzing things. Especially emerging fields :P

DesignerD: That question is sort of broad. I quite agree with your point on classlessgames as opposed to classed games. They are notoriously harder to balance, enough sothat many feel that they are not worth it. However, I do think that they can extend thelifespan of a player a great deal.
    We feel that UO has been pretty successful in this regard.
    Balance is of course critical, but it's interesting to note that players often care as much ifnot more about the status quo as they do about balance.They get very upset when you change a system even if they know it is not optimallybalanced.
    And of course, balance is an elusive goal, because as time goes by players discover newinteractions of features and skills that you didn't predict. This is often termed an "exploit"and it often has nothing to do with bugs specifically. Rather, the complexity of the system issuch that unpredicted combinations of abilities start coming into play.
    Lastly, balance sometimes goes out of whack because of "accepted wisdom." It's acommon phenomenon on MUDs to see everyone saying that "X is the bestskill/weapon/class" and seeing the entire playerbase shift to using it. And then some otherplayer bucks the accepted wisdom and does phenomenally well using class/skill/weapon Y.
    If the designers fail to see that this is merely accepted wisdom, and not a true imbalance,they can wreck the game which is actually well-balanced.

Malleus: Speaking about the desire of players to maintain the status quo..I realize that after players start paying for a product they can become resistant tochange, however, this resistance may lead to their eventually leaving the game,harming all involved. It is a question of short-term player satisfaction versus thepotential long-term effects of a course of action-- "If we change x, will it maddenplayers sufficiently to cause them to cease paying for our product?
And down the road, will the difference in balance make a difference in playerretention?"
These issues mostly are resolved in Beta, but in a system so complex as aMMORPG, under constant evolution, the tradeoffs I speak of are the moreextreme ones--for instance, let's say EQ, known to have some form ofexperience-loss-on-death, discovers after they ship that it is not sufficient to keepplayers from infinite advancement. Should they triple the loss on death, or leaveit alone? Even after the game has shipped changes are often necessary.

DesignerD: Well, from a design perspective, you choose what is best for the gamelong-term, generally speaking. It may cost you players in the short-term, but you do itanyway.
    That particular example is a bad one. Once in the mass market, I'd wager you would losemore people from making that change than you would keep.You're talking about extending the longevity of the character purely through frustration, bycontinually taking away what they have achieved. If it exists from the beginning, it'stolerable, but massively increasing the penalties is indeed one of those changes that willanger many players.
    Basically, it's always a judgement call, if I understand your questions correctly.

Postman77: What influenced you to first get into gaming in the first place, previous toyour MUD experiences?

DesignerD: I've been gaming since I was a kid. My first video game was the Pong homeconsole.
    I moved on through the Atari 2600 and on to the 8-bit computers and CP/M basedmachines.
    I had Atari 8-bits on which I wrote games and sold them in Ziploc baggies. We lostmoney. But hey, we were kids. :)
    I also did programming on the Osborne 1.
    I also did a lot of paper gaming at the time, playing AD&D and designing various boardgames, mostly strategy types, and (oddly) board game versions of video games.

*Malleus senses a lot of design in DD's past*

Postman77: A lot of players think UO exists within a vacuum, with no notice from official people whatsoever. How much do you and the rest of the dev team know about minutethings within UO, such as in the last Ultima Online House of Commons chat, people were gladyou were visiting the Bug House, etc., for bugs.

DesignerD: I spend quite a lot of time hanging out on the web, actually. Every day I readall the major fan sites, and I read the web boards usually two or three times a day. I alsoread the rec.games.computer.Ultima.Online newsgroup daily.
That doesn't, however, mean that I can catch every issue that way. Some things, everyone assumes are known so they are not talked about. Other things get talked aboutbut not in enough detail for me to actually tell what is going on. And other things, I justnever see.
Even visiting the sites that often, I can't read every post.

Postman77: Aye

DesignerD: I read the UO Vault, Scorched, Crossroads, and Stratics regularly, forexample, plus I also visit random guild web boards, player-run city newspapers, auctionsites, "commentary" pages, etc.
So I'd say we do keep close tabs on the community--but it's a BIG community. :)

Postman77: heh Are there any in-game player-driven projects that make you proud orsurprise you?

DesignerD: Sure! All the player cities have been a phenomenally pleasant surprise. Weknew that this sort of thing was feasible given the tools we had supplied, but it is verygratifying to see it happen. I think the extent to which player cities exist in UO is a first on theInternet in any kind of virtual space.
    I also think that the player-driven economy has been a pleasant surprise. Over time thehardcoded economy has gradually been dismantled as the player-driven economy flourished,and the fact that now there is actually monetary exchange between the UO economy and thereal world economy is a sign that it is actually happening in a very real way. (Meaning, someplayers pay real money for UO gold; there are even exchange rate tables!)
    The fact that in UO people can and do worry about things like marketing concerns, product placement, availability of goods, and location of their storefront is fascinating, and Ithink a real achievement...
    Lastly, I think all the moves towards player governmental structures, be they as part ofthe cities or driven by guilds, have been great to see.
    Seeing players band together to serve as police forces in order to protect the roleplayinstitutions they value is very very cool.

Postman77: What's the best way for the average player to be heard by those in controlof UO?

DesignerD: The absolute best way is to make themselves an important part of thecommunity. That usually means finding like-minded individuals, working together to buildsomething cool within or outside the game, like a web site, a player city, etc.When you have critical mass, it's very easy to hear you. :)

Postman77: heh
Do you think UO is a different beast then it was 6 months ago?

DesignerD: Absolutely. Its core hasn't changed, but the culture of the game has changeda lot. There's a lot more support there now among players for roleplay, for example, withmany solid and well-established groups. There's also a lot more players working to helpplayers. There are still the playerkillers, of course, but they never go away. ;)

Postman77: Speaking of PKs, do you think that given the right atmosphere, a hard-corePK can change?

Malleus: (hehehe, PK reform school)

Postman77: heh

DesignerD: Yes, a hardcore PK can indeed change. Anyone can change. In the case ofPKs, it's a matter of a shift of emphasis in how they play the game. It happens all the time.
    Some PKs are in PK because it is a way to exercise power over others. Seen in that light,it's a little disturbing. But we need to remember that the reason they approach it in that wayis because the virtual environment is presented as a game, and that's just how they see it.
    If they learn that there are real people at the other end of the line, and it really sinks in,they tend to start playing differently.
    But it often takes something significant happening in their online life for that realization tosink in.
    It's not that they are bad people; it's that the medium makes it hard for them to come tothat realization. Anonymity and psychological distancing make it easy to objectify people.

Postman77: What are the ramifications of the market for these games being younger orolder than game designers might expect? And what effect does the playing demographichave in shaping MMORPGs?

DesignerD: Good question.

DesignerD: Well, the demographic of the audience has an effect, of course. Whether youdesign to a demographic, or design to your interests, and then see what demographic fits, isa matter of a commercial decision, really.
    There are certainly things within the environment that affect the demographic makeup ofthe playerbase you get.
    If you require a lot of puzzle-solving to get anywhere, you will probably end up with amore mature audience, for example. Whereas a heavily combat-oriented environment willgarner younger males.
    There's evidence that heavily roleplay-oriented environments will get more female playersas well.
    One thing, though, is that environments heavily oriented towards one specific targetedaudience (just playerkilling, or just roleplaying) tend to fail over the long run.
    So ideally, you target a broad enough audience that they can cross-pollinate each otherand keep the game interesting and alive.
    We've noticed a trend of the demographic for online games getting younger largelyalongside the trend making the Internet itself grow younger.
    I am not sure you can separate the two trends.

Postman77: Basically, your project was the first of the MMORPG genre, do you feel as theMMORPG genre gets more fleshed out over time, its userbase will become more mature andopen to actually role-playing?
Is the basic MMORPG community already there, or do you feel that the MMORPG genre isjust too new to do any kind of accurate demographically, social, etc., reports on itscommunity, so new ideas on how a MMORPG is created and run are just shots in the dark?

DesignerD: There's too many questions in that. :)
    Let's break it down. First, do I think that the userbase will gradually become moreinvolved in roleplaying?
    The answer is yes, I do. But I do NOT think that it will ever reach the extent that manyroleplay supporters hope it will.
    The basic fact is that there's really not many people who are good at acting out a fantasyrole.
    So people who are seeking that sort of experience (a totally immersed fictionalexperience) are probably not going to find it in a large game.
    As far as how the community will develop--well, there are so many projects getting readyto come out that I think we'll see it developing in several different directions. I'd hesitate topredict which direction will win. :)

Postman77: Do you think that given that die-hard role-players will never actually trulyfeel at home in a large game/world, do you think that the market is open for a type ofMMORPG that you buy the server, run it your way, etc., so you basically have a long list ofservers, a la Quake. The 4th Coming, a new MMORPG, is like that.

DesignerD: So is Mordor II.

Postman77: ah.

DesignerD: I don't doubt that this will happen. And I also don't doubt that 95% of thecreated games will probably be crap. :) But there will be some gems, there always are. Andthe genre will continue to develop. I'm quite looking forward to that, actually.

Postman77: So, you do you think the MMORPG genre will be the next to get the cloneproblems, much like RTS games are now? Will this lead to a fall in the genre, or will it help tocontinue to bolster to coming back of classic single player RPGs as a result?

DesignerD: No, I don't think we'll see the clone problem. It takes too much investmentto make a massively large online game. There's a huge expenditure there.Once we get the players able to set up servers of their own, we will undoubtedly see
    MANY clones like that, though.
    Most of those will have one tiny feature difference from all the others, and leave it at that.
    As far as single-player RPGs versus online ones--they are really very different beasts. Mostsingle-player RPGs have nothing in them about playing a role. They are usually aboutstatistics management.
    So I don't really know how closely the two genres are linked, in the end.

Postman77: It seems there are a lot of new companies throwing their hat into the ring asfar as MMORPGs go, where do you see the next logical step of evolution in this genre, is thatlogical step the same as the actual new step that will probably be taken? Where do you seethe persistent-world type massively multiplayer area of gaming within the next 5 years? Canthe formula work for anything but a RPG, like a strategy game?

Malleus: (A good example is Planetary Raiders, a persistent-world flightsimulator with economics)

Postman77: With there being about 30 titles slated as MMORPGs.

DesignerD: We will probably see a bit of a shakeout in the marketplace, certainly. Thereprobably isn't room in the market for as many games as seem to be in development rightnow.
    There are many different possible directions in which they can develop, and not all ofthem are roleplaying games either. I expect we'll see more kinds of persistent worlds beyondRPGs.
    Ultimately, the persistent world online will probably evolve into "cyberspace" type things.
    It has applications in many arenas outside of games, and I imagine we'll start to see itbeing used in more ways.

Postman77: Several single player computer games have suffered heavy PR and saleslosses lately due to lack of player-driven input and companies not listening to players. Justhow important is getting user-input to a MMORPG and at what point in the design phase doyou start looking for such info, and does the sometimes finicky nature of the communitymake this difficult?

DesignerD: It is absolutely fundamental, because the game will be evolving over time,after it's open, or it will stagnate.
    You have to juggle the desires of the playerbase with the desires of the designers, andyou also have to consider that often the playerbase is going to be thinking short-term, andthe design team needs to think long term.
    As far as when you start looking: after you have the basic concept and such firm. No pointin doing it sooner, because you'll end up diluting the "vision" for the game.A strong vision for what the game should be is what will attract the playerbase anyway.
    Once you are actually talking to the public, you just need a lot of patience, aflame-retardant suit, and a willingness to argue back.
    In any given online environment it's axiomatic that there will be a bunch of folks whothink it is the worst run game in the world, that the admins cheat, that the designers don'tlisten, and that everything sucks. These same people will, of course, play every day. :)

Postman77: What is the breaking point for a online game community, could a totally PvPfree environment or a totally rules-free environment ever function properly enough to makesuch a game or system viable? Or would a totally PK free environment be successful on thewhole?

DesignerD: I don't actually think a completely PK-free environment can develop very far.
    First off, it attracts a particular audience, of course. So there's a certain level ofhomogeneity.
    Given that the thing keeping people there is basically only personal interaction with otherpeople, the game is sort of superfluous; conflicts are minimal.Plus the entire population base is in the position of victim; everyone there is a target forharassers and the like.
    A completely safe world isn't actually something we can provide and aggressors quicklybecome aware of that.
    A rules-free environment has the opposite problem, of course. It attracts a bunch ofpeople who spend all their time doing nothing but killing each other.
    You'd hope that in such an environment players would band together, formgovernments, police the world, etc.
    Sadly, they don't.
    I think the intermediate route is the route you have to follow.

Postman77: Years down the road, what do you hope that the gaming press, theindividual user, the community as a whole and your colleagues in the gaming industry willassociate with UO?

DesignerD: I hope that it is seen as a landmark game.I hope that it is seen as taking the first steps towards trying to create enough of a virtualworld to actually support virtual societies, online governments, and the like.I also think it will be seen as a breakthrough product in terms of the marketplace.

Malleus: DD, years later, when you look back at your role in creating UO, do youthink it is a high point of your career? You should be proud to make it work aswell as it does.

DesignerD: I am pretty sure I will see it as a high point, yes. I am proud of the workdone on it by everyone involved.

The "UOHoC" mentioned in the interview is the Ultima Online House of Commons, where I do biweekly chats with the players of UO.